The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2019.05.13Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, May 13, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft April 8, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft April 8, 2019 Planning Commission MinutesAttachments: Draft April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft April 22, 2019 Planning Commission 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 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. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/10/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved permit for a Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and Special Permits for height, an attached garage, and basement. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).(Warren Donald, property owner and applicant; Kevin O'Brien, architect) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 2208 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2208 Summit Dr - Attachments 2208 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: 860 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for window location and rear yard coverage for a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Daniel and Jonna Dollosso, property owners ) (152 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz b. 860 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 860 Walnut Ave - Attachments 860 Walnut Ave - Plans Attachments: 1244 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to remain). The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; James and Lisa Hong, property owners ) (144 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon c. 1244 Laguna Ave - Staff Report 1244 Laguna Ave - Attachments 1244 Laguna Ave - Plans Attachments: 2305 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi d. 2305 Poppy Dr - Staff Report 2305 Poppy Dr - Attachments 2305 Poppy Dr - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/10/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 475 1/2 Rollins Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15303(a). (Brad Gunkel, Gunkel Architecture, Architect; Amy Chung and Francis Kim, property owners) (98 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Attachments 475 1/2 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: 251 California Drive, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review Amendment to a previously approved project for facade changes to a storefront and Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Fated Brands, LLC, applicant; TRG Architects, architect; Anne -Marie Mausser White, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 251 California Dr - Staff Report 251 California Dr - Attachments 251 California Dr - Plans Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316 Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 1316 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1316 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1316 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: 853 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Van Voorhis Architecture Inc, Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect; William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal b. 853 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 853 Paloma Ave - Attachments 853 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/10/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2711 Burlingview Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for building height and declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Robert Wehmeyer, Weymeyer Design, applicant and designer; Charles and Diana Williams, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 2711 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report 2711 Burlingview Dr - Attachments 2711 Burlingview Dr - Plans Attachments: 1 & 45 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, Density Bonus and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 265-unit mixed use residential development. (SummerHill Apartment Communities, applicant; Seidel Architects, architect; Helf Investments and Nicolet Family Partners, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin d. 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Staff Report 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Attachments 1 & 45 Adrian Ct - Plans Attachments: 250 Anza Boulevard, zoned unclassified - Application for Environmental Review, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new commercial recreation use (Topgolf) with associated restaurant and bar uses. (Topgolf, applicant; Aria Group /Arco Murray, architects-engineers; City of Burlingame, owner) (430 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon e. 250 Anza Blvd - Staff Report 250 Anza Blvd - Application 250 Anza Blvd - Attachments 250 Anza Blvd - Plans Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting May 6, 2019 1433 Floribunda Avenue - FYI for requested changes by the Planning Commisison to a previously approved Design Review project for a new 8-unit residential condominium. a. 1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum & Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - Proposed 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - Original Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/10/2019 May 13, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 13, 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 May 23, 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 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/10/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 8, 2019 STUDY SESSION - 6:00 p.m. - Conference Room A a.Discussion of Planning Commission Procedural Issues and Architectural Elements Memorandum Residential Design Guidebook - Roof Design Component Attachments: Timing of Staff Report Deliveries: >Having online access is fine on Wednesdays; feels like not enough time on Mondays to speak with staff; okay with emailed plans. >Does not look at the packet until Friday night and over the weekend; Thursdays still work, and even if the packet came earlier still would not look at it. >Would be helpful to receive large documents such as big EIRs or Neg Decs at least one meeting ahead of time. Could then have time to research specific questions. >Weekends are mainly the time to review. >Long agendas and major projects can be challenging to get through, but can ’t get to it until the weekends. >Sending plans ahead of time would be helpful. Would still want a hard copy as well. >>>Conclusion: Keep delivery schedule as is, but send electronic copy of agenda and plans earlier in the week (in addition to hard copy deliveries). For major projects, especially with EIRs – would like to receive documents at least one meeting before scheduled for hearing to have time for review. Possibility of Canceling a Planning Commission Meeting in the Summer: >Would prefer to retain full summer schedule to avoid a backlog. >Would prefer to hold meetings even when there are absences, provide four commissioners are in attendance. >Commissioners should inform the Planning Manager of absences as soon as they are known so that agendas can be planned accordingly. >>>Conclusion: No cancelled meetings in the summer. Architectural Elements – Metal Roofs >Can go back to neighborhood consistency subcommittee after every commissioner has had chance to share their thoughts. >Neighborhood Design Guidebook was originally meant to capture the "low hanging fruit." The guidelines were mostly concerned with scale, massing and FAR, and did not address materials specifically. >The original writers tried not to be too descriptive; did not want a level of detail that would be found in CC&Rs >Don’t want to get into the realm of specifying particular manufacturers. >Metal roofing makes a building look industrial look, not modern. It can cheapen architecture. >The first criteria would be whether the design looks residential; if so, then does the metal roof fit the house and support the architecture? >Not proposing to outlaw metal roofs, but it needs to be considered as an element in the overall design. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Color is a major issue, as well as the pitch. Either could overwhelm a house, so needs to be more subdued. >>>Conclusion: Evaluate metal roofs on a case by case basis, as part of the design review process . Would like to restrict color selection; perhaps consider a palette range and provide guidelines, or codify what are acceptable roof pitches and extent of roof coverage. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - a.Draft March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft March 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 25, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1431 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for a One Year Permit Extension for a previously approved application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Parking Variance for the use of mechanical parking lifts for a new 3-story, 6-unit condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1431 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1431 El Camino Real - Attachments 1431 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: Members of the public requested that this item be pulled from the Consent Calendar for public hearing. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jeff Gebhart: Lives directly behind property. Did not receive notification of the original hearing. Foliage as approved will not provide sufficient screening from views into backyards. Porch faces to the rear, is requesting the design be changed so porch is moved inwards. Concern with noise from mechanical garage; measurement only references noise from interior of units. Vincent Leung, 1432 Balboa Avenue: Acquired the house after the project was approved. Concern with the project being three stories, looking into the backyard. There is not proper screening. Wants to change the landscaping from deciduous trees, since they don't provide year -round screening. Had understood there would be a change to evergreen Brisbane box hedges, but that is not reflected on the plans. The hedges proposed currently will not grow tall enough to obscure the second floor. Wants a fair compromise. Applicant representative: Owner wants to work with the neighbors. Understands the desire for screening . Can do further studies of the parking lifts. Will set up a meeting with the owner and the architect. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >The deck measures 11' x 7', which is a reasonable size and not large enough for a large gathering. >In the past the commission has reviewed applications with second -story decks in closer proximity to side yards than this project is to the rear properties. The commission's position has been that if a deck is not "party sized," and generally no more than 100 square feet (which this is less), it is not deemed a problem. >The deck is set back from the property line, and there is a 10-foot easement, and then the setback of the neighboring house. >The noise of the parking lifts is covered by the City's noise regulations. >Screening issue is something to look at further. Wants to have the chance to respond to neighbor concerns, but that is the only issue to be further considered. >For the record, there is no strict requirement for privacy or screening. >Should be noticed as a Consent item so that neighbors receive notice. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the following condition: >The applicant shall revise the landscape screening at the rear yard, and that it be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar item. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.748 Plymouth Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and interior remodel 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.(Mark Pearcy, applicant and architect; Heather & Ekine Akuiyibo, property owners) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 748 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 748 Plymouth Way - Attachments 748 Plymouth Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Pearcy represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Likes the application. >Adding the window was an improvement. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.1125 Oxford Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a Special Permit for reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Vishal Jangla, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1125 Oxford Rd - Staff Report 1125 Oxford Rd - Attachments 1125 Oxford Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Neubert represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >The design is an improvement; it does not look like two garage doors. >Uneasy with the glazing in the garage door, but it is not a dealbreaker. >The applicant has taken the direction given, and it meets the requrirements of the Special Permit. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.2217 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review 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. (Paul Yep and Mei Ling Tang, applicants and property owners; MEI Architects, architect) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2217 Davis Dr - Staff Report 2217 Davis Dr - Attachment 2217 Davis Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Casey Coulter represented the applicant. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >If siding is not being brought all around, it would be better not to have it at all. >Bringing down the plate heights helped with the scale. >The windows have been aligned and there is some order to them. >Neighboring house has a similar scale and character. >The second floor should be all stucco, rather than having the siding just on the one side. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: >The second story shall have stucco siding to match the rest of the house, and that the vertical siding and quarter boards shall be eliminated. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.722 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved application for a first and 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 15301 (e)(1). (Bill Buckleman, applicant and contractor, JoAnn Gann, designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 722 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 1 722 Crossway Rd - Attachments 2 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Bill Buckman represented the application, with property owner Jeannie Tyan. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 April 8, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Grateful that the applicant worked with staff. >Likes Plan A Option 1. However does not need to see bellie band. Simpler is better. >Would like the same approach applied to the left side. >The rear will be unbalanced if only one side is fixed. >There will be an imbalance regardless. >Can't match the two sides, the conditions are different, and it is not visible. Does not see why it would be asked of the applicant. >Doesn't understand why the treatment would only be applied to one side and not the other. >Will look more like the originally approved project if both sides match. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve Plan A Option 1 with the following amendment: >The option does not need to include the bellie band as shown. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Nay:Sargent, and Kelly2 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There were no Design Review Study items. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS A meeting of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee should be scheduled to follow up on the items discussed in the Study Session. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS The City Council approved the Residential Impact fees on April 1st. They will go into effect in 60 days. "Burlingame Talks Shop" will be held on April 17th. Planning Commissioners are encouraged to attend, and can assist in facilitation of discussion groups. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:11 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 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 April 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 $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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 5/9/2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Monday, April 22, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Loftis Present 5 - Kelly, and Tse Absent 2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no meeting minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for a previously approved project for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tony Leung, applicant; John Nguyen, designer) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the project site. Chair Comaroto had met with the applicant. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 April 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. John Nguyen, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Confirmed that header height of doors and windows will remain the same and not be increased. >Confirmed that standing seam metal roof color will be pewter gray. >Confirmed that exterior siding will have mitered corners. >Confirmed that plate height at front porch will remain at 8 feet and plate height for house will increase to 9 feet. >Verify if set of three second floor windows are being lowered. >Don't see any issues with proposal to increase plate height on first floor; 9 foot plate height on first floor and 8 foot plate height on second floor is within parameters of project we usually approve. >Cautiously okay with the proposed changes. We look very closely at plate heights. Generally resist 10 foot plate heights, in this case the first floor plate height is 9 feet. Proposed plate heights would have been acceptable if originally approved. Reason for being cautiously okay with changes is that the neighborhood still contains many single story, quaint homes. Remember a comment made during original review of the project that it seemed a little tall for the neighborhood, but project was approved. >Don't see any problem with raising the plate height, however am skeptical that header height of doors and windows will not be raised along with the plate height. >If applicant would like to increase header height of windows and doors, project will need to return to the Planning Commission for review. >Front and rear facades are nice and compact, real impact is along the two side facades which are broader and taller. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that the front porch plate height (8’-1”) and header heights of all windows and exterior doors shall be built as shown on the plans date stamped April 16, 2019; and that any change to these heights shall require an application for design review amendment. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones4 - Nay:Loftis1 - Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1244 Laguna Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling (existing detached garage to remain). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; James and Lisa Hong, property owners) (144 noticed) Staff Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 April 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Contact: Catherine Keylon Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he owns a business within 500 feet of the subject property. 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. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. James Hong represented the applicant, with designer Jerry Deal. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Design is a bit jumbled. >Sunroom windows seem out of place and are not in keeping with the rest of the house; these are large windows while the rest of the house has smaller scale windows and doors; needs a little more work. >Used to seeing long flat walls, so like how second floor is broken up, maintains the architecture of the house. >Appreciate that a lot of the architectural details from the original house are remaining and are being repeated on the second floor addition. >Okay with window in sunroom, but concerned about whether it's possible to get a piece of glass that large, appears to be one piece of glass; applicant should verify before resubmitting plans. If not possible, then plans should accurately reflect the proposed window configuration in this room. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, and Loftis4 - Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 - Recused:Terrones1 - b.110 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two -story single family dwelling. (Victor Song, applicant and property owner; Bill Guan, architect) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Bill Guan, represented the applicant. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 April 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >Don't have an issue with a modern style in this neighborhood, agree that there is an eclectic mix. >Concerned that it is a large, blank box; design is very blank and stark. >Scale is out of proportion with neighborhood. >Tall plate heights on first and second floors are making blank spaces even bigger and greater. >Large second floor windows on front facade fill the void, but they will be very large windows in private spaces on second floor. >There are some detail issues, for example the building elevations show the first floor window on the left side as a corner window, however the floor plans indicates that it contains a corner post. >Front elevation consists of simple sheds and a token gesture of materiality with the stone detail. >Side elevations are very blank and large. >See an opportunity, particularly in the living room space, to add some windows and a chimney expressed on the exterior. >In well-crafted modern design, often see an elegant expression of materials and a break down of massing with alternate materials. However all we have here is stucco and a belly band. >Good candidate for a design review consultant. >Neighborhood can support a modern design and attached garage. >Look closely at ways to mitigate double -wide garage door, perhaps by off -setting with two single -wide doors. >Plate heights are way out of proportion for neighborhood; several new houses have been built in this neighborhood but probably with 9-foot first floor and 8-foot second floor plate heights. House as proposed will appear much larger than the floor area indicates. >Space above front entry complies with code requirements, but not with the spirit of the code; space above could easily be converted to useable space. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: > Uneasy with the proposed double lean-to roof design. We have approved several houses with this design and feel that not one of them has been very successful. Feel that this is awkward 1970's architecture, it's not real modernism. >Concerned with house fitting in with this compact neighborhood. This is not your typical hillside area neighborhood, feels more like a Burlingables neighborhood on the flats. >House needs to be more in scale with houses in the neighborhood. >Concerned with size of second floor deck at rear of house, although it backs up to Highway 280 still have neighbors on either side; consider reducing size of deck. > A newer Eichler style house might work. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 - c.133 Clarendon Rd, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Matt Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 April 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Rossen, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 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 Comaroto opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, represented the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction: >This is a very nice project, just needs to work out some details. >Configuration of chimney along left side of house is awkward, doesn't feel right; should revisit design. >On Right Side Elevation, there are three different roof styles and materials on the first floor. For consistency, consider changing the existing clipped roof above the bump -out to a shed roof and change composition shingle roofing to metal roofing. Should also consider changing material of roofing on first floor bump-out along left side of house to metal. >Concerned with mix of existing and new windows, suggest replacing the existing windows with simulated true divided lite windows, would help project. >Odd to have mix of grid patterns on windows, existing windows contain full grids while new windows only contain grids on upper sash; should revisit grid pattern. >Generally, have some objection to foam trim, but there is so much of it on the existing house that it would be acceptable in this case to carry it through the rest of the house. >Encourage applicant to replace the existing windows at the front of the house with windows that are more in scale with the house, existing windows seem very small. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 - d.2305 Poppy Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, property owners) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 April 22, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para, represented the applicant, with designer Jerry Deal. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Comments/Direction >Very well layed out and planned addition; matches architecture of existing house. >This is a big improvement on the rear elevation. >New windows should match existing simulated true divided lite windows. >Revise existing and new right side elevation to correctly show grids on existing dining room window. >May want to consider filling in gap in between existing and proposed dormers along right side of house. >Feels like you're adding a lot of space, but ending up with a small bathroom in the master bedroom; this might be opportunity to get a larger bathroom. >Great design; fits in with neighborhood. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Loftis5 - Absent:Kelly, and Tse2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Comaroto reported that she attended the Burlingame Talks Shop event on April 17th, where property owners, tenants, business professionals, residents and others gathered to discuss our current retail environment and how to evolve our retail districts over the next ten years to keep them vibrant and relevant. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1104 Clovelly Lane - FYI for requested changes by the Planning Commisison to a previously approved Design Review and Special Permit Application. Accepted. b.1547 Los Altos Drive - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review, Special Permit, and Hillside Area Construction Permit Application. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 April 22, 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 April 22, 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 May 2, 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 7City of Burlingame Printed on 5/8/2019 City of Burlingame One Year Permit Extension Address: 2208 Summit Drive Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 Request: Application for One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for building height, an attached garage, and a basement for construction of a new single family dwelling on an existing vacant lot. Architect: Kevin O'Brien APN: 026-022-040 Applicant and Property Owner: Warren Donald Lot Area: 5,972 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Hillside Area Construction Permit Zone Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting approval of a one year extension of a previously approved application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for building height, an attached garage, and a basement for construction of a new single family dwelling on an existing vacant lot at 2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1. The application was approved by the Planning Commission on April 9, 2018 and became effective April 19, 2018 (see attached April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). An application for a building permit was submitted on December 21, 2018, but has not yet been issued. The applicant is requesting a permit extension in his letter dated March 21, 2019. The building permit will likely be ready for issue in the next two months. No substantial changes (revisions requiring a design review amendment or an FYI application) to the plans approved by the Planning Commission were made during the building permit approval process. A one year extension may be considered by the Planning Commission, which would extend approval of the applications to May 23, 2019. If the extension is not granted, the property owner must reapply with a new application. Project Description of Previously Approved Project: This parcel was created with a lot split and several lot line adjustments that were approved by the Planning Commission in 2014. The subject property is an interior lot located along Summit Drive where Canyon Road and Easton Drive meet Summit Drive. The lot slopes up gradually by 18.4% from the front of the property to the rear of the property, except at the rear left corner of the property where there is sharp incline. There is a partially culverted creek located uphill from the subject property and at its closest point, the creek is approximately 239 feet from the subject property's right side property line (measurement made to the culvert that traverses 2849 Canyon Drive, located west of the subject property). The subject property has a street address of 2208 Summit Drive. There are three parcels that are adjacent to 2208 Summit Drive. The property immediately to the left (east of the subject property) is 2220 Summit Drive and is the site of Hoover Elementary School. The property behind (south and west of) the subject property is 2202 Summit Drive and is a flag-shaped lot, with an arm leading to the parcel frontage on Summit Drive that runs along the right side of the subject property. There is a third property adjacent to the subject property with the address of 2841 Canyon Drive, and it is located just beyond the driveway for 2202 Summit Drive and to the right (west) of the subject property. The subject property at 2208 Summit Drive, 2220 Summit Drive (Hoover School), and 2202 Summit Drive (flag lot) are all located in the City of Burlingame. The property at 2841 Canyon Drive is located in unincorporated San Mateo County. The properties to the east and south of the Hoover School site are located in the Town of Hillsborough. Item No. 7a Consent Calendar One Year Permit Extension 2208 Summit Drive 2 Refer to the attached aerial for a visual representation of the properties and of City and County boundaries. There are four easements existing on the subject property (please refer to survey in the plan set, date stamped December 31, 2017): 1. The first easement is a PG & E easement for overhead wires (denoted as OH and with a green line on the survey in the plans). This existing easement starts at the pole located in the right-of-way directly in front of the flag portion of the lot at 2202 Summit Drive. The overhead wires extend across the subject property at a point approximately 41 feet down the right property line from the front right corner of the lot, and then extend across the property to a pole approximately 90 feet from the left side property line. The easement exits the property approximately 138 feet down the left side property line and extends across the property at 2220 Summit Drive to a pole located behind the rear, right corner of the Hoover School main building. No permanent structures can be built over the ground or in the airspace above this easement. 2. The second easement is a 10-foot wide City of Burlingame sanitary sewer easement (denoted as SS and with red lines on the survey in the plans) that runs diagonally across the subject property from the front, left corner towards the rear, right side of the lot. This sewer easement primarily services the City of Burlingame properties located behind the subject property. No permanent structures can be built over the ground or in the airspace above this easement. 3. The third easement is a private ingress and egress easement for the flag-shaped property at 2202 Summit Drive (denoted as I & E Easement for Lot 1, Lands of Fanning & Gillis, in blue, on the survey in the plans). This easement runs most of the length of the right side of the subject property. The easement is part of the existing asphalt driveway leading from Summit Drive to the residence with address 2202 Summit Drive and this driveway provides the only access to that residence. No permanent structures or landscaping can be built over this easement. 4. This fourth easement is a private pedestrian and vehicle easement for the property at 2841 Canyon Drive (denoted as I & E Easement Line for Lands of Iverson, in yellow, on the survey in the plans), located to on the right side of the subject property and overlays the access easement for 2202 Summit Drive. No permanent structures or landscaping can be built over this easement. The project consists of a new, two-and a half story single family dwelling with an attached garage and a basement on this vacant lot. The total floor area is 2,990 SF (0.501 FAR), where 3,011 SF (0.504 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including ceiling heights greater than 12 feet and front covered porch exemptions). The existing private and utility easements on the property would not be altered with the development of the lot, with the exception of the PG&E overhead wires easement which is located directly in the footprint of the development. The applicant has submitted a letter, dated October 12, 2017, to indicate that they will enter into an agreement with PG&E along with the approval of the Burlingame School District (owner of Hoover Elementary School property), to relocate the pole on the subject property to the front of the property at 2220 Summit Drive (Hoover Elementary School). The overhead lines would run across the front of the subject property to this pole (see October 12, 2017 letter from Assistant Superintendent Hellier and Sheet 0.1 of the plans). The property is located in the Hillside Area Construction Permit Zone and the Planning Commission reviewed the house based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. A Hillside Area Construction Permit was previously approved by the Planning Commission. The house will be situated at the rear, left side of the vacant property. There are a series of terraced retaining walls (between 6 and 16 feet in height) at the left side and at the rear of the property to create a buildable area and rear yard for the residence. The lowest level of the new residence will be a basement wine cellar and half bath at the rear of the house. Because of the slope on the lot, the front portion of the lowest level does not meet the definition of a basement and is therefore considered a lower level half story and accommodates two, staggered single car attached garage spaces. The split levels of the first and second floors of the residence accommodate the main One Year Permit Extension 2208 Summit Drive 3 living space for the house as well as three bedrooms. A Special Permit for a structure between 30' – 36' in height, where the highest ridge of the residence is 34'-8" measured from the average top of curb at Summit Drive, was previously approved by the Planning Commission. Two covered parking spaces (10' x 20' each) are provided in the attached garage and a single uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. The house has three bedrooms and the parking provided exceeds the code requirements for a three-bedroom house. A Special Permit for the proposed attached garage was previously approved by the Planning Commission. The house will have a 473 SF basement. A Special Permit for a basement ceiling height of greater than 6'-6", where the basement ceiling height is 8'-2", was previously approved by the Planning Commission. The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than 2'-0" above existing grade and therefore the basement floor area exemption applies to this space. A total of 473 SF was deducted from the FAR calculation (the maximum allowable exemption is 700 SF). The existing site does not contain any protected sized trees. There are two 24-inch box landscape trees provided at the front of the property, in addition to three existing trees that are currently located in the pedestrian and vehicle easement for Lands of Iverson. No new landscaping is provided in the either of the private easements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The following applications were approved for this project:  Design Review for a new, two-and a half story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.01 (a) (1));  Hillside Area Construction Permit (C.S. 25.61);  Special Permit for a structure between 30'-36' in height (C.S. 25.26.060(a) (1);  Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)); and  Special Permit for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (C.S. 25.26.035(f)). 2208 Summit Drive Lot Area: 5,972 SF Plans date stamped: March 21, 2019 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): Two attached, staggered single car garages: 42'-1" 49'-1" 42'-10" 59'-0" 15'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 25'-0" Side (left): (right): 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15'-0" 22'-5" 15'-0" 20'-0" One Year Permit Extension 2208 Summit Drive 4 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Lot Coverage: 1,631 SF 27% 2,389 SF 40% FAR: 2,990 SF 0.501 FAR 3,011 SF 1 0.504 FAR Basement: basement with 8'-2" ceiling height 2 Special Permit required for basement ceiling height greater than 6'-6" # of bedrooms: 3 --- Parking: 2 covered (10' x 20' each), attached 3 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 34'-8" Special Permit required for a height between 30'-36' 4 DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 5,972 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,011 SF (0.504 FAR) ² Special Permit previously approved for a basement ceiling height greater than 6'-6" (C.S. 25.26.035(f)). ³ Special Permit previously approved for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)). 4 Special Permit previously approved for a proposed height between 30'-36' (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). Suggested Findings for a One Year Extension of a Previously Approved Design Review , Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits: Based on the findings contained in the staff report for the original approval and stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's April 9, 2018 Regular Action Meeting, and that there are no changes proposed to the previously approved applications, the project is found to be compatible with the criteria for the Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for building height, an attached garage, and a basement. Planning Commission Action to Extend Permit to May 23, 2020: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 21, 2019, sheets A.1 through A.8, L1.0, T.1 and Boundary and Topographic Survey dated November 2017; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; One Year Permit Extension 2208 Summit Drive 5 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for 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; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erika Lewit Senior Planner One Year Permit Extension 2208 Summit Drive 6 c. Warren Donald, applicant Attachments: • One Year Extension Request Letter Submitted by the applicant, dated March 21, 2019 • Application to the Planning Commission • April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes • Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 • Area Photo City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permits for Window Location and Rear Yard Coverage in Accessory Structure Address: 860 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permits for windows within 10’-0” of property line and rear yard coverage for a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse APN: 028-132-230 Property Owners: Daniel & Jonna Dollosso Lot Area: 8,955 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e), which states that construction or conversion of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences is exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The subject property contains an existing single family dwelling (2,264 SF, includes trellis) and a detached garage (558 SF). Currently, there are three covered spaces and at least one uncovered space. This application includes a 562 SF addition to the existing detached garage for a new accessory dwelling unit (ADU), located in the rear, left corner of the property. Per State law, review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the P lanning Commission. Staff has reviewed the design of the ADU and has determined that it complies with the City’s Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance requirements (Chapter 25.59). The ordinance includes a number of performance standards, including the requirement that the ADU shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features and building materials as the primary dwelling located on the property. Furthermore, an application which solely consists of a new accessory structure on a property is not subject to Design Review. Planning Staff would further note an applicant can c hoose the option of an ADU design that may require one or more Conditional Use Permits listed in Chapter 25.60. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of two Conditional Use Permits, one for windows located within 10’-0” of property line (Code Section 25.60.010 (i)) and one for covering more than 50% of the rear 30 % of the lot line (Code Section 25.60.010 (f)). There are four windows proposed along the left wall of the ADU, located 3’ from the left property line fence and one window proposed along the rear wall of the ADU, located 3’ from the rear property line fence. The existing detached garage is 558 SF and with the proposed ADU, the accessory structure will h ave a total of 1,120 SF. There are no proposed changes to the existing three-bedroom house. Two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on -site for the main dwelling. The subject property has three covered spaces and at least one uncovered space. The applicant is requesting the following applica tion:  Conditional Use Permits for windows within 10’-0” of property line and rear yard coverage for a new detached accessory structure approved for use as an Accessory Dwelling Unit (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)). Item No. 7b Consent Calendar Conditional Use Permits 860 Walnut Ave 2 860 Walnut Ave Lot Area: 8,955 SF Plans date stamped: May 1, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Proposed Use in Accessory Structure: parking 562 SF ADU added to existing detached garage garage and ADU (640 SF maximum) are permitted uses in an accessory structure Location of Accessory Structure: accessory structure is located in the rear 30% of the lot accessory structure is located in the rear 30% of the lot accessory structures in the rear 30% of the lot are exempt from setback requirements Windows in Accessory Structure: none four windows on left wall of ADU will be located 3’ from left property line and one window on rear wall of ADU located 3’ from rear property line 1 glazed openings within 10' of property line requires a Conditional Use Permit Height of Accessory Structure: 11’ to top of parapet 11’ to top of parapet 15'-0" to highest ridge Number of Structures & Size: 558 SF detached garage 562 SF ADU addition to existing detached garage Total = 1,120 SF 2 two structures each having over 100 SF allowed if one structures is ADU. Conditional Use Permit required if more than 50% of the rear 30% of a lot is covered. Lot Coverage: 2,822 SF 31.5% 3,383 SF 37.8% 3,582 SF 40% FAR: 2,822 SF 0.32 FAR 3,383 SF 0.38 FAR 4,116 SF 3 0.46 FAR 1 Conditional Use Permit required for an accessory structure with a window located within 10 feet of a property line (CS 25.60.010(i)). 2 Conditional Use Permit required for accessory structures covering more than 50% of the rear 30% of a lot (CS 25.60.010(f)). 3 (0.32 x 8,955 SF) + 900 SF + 350 SF = 4,116 SF (0.46 FAR) Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that because of the nature of the request, it was determined that this request could be brought forward directly as a Consent Calendar Item. If the Commission wishes to discuss this application further, it may pull it off the Consent Calendar. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; Conditional Use Permits 860 Walnut Ave 3 (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame General Plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: The accessory structure, consisting of an existing two-car garage and new accessory dwelling unit, will be a residential use that is consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan and not uncommon in this neighborhood; that the accessory structure will be finished with materials to match the existing house and is compatible with uses found in a single family residential area; that the proposed windows along the side and rear walls of the accessory structure will be screened by existing fences; and the irregular lot, which narrows from 57 feet at the front to 44 feet at the rear, causes the accessory structure to exceed the allowed rear yard coverage; therefore for these reasons the use 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 the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 1, 2019; 2. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit shall be void or shall be amended to reflect the changes ; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. 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; 5. 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; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Buil ding and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Michelle Markiewicz Assistant Planner Conditional Use Permits 860 Walnut Ave 4 c. Daniel & Jonna Dollosso, property owners Jesse Geurse, designer and applicant Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 Area Map PROJECT LOCATION 2305 Poppy Drive Item No. 7d Consent Calendar Item No. 7d Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2305 Poppy Drive Meeting Date: May 8, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates APN: 027-163-180 Property Owners: Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para Lot Area: 5,271 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains a two-story, four bedroom house and detached garage with 2,535 SF (0.48 FAR) of floor area. The proposal includes a first and second floor addition at the rear of the house. There are no proposed improvements to the existing detached garage. With the proposed project the total floor area would increase to 3,098 SF (0.59 FAR), the maximum allowed. There is no increase to number of existing bedrooms . The code requires two on-site parking spaces, one of which must be covered (9’ x 18’ for existing conditions) and one uncovered (9’ x 20’). Though it has a nonconforming clear interior depth of 17’-2”, the existing garage counts as one covered parking space; o ne uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 2305 Poppy Drive Lot Area: 5,271 SF Plans date stamped: May 8, 2019 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-9” 19’-9” no change no change 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (interior): (exterior): 3’-9” 9’-5” 4’-0” (to addition) 9’-7” (to addition) 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 46’-4” 46’-4” 35’-10” 35’-10” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,725 SF 32.7 % 2,071 SF 39.3% 2,108 SF 40 % FAR: 2,535 SF 0.48 FAR 3,098 SF 0.59 FAR 3,098 SF 1 0.59 FAR Design Review 2305 Poppy Drive 2 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (16’-6” wide x 17’-2” deep*, clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’x20’) no change 1 covered (9’x18’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 28’–0½” no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: nonconforming complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5,271 SF) + 1,100 SF + 311 SF = 3,098 SF (0.59) FAR * existing non-conforming; see Project Description for more information Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on April 22, 2019, the Commission stated that the proposed project is a very well layed-out and planned addition that matches the architecture of the existing house (April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The Commission voted to place this item on the consent calendar. There were a few suggestions from the Commission which the applicant has addressed on the revised plans date stamped May 8, 2019. List of revised changes made to the plans:  Reconfigured the layout of the master bedroom on the second floor;  Enlarged master bathroom on the second floor;  Added window on the right side elevation (master closet);  More defined dormer on the left side elevation (master bathroom); and  Elongated window on the left side elevation (master bedroom). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a gable roofs and dormers, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, and aluminum clad wood windows) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Design Review 2305 Poppy Drive 3 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 8, 2019, sheets A1.1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Developme nt Director; 5. that demolition for 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; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approv al of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venti ng details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the Californ ia Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maxim um approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting Design Review 2305 Poppy Drive 4 framing compliance with approved design shall be subm itted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Jerry Deal, J Deal Associates , applicant and designer Elizabeth Watson and Alex Para , property owners Attachments: April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter to the Commission from the designer, received May 8, 2019 Letter of concern from neighbor – received May 7, 2019 Application to the Planning Commission Photos of surrounding properties, received January 28, 2019 Property photos submitted by the property owner on April 22, 201 9 Letters of support from neighbors – submitted April 22, 2019 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 Area Map CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING W/ ATTACHED ADU & DETACHED GARAGE ON VACANT LOT. VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR 5'-0" SECOND FLOOR ENCROACHMENT INTO FRONT SETBACK DESIGN REVIEW DATE 7/26/18NEW DWELLING475 12 ROLLINS ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010REVISED 4/10/19 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION T0.1TITLE SHEETNEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME 475 12 ROLLINS ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PROJECT TEAM PROJECT INFORMATION SYMBOLS XX AX.X DESCRIPTION OF WORK SHEET INDEX HEIGHT EXTERIOR ELEVATION PARCEL: 029-185-050 ZONING: R-1 LOT SIZE: 6762.5 SF MAX COVERAGE: 40%; 2,705 SF PROPOSED COVERAGE: 31.9%; 2,159 SF MAX FLOOR AREA: [(6,762.5 x .32 F.A.R.) + 1,100] = 3,263 SF + 400 SF DETACHED GARAGE ALLOWANCE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: 2,496 SF DWELLING + 507 SF ADU + 445 SF GARAGE BEDROOMS: (4) DWELLING + (1) ADU MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT: 30'-0" PROPOSED HEIGHT: 23'-4" MAX (ABOVE CURB AT STREET) PARKING: 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B OCCUPANCY: R-2/ U SPRINKLERS: YES T0.1 TITLE SHEET 1 SURVEY A0.1 SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN A1.0 FIRST FLOOR A1.1 SECOND FLOOR A2.0 ELEVATIONS A2.1 ELEVATIONS GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE 2295 San Pablo Avenue Berkeley, CA 94702 (510)984-1112 CLIENT ARCHITECT VICINITY MAP XX AX.XSECTION 125'x10' ACCESS EASEMENT FRANCIS KIM & AMY CHUNG (617)504-0691 (E) FIRE HYDRANT COMPLETED CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURE CHECKLIST SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. WEEKDAYS: 8AM - 7PM SATURDAYS 9AM - 6PM SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS & NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8AM & 5PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. ANY ENTITY PERFORMING WORK ON THIS PROJECT MUST HAVE A CURRENT CITY OF BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, ICC) 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE - APPLIES TO ONE AND TWO FAMILY HOUSES AND TOWNHOMES LESS THAN 3 STORIES IN HEIGHT. (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE.) 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE - CHECK THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION'S WEBSITE AT HTTP://WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV FOR A DOWNLOADABLE VERSION. (PUBLISHED BY ICC). 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2014 NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION AGENCY, NFPA) 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, IAPMO) 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL OFFICIALS, IAPMO) 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTS THE 2015 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE WITH CALIFORNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBLISHED BY ICC) 2016 CALGREEN CODE - APPLIES TO CERTAIN NEW BUILDINGS ONLY - ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 3 STORIES OR LESS AND ALL NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. APPLICABLE CODES A2.2 VIEW STUDY A2.3 VIEW STUDY A2.4 VIEW STUDY A2.5 VIEW STUDY A3.0 SECTION 475 12 ROLLINS ROAD +113.1' SECOND FLOOR +102.1' FIRST FLOOR +123.6' TOP OF PARAPET 5 5152 +100.29' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB 46 7 +113.1' SECOND FLOOR +102.1' FIRST FLOOR +123.6' TOP OF PARAPET 4 5 1 265 +100.29' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB +113.1' SECOND FLOOR +102.1' FIRST FLOOR +123.6' TOP OF PARAPET +111.6' TOP OF GARAGE 3 524 +101.6' GARAGE FLOOR 5 EGRESS WINDOW TYP (3) 25"W x 56" H (9.7SF OPENINGS) 2'-0" A.F.F. +100.29' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB NEW DWELLINGA2.0EAST ELEVATION 104'8'2' 1/4"=1'-0" 304'8'2' 1/4"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION 204'8'2' 1/4"=1'-0" SOUTH WEST ELEVATION MATERIALS CREAM INTEGRAL COLOR CEMENT PLASTER 1 MEDIUM GREY INTEGRAL COLOR CEMENT PLASTER 2 WOOD VENEER PHENOLIC PANELS 3 NATURAL WOOD SIDING 4 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FASCIA, WINDOWS, DOORS, FRAMES, & ADDRESS LETTERS 5 STANDING SEAM ROOF (KYNAR COATED MEDIUM GREY) 6 OBSCURED GLASS7 +113.1' SECOND FLOOR +102.1' FIRST FLOOR +123.6' TOP OF PARAPET 2 5 34 12"PLATE HEIGHT18"PLATE HEIGHT 8'-0"12'-0"45.00° 101.7 POINT OF DEPARTURE2ND STORY SETBACK7'-6"10'-0"9'-0"+100.29' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB 7'-6" F.F. ACTUAL SETBACK ARCHITECTURAL ROOF PROJECTION BEYOND +113.1' SECOND FLOOR +102.1' FIRST FLOOR +123.6' TOP OF PARAPET +111.6' TOP OF PARAPET 2345 +101.6' GARAGE FLOOR SCUPPER & DS SCUPPER & DS EGRESS OPENING 34"W x 80"H (18.9SF OPENINGS) +100.29' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB23'-4" MAX HEIGHT TYPSCUPPER & DS +113.1' SECOND FLOOR +102.1' FIRST FLOOR +123.6' TOP OF PARAPET 2 3554 EGRESS WINDOW TYP (3) 25"W x 56" H (9.7SF OPENINGS) +100.29' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB DESIGN REVIEW DATE 7/26/18NEW DWELLING475 12 ROLLINS ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010REVISED 4/10/19 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION A2.1ELEVATIONSWEST ELEVATION 104'8'2' 1/4"=1'-0" 304'8'2' 1/4"=1'-0" NORTH WEST ELEVATION 204'8'2' 1/4"=1'-0" NORTH ELEVATION MATERIALS CREAM INTEGRAL COLOR CEMENT PLASTER 1 MEDIUM GREY INTEGRAL COLOR CEMENT PLASTER 2 WOOD VENEER PHENOLIC PANELS 3 NATURAL WOOD SIDING 4 CLEAR ANODIZED ALUMINUM FASCIA, WINDOWS, DOORS, FRAMES, & ADDRESS LETTERS 5 STANDING SEAM ROOF (KYNAR COATED MEDIUM GREY) 6 OBSCURED GLASS7 15' FRONT SETBACK LINE15' REAR SETBACK LINE 20' 2ND STORY REAR SETBACK LINE 7' S ID E S E T B A C K L IN E 7' - 6 " 2ND S TO R Y R EQ 'D S ID E S E T B A C K L IN E PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME PAVER PATIO (EXCAVATE 6" MAX) COOL, MEDIUM GRAY CAP SHEET ON BUILT UP ROOF, U.O.N. SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR OVERALL DIMS. (E) SHED TO BE REMOVED (E) SHED TO BE REMOVED (N) 3'-0"x6'-0" WD GATE IN 6' TALL WOOD FENCE (E) WD FENCE (E) WD FENCE (N) WD GATE +101.6' 4" METAL ADDRESS LETTERS, KNOX BOX FOR GATE MOUNTED TO FENCE SLIDING 10'-0" W x 6'-0" H WD GATE PAINTED WHITE LETTERING 1'-0" TALL BOLLARD W/ BACK-LIT 4" METAL ADDRESS NUMBERS & ARROW TO REAR ELECTRICAL & GAS METER W/ AUTOMATIC SHUTOFF PER PG&E STANDARDS +102.1' (N) 6'-0" WD FENCE KYNAR-COATED ALUMINUM CAP +102.1' REMOVE (E) CONC DRIVEWAY STRIPS & REPLACE W/ AC REPLACE (E) AC PAVING IN ACCESS EASEMENT EXTEND GAS & ELECTRICAL CONNECTION TO MAIN IN SHARED TRENCH PER PG&E STANDARDS PLUG ANY (E) SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION (NONE KNOWN) & PROVIDE NEW 4" SEWER LATERAL. EXTEND SEWER LATERAL & WATER LINE TO MAIN PER C.B.W.D. STANDARDS & SPECIFICATIONS (E) FIRE HYDRANT (E) SIDEWALK TO REMAIN PENDING INSPECTION & APPROVAL OF (E) CONDITIONS BY CITY OF BURLINGAME REPLACE DAMAGED CURB CUT PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARDS PAINTED WHITE LETTERING 1'-0" TALL AWNING HIGHER THAN GARAGE (NOT ATTACHED) KYNAR COATED STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF +102.1' +102.1' COVERED WASTE/ RECYCLING AREA IN GARAGE REQUESTED VARIANCE ENCROACHMENT INTO 2ND FLOOR SETBACK GRAVEL DISSIPATER OVERFLOW TO BACK-UP PUMP W/ STORM DRAIN LINE TO CURB. AT STREET, MIN 21.8 GPM CAPACITY BASED ON 1 25-YEAR RAINFALL DRAINING 2,097 SF OF ROOF SERVED BY DOWN SPOUTS ALL OTHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRAIN TO VEGETATED AREA KYNAR COATED ALUM CAP (NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY BELOW)AGGREGATEAGGREGATEA0.1SITE PLAN 1 N NEW DWELLINGTHIS PLOT PLAN CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A PLOT PLAN MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. I HEREBY STATE THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE ALL PROVISIONS OF APPLICABLE STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. I HEREBY FURTHER STATE THAT ALL PROPOSED GRADES, ELEVATIONS, AND CONTOURS DELINEATED UPON THIS PLOT PLAN ARE BASED UPON A SURVEY BY WAYN HAAS THAT WAS INDICATED THEREON BY THE SURVEYOR THEREOF AS BEING BASED UPON CITY OF RICHMOND DATUM. BRAD GUNKEL DATE TITLE ARCHITECT ARCHITECT LANDSCAPE PLAN SCHEDULE NEW SHRUBS & DROUGHT TOLERANT NATIVE GRASSES. SELF TREATED AREA DRAINAGE 1.COMPLY W/ ALL APPLICABLE MEASURES OF STORM WATER CHECKLIST FOR SMALL PROJECTS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION 2. ALL ROOF DRAINS ROUTED TO DISSIPATER IN HARD PIPE 3. SLOPE PAVING 2% AWAY FROM BUILDING TYP 4. ALL IMPERVIOUS PAVING SURFACES TO DRAIN TO PLANTED AREA. EXCEPTION: INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT & IMMEDIATE AREA 5. NO GARAGE FLOOR DRAIN 6. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM DISCHARGE TO SANITARY SEWER OR VEGETATED AREA OUTFALL DISSIPATOR-SEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS 7/27/2018 ARCHITECT'S STATEMENT NEW TREE: PINUS THUNBERGII (15 GAL) 4'0 8'16'1/8" = 1'-0" TREE TO BE REMOVED (JAPANESE BLACK PINE) NEW TREE: CUPPRESSUS SEMPERVIRENS (3.25 GAL) (ITALIAN CYPRESS) NOTE: REMOVE/ REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT REQ'D FOR UTILITY WORK. DRIVEWAY, CURB, AND ANY SIDEWALK WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY SHRUB: ABUTILON PALMERI ( INDIAN MALLOW) (PF: LOW) SHRUB: SALVIA LEUCANTHA (MEXICAN BUSH SAGE) (PF: LOW) SHRUB: CEANOTHUS JULIA PHELPS (JULIA PHELPS) (PF: LOW) SHRUB: CEANOTHUS 'BLUE JEANS' (PF: LOW) 1.COMPLY W/ ALL MEASURES OF WELO PRESCRIPTIVE CHECKLIST 2.DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE WATER FOR (N) TREES & SHRUBS AS INDICATED ON SITE PLAN. AIRBORNE ACCEPTABLE ONLY AT TURF AREAS > 10' WIDE 2.1.PRESSURE REGULATORS ARE INSTALLED ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO ENSURE DYNAMIC PRESSURE OF THE COMPONENTS ARE WITHIN THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED PRESSURE RANGE 2.2.MANUAL SHUTOFF VALVES (SUCH AS GATE, BALL, OR BUTTERFLY VALVES) ARE INSTALLED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY 2.3.ALL IRRIGATION EMISSION DEVICES MUST MEET THE REQ'S SET IN THE ANSI STANDARD ASABE/ICC 802-2014 "LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SPRINKLER AND EMITTER STANDARD." ALL SPRINKLER HEADS INSTALLED MUST HAVE A DISTRIBUTION UNIFORMITY LOW QUARTER OF 0.65 OR HIGHER USING THE PROTOCOL DEFINED IN ASABE/ICC 802-2014 2.4.AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS ARE REQUIRED AND MUST USE EVAPOTRANSPIRATION OR SOIL MOISTURE DATA AND UTILIZE A RAIN SENSOR 3.<'ó&2032673(56)/$1'6&$3($5($<'ó72'(37+2)$//27+(5/$1'6&$3( AREAS EXCEPT TURF TO RECEIVE MIN 3" LAYER OF RECYCLED MULCH 4.ANY PLANT SUBSTITUTION MUST MEET WUCOL LOW (PF<.3) STANDARD. NO INVASIVE SPECIES MAY BE USED. SEE CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANTS COUNCIL "DON'T PLANT A PEST" BROCHURE FOR SF BAY AREA 5.,1&25325$7(&203267$7$5$7(2)$7/($67<'ó3(5)7ò72$'(37+2),1727+( /$1'6&$3($5($81/(66&2175$,1',&$7('%<$62,/7(677+,6352-(&7:,//$33/<0,1<'ó OF COMPOST 6.A MIN 3" LAYER OF RECYCLED MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURF AREAS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED 7.TURF, HIGH WATER USE PLANTS, AND WATER FEATURES SHALL, COMBINED NOT EXCEED 25% OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA. TURF SHALL NOT BE PLANTED ON SLOPES WHICH EXCEED A SLOPE OF 1' VERTICAL ELEVATION CHANGE FOR EVERY 4' OR HORIZONTAL LENGTH. TURF IS PROHIBITED IN PARKWAYS LESS THAN 10' WIDE. EXCEPTION : PARKWAY IS ADJACENT TO A PARKING STRIP AND USED TO EXIT AND ENTER VEHICLES AND TURF IS IRRIGATED W/ SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION MIX INTERSTITIAL SPACES BETWEEN SHRUBS W/ PLANTLINGS OF GROUND COVER: CONVOLVULUS MAURITANICUS (GROUND MORNING GLORY) (PF: LOW) DICHONDRA SERICEA (SILVERLEAF PONYSFOOT) (PF: LOW) EVERGREEN INTERCEPTOR TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 2686 SF, 40% TURF AREA: 671 SF, 25% <'ó6)/$1'6&$3(<'ó&203267 REQ'D WELO CALCULATIONS 1 City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Address: 251 California Drive Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review Amendment to a previously approved project for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront and Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment. Applicant: Fated Brands, LLC APN: 029-211-040 Property Owner: Anne-Marie Mausser White Lot Area: 4,600 SF Architect: TRG Architects General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Howard Mixed Use District Zoning: HMU Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Project Background: On February 11, 2019, the Planning Commission approved an application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront at 251 California Drive (February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). At that time, there was no tenant proposed for the site. A building permit has not yet been issued for the project. Summary: The applicant is proposing to operate a new food establishment, tentatively called “Drift”, that will have two separate dining areas and a shared kitchen. At the front of the building, there would be a small dining area that will serve café style offerings while the rear dining area would be open for lunch, dinner, and brunch on the weekends. A full bar is also expected to be included as part of the rear dining area. Please refer to the applicant’s letter, dated March 29, 2019, for additional details of the proposed food establishment. The food establishment measures approximately 4,300 SF in area. The following applications are required:  Commercial Design Review Amendment for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront in the HMU Zoning District (C.S. 25.33.045); and  Conditional Use Permit for a new food establishment in the Howard Mixed Use (HMU) area (C.S. 25.33.030 (c)). At opening, the business anticipates ten full-time employees on weekdays and weekends before and after 5:00 p.m. The number of employees is not expected to change in the future. The applicant anticipates a maximum of 118 customers per day on weekdays and weekends; the number of customers per day is also not expected to change in the future. A maximum of 128 persons are expected on site at any one time, including employees and customers. The food establishment will be open seven days a week , from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 251 California Drive 2 The applicant is also proposing to amend the previous Commercial Design Review approval with the following revisions: Front Façade  Removal of the rollup door on the left side and proposing new aluminum frame and glass double door entrance and window storefront that allows visibility to the indoor mural;  Restoration, instead of replacement, of the original metal transom windows;  New rollup windows (4’-2” height) situated above a stucco wall band (2’-11” height);  New recessed doorway at the far right side to allow separate access to the kitchen from the front of the building; and  New lighting fixtures. Rear Façade  Reduce the size of the existing rollup door;  Remove the existing exit door and infill opening with windows similar to original metal windows;  Create a new exit door adjacent to new rollup door;  Restore original metal windows; and  New lighting fixtures. Off-Street Parking: The subject property lies within the Parking Sector of the Downtown Specific Plan. Retail uses and food establishments on the ground floor that are located within this Parking Sector, are exempt from parking requirements (CS 25.70.090 (a)). Therefore no additional off-street parking is required for the proposed food establishment. Staff comments: Planning staff would note that because the application has been previously approved for commercial design review and Conditional Use Permits for food establishments are generally accepted in the downtown area, it was determined that this request could be brought forward directly as a Regular Action Item. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the new aluminum framed storefront window and door system, metal transom windows, and stucco siding is consistent with the pattern of diverse architectural Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 251 California Drive 3 styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; that the proposed storefront promotes pedestrian activity by allowing views directly into the business; that the proposed storefront improvements are consistent with the architectural style and mass and bulk with other structures by using stucco siding and an aluminum and glass storefront system on the ground floor, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a conditional use permit for a food establishment, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Conditional Use Permit Findings: That the proposed food establishment will not be detrimental to the city’s objective of promoting pedestrian oriented retail activity in this commercial area and therefore will be in compliance with the general plan for the area; and since the business shall be required to comply with all the city regulations including providing trash receptacles and litter maintenance in the surrounding area, signage, meeting building code requirements, and adhering to County health requirements, the operation will be compatible with public health and safety as well as with the character of the commercial area. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 22, 2019, sheets A1.0 through A3.0; 2. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. 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; Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit 251 California Drive 4 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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 the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in affect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Associate Planner c. Fated Brands, LLC, applicant Anne-Marie Mausser White, property owner Attachments: February 11, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation Commercial Application Conditional Use Permit Application Letter of Support from neighboring business Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 Area Map PROJECT LOCATION 853 Paloma Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 853 Paloma Avenue Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage Applicant and Architect: Andrea Van Voorhis, Van Voorhis Architecture, Inc. APN: 029-013-040 Property Owners: William and Tara Cilmartin Lot Area: 4,641 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The proposed project includes demolishing an existing one-story single family dwelling and building a new two-story single family dwelling in its place with a new one-car detached garage. The new house would contain a total floor area of 2,819 SF (0.60 FAR), where 2,824 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including a 151 SF covered front porch exemption). The proposed project is 5 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required. The new detached garage provides one covered parking space (10’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 853 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 4,641 SF Plans date stamped: April 24, 2019 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 18’-4” 16’-6” (block average) (2nd flr): 20’-0” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 9’-10” 3’-0” 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 35’-2” 42’-9” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,853 SF 40% 1,856 SF 40% FAR: 2,819 SF 0.60 FAR 2,824 SF ¹ 0.60 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 30’-0 ” 30'-0" Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review 853 Paloma Avenue 2 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 4,641 SF) + 1100 SF + 239 = 2,824 SF (0.60 FAR) Staff Comments: None Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent prop erties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Andrea Van Voorhis, applicant and architect William and Tara Cilmartin, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 Area Map PROJECT LOCATION 2711 Burlingview Drive Item No. 9c Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits Address: 2711 Burlingview Drive Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Side Setback Variance and Special Permits for building height and declining height envelope for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design APN: 027-261-100 Property Owners: Charles and Diana Williams Lot Area: 10,822 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The site is located on a sloping lot, which slopes upward from front to rear by approximately 28 feet and upward from left to right by 12 feet. The existing two-story house, consisting of a main level and an attached garage below it, contains 2,531 SF of floor area and has three bedrooms. The applicant is proposing an addition to the main dwelling and a second floor addition above it, which would increase the total floor area to 4,099 SF (0.38 FAR) where 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 464 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. In addition, it states that review by the Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from three to five. Three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for this project. The existing attached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions provided where 18’-0” x 18’-0” is the minimum required for an existing garage) and one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2));  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition (C.S. 25.61.020);  Side Setback Variance (5’-1½” proposed on the first and second floors along the left side of the house where 7’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c));  Special Permit for building height between 30’ and 36’ (35’-5” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)); and  Special Permit for declining height envelope (85 SF (2’-7’ x 33’-0”) extends beyond the declining height envelope along the left side of the house) (C.S. 25.26.075 (a)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9c Design Review Study Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, 2711 Burlingview Drive Side Setback Variance and Special Permits 2 2711 Burlingview Drive Lot Area: 10,822 SF Plans date stamped: March 29, 2019 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 14'-7½” ¹ n/a 27’-1½” to porch column 34’-1½” 15'-6" (block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 5'-1½" ¹ 11’-2¼” 5’-1½” to 1st & 2nd floors ² 43’-3¾” 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 63’-5½” n/a 45’-7” 49’-6½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1958 SF 18% 2705 SF 24.9% 4329 SF 40% FAR: 2531 SF 0.23 FAR 4099 SF 0.38 FAR 4563 SF ³ 0.42 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 27'-1” 35’-5” 4 30'-0" DH Envelope: --- special permit required 5 CS 25.26.075 ¹ Existing nonconforming setbacks. ² Side Setback Variance (5’-1½” proposed on the first and second floors along the left side of the house where 7’-0” is the minimum required). ³ (0.32 x 10,822 SF) + 1100 SF = 4,563 SF (0.42 FAR) 4 Special Permit for building height between 30’ and 36’ (35’-5” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed). 5 Special Permit for declining height envelope (85 SF (2’-7” x 33’-0”) extends beyond the declining height envelope along the left side of the house). Staff Comments: The applicant submitted email exchanges with the adjacent neighbors at 2717 Burlingview Drive regarding discussing the proposed project. Several letters and emails were submitted expressing concerns with view blockage from the proposed project. These documents are attached for review. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, 2711 Burlingview Drive Side Setback Variance and Special Permits 3 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Required Findings for 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 property 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 or 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 (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. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager c. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer Charles and Diana Williams, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Special Permit Application Email Exchanges Submitted by Applicant Letters and Email Submitted Expressing Concerns with Proposed Project Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 Area Map 2711 Burlingview Drive - ● - Letters & Emails of Concern Submitted by Neighbors 2711 Burlingview Drive 300’ Radius APN #027.261.100 AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A0.2 EXTERIOR 3-D RENDERINGS 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 2 FRONT ELEVATION RENDERING 1 REAR COURTYARD RENDERING 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 (E) T.O. RIDGE +124.40 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +122.84 +108.72 27'-1"12'-5"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"4'-5"8'-0"14'-8 1/4"11'-2 1/4" D1 W9 W10W1W2W3 D3 W11 W16 2711 4" 12" +/- 5'-1 1/2" T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +128.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 D1 W9 W42 W41W43 W51W52 W50 W48W49 W47 D18 W18 3" 12"35'-5 1/4"3'-9 1/4"8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"11'-9 1/4"9'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"+/-7'-6"2711 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +122.84 +108.72 12'-0"12'-0"5'-1 1/2" 11'-2 1/4" 7'-9" 5'-1 1/2" 4" 12" 9" 12" 3" 12" W19W20W21W22W23W24 27 1/2"45 1/2"27 1/2"45 1/2"AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A3.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATIONS 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION EXISTING 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATION PROPOSEDLEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINE AT FRONT OF RESIDENCE(N) PAINTED WOOD 10X WOOD FASCIA AND CORBELS TYP. (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) VERTICAL SIDING TO BE REMOVED (E) ENTRY STAIRS AND WROUGHT IRON RAILING TO BE DEMOLISHED 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL 5. (N) BUILDING ADDRESS LOCATION SHOW IN PROPOSED ELEVATION. THE TYPE WILL BE SUCH THAT NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW AND EXISTING BUILDING IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FRON THE FRONT OF THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. SAID NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE-HALF INCH STROKE BY FOUR INCHES HIGH, AND SHALL BE EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIR OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCH ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. (N) STONE VENEER BASE TYP. (E) WOOD AND GLASS GARAGE DOOR TO BE REPLACED (N) PAINTED WOOD SHUTTERS TYP. (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK FIRST FLOOR AT FRONT OF RESIDENCE (E) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR AND GARAGE (N) PAINTED WOOD TRELLIS W/ DECORATIVE CORBELS AND 10" BELLY BAND TYP. (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR (N) PAINTED WOOD SIDING 6" EXP TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(N) CONCRETE STAIRS FOR FRONT ENTRY W/ WROUGHT IRON RAILING (E) CHIMNEYS TO REMAIN (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP.DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(E) SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN SHEET NOTES RIGHT SIDE SETBACK AT FRONT OF RESIDENCELEFT SIDE SETBACKLEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINE AT FRONT OF RESIDENCE(E) (E) EGRESS WINDOW BEDROOM 2 W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 45 1/2" EGRESS WINDOW BEDROOM 3 W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 45 1/2" SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE (E) (E) WOOD AND GLASS ENTRY DOOR TO REMAIN (N) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS GARAGE DOOR. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (N) 8X PAINTED WOOD ENTRY COLUMN W/ WOOD BASE AND WOOD CAP TYP. (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR ADDITION 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 (E) T.O. RIDGE +124.40 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.3027'-1"12'-5"9'-9"5'-0"4'-5"8'-0"14'-8 1/4"W9 W16 W17 T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +128.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 W9 W66 W65 35'-5 1/4"3'-9 1/4"8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"11'-9 1/4"9'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"3" 12" 3" 12" W67 AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A3.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION EXISTING 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION PROPOSEDAPPROX. FRONT PROPERTY LINEAPPROX. FRONT PROPERTY LINE(N) 10X WOOD FASCIA AND PAINTED WOOD CORBELS TYP. (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TO REMAIN OVER LIVING ROOM/ KITCHEN SECTION OF RESIDENCE (E) STUCCO TO BE REMOVED TYP. (E) CONCRETE ENTRY STAIRS AND WROUGHT IRON RAILING TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) STONE VENEER TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD COLUMN W/ WOOD BASE AND TRELLIS OVERHEAD (N) PAINTED WOOD SIDING 6" EXP TYP. (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO REMAIN TYP. (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (E) SKYLIGHTS TO REMAIN SHEET NOTES 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL (E) (E)(E) (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A 5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +128.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +122.59 +108.72 W64 W63 W60 W59W61W62 W36 W35 W68 W3412'-0"35'-5 1/4"3'-9 1/4"8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"11'-9 1/4"9'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"17'-6 1/4" +/- W8 W7 27 1/2"45 1/2"27 1/2"45 1/2"12'-0"7'-6"5'-1 1/2" 5'-1 1/2" W38 4" 12" W37 3" 12" 3" 12" 4" 12" D17 T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 (E) T.O. RIDGE +124.40 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +122.59 +108.72 17'-6 1/4"27'-1"12'-5"9'-9"5'-0"4'-5"8'-0"14'-8 1/4"W7W8 W4W5W6 4" 12" 5'-1 1/2" AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A3.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED NORTH (REAR) ELEVATIONS 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH (REAR) ELEVATION EXISTING DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(N) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS DOOR SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR AT REAR OF RESIDENCE (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR SHEET NOTES (E) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR EGRESS WINDOW MASTER BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 45 1/2" 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL RIGHT PROPERTY LINE AT REAR OF RESIDENCELEFT PROPERTY LINE (N) 10X WOOD FASCIA AND PAINTED WOOD CORBELS TYP. (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) STUCCO TO BE REMOVED TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD COLUMN W/ WOOD BASE AND TRELLIS OVERHEAD TYP. (N) STONE VENEER BASE TYP. (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/ SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE (N) 10" PAINTED WOOD BELLY BAND TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD SIDING 6" EXP TYP. (E) CHIMNEY AND TO REMAIN TYP. (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (E) SKYLIGHT TO REMAIN DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPERIGHT PROPERTY LINE AT FRONT OF RESIDENCELEFT PROPERTY LINE(E)(E) EGRESS WINDOW GUEST BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 45 1/2" (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR ADDITION 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +128.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 W54 W53W55W57 W30W31W33W32 W56W58 W45 W44W25W26W28 35'-5 1/4"3'-9 1/4"8'-0"1'-0"8'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"11'-9 1/4"9'-0"9'-8 1/2"4'-11 3/4"W27W29 W46 3" 12"3" 12" 4" 12" 27 1/2"45 1/2"T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +119.98 (E) T.O. RIDGE +124.40 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.3027'-1"12'-5"9'-9"5'-0"4'-5"8'-0"14'-8 1/4"D2 W12 W13 4" 12"4" 12" +/-+/- AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A3.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION EXISTING APPROX. FRONT PROPERTY LINEAPPROX. FRONT PROPERTY LINESHEET NOTES 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED DIVIDED LIGHTS 3. SEE SHEET A5.0 FOR DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE 4. SEE SHEET A9.0 FOR TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL (N) 10X WOOD FASCIA AND PAINTED WOOD CORBELS TYP. (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING OVER LIVING ROOM KITCHEN AND DINING AREA TO REMAIN (E) VERTICAL SIDING TO BE REMOVED (E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN (E) CONCRETE ENTRY STAIRS AND WROUGHT IRON RAILING TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) STONE VENEER BASE TYP. (E) WOOD AND GLASS DOOR TO REMAIN. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (N) PAINTED WOOD SIDING 6" EXP TYP. (E) CHIMNEY AND TO REMAIN (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP. (E) STUCCO EXTERIOR TO BE REMOVED (N) CONCRETE STAIRS FOR FRONT ENTRY WITH WROUGHT IRON RAILING EGRESS WINDOW BEDROOM 1 W/ CLEARANCE OF 27 1/2" X 45 1/2" (N) PAINTED WOOD 10" BELLY BAND TYP. (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOW TYP. SEE A5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE (N) BAY WINDOWS ON FRONT ELEVATION 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 +139.40 T.O. RIDGE 2717 BURLINGVIEW +116.90 T.O. RIDGE 2625 SUMMIT DR.15'-10"6'-8"T.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 +139.40 T.O. RIDGE 2717 BURLINGVIEW +116.90 T.O. RIDGE 2625 SUMMIT DR.15'-10"6'-8"AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A7.0 BURLINGVIEW STREET ELEVATIONS 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 1" = 10'-0"1 STREET ELEVATION EXISTING 1" = 10'-0"2 STREET ELEVATION PROPOSED 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE2625 SUMMIT DRIVE 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE2625 SUMMIT DRIVE 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal DN DN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 +139.40 T.O. RIDGE 2717 BURLINGVIEW 6'-8"AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview_Study1.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A7.1 MASSING STUDY OPTION 1 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 3/32" = 1'-0"1 MASSING ELEVATION OPTION 1 3/32" = 1'-0"2 MASSING PLAN OPTION 1 3 VIEW FROM 2717 BURLINGVIEW TOWARD 2711 BURLINGVIEW 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal DN DN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 +139.40 T.O. RIDGE 2717 BURLINGVIEW 6'-8"AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview_Study2.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A7.2 MASSING STUDY OPTION 2 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 3/32" = 1'-0"1 MASSING ELEVATION OPTION 2 3/32" = 1'-0"2 MASSING PLAN OPTION 2 3 VIEW FROM 2717 BURLINGVIEW TOWARD 2711 BURLINGVIEW 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal DN DN DN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT.O. SLAB GARAGE 102.27 FIRST FL. F.F. +111.98 SECOND FL. F.F. +120.98 AVG. TOC ON BURLINGVIEW +97.30 T.O. RIDGE +132.74 +139.40 T.O. RIDGE 2717 BURLINGVIEW 6'-8"AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A7.3 MASSING STUDY OPTION 3 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 3/32" = 1'-0"1 MASSING ELEVATION OPTION 3 3/32" = 1'-0"2 MASSING PLAN OPTION 3 3 VIEW FROM 2717 BURLINGVIEW TOWARD 2711 BURLINGVIEW 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2711 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal S SS G GG W WW E EE D DD O OO DN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUTILITY LEGEND G S W E WATER METER SEWER CLEAN OUT GAS METER ELECTRICAL METER BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE AREA DRAIN DOWNSPOUT DIRECTION INDICATOR WATER LINE SEWER LINE GAS LINE OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL SERVICE DRAINAGE LINE FENCE B D (E) TREE (E) SHADE BUSH W/ DIAMETER LESS THAN 6" SHRUBBERY ANNUALS (N) TREE SOFTSCAPE CONCRETE LANDSCAPING LEGEND 3" / 12"3" / 12"3" / 12"+/- 4" / 12"3" / 12"3" / 12" E 8' - 7 17/32" +91.90 T.O.C. ELEVATION +138.09 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION E -56' - 0 31/32" +122.02 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION E 3' - 2 13/32" +95.42 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +107.58 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION E 67' - 4 3/4" E 9' - 0 1/2"15'-0"11'-6"20'-0"G W E 118'-5 3/4"+102.69 T.O.C. ELEVATION E 71' - 8 7/8" 7'-0" 16'-11 1/4" S 18'-3 3/4"149'-3 1/4"20' -0" 9 5'-7 3 /4" 7'-0" S 14'-7 1/2"8' -0"15' -0" 2'-0" 5'-1 1/2" 11'-2 1/4" +/- 4" / 12" +/- 4" / 12" +/- 4" / 12" 4" / 12"4" / 12"3" / 12"3" / 12"3" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"34'-1 1/2"44'-2 1/2"55'-6 1/4"41'-3 3/4"+/- 4" / 12"3" / 12" AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 A1.1 PROPOSED SITE/ ROOF PLAN 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 0'8'16'4'1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE/ ROOF PLAN PROPOSED(N) REAR SETBACK TO FIRST FLOORSHEET NOTES 1. FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING INFORMATION SEE L1.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. 2. THE ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPETY LINE. 3. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE-RESISTAVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CBC 705.2. 4. THE EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS WITHIN 5'-0" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CBC TABLE 602. 5. ALL OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALL, BOTH PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED WILL COMPLY WITH 2016 CBC, TABLE 705.8. (N) FIRST FLOOR WALL OUTLINE (N) SECOND FLOOR WALL OUTLINE (N) REAR SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(N) HARSCAPING TO MATCH (E)PROJECT NORTHT RU E NO RT H (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TYP.(N) FRONT SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR (N) CONCRETE FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS BURLINGVIEW DRIVE 2625 SUMMIT DRIVE EXISTING 2-STORY 2717 BURLINGVIEW DRIVE EXISTING 2-STORY F IR S T F L O O R R E A R S E T B A C K L IN E FIRST FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE FRONT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINE(E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SERVING AS UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE WITH DIM. APPROX. 21'-0" X 31'-0" (E) LAWN R E A R P R O P E R T Y L IN E SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE S E C O N D F L O O R R E A R S E T B A C K L IN E LEFT SIDE SETBACK LINE RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) WOOD STAIRS TYP. (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (E) WOOD FENCE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TYP. (E) POWER POLE (E) MANUAL WOOD GATE TYP.(E) FRONT SETBACK TO FIRST FLOORR E A R P R O P E R T Y L IN E W ID T H (E) CHIMNEY CITY RIGHT OF WAY(E) STONE PAVER HARDSCAPING TYP. (E) CHIMNEY 2711 BULINGVIEW DRIVE EXISTING SINGLE STORY RIGHT SIDE PROPERTY LINE DEPTH(E) DIMENSION TO NEAREST STRUCTURE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY (E) DIMENSION TO NEAREST STRUCTURE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY (E) ROLLED-TYPE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN TYP. (E) SKYLIGHTS LEFT SIDE PROPERTY LINE DEPTH(E) 8'-0" WIDE P.G.&E. AND P.T.&T. EASEMENT AT REAR OF PROPERTY (E) WOOD WALL TYP. (E) TREE TO REMAIN TYP. (E) DIRT PATH (E) 2'-0" WIDE ANCHOR EASEMENT 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal DN DN DN UP DN OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOFAMILY ROOM KITCHEN DINING ROOM LIVING ROOM FOYER STAIRS BEDROOM 2BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 1 HALL BATH 1 MASTER CLOSET MASTER BATH MASTER BEDROOM COURTYARD FRONT PORCH E 8' - 7 17/32" +91.90 T.O.C. ELEVATION +138.09 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION E -56' - 0 31/32" +122.02 REAR PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION E 3' - 2 13/32" +95.42 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +107.58 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION E 67' - 4 3/4" E 9' - 0 1/2"15'-0"11'-6"G W E 118'-5 3/4"+102.69 T.O.C. ELEVATION E 71' - 8 7/8" 7'-0" S 149'-3 1/4"9 5'-7 3 /4" 7'-0" S8' -0"15' -0" 2'-0" CLOSET (E) TREE (E) SHADE BUSH W/ DIAMETER LESS THAN 6" SHRUBBERY ANNUALS (N) TREE SOFTSCAPE CONCRETE LANDSCAPING LEGEND AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 rob@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2019 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com No. Date Description C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1617_Williams_2711_Burlingview\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Williams_2711_Burlingview.rvt3/8/2019 Response to Comments1 L1.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 2711 Burlingview Drive Chuck & Diana Williams 2711 Burlingview Drive 027-261-100 (650) 295-7786 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 WILLIAMS 3/8/2019 0'8'16'4'1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN (E) LANDSCAPE TO BE REHABILITATED 1. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE- THESE PLANS COMPLY WITH THE CITERIA OF THE WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN. 2. ALL LANDSCAPING IN REAR OF PROPERTY IS EXISTING TO REMAIN WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NEW HARDSCAPING BEHIND MASTER BEDROOM. SHEET NOTES (N) STONE PAVER HARDSCAPE TO MATCH (E) (E) SOFTSCAPE AREA IN REAR YARD TO REMAIN TYP.PROJECT NORTHT RU E NO RT H (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SERVING AS UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE WITH DIM. APPROX. 21'-0" X 31'-0" (N) CONCRETE STEPS ALONG LEFT PROPERTY LINE TO MATCH (E) (N) CONCRETE FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS BURLINGVIEW DRIVE F IR S T F L O O R R E A R S E T B A C K L IN E FIRST FLOOR FRONT SETBACK LINE FRONT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINE(E) LAWN R E A R P R O P E R T Y L IN E LEFT SIDE SETBACK LINE RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINE(E) WOOD STAIRS TYP. (E) WOOD FENCE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TYP. (E) POWER POLE (E) MANUAL WOOD GATE TYP. R E A R P R O P E R T Y L IN E W ID T H CITY RIGHT OF WAY2711 BULINGVIEW DRIVE EXISTING SINGLE STORY RIGHT SIDE PROPERTY LINE DEPTH(E) ROLLED-TYPE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER TO REMAIN TYP. (E) 8'-0" WIDE P.G.&E. AND P.T.&T. EASEMENT AT REAR OF PROPERTY (E) WOOD WALL TYP. (E) DIRT PATH (E) 2'-0" WIDE ANCHOR EASEMENT (E) SHADE BUSH TYP. (E) 7", 24" TREES TO REMAIN (E) SHURBBERY TYP. (E) 24" ELM TREE TO REMAIN (E) 38" ELM TREE TO REMAIN (E) 30" ELM TREE TO REMAIN (E) 30" ELM TREE TO REMAIN (E) 24" ELM TREE TO REMAIN (E) 18" TREE TO REMAIN (E) 30" AND 20" TREES TO REMAIN (E) 10" TREES TO REMAIN (E) 5", 7", 10" TREES TO REMAIN (E) 4", 4", 5", 8" TREES TO REMAIN (E) 4", 4", 5", 10" TREES TO REMAIN (E) 4", 4", 5", 12" TREES TO REMAIN (E) 12" TREE TO REMAIN (E) 18" TREE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO REMAIN (E) 10" TREE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO REMAIN (E) 4" TREE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO REMAIN (E) 10" TREE ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTY TO REMAIN (E) 8" TREE TO REMAIN 1 Issue Date Description 9/6/2017 Planning Department Submittal PROJECT LOCATION 1 & 45 Adrian Court Item No. 9d Design Review Study City of Burlingame Environmental Review, Design Review, Density Bonus and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a New 7-story, 265-unit Mixed Use Residential Development Address: 1 & 45 Adrian Court Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 Request: Application for Environmental Review, Design Review, Density Bonus and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 7-story, 265-unit mixed use residential development. Applicant: SummerHill Apartment Communities, Elaine Breeze Property Owners: Helf Investments (1 Adrian Court) and Nicolet Family Partners (45 Adrian Court) Architect: Seidel Architects, Alex Seidel APN: 025-169-350 (1 Adrian Court) and 025-169-999 (45 Adrian Court) Lot Area: 2.83 acres (123,275 SF) General Plan: Live/Work Zoning: RRMU (North Rollins Road Mixed Use) Adjacent Development: Warehouse, commercial and industrial buildings and auto storage lot Current Use: 1 Adrian Court (Sprint Communications); 45 Adrian Court (vacant) Proposed Use: 265-unit mixed use residential development Allowable Use: Mixed use developments are permitted Environmental Review: Environmental review of this project is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the proposed project, it is anticipated that the project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, as a Class 32 urban infill development. Section 15332 of the 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. The City will be entering into a contract with an environmental consultant to prepare and document the analysis, findings, and determination that the proposed project will have been reviewed and in compliance with the CEQA, pursuant to Section 15332 of the 2016 CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The scope of work includes analysis of potential transportation/traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. If it is determined, through the analysis process, that additional CEQA review is required (such as an Initial Study), the scope of work will be revised accordingly. General Plan and North Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) Zone Interim Standards: In January 2019, the City adopted a new General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The new General Plan includes a new Live/Work designation in the northerly one‐third of the Rollins Road corridor, corresponding to an approximate ½ mile distance from the Millbrae BART/Caltrain Intermodal Station. Item No. 9d Design Review Study New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 2 The City also adopted the North Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) Zone Interim Standards consistent with the vision of the newly adopted General Plan. The purpose of the RRMU Zone is to implement the General Plan Live/Work land use designation by creating and sustaining a new neighborhood of creative live/work units and developments, small-scale support commercial businesses, and other employment uses within easy walking distance to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. The RRMU Development Standards are attached for reference. Project Summary: The project site is located at the southwestern corner of Adrian Road and Adrian Court. The proposed project includes merging two parcels, 1 and 45 Adrian Court, to create a new 2.83-acre site. 1 Adrian Court is occupied by Sprint Communications and 45 Adrian Court’s building is currently vacant. Overhead transmission lines run north/south over the western portion of the property. One transmission tower is located in the northwest corner of the site and will remain with the project. Surrounding uses include Public Storage and Goodwill to the south, Flying Foods to the west, multi‐ tenant commercial buildings to the north, and U.S. Highway 101 to the east. The applicant is proposing to construct a new 265-unit mixed use residential development with 3,073 SF of commercial space on the ground floor; all existing buildings, paving and landscaping would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The project consists of two, 3 to 5‐story buildings on top of a shared two‐story podium, for a total of seven stories (79’-0” building height). The ground floor along Adrian Court will consist of a pedestrian plaza leading to two entrance lobbies, residential units, a leasing office, fitness room and secured bicycle storage rooms for residents. The ground floor space fronting Adrian Road will consist of 3,073 SF of commercial/office space. The second floor will contain similar spaces, including upper lobbies, residential units, and additional amenity spaces (co-working space, workshop and Wi-Fi lounge). The ground floor and second floor portions of the building fronting Adrian Court and Adrian Road screen the two-level parking garage. Two courtyards, a pool, club room and residential units are proposed on the third level (above the parking garage). The fourth through seventh levels will contain residential units, with two roof decks proposed on the seventh level. The parking garage, which is located at-grade, provides 302 parking spaces for the residential units and 13 spaces for the commercial space, for a total of 315 parking spaces (project requires a minimum of 312 parking spaces). Vehicular access into the garage is provided from both Adrian Court and Adrian Road. The residential units would include three studios (1%), 194 one-bedroom units (73%), and 68 two-bedroom units (26%). Unit sizes range from 589 to 1,342 SF for the typical single level units, averaging approximately 840 SF across all units. Please refer to the floor plans and unit plans to review configurations proposed for each type of unit. An approximately 0.4‐acre publically accessible, privately maintained park is provided at the south end of the project site, which will include a dog park with separate fenced‐in play areas for large and small dogs, a bocce court, seating area, a flat turf play area, and wave fields designed for relaxation and play. A landscaped Paseo, featuring a statement entry portal, is provided to draw pedestrians from Adrian Court towards the Park. These spaces will be maintained by the project, with easements to provide access to the public. The application also includes installation of a new crosswalk with disabled-accessible ramps at the intersection of Adrian Court and Adrian Road. A modified terminus of Adrian Court to improve pedestrian access and safety in the right‐of‐ way at adjacent 50 Adrian Court is also being provided. Please refer to sheet C2.0 for additional details. New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 3 The RRMU Interim Zoning includes “tiered” development standards requiring community benefits to be included in projects in order to achieve the highest residential densities and building heights. The applicant has elected to develop consistent with “Tier 3” development standards, which is the highest tier. Projects using Tier 3 standards shall provide at least three community benefits (see Community Benefits section in staff report for additional information). Planning staff has determined that the proposed project complies with the Tier 3 development standards. For a more detailed description of the proposed project, please refer to the attached “Project Description”, submittal letter dated January 11, 2019, and “Adrian Court Fact Sheet” submitted by the applicant. The following applications are requested for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new 7-story, 265-unit mixed use residential development (265 residential units and 3,730 square feet of commercial/office space on ground floor) (C.S. 25.39.060);  Density Bonus to allow 67 additional units over the density permitted for Tier 3 developments (C.S. 25.63.020 (a)(1)); and  Vesting Tentative Parcel Map to combine two parcels (1 and 45 Adrian Court) into one single parcel. Design Review: The purpose of this design review study meeting is to provide initial comments on design elements as they relate to the proposed project. The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: 1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and 2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and 3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and 4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and 5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and 6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include plaster (with a sand float finish), smooth plaster with reveals, concrete, porcelain and ceramic tile (at the ground floor), painted metal panel siding, painted corrugated metal siding and aluminum siding with a wood grain finish. The proposed materials are presented on sheet A3.6; a materials board will be available for review at the meeting. New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 4 Painted metal awnings are proposed along the ground floor and upper levels of the building. Vinyl windows (Endurance Series by VPI Quality Windows) are proposed for the project, with the exception of the ground floor which will contain an aluminum storefront system with glazing. Information and specifications for the proposed VPI vinyl windows are included in the attachments. To better help visualize the proposed project, perspectives of the proposed project are provided on sheets A0.0, A0.5.1 and A0.5.2. For additional information with respect to the proposed design approach, please refer to the Project Description submitted by the applicant (attached). Community Benefits: To provide an incentive for development, and in partnership with the City to provide community benefits that would not otherwise be created, the Planning Commission may grant increased FAR, density, and/or height in return for provision of specific community benefits, if doing so is in the City’s interest and will help implement the General Plan and further, if these benefits cannot be realized without granting increased FAR, height, and/or density. The RRMU Interim Zoning Standards includes “tiered” development standards requiring community benefits to be included in projects in order to achieve the highest residential densities and building heights The developer has elected to develop consistent with Tier 3 development standards. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 3 projects if it determines that the project includes at least three community benefits; at least one of the community benefits must be an affordable and workforce housing objective. Please refer to the attached North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone for a complete list of community benefits. The developer is proposing to provide the following four community benefits (where a minimum of three are required):  Affordable Housing – Section 4.1.ii - The project qualifies for and intends to utilize a density bonus in compliance with the City’s affordable housing incentives by including 38 below-market rate units, 14.3% of the total project. These units will be for affordable Low Income Households (80% of San Mateo County’s Area Median Income (AMI)) for 55 years.  Pedestrian Amenities – Section 4.b – A publicly accessible paseo connecting Adrian Court to the publically accessible park is proposed as part of the project. As required, the paseo exceeds the minimum requirements of the RRMU Interim Standards. The paseo features decorative paving, an architectural entry feature, and seating.  Public Plaza Beyond Minimum – Section 4.c - The project includes an approximately 3,700 square foot publically accessible plaza, well in excess of the 2,250 square foot minimum. The plaza includes a fountain, landscaping outdoor seating, and other amenities as required.  Publically Accessible Park Space - Section 4.j – The project includes an approximately 17,500 SF publically accessible, privately maintained park. The park design includes dog areas for both small and large dogs, a bocce court, dining area, turf play area, storm water garden, and “wave” field for relaxation. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (sheets L1 through L7). The RRMU interim standards require that for Tier 3 projects, 20% of the site be landscaped. The project proposes 20.3% site landscaping and therefore complies with the site landscaping requirements. Landscaping is provided throughout the site, including in the areas between the building and property lines, within the pedestrian plaza, courtyards above the garage, and within the public park area. New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 5 The two courtyards on the podium level above the parking garage contain amenities for residents. Amenities include seating and gathering areas with lounges, chairs and tables, a pool and spa with lounge seating, a fir e pit, an outdoor kitchen, landscaping, and tables and chairs. Please see sheet L4 for a detailed plan of the courtyard areas. The two rooftop terraces on the seventh level contain seating and gathering areas with lounges, chairs and tables, and some landscaping. Please see sheet L5 for a detailed plan of the rooftop terraces. The publically accessible, privately maintained park includes a dog park for both small and large dogs, a bocce court, dining seating areas, turf play area, storm water garden, and “wave” field for relaxation. Please see sheet L2 for a detailed plan of the park area. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multi-family residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-sized, non-fruit tree for every 2,000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of 41 landscape trees are required on site. The proposed landscape plan indicates that approximately 80 new trees, ranging in size from 36 to 48-inch box, will be planted throughout the site. Some of the trees are proposed in the courtyard areas above the garage and on the rooftop terraces, and therefore would be provided in containers and not in the ground. A proposed plant palette is provided on sheet L6. A total of 11 street trees, four along Adrian Road and seven along Adrian Court, are proposed to be planted as part of this project. The applicant has provided a Tree Report, prepared by HortScience/Bartlett Consulting and dated January 5, 2019, for the two parcels that would make up the project site. The report notes that there are a total of 36 within the project site boundaries, two of which are protected size (19-inch diameter Coast redwood and 23-inc diameter Monterey pine). The report notes that 34 of the existing trees are in poor and fair condition. Based on the assessment and review of the proposed plans, HortScience/Bartlett Consulting recommends removing all of the existing trees on site. The City Arborist notes that a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division will be required to remove the two protected-size trees and that a Permit would only be issued upon approval of the proposed project. There are five Bailey acacia trees, one of which is protected-size, located off-site but adjacent to the project site that could have their canopies and roots impacted by the proposed construction. Therefore, tree protection measures are recommended. Off-Street Parking: Parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit for the residential portion of the project and a parking ratio of 1:300 SF for the ground floor commercial space (assumes office use). Zoning Code Section 25.39.050 of the recently adopted RRMU zoning district provides reduced residential parking standards given its proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit station. In the RRMU District, the minimum parking requirement is 1 space for each studio or one-bedroom unit, 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each unit containing 3 or more bedrooms; no guest parking is required. The proposed project includes 3 studio, 194 one-bedroom units and 68 two-bedroom units, and therefore requires a total of 299 spaces for the residential use. Based on the office ratio of 1:300 SF, 13 parking spaces are required for the 3,730 SF ground floor office use. Therefore, a total of 313 parking spaces are required for the proposed mixed use project. The project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements by providing 315 parking spaces. New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 6 Parking is provided in an above-grade, two-level parking garage located behind residential units, amenity spaces and the commercial space fronting Adrian Court and Adrian Road. Residents will have access to 289 resident parking spaces via a secured entrance at the end of Adrian Court. Residents and their guests will have access to 13 additional spaces in the ground level garage via a second unsecured entrance on Adrian Road. Users of the Commercial/Office space will gain access to 13 garage stalls serving this space from Adrian Road. Bicycle parking is provided in secured rooms on the ground floor within the building (133 bicycles) and throughout the site (14 bicycles). Density Bonus/Below Market Rate (BMR) Units: This application includes a request to utilize the Density Bonus Ordinance, consistent with the provisions set forth in Government Code Sections 65915 through 65919, which is the State Density Bonus Law. The proposed project includes 38 of the total units as low-income units. In San Mateo County the “Low Income” category is defined as households with an income that is 80% of “Area Median Income” (AMI). The 2018 San Mateo County AMI is $82,900 for a single-person household, $94,700 for a two-person household, $106,550 for a three-person household, and $118,400 for a four-person household. Consistent with the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, the applicant proposes to provide thirty-eight (38) below-market rate units for Low Income households making 80% of San Mateo County’s AMI in order to obtain a density bonus of 33.77%, or 67 additional units, over the density permitted for Tier 3 developments. The calculation of the density bonus is as follows:  The total lot size of the project is 2.83 acres. As a Tier 3 project, the RRMU Zone allows for a maximum density of 70 DU/acre, which would permit a total of 198.10 units prior to the application of a density bonus (2.83 acres × 70 du/ac = 198.1 units).  The applicant seeks a density bonus of 33.77% to allow for a total of 265 units. 198.10 units + 66.90 units = 265 units 66.90 units ÷ 198.10 units = 33.77%  According to the Density Bonus Ordinance, Code Section 25.63.020 (a)(1), the City shall grant a twenty (20) percent density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least ten (10) percent of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to Lower Income Households. For each one (1) percent increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units, a development will receive an additional one and one-half (1.5) percent density bonus up to thirty-five (35) percent of the maximum residential density. To qualify for a density bonus of 33.77%, the applicant is proposing to designate 19.18% of the units (thirty-eight units) as below-market rate units for Low Income Households making 80% of San Mateo County’s AMI. Percentage of Low Income Units: 38 units ÷ 198.10 units = 19.18% Percentage of Low Income Units greater than 10%: 19.18% – 10% = 9.18% Density Bonus Units Permitted: 20% + (9.18% × 1.5) = 33.77% Whereas the City’s Density Bonus ordinance requires restricting units for 30 years, the applicant is voluntarily agreeing to restrict these units for 55 years (condition of approval will be added). On April 1, 2019 the City Council adopted Residential Impact Fees to mitigate the impact of new residential development on affordable housing. The ordinance becomes effective on June 1, 2019. This development New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 7 application was submitted and deemed complete prior to the adoption of the residential impact fees. However, the provision of the affordable units is consistent with the “in-lieu” option provided in the ordinance as an alternative to fees, and therefore would otherwise satisfy the requirements of the ordinance. The following table provides a summary of the project’s compliance with the RRMU Zone Interim Standards. For more information and details on development requirements, please refer to the attached RRMU Zone Interim Standards. 1 & 45 Adrian Court Lot Area: 2.83 acres (123,275 SF) Plans date stamped: May 7, 2019 Proposed Tier 3 Projects Maximum Allowed/ Minimum Required Density - Residential Units: 93.6 du/ac ¹ 265 units 70 du/ac 198 units Density - Commercial Space: 0.03 FAR (3,763 SF) 1.0 FAR (123,275 SF) Proposed Tier 3 Projects Maximum Allowed/ Minimum Required Building Height: 7 stories 79’-0” 7 stories 80’-0” Setbacks Front (Adrian Ct): Side (Interior): Side (Adrian Rd): Rear: Abutting Light Industrial: 22’-5” from edge of curb 15’-0” 10’-0” to wing wall/15’-0” to building 54’-0” 15’-0” 15’-0” from edge of curb 10’-0” 10’-0” 20’-0” 15’-0” Lot Coverage: 66.1% ² (48.4% with inclusion of courtyard on podium level) 60% 73,965 SF ¹ Consistent with the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, the applicant proposes to provide thirty-eight (38) below-market rate units for Low Income households to obtain a density bonus of 33.77%, or 67 additional units, over the density permitted for Tier 3 developments. ² Total lot coverage, including common open space on podium level, is 81,502 SF (66.1%). However, lot coverage may be increased if additional useable common open space equivalent to the additional lot coverage (in square feet) is provided on a podium-level landscaped courtyard or plaza. Common useable courtyards proposed on the podium level measure 21,719 SF in area (7,537 SF additional lot coverage/podium level courtyard minimum required). New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 8 Proposed Tier 3 Projects Maximum Allowed/ Minimum Required Open Space per Unit: 30,715 SF (common) 3,736 SF (plaza) 21,062 SF (park & paseo) 5,989 SF (private) 59,552 SF / 265 units = 224 SF per unit 125 SF per unit = 33,125 SF may be private, common or both Landscape Coverage: 20.3 % of site 25,048 SF 20% of site 24,655 SF Pedestrian Plaza/Public Space: 3,736 SF pedestrian plaza 21,062 SF public open space 1,500 SF Mid-Block Plaza: 60’ x 60’ 100% open to sky 15’ x 15’ 50% open to sky Number of Parking Spaces: 315 spaces Residential: 3 studio units x 1.0 = 3 194 1-bdr units x 1.0 = 194 68 2-bdr units x 1.5 = 102 Commercial: 3,701 SF @ 1 space/300 SF = 13 Total Spaces Required = 312 Parking Stall Dimensions: 8’-6” x 17’-0” 8’-0” x 17’-0” Aisle Dimensions: 24’-0” 24’-0” for 90-degree parking Driveway Width: 18’-0” and 23’-9” Parking areas with more than 30 vehicle spaces shall have two 12'-0" wide driveways or one 18’-0” wide driveway Bicycle Parking: 133 resident (in building) 14 guest (outdoor) 133 (0.5 spaces/unit) Electric Vehicle Charging Stalls: 16 spaces (5% of all spaces) 16 spaces (5% of all spaces) New 265-Unit Mixed Use Residential Development 1 & 45 Adrian Court 9 Staff Comments: The applicant held an informational neighborhood meeting on April 23, 2019 (see attached meeting invitation). Property owners within 500 feet of the project site (including properties in Millbrae within the radius), as well as additional owners located just outside of the radius, were invited. The applicant provided an overview of the proposed project and was available to answer questions about the project. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should comment on the design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review. The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: 1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and 2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and 3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and 4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and 5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and 6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Elaine Breeze, applicant Attachments: RRMU Zone Map Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Authorization from Property Owner Project Description, dated May 7, 2019 Letter Describing Compliance with Tier 3 Requirements and Request for Density Bonus, dated January 11, 2019 Adrian Court Fact Sheet, dated April 23, 2019 Informational Neighborhood Meeting Invitation, dated April 8, 2019 Tree Inventory Report, HortScience/Barlett Consulting, dated January 5, 2019 Specifications for VPI Quality Windows, Endurance Series North Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) Zone – Interim Standards Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed May 3, 2019 Area Map 19 Project Site 1 & 45 Adrian Court 1 5/7/2019 Adrian Court Project Description 1 and 45 Adrian Court (APNs 025‐169‐350 and 025‐169‐999) SummerHill Apartment Communities proposes to develop a vibrant, mixed‐use apartment community within the 2019 Burlingame General Plan’s newly designated Live/Work area and the North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zoning District in the City of Burlingame (City). The project is located within easy walking distance to the multi‐modal Millbrae Transit Center where future residents will be able to access job centers in San Francisco, the Peninsula, and beyond. With distinctive amenities, public spaces, and timeless architecture designed to complement the neighborhood now and in the future, the project will be an exceptional addition to the City and the region as a whole. Location & Setting The project site is located at 1 and 45 Adrian Court and will be a 2.83‐acre assemblage of two parcels. The site is located at the southwestern corner of Adrian Road and Adrian Court. Surrounding uses include the Public Storage and Goodwill Enterprises buildings to the south, a car storage lot (future Facebook bus parking lot) and an industrial catering company to the west, multi‐tenant commercial buildings to the north, and U.S. Highway 101 to east. The project site is less than one‐half mile from the Millbrae Transit Center, which is served by Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and “last mile” shuttles. Robust transit service includes the Caltrain Baby Bullet, 15‐ minute weekday headways on BART, the SamTrans Route ECR line, and commute.org shuttles. Private employer shuttles (Facebook, Google, Genentech) also operate at the Transit Center. 1 Adrian Court’s approximately 30,000 square foot building was constructed in 1974 and is occupied by Sprint Communications. 45 Adrian Court’s approximately 19,200 square foot building was constructed in 1970 and is currently vacant. The site is generally flat with approximately 88% being impervious surface comprised of buildings or paved surface parking. Chain link fencing currently separates the site from adjacent properties, with barbed wire topped fencing separating the site from the car storage lot to the west. Overhead transmission lines run north/south over the western portion of the property. One transmission tower is located in the northwest corner of the site within an existing drainage and tower line right‐of‐way easement. There are also several local power lines and power poles on the western portion of the site. There are 36 existing trees, including two heritage size trees. Five‐foot wide integral sidewalks front the public streets with limited handicap accessibility. 2 5/7/2019 Design Approach Adrian Court will be a new 265‐unit residential mixed‐use community in the North Rollins Road Mixed Use District in Burlingame. In keeping with the low rise, industrial character of the surrounding neighborhood, the community will reflect a contemporary, urban feel. The buildings will establish a comfortable neighborhood character with a two story, pedestrian oriented base facing the street frontages. Articulated residential units rise above the base, and setbacks occur at a number of locations at the upper levels providing scale to the buildings and an appropriate termination at the top. Parking for the project is located in an “encased” two level parking garage that is wrapped with active pedestrian‐oriented uses facing the streets. In this way, the parking is entirely screened from public view. The two 3 to 5‐story buildings on a shared two‐story podium address the street frontages with an activated and pedestrian friendly ground level. Approximately 3,700 square feet of commercial space is located facing the highly visible Adrian Road frontage and turns the corner onto Adrian Court. A plaza is located at this corner and provides a pleasant, visible entry into the commercial space. This façade will be highly transparent with continuous storefront revealing the interior uses, which could be showrooms or offices. The residential building above steps back from Adrian Road at both the third and fifth floors, providing a “tiered” effect for the building when viewed from Highway 101 and other visible vantage points. As one proceeds to the west along Adrian Court, a series of resident amenity spaces present themselves to the street, including a fitness center, bike center, and a leasing office. These spaces are primarily tall retail‐like spaces with expansive storefront glazing allowing views into these active spaces. A warm toned ceramic tile is the other primary exterior material in this location. Projected steel awnings and attractive signage will provide additional detail in this area. A pedestrian plaza located along Adrian Court leads to the two primary building lobbies. This publically accessible plaza will be attractively landscaped with seating areas and a central water element. A feature wall of perforated Cor‐Ten steel will ascend with the stair at the south side of the courtyard. To the west of the pedestrian plaza, residential dwellings face Adrian Court, as well as the Paseo that extends west from the cul‐de‐sac termination of Adrian Court. These two‐story dwellings feature street side entries and large windows conceived to complete the character of the double‐height pedestrian friendly building base. The Paseo provides a new landscaped pedestrian connection that will lead to a public park at the west side of the site. The park will provide significant new amenities for both the residents and the public alike. It will feature seating areas, a bocce court, a landscaped bio‐retention feature, an area of sculpted mounds for sitting, and a dog park, among other pleasant activities. The park is overlooked by the resident amenity courtyard at the third level where a swimming pool and clubroom are located, as well as outdoor cooking, dining, and social areas. Additional roof terraces at the 7th level of each of the two buildings will feature dramatic views of surrounding landscape and provide additional space for outdoor relaxation and socializing. The architectural character of the community incorporates a variety of materials, including composite wood siding, an enhanced tile base, plaster, and metal panels intended to create a neighborhood 3 5/7/2019 character that will both elevate the immediate surroundings, and be compatible with existing surrounding development. Project Summary Apartments  The apartment buildings will contain a total of 265 units including three studios (1%), 194 1‐ bedroom units (73%), and 68 2‐bedroom units (26%). Unit sizes range from 589 to 1,342 square feet for the typical single level units, averaging approximately 840 square feet across all units.  Resident community amenities include a Club Room programmed for resident gatherings and entertaining guests, a fully‐equipped Fitness Studio, Workshop, Co‐Working space, and Wi‐Fi Lounge, and a Leasing Center to serve current and future residents.  A central main courtyard between the West and East Buildings includes a resort‐style pool, spa, cabanas, multiple fire pits, and dining area in the western portion. An outdoor kitchen, fireplace, dining, lounging and gathering areas extend to the eastern portion of the courtyard, connecting to the pedestrian plaza stair and bridge.  The East Building will have an enclosed courtyard with amenities, including lounge seating, fire pits, outdoor bar top counters, a ping pong table, and landscaping.  Rooftop terraces will be located at the top floor of each building featuring fire pits, game areas, trellises, green roof planting, and other amenities to complement their location.  315 automobile parking spaces, including 289 spaces in a secured garage area for residents, plus an additional 13 stalls for residential visitors in an unsecured garage area accessed from Adrian Road.  133 secured bicycle parking spaces in two ground‐level secured bicycle rooms and 14 outdoor bicycle parking spaces around the building.  All units will include high quality, Class A interiors. All units will be equipped with in‐unit washers and dryers, and many courtyard units will have private patios or decks. Contemporary finishes will include quartz stone countertops, European‐style cabinets, stainless steel appliances, and individually controlled HVAC in each unit. Commercial/Office  The commercial/office space consists of approximately 3,700 square feet of two‐story volume freeway fronting space designed to complement the adjacent commercial uses on Adrian Road and accommodate an office or commercial use.  13 designated parking stalls in garage with direct access from the garage via Adrian Road  Utilities separately metered from residential uses. Public Open Space Consistent with the 2019 Burlingame General Plan, Adrian Court will provide several publicly accessible open spaces, including a Park, Pedestrian Plaza, Paseo, and Corner Plaza detailed below: Project Description SummerHill Apartment Communities – Adrian Court 4 5/7/2019  An approximately 0.4‐acre Park, which will include a dog park with separate fenced‐in play areas for large and small dogs, a bocce court, seating area, a flat turf play area, and wave fields designed for relaxation and play.  A Pedestrian Plaza, including a water feature acting as a focal point, architectural wall, plantings, seating, lighting and bicycle parking. The 3,700 square foot plaza is designed to serve as a gathering place for residents, visitors, and the public located mid‐block along Adrian Court.  A landscaped Paseo featuring a statement entry portal to draw pedestrians from Adrian Court towards the Park. It also will include enhanced paving, benches, and lighting. These spaces will be maintained by the project, with easements to provide access to the public. Public Street Frontage Design & Improvements Adrian Court will provide attractive, welcoming, and interactive spaces along its Adrian Court and Adrian Road frontages consistent with the RRMU District, utilizing large amenity/planter zones, generously sized street tree wells, abundant bicycle parking, and large sidewalks to encourage walking and bicycle riding. These improvements will include the following:  A 12‐foot wide pedestrian realm on Adrian Road including 7‐foot wide separated sidewalks and 5‐foot wide planting areas and tree wells  A 10‐foot wide pedestrian realm on Adrian Court including a 7‐foot wide separated sidewalk, 4‐foot wide planting areas and tree wells  Street trees will be 48” box size with additional landscaping provided between the new sidewalk and the building  A new crosswalk with handicap ramps at Adrian Court and Adrian Drive  A modified terminus of Adrian Court to improve pedestrian access and safety in the right‐of‐ way at adjacent 50 Adrian Court Public access easements will be offered to implement these improvements. Pedestrian Access & Circulation The project will provide multiple entry points for residents and guests along Adrian Court, Adrian Road, the Pedestrian Plaza, Paseo, and a southern perimeter path. The main pedestrian access to the community will be the Pedestrian Plaza, where residents and visitors will enter the building’s lobby, leasing office, or the podium courtyard via a Grand Stair. Project Description SummerHill Apartment Communities – Adrian Court 5 5/7/2019 Residents of the ground level units will have direct access to the Paseo and sidewalk from their front doors. Users of the commercial/office space will have pedestrian access to Adrian Court via the Corner Plaza. Pedestrian Plaza, Paseo, and Park users will access those portions of the project from the improved sidewalks along Adrian Court. Vehicular Access & Parking Vehicular access into the community will be provided from both Adrian Court and Adrian Road. The project is served by a 2‐story at‐grade 315‐space garage. Residents will have access to 289 resident parking spaces via a secured entrance at the end of Adrian Court. Residents and their guests will have access to 113 additional spaces in the ground level garage via a second unsecured entrance on Adrian Road. Users of the Commercial/Office space will gain access to 13 garage stalls serving this space from Adrian Road. The project’s proposed parking is consistent with the RRMU Zoning. Resident bicycle users will gain access to the 133 bicycle parking spaces contained in the project’s two ground floor access‐controlled Bicycle Rooms fronting Adrian Court. Visitors and users of the Office/Commercial space will be able to park their bicycles in any of the 14 bicycle parking spaces provided around the project. Community Amenities & Landscaping SummerHill envisions a timeless, landmark community with high quality amenities to suit a contemporary lifestyle. As noted above, the preliminary program for the community landscaping includes courtyards, pedestrian walkways and paseos, and landscaping throughout, coalescing the residential components of the project into an active community. The project will include over 100 new trees planted in the public tree wells and landscaped areas, the publically accessible park, on the resident podium and rooftop decks. The majority of trees planted at grade will be 48‐inch box size. Sustainability & Environmental Design The project will provide a range of forward‐thinking benefits to residents and the Burlingame community. SummerHill plans to include a number of features that support the City’s environmental goals, such as electric vehicle charging stations, electric bicycle charging stations, convenient bicycle parking and amenities, an on‐site Co‐Working Space and Wi‐Fi Lounge to support telecommuting, and water‐conserving landscaping and irrigation systems. In addition, the project is located within convenient walking distance of the Millbrae Transit Center, shopping, restaurants, and the new publicly accessible park to be constructed as part of the project. The plant palette is primarily native and drought tolerant. Turf areas in the current design are limited to the publically accessible park’s turf play area and wave field. Planted areas will be watered with a “smart” irrigation controller designed to make efficient use of water based on current conditions. SummerHill will also install “purple” irrigation lines to connect to recycled water should public recycled water service become available in the future. The project will be constructed in compliance with the new 2020 California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24). Project Description SummerHill Apartment Communities – Adrian Court 6 5/7/2019 Residential windows, wall and flooring assemblies will meet STC requirements outlined in the new Burlingame General Plan to mitigate for exterior noise impacts generated by vehicles traveling on US Highway 101 and aircraft utilizing San Francisco International Airport. Impacts to indoor air quality generated by traffic emissions from US Highway 101 and other sources will be mitigated by incorporating mechanical ventilation and air filtration systems (MERV filters) for fresh air supply as necessary to comply with the applicable laws, regulations, and policies. These would be installed either in centralized units at the roof levels or in individual units. The building foundation system will include a mat or spread footing design supported on improved soil. Ground improvement will be achieved utilizing drilled displacement sand‐cement (DDSC) columns as recommended based on the preliminary geotechnical investigation of the project site. This design approach will address existing geologic and geotechnical conditions on site including soft “Bay Mud” underlying the site, potentially liquefiable soil, and shallow groundwater. Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessments were conducted for the project site. Based on soil vapor analytical results, SummerHill will coordinate with the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health to conduct soil aeration and/or limited soil excavation as recommended. A Construction Management Plan (CMP) with a Health and Safety Plan will be prepared prior to construction and all necessary permits obtained. Utilities, Storm Water Quality Management & Fire Protection All proposed public utilities, grading, drainage and site improvements will be designed and constructed in accordance with the City’s standards. The following public utility connections and improvements are proposed as part of the project:  Storm water will be retained and treated on site as required to meet municipal stormwater permit requirements (NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit Section C.3). SummerHill proposes to treat 100% of the storm water runoff with low impact development (LID) treatment measures. Currently, only 12% of the site is pervious surface and its stormwater runoff is not treated on site. SummerHill proposes to increase the amount of pervious surface on site to approximately 18%, and to treat 100% of the run‐off on site. When complete, 1.88 acres of the project will drain through the existing storm drain system to the west of the project, while 0.95 acres of the project will drain through the existing system located in Adrian Road. There is an existing 140‐foot storm drainage and tower line right of way easement that encumbers a portion of the western area of the parcel. The proposed project will offer equivalent storage through grading or a combination of grading and oversized storm drain facilities to avoid having an impact on this area.  Electric service for the project will connect to an existing overhead line near the northwestern corner of the project via a new riser pole. The existing overhead utility lines on the site will be placed underground to the extent feasible.  Gas service for the building will connect into the existing four‐inch gas line in Adrian Road.  Domestic water, fire service, and irrigation service for the apartments will connect to an existing 8‐inch water line in Adrian Road. There are currently two fire hydrants on Adrian Court and one north of the project on Adrian Road. One of the hydrants on the project’s frontage is proposed Project Description SummerHill Apartment Communities – Adrian Court 7 5/7/2019 to be relocated, while another hydrant is proposed to be added on the project’s Adrian Road frontage. A total of four fire hydrants will provide coverage to the project.  The project proposes to connect to the existing eight‐inch concrete sanitary sewer pipe within the Adrian Court at two existing manholes. Recycling & Garbage Garbage and recycling service will be provided from Adrian Road where there is a planned staging area. Each apartment building will be equipped with dual chutes at each level for refuse and single‐stream recycling. Provisions will be made for cardboard box recycling as well. Property Management The apartments will be professionally managed and maintained. The project will have property management on‐site along with a leasing and maintenance staff. Affordable Housing Approximately 14% of the project (or 38 apartment units) will be provided for rent at rates affordable to Low Income Households making 80% of area median income as defined by San Mateo County for a period of fifty‐five years. The project will utilize the City Density Bonus Ordinance and State Density Bonus Law. Entitlements In the 2019 Burlingame General Plan, the City designated the North Rollins Road Mixed‐Use Zone as a suitable location for high‐density mixed‐use development to help address the City’s housing demands. To implement the General Plan’s vision for the area, the City Council adopted the North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone ‐ Interim Standards. These standards set a maximum height of 7‐stories or 80 feet for Tier 3 projects. The development standards also allow up to 70 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) prior to implementation of Density Bonuses that allow additional units upon meeting specific conditions. Adrian Court is consistent with both the City’s 2019 General Plan and the North Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) District Interim Zoning District Standards. As described in SummerHill’s January 11, 2019 letter, the Project also intends to invoke the RRMU District Tier 3 Development Standards, the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and the State Density Bonus Law. SummerHill’s plan to satisfy the RRMU Zone – Interim Standards’ requirements for a Tier 3 Project pursuant to §25.39.030(C)(3) of the Municipal Code and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance requirements to allow an increase in the density of a project is outlined in the aforementioned letter. For the Adrian Court project, SummerHill seeks the following approvals from the City:  Design Review  Environmental Review  A Vesting Tentative Map to combine the two parcels into a single parcel 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.842.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHApartments.com January 11, 2019 Ruben Hurin Planning Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1 & 45 Adrian Court – Mixed Use Residential Project Application Dear Mr. Hurin: On behalf of SummerHill Apartment Communities, enclosed please find an application for a new mixed- use residential community on a 2.83-acre site within the City’s new General Plan Live/Work land use area (Project). The Project is within easy walking distance of the Millbrae multimodal transit station and designed to implement the City’s recently adopted vision to transform the north portion of the Rollins Road corridor to a new pedestrian-friendly, mixed use neighborhood including public open space. The Project is consistent with both the City’s 2019 General Plan and the North Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) District Interim Zoning District Standards. The Project also intends to invoke the RRMU District Tier 3 Development Standards, the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and the State Density Bonus Law. This letter outlines SummerHill’s plan to satisfy the RRMU Zone – Interim Standards’ requirements for a Tier 3 Project pursuant to §25.39.030(C)(3) of the Municipal Code and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance requirements to allow an increase in the density of a project. Rollins Road Mixed Use Zone - Tier 3 Community Benefits SummerHill proposes to develop a new 265-unit, mixed-use apartment project at 1 and 45 Adrian Court within the RRMU Zoning District. The RRMU Zoning allows a “Tier 3” density of 70 dwelling units per acre, subject to the provision of three community benefits, one of which must be the satisfaction of an affordable or workforce housing objective as described in the interim standards. SummerHill meets this community benefit requirement for Tier 3 projects through the provision of four of the listed benefits, where only three are required, including: • Affordable Housing – Section 4.1.ii - The Project qualifies for and intends to utilize a density bonus in compliance with the City’s affordable housing incentives by including 38 below-market rate units, 14.3% of the total project. These units will be for affordable Low Income Households (80% of San Mateo County’s Area Median Income (AMI)) for 55 years. Ruben Hurin January 11, 2019 Page 2 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.842.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHApartments.com • Pedestrian Amenities – Section 4.b – A publicly accessible paseo connecting Adrian Court to the publically accessible park is proposed as part of the Project. As required, the paseo exceeds the minimum requirements of the RRMU Interim Standards. The paseo features decorative paving, an architectural entry feature, and seating. • Public Plaza Beyond Minimum – Section 4.c - The Project includes an approximately 3,700 square foot publically accessible plaza, well in excess of the 2,250 square foot minimum. The plaza includes a fountain, landscaping outdoor seating, and other amenities as required. • Publically Accessible Park Space - Section 4.j – The Project includes an approximately 17,500 SF publically accessible, privately maintained park. The park design includes a dog park for both small and large dogs, a bocce court, dining area, turf play area, storm water garden, and “wave” field for relaxation. Density Bonus Ordinance – Affordable Housing Program Consistent with the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, SummerHill proposes to provide thirty-eight (38) below-market rate units for Low Income households making 80% of San Mateo County’s AMI in order to obtain a density bonus of 33.77%, or 67 additional units, over the density permitted for Tier 3 developments. The calculation of the density bonus is as follows: • The total lot size of the Project is 2.83 acres. As a Tier 3 project, the RRMU allows for a maximum density of 70 DU/acre, which would permit a total of 198.10 units prior to the application of a density bonus. o 2.83 acres × 70 du/ac = 198.1 units • SummerHill seeks a density bonus of 33.77% to allow for a total of 265 units. o 198.10 units + 66.90 units = 265 units o 66.90 units ÷ 198.10 units = 33.77% • According to City of Burlingame Density Bonus Code Section 25.63.020 (a)(1), the City shall grant a twenty (20) percent density bonus when an applicant for a development of five (5) or more dwelling units seeks and agrees to construct at least ten (10) percent of the total dwelling units of the development as restricted affordable units affordable to Lower Income Households. For each one (1) percent increase in the percentage of restricted lower income units, a development will receive an additional one and one-half (1.5) percent density bonus up to thirty-five (35) percent of the maximum residential density. To qualify for a density bonus of 33.77%, SummerHill will designate 19.18% of the units (thirty-eight units) as below-market rate units for Low Income Households making 80% of San Mateo County’s AMI. o Percentage of Low Income Units: 38 units ÷ 198.10 units = 19.18% o Percentage of Low Income Units greater than 10%: 19.18% – 10% = 9.18% o Density Bonus Units Permitted: 20% + (9.18% × 1.5) = 33.77% Ruben Hurin January 11, 2019 Page 3 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.842.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHApartments.com Whereas the City’s Density Bonus ordinance requires restricting units for 30 years, SummerHill voluntarily agrees to restrict these units for 55 years. In addition, while we are not requesting any concessions/incentives at this time, we reserve the right to do so in the future, if necessary. We are very excited to have the opportunity to work in Burlingame again and help bring the City’s new vision to this area of Burlingame. As always, please let me know if have any questions or need any additional information in order to conduct your review. I can be reached by phone at (650) 842-2404 and by email at EBreeze@SHApartments.com. Sincerely, Elaine Breeze Vice President of Development Ruben Hurin January 11, 2019 Attachment 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.842.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHApartments.com Application for Density Bonus for Residential Apartment Project 1 & 45 Adrian Court, Burlingame, CA 94010 (025-169-999 & 025-169-350) Density Bonus Summary Table RRMU Tier 3 Permitted Requested With Density Bonus Residential Density 70 DU/Acre 93.6 DU/Acre Total Residential Units 198 265 Total BMR Units 38 38 Percentage of BMR Units Provided 19.18% Density Bonus Generated by BMR Units Provided 33.77% 4/23/19 ADRIAN COURT FACT SHEET – April 2019 Project Summary SummerHill Apartment Communities has submitted an application to develop a vibrant, mixed‐use, Class A apartment community within the City of Burlingame’s newly adopted Live/Work area and North Rollins Road Mixed Use Zoning District at 1 and 45 Adrian Court. The project includes 265 apartments, 3,700 square feet of office/commercial space, distinctive architecture, structured parking, resident amenities, as well as a publically accessible park, pedestrian paseo, and pedestrian plaza consistent with these new standards. Residents and the public will enjoy the project’s new park, pedestrian paseo, and pedestrian plaza. Park amenities includes a bocce court, an off‐leash dog park, rolling mounds and flat turf play areas, a storm water garden path, a BBQ, and seating areas. Access to the park is from Adrian Court, where an entry “portal” element will invite visitors to walk down the pedestrian paseo to the park’s entrance. A new 3,700 square foot public plaza is located mid‐ block on Adrian Court, featuring a fountain, corten steel focal wall, benches, and landscaping. The building includes Class A amenities and each apartment will feature high quality finishes including quartz stone countertops, European‐style cabinets, stainless steel kitchen appliances, and in‐unit washers and dryers. Many of the courtyard‐facing units will also include outdoor decks. Exterior resident amenities include a resort‐style pool and spa, cabanas, lounge seating, outdoor fireplaces, an outdoor kitchen, dining areas, and two rooftop decks. Interior resident amenities include a clubroom with a gourmet kitchen for entertaining, fitness center, co‐working space, Wi‐Fi lounge, lobbies, and two secure bicycle parking rooms. Location & Setting The project site is a 2.83‐acre assemblage of two parcels. 1 Adrian Court is occupied by Sprint Communications and 45 Adrian Court’s building is currently vacant. The site is located at the southwestern corner of Adrian Road and Adrian Court. Surrounding uses include Public Storage and Goodwill to the south, Flying Foods to the west, multi‐ tenant commercial buildings to the north, and U.S. Highway 101 to the east. The project is approximately one‐half mile from the Millbrae Transit Center, which is served by Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, and “last mile” shuttles. Robust transit service includes the Caltrain’s Baby Bullet, BART, the SamTrans Route ECR line, and commute.org shuttles. Private employer shuttles (Facebook, Google, Genentech) also operate at the Transit Center. Project Data: Site Area: 2.83 acres Commercial/Office: 3,701 SF Commercial/Office Residential: 265 apartments, 38 reserved for low income residents Studio/1‐Bedroom Flats: 192 units 632‐861 SF 2‐Bedroom Flats: 66 units 977‐1216 SF 1 & 2‐Bedroom Lofts: 7 units 852‐1,470 SF Parking: 313 Parking Stalls (300 residential and 13 Office/Commercial) Fact Sheet SummerHill Apartment Communities – Adrian Court 2 4/23/2019 Bike Parking: 147 spaces (133 secure resident spaces, 14 public spaces) Height: 79’, up to 7 stories Community Benefits  Approximately 14% of the project (38 apartment units) will be provided for rent at rates affordable to Low Income Households making 80% of area median income as defined by San Mateo County for a period of fifty‐five years. Priority will be given to those who live and/or work in Burlingame.  A publically accessible approximately 0.4 acre park that includes a dog park with separate fenced‐in play areas for large and small dogs, a bocce court, seating areas, a storm water garden, a turf play area and a wave field designed for relaxation and play.  A 3,700 square foot public plaza, including a water feature serving as a focal point, architectural wall, plantings, seating, lighting, and bicycle parking. The plaza is designed to serve as a gathering place for residents, visitors, and the public located mid‐block along Adrian Court.  A landscaped paseo featuring a statement entry portal to draw pedestrians from Adrian Court towards the park. It also will include enhanced paving, benches, and lighting.  New 7‐foot wide sidewalks along both Adrian Road and Adrian Court with 4‐5 foot wide planting and street tree wells and new 48” box street trees.  A new crosswalk with handicap ramps at Adrian Court and Adrian Road with a modified terminus at Adrian Court to improve pedestrian access and safety. Envision Burlingame In January 2019, the City adopted a new General Plan as part of the Envision Burlingame planning process. The new General Plan includes a new Live/Work designation in the northerly one‐third of the Rollins Road corridor, located within easy walking distance of the Millbrae multimodal transit station, and is intended to promote a creative mix of medium‐density residential buildings and workspaces. The City envisions creation of a complete new neighborhood with access to transit, and commercial and open space amenities. The City also adopted the North Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU) Zone Interim Standards consistent with the vision of the newly adopted General Plan. The Adrian Court project is designed to be consistent with both the new General Plan and the RRMU Zone Interim Standards, and utilize the City of Burlingame’s Density Bonus Ordinance. About SummerHill Apartment Communities SummerHill Apartment Communities is a privately owned company headquartered in San Ramon. We are part of the SummerHill Housing Group and, together with SummerHill Homes, have been building award‐winning rental and for‐sale housing in the Bay Area since 1976. SummerHill has a strong track record of working in Burlingame where we are currently constructing the Anson project located on Carolan Avenue which includes 268 apartments and 22 townhomes. SummerHill develops high quality, architecturally distinctive projects that address housing needs while also ensuring that each development has a positive impact on the community. Contact Information: Elaine Breeze Vice President of Development SummerHill Apartment Communities ebreeze@shapartments.com (650) 842‐2404 April 8, 2019 Re: Informational Neighborhood Meeting for Mixed Use Development Proposal 1 & 45 Adrian Court, Burlingame Dear Neighbor: SummerHill Apartment Communities is a local developer who specializes in building high quality residential communities. Please join us to learn about SummerHill’s proposed plan to develop a new mixed use apartment community at 1 and 45 Adrian Court. The site is located within the City of Burlingame’s recently adopted General Plan Live Work Area and Rollins Road Mixed Use Zoning District. SummerHill is sponsoring a neighborhood meeting: Tuesday, April 23, 2019 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Burlingame Recreation Center Social Hall 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame SummerHill has submitted an application with the Burlingame Planning Division. The purpose of the meeting is to provide an overview of our proposed project, obtain feedback, and to address any questions you might have. This meeting will be an open house format. Feel free to drop by any time during the evening between 6:00 pm and 7:30 pm to review the materials and provide your input. City of Burlingame staff will also be available. All property owners within 500 feet of the proposed project site have been mailed this notice. You will receive another notice from the City prior to the public hearing on this project. Please feel free to contact me at (650) 842-2404 or ebreeze@shapartments.com if you have any questions. I am also happy to meet with you at another time at your convenience. Very truly yours, Elaine Breeze Vice President of Development Cc: Ruben Hurin, City of Burlingame Planning Division 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.493.4040 fax 650.857.1077 SHApartments.com SummerHill Apartment Communities Tree Report Adrian Court site Prepared for: SummerHill Apartment Communities 777 California Avenue Palo Alto CA 94304 Prepared by: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 325 Ray Street Pleasanton, CA 94566 January 5, 2019 Tree Report Adrian Court site Burlingame CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview 1 Survey Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action 6 Tree Preservation Guidelines 7 List of Tables Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence. 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. 5 Attachments Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map Tree Report Adrian Court site Burlingame CA Introduction and Overview SummerHill Apartment Communities is planning to re-develop two parcels located on Adrian Court in Burlingame CA. Current site use consists largely of office and warehouse buildings, paved parking and some landscape. SummerHill Apartment Communities requested that HortScience | Bartlett Consulting, Divisions of the F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., assess the health and structural condition of trees, review proposed project plans, and provide preliminary recommendations for tree preservation. This report presents the following information: 1. Evaluate tree health and structural condition. 2. Evaluate impacts to trees from the proposed project. 3. Recommend action based on impacts to trees. Assessment Methods Trees were assessed in December 2018. Assessment procedure consisted of a visual inspection from the ground and included the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species. 2. Attaching a numerically coded metal tag on the trunk of each tree. 3. Recording the tree’s location on a map. 4. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54-inches above grade. 5. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 0 – 5: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, or minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormic shoots (secondary shoots that arise along the trunk and branches); extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 – Tree is dead. 6. Describing defects in structure, insects or diseases and other aspects of development. 7. Assessing tree suitability for preservation as high, moderate or low. Tree Report HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Page 2 Description of Trees Thirty-six (36) trees were located within the site boundaries, representing nine species (Table 1). All trees had been planted as part of landscape development. No species were native to the Burlingame area and no trees appeared to be indigenous to the site. Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence. Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities. Burlingame CA. Common name Scientific name Condition No. of Trees Poor Fair Good Excell. Protected Total (1,2) (3) (4) (5) Fern pine Afrocarpus gracilior 7 -- -- -- -- 7 Euro. birch Betula pendula 3 -- -- -- -- 3 Evergreen ash Fraxinus uhdei 2 -- -- -- -- 2 Hollywood juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Torulosa' -- 6 -- -- -- 6 Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua 4 -- -- -- -- 4 Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis -- -- -- 1 -- 1 Monterey pine Pinus radiata -- 1 -- -- 1 1 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana cv. 2 4 -- -- -- 6 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 4 1 1 -- 1 6 Total, all trees assessed 22 12 1 1 2 36 The seven fern pines were all located on the west side of the site adjacent to an office building (Photo 1). The planting space was either 5- or 10-feet. Trees were relatively small in size. Trunk diameters ranged from 7- to 9-inches. All trees were in poor condition. All had small thin canopies of chlorotic foliage. All lacked vigor. Photo 1. Fern pines were located against a building and were in poor condition. Six Hollywood junipers had been planted against a building on the east and south sides (Photo 2). Tree trunks were within 2-feet of the foundation. As a result, all junipers had one-sided crowns. In addition, junipers #87 – 90 had been topped and sheared. All six plants gave the appearance of shrubs. Tree condition was fair. Trunk diameters varied from 6- to 11-inches. Photo 2. Hollywood junipers #89 and 90. Tree Report HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Page 3 Six Callery pears had been installed in the west parking lot (Photo 3). All were small trees with trunk diameters of 5- and 6-inches. Form and structure were typical of the cultivar. Trees lacked vigor. All had surface roots. Tree condition was fair for #64, 65, 73 and 74 but poor for #71 and 72. Photo 3. Callery pear #64. Six coast redwoods were present (Photo 4). Five trees (#66 – 70) were located in the same parking lot as the Callery pears. All were stunted in development. Trees #66, 67, 68 and 70 were in fair condition; #69 was fair. Tree structure was typical of redwoods. Canopies lacked vigor with extensive twig dieback and burned foliage. Coast redwood #75 was located on Adrian Court. It was 19-inches in diameter and in good condition. The tree had a corrected lean to the east. Photo 4. Coast redwoods #66 to 70 (above) were located in a small planter while #75 (right) was near Adrian Court. Four sweetgums were located on the east side of the site (Photo 5). Trees were semi-mature in development. All were in poor condition due to a history of topping. All lacked vigor. Trees were 7- and 8-inches in diameter. Photo 5. Sweetgum #84 was 8-inches in diameter but had been topped. Tree Report HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Page 4 European birches #76, 77 and 78 were located along Adrian Court. Trunk diameters ranged from 6- to 9-inches. All were in poor condition due to topping and a lack of vigor. Evergreen ash #58 was a small, multistem tree in the southwest section of the site. Evergreen ash #79 was semi-mature in development and 14-inches. It was located along Adrian Court. Both trees were in poor condition. While ash #79 had good vigor, its form and structure had been compromised by topping. Canary Island pine #57 was a semi-mature tree with a trunk diameter of 15-inches (Photo 6). It was located in the parking area on the west side of the site. Form and structure were typical of the species. Overall condition was excellent. There are numerous surface roots within the planting area. Photo 6. Canary Island pine #57. Monterey pine #86 was located on the east side of the site (Photo 7). It was mature in development and 23- inches in diameter. The main trunk divided into two stems at 5-feet. A large wound was present on the north side of the attachment. It appeared to be a canker of western gall rust (Endocronartium harknessii). The crown was short and compact but lacked vigor. Photo 7. Monterey pine #86. Five Bailey acacias were located in the off- site in the southwest corner of the property. All were located between the existing parking and an adjacent building foundation. Acacias #59, 61 and 62 were mature in development but had asymmetric form due to crowding. Trees #60 and 63 were smaller and suppressed in development. Condition was either poor (#60, 62, 63) or fair (59, 61). Photo 5. Looking south at Bailey acacias #59 to 63. Tree Report HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Page 5 The City of Burlingame municipal code (Chapter 11.06. Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) defines a protected trees as having a circumference of 48-inches or greater (15.3-inches in diameter). By this criterion, coast redwood #75 and Monterey pine #86 had protected status. Descriptions of individual trees are included in the Tree Assessment Form. Tree trunk locations are found on the Tree Assessment Map. Suitability for Preservation Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:  Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees.  Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely.  Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Bailey acacia and Monterey pine are very sensitive to change while coast redwood is tolerant.  Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change.  Species invasiveness Species which spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (www.cal-ipc.org) lists species identified as having being invasive. Burlingame is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Bailey acacia is listed as invasive. Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (Table 2). Tree Report HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Page 6 Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation. Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities. Burlingame CA. High Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Canary Island pine #57 was rated as having high suitability for preservation. Moderate Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Coast redwood #75 was rated as having moderate suitability for preservation. Low Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Thirty-four (34) trees were rated as having poor suitability for preservation: 7 fern pines, 6 Hollywood junipers, 6 Callery pears, 5 coast redwoods, 4 sweetgums, 3 European birch, 2 evergreen ash, and Monterey pine #86. We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Potential impacts from the proposed project were assessed using the Site Plan (sheet A1.0) prepared by Seidel Architects dated December 2018. Plans were conceptual. No tree or tree canopies were included. No grading plans were reviewed. The entire site would be re-developed. Existing structures would be demolished. A ground floor parking structure would extend over most of the site. Based on my assessment and review of plans, I recommend removal of the 36 trees located within the area proposed for re-development. I recommend preservation of the five Bailey acacia (#58 – 63) located off-site. Retention of the Bailey acacias is predicated on adherence to the guidelines listed below. Tree Report HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Adrian Court site. SummerHill Apartment Communities, Page 7 Tree Preservation Guidelines The following are recommendations for design and construction phases that will assist in successful tree preservation. Design recommendations 1. Establish the limit of work near Bailey acacias #58 – 63 as the property line. Locate the property line in the field and mark it with stakes. Pre-construction and demolition treatments and recommendations 1. Establish a TREE PROTECTION ZONE around as the property line. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall occur beyond the property line. 2. Install protection at the property line. Such protection will serve as tree protection fencing and define the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 3. The Bailey acacia trees to be retained may require pruning to provide clearance within the project limits. All pruning is to be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and shall adhere to the latest editions of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the ISA Best Management Practices for Tree Pruning. Pruning contractor shall have the C25/D61 license specification. Tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures. 2. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 3. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 4. Fences should be erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the City’s Project Manager. 5. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel. 6. All trees shall be irrigated on a schedule to be determined by the Consulting Arborist. Each irrigation shall wet the soil within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to a depth of 30-inches. 7. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound HortScience | Bartlett Consulting James R. Clark, Ph.D. Certified Arborist WE-0846 Registered Consulting Arborist #357 ATTACHMENTS Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Map Tree AssessmentTREE COMMON NAME TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTSNo. DIAMETER TREE0=deadfor(in.)?5=excell.PRESERVATION50 Fern pine 7 No 2 Low 10' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; multiple attachments @ 6'.51 Fern pine 8 No 2 Low 10' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; multiple attachments @ 7'; twig dieback in upper crown.52 Fern pine 8 No 2 Low 10' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; multiple attachments @ 7'; long trunk wound.53 Fern pine 8 No 2 Low 5' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; multiple attachments @ 7'.54 Fern pine 7 No 2 Low 5' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; crown reduced.55 Fern pine 8 No 2 Low 5' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; codominant trunks @ 8'; poor attachment; twig dieback.56 Fern pine 9 No 2 Low 5' wide planter; chlorotic; thin canopy; poor form & structure; multiple attachments @ 6'.57 Canary Island pine 15 No 5 High Good form and structure; extensive surface roots; displaced pavement.58 Evergreen ash 5,4,2 No 2 Low Multiple attachments @ base; poor form.59 Bailey acacia 15 No 3 Low 2' from bldg.; codominant trunks @ 6'; one-sided to N.60 Bailey acacia 5 No 1 Low Leans N.; base outside of dripline; suppressed.61 Bailey acacia 11 No 3 Low One-sided to N.; upper crown thin.62 Bailey acacia 12,10 Yes 2 Low Base @ bldg. foundation; codominant trunks @ 2' with included bark; both stems bowed W.63 Bailey acacia 8,8 No 1 Low Codominant trunks @ base; poor attachment; 1 stem vertical; 2nd leans W.; cracks in trunk.64 Callery pear 6 No 3 Low Parking lot planter; surface roots; typical form & structure; poor vigor.Adrian Court siteBurlingame CADecember 2018Page 1 Tree AssessmentTREE COMMON NAME TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTSNo. DIAMETER TREE0=deadfor(in.)?5=excell.PRESERVATIONAdrian Court siteBurlingame CADecember 201865 Callery pear 5 No 3 Low Parking lot planter; surface roots; typical form & structure; poor vigor.66 Coast redwood 13 No 1 Low Parking lot planter; very ext. twig dieback.67 Coast redwood 10 No 1 Low Parking lot planter; twig dieback; thin canopy.68 Coast redwood 11 No 2 Low Parking lot planter; typical form & structure; twig dieback; thin canopy.69 Coast redwood 14 No 3 Low Parking lot planter; typical form & structure; no vigor.70 Coast redwood 13 No 2 Low Parking lot planter; one-sided to S.; twig dieback; thin canopy.71 Callery pear 5 No 2 Low Parking lot planter; surface roots; typical form & structure; poor vigor.72 Callery pear 5 No 2 Low Parking lot planter; surface roots; typical form & structure; poor vigor.73 Callery pear 5 No 3 Low Parking lot planter; surface roots; typical form & structure; poor vigor.74 Callery pear 6 No 3 Low Parking lot planter; surface roots; typical form & structure; poor vigor.75 Coast redwood 19 Yes 4 Moderate Typical form & structure; corrected lean E.76 Euro. birch 6 No 1 Low Poor form & structure.77 Euro. birch 7 No 2 Low Topped; lacks vigor.78 Euro. birch 9 No 2 Low Topped; lacks vigor.79 Evergreen ash 14 No 2 Low Poor form & structure; topped.80 Sweetgum 8 No 2 Low Poor form & structure; topped.81 Sweetgum 7 No 2 Low Poor form & structure; topped.82 Hollywood juniper 11,4 No 3 Low Base of trunk @ bldg. foundation; typical form & structure.Page 2 Tree AssessmentTREE COMMON NAME TRUNK PROTECTED CONDITION SUITABILITY COMMENTSNo. DIAMETER TREE0=deadfor(in.)?5=excell.PRESERVATIONAdrian Court siteBurlingame CADecember 201883 Hollywood juniper 6,5,4 No 3 Low Base of trunk @ bldg. foundation; typical form & structure; multiple attachments @ 1'.84 Sweetgum 8 No 2 Low Poor form & structure; topped.85 Sweetgum 8 No 2 Low Poor form & structure; topped.86 Monterey pine 23 Yes 3 Low Codominant trunks @ 5' with gall rust canker @ attachment on N.; thin canopy; lacks vigor.87 Hollywood juniper 6 No 3 Low Against bldg; shrub.88 Hollywood juniper 6 No 3 Low Against bldg; shrub.89 Hollywood juniper 6 No 3 Low 2' from bldg; topped; shrub; lacks vigor.90 Hollywood juniper 6 No 3 Low Against bldg; shrub.Page 3 Endurance Series Commercial Mid-rise Windows Designed to Outlast the Rest Endurance–the Optimum in Mid-rise Performance If you are building a mid-rise structure in the Western United States, you are probably specifying the Endurance Series by VPI Quality Windows. In a world where demanding specifications and uncompromising job site testing is the way of life, a commercially rated window is the only acceptable solution, as residential windows leave room for unwanted risk. VPI prides itself on superior product performance ratings in the lab and the field. These are the result of our engineering centric organization that is obsessive with safety, quality & customer service, day-in and day-out. • Commercial profile design coupled with industry leading glazing system delivers the right balance of aesthetics & performance, at a great value • Our manufacturing process is systematic, documented, controlled and constantly improving • Structural performance & deflection are enhanced by commercial grade metal reinforcements interconnected throughout the window assembly • Endless configuration possibilities with fixed, awning and/or casement windows, thanks to an intersecting integral bar system, all assembled within continuous frames – no mulling nightmares! • Durable, co-extruded acrylic exterior finishes allow for color diversity without compromising structural and thermal performance • Panel level window design that optimizes water intrusion and air infiltration/ex-filtration The evolution is complete for mid and high rise commercial and mixed use applications, the future belongs to the Endurance Series window system! Specify the ideal mix of strength, energy performance and aesthetics with Endurance! WE SELL ENERGY STAR VPI Quality Windows manufactures ENERGYSTAR® qualified products, that use less energy. PRODUCT PERFORMANCE Casement/Awning Test Size AAMA Infil Exfil Water U-Factor*SHGC*VT* Awning 46” x 32”CW-PG60 <0.01 <0.01 9.20 0.26 0.18 0.42 Casement 36” x 60”CW-PG70 <0.01 <0.01 10.66 0.26 0.18 0.42 Fixed 72” x 96”CW-PG40 <0.01 <0.01 6.04 0.26 0.22 0.51 CPC 96” x 66”CW-PG70 0.06 0.06 10.66 0.26 0.18 0.42 CPC-AT 108” x 96”CW-PG40 0.16 0.11 6.04 0.26 0.18 0.42 CP-UT 72” x 78”LC-PG60 <0.01 <0.01 9.20 0.26 0.18 0.42 Sliding Test Size AAMA Infil Exfil Water U-Factor SHGC VT XO 71” x 56”LC-PG50 0.08 0.07 7.52 0.28 0.22 0.51 XOX 108” x 66”LC-PG50 0.05 0.04 7.52 0.28 0.22 0.51 XOXAT 108” x 96”LC-PG50 0.05 0.04 7.52 0.28 0.22 0.51 SH 56” x 96”CW-PG30 0.09 0.07 5.43 0.27 0.22 0.51 SH-AU 44” x 108”LC-PG55 0.04 0.03 8.36 0.27 0.22 0.51 SH-PW-SH 108” x 96”CW-PG30 0.06 0.05 6.90 0.27 0.22 0.51 PRODUCT Window Type Glass Configuration Spacer Size Argon Lami STC OITC AWN/CAS 1” - (1/4” - 0.030” - 1/2” AS - 1/4”)0.500 Yes 0.030 36 30 PW 1-3/8” - (1/4” - 0.030” - 13/16” AS - 9/32” - 0.060”)0.813 Yes 0.030/0.060 38 29 AWN-U 1-3/8” - (1/4” - 0.030” - 7/8” AS - 1/4” - 0.030”)0.875 Yes 0.030 41 33 XO 1” - (3/16” - 9/16” AS - 1/4” - 0.030”)0.563 Yes 0.030 36 29 SH 1” - (1/4” - 0.030” - 9/16” AS - 3/16”)0.563 Yes 0.030 35 29 Commercial-Rated Performance: Engineered for Mid-Rise Construction Standard Configuration Features: • COMPRESSION-SEAL DESIGN enhances protection against water intrusion, air infiltration, and allows ease of glass replacement • VINYL FRAMES Increase thermal performance, add color options, and reduce condensation • FRAME AND SASH have hollow compartments that allow for optimal reinforcement required in heavy commercial applications • FUSION WELDED CORNERS provide environmental comfort and protect against leaks • AVAILABLE MULTIPLE LOCKING POINTS ensure security and provide a triple weather seal for superior air and water resistance • EASY TO OPERATE HARDWARE delivers a wide opening for emergency egress and cleaning • T-BAR allows for freedom of design while maintaining structural and thermal performance Some select configurations. Bring us your designs. Endurance Series * Assumes Cardinal LoE 366 511_AWN_VERTICAL Endurance Awning Vertical 3.500 2.560 0.075 0.075 1.323 5.433 1.187 3.208 2.0501.375 511_AWN_HORIZONTAL Endurance Awning Horizontal 2.375 3.207 3.500 2.0501.375 3.500 511_CAS_HORIZONTAL Endurance Casement Horizontal STEEL & STRAP 2.563 0.075 3.208 2.050 1.125 1.375 Picture Window Vertical Available with IGUs 3/4”–1-1/4”OA Casement Horizontal Casement Awning 3 ½” Frame Depth Selected CAD Details CAD files in DWG and PDF format and specifications for most products can be downloaded from www.VPIwindows.com/cad Fixed Window 3 ½” Frame Depth Single Hung 3 ½” Frame Depth Horizontal Slider 3 ½” Frame Depth Endurance Series 3.5002.060 2.5002.534 1.917 1.900 1.125 0.065 1.150 1.9001.275 1.375 REINFORCEMENTIS REQUIREDIF FRAME IS 36”OR WIDER Horizontal Slider Casement Vertical Awning Horizontal Awning Vertical Picture Window Vertical with Narrow T-bar Picture Window Vertical with Wide T-bar Single Hung Upper Horizontal Section Single Hung Operable Vertical Section 2.060 1.900 REINFORCEMENTIS REQUIREDIF FRAME IS 36”OR WIDER 3.500 2.5002.380 1.917 1.125 0.065 1.145 1.9001.275 1.375 Horizontal Slider Below to Fixed Horizontal Slider Above Fixed 2.062 3.500 1.125 3.031 1.281 2.031 1.906 1.375 511_CAS_VERTICAL Endurance Casement Vertical STEEL & STRAP 3.208 2.563 3.500 1.3211.188 5.4352.051 1.125 1.375 0.075 511_FXD_VERTICAL Endurance Fixed Vertical 1 3.500 2.563 0.075 0.075 2.0501.375 511_FXD_VERTICAL Endurance Fixed Vertical 2 3.500 2.563 0.075 2.0501.375 4.250 511_FXD_VERTICAL Endurance Fixed Vertical 2 1.898 5.876 3.500 2.563 0.075 2.0501.375 3.500 1.125 3.031 1.900 2.060 .065 1.375 591_SH_HOR_SECTION 591 SINGLE HUNG (VERTICAL SECTION) 3.500 3.032 2.040 1.900 .0652.060 REINFORCEMENT IN FRAME SILLSLARGER THAN 36 INCHES 1.375 www.vpiwindows.com (800) 634-1478 | info@vpiwindows.com 3420 E. Ferry, Spokane, WA 99202 Performance that Exceeds Expectations Just Ask Our Customers “VPI performance is better and more consistent than any of the vinyl window products we’ve used.” Lake Washington Windows. “Thornton Place was the largest project to date for Walsh Seattle and was full of challenges. Your dedication and collaboration were instrumental... On behalf of a grateful Company, we thank you.” Walsh Construction. “We are very satisfied with VPI. VPI window products demonstrate a blend of solid performance, high quality manufacturing and color options that are unique in the industry.” The Soltner Group, Architects Inc. The Proof is in Our Performance Backed by one of the strongest warranties in the business, including ten year seal failure coverage on most glass units, project owners can be confident that the Endurance Series™ will stand the test of time. 7 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Developme nt Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) a. Density – Maximum (applies to residential component) 30 du/ac 50 du/ac 70 du/ac N/A Tiers 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph C below. b. Floor Area Ratio – Maximum (applies to non- residential component) 1 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.02 Tiers 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph C below. c. Height (Unless otherwise controlled by maximum heights established by the Federal Aviation Administration for parcels affected by airport safety zones) 3 stories/40 ft. maximum 5 stories/55 ft. maximum 7 stories/80 ft. maximum 50 ft. Tiers 2 and 3 must provide community benefits per subparagraph C below. d. Setbacks  Front: Mixed-Use Arterial (Rollins Road) 0 - 15 ft. 0 - 15 ft. 0 – 15 ft. 20 ft. Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.39-3  Front: All other streets 12 ft. from edge of curb 12 ft. from edge of curb 15 ft. from edge of curb 15 ft. from edge of curb Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.39-3  Side – Interior 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 0 ft. adjacent to industrial use/20 ft. Setbacks for industrial uses apply only to new construction; 8 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Developme nt Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) adjacent to all other uses established industrial uses shall be considered conforming with regard to required setbacks.  Side – Street 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Subject to streetscape frontage standards in Table 25.39-3  Rear 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 0 ft. adjacent to industrial use/20 ft. adjacent to all other uses Setbacks for industrial uses apply only to new construction; established industrial uses shall be considered conforming with regard to required setbacks.  Alley 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 10 ft. If alley is used for direct access to a garage, setback shall be 20 ft. to allow vehicle access. e. Edge condition between industrial and residential use See Section 25.39.030.B.4. f. Lot Dimensions – Minimum 9 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Developme nt Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3)  Size  Mixed use developmen t: 10,000 sf  Residential subdivision: 3,500 sf  Mixed use developme nt: 10,000 sf  Residential subdivision : 3,500 sf  Mixed use developm ent: 10,000 sf  Residentia l subdivisio n: 3,500 sf 10,000 sf  Width at street frontage  Mixed use developmen t: 100 ft.  Residential subdivision: 40 ft.  Mixed use developme nt: 100 ft.  Residential subdivision : 40 ft.  Mixed use developm ent: 100 ft.  Residentia l subdivisio n: 40 ft. 50 ft. g. Lot Coverage – Maximum3 60% 60% 60% 70% h. Open Space for residential units per unit – Minimum  Live/work units: 100 sf  Multifamily housing or mixed use: 125 sf  Open space may be either private, common, or include both  Live/work units: 100 sf  Multifamily housing or mixed use: 125 sf  Open space may be either private, common, or include both  Live/work units: 100 sf  Multifamily housing or mixed use: 125 sf  Open space may be either private, common, or include both N/A Minimum dimensions of open space:  Private: 5 ft. deep, 8 ft. wide  Common: 15 ft. in any direction Any required pedestrian plaza/public space, as set forth in subsection B.3, below, may count toward up to 50% of the common open space. i. Percent landscape 15% 20% 20% 15% 10 TABLE 25.39-2 RRMU DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standards Live/Work, Residential, Mixed Use and Commercial Development Industrial and Institutional Developme nt Additional Regulations Base Standard (Tier 1) Increased Intensity (Tier 2) Maximum Intensity (Tier 3) coverage - Minimum Notes: 1 Above-ground parking structures shall be exempt from Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations. 2 FAR of Industrial, Manufacturing, Processing, Warehousing, and Wholesale uses may be increased to 1.5 with a Conditional Use Permit. 3 Lot coverage may be increased if additional useable common open space equivalent to the additional lot coverage (in square feet) is provided on a podium-level landscaped courtyard or plaza. B. Additional Regulations. 1. Live/Work Standards. a. Purpose and Applicability. The provisions in this section shall apply to live/work units. b. Intent. The development standards of this section are intended to facilitate the creation of new, adaptable live/work units in a manner that preserves the surrounding industrial and artistic character, supports enhanced street level activity, maintains a consistent urban streetwall, and orients buildings and pedestrians toward public streets. Live/work Units are intended to be designed with adequate workspace, higher ceilings, larger doors, sufficient natural light, open floor plans, and equipped with non- residential finishes and features that support arts and production activities. c. Density/Floor Area Allocation. Live/work units consistent with the provisions of this section may be apportioned from either the Residential (as specified by Density standards in Table 25.39-2) and/or Nonresidential (as specified by Floor Area Ratio/FAR standards in Table 25.39-2) allocations for a property. d. Limitations on Use. The nonresidential component of a live/work unit shall be limited in use to those uses set forth in Table 25.39-1 (RRMU Land Use Regulations). Nonresidential/work is not required; however, each unit shall be designed to be adaptable and facilitate work activities per the provisions in this section. e. Floor Area Requirement. A live/work unit shall have a minimum floor area of at least 750 square feet. At least 150 square feet of a live/work unit shall be designated as suitable for workspace, and measure not less than 15 feet in at least one dimension and no less than 10 feet in any dimension. The area suitable for workspace for each unit shall be clearly demarcated on approved building plans. f. Separation of and Access to Individual Units. Access to each individual live/work unit shall be provided from shop fronts, directly from the sidewalk parallel to the primary or secondary street, or from common access areas, corridors, or halls. The 11 access to each unit shall be clearly separate from other live/work units or other uses within the building. g. Location of Living Space – Ground Floor Units. Ground floor live/work units shall designate the front 20 feet of the unit as area suitable for work space, in order to maintain activity and commercial access along the frontage. Dedicated living space may be located in the rear portion of the ground level, provided the front 20 feet of the unit is designated as suitable for work. h. Ceiling Height. Ground floor live/work units shall have floor to ceiling height of 15 feet or greater, measured from top of floor to bottom of ceiling. Upper floor live/work units shall have floor to ceiling height of 10 feet or greater. A mezzanine space shall not be included in the calculation of minimum height for any floor or level. i. Integration of Living and Working Space. Areas within a live/work unit that are designated as living space shall be an integral part of the live/work unit and not separated (or occupied and/or rented separately) from the area designated for workspace. j. Client and Customer Visits. Client and customer visits to live/work units are permitted. 2. Pedestrian Plaza/Public Space. Where total lot area or development site equals 50,000 square feet or greater, a pedestrian plaza or other public open space/gathering space shall be provided that meets the following design criteria: a. Is a minimum of 1,500 square feet in size; b. Has a minimum dimension at least 30 feet on any side; c. Is at least 50 percent open to the sky; d. Is located at ground level with direct pedestrian and ADA access to the adjacent public street; e. Is unenclosed by any wall, fence, gate, or other obstruction across the subject property; f. Is open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; and g. Includes at least one gathering space with a fountain or other focal element. 3. Mid-Block Plazas and Paseos. Where blocks (measured from curb face to curb face) are longer than 400 feet, and where a development has more than 300 feet of frontage, at least one plaza, pedestrian pathway or paseo shall be provided perpendicular to the block face. All such plazas shall meet the design criteria outlined in 25.39.030.B.2. All such paseos shall meet the following design criteria: a. Be open to the public and remain so during daylight hours; b. Be at least 15’ wide, and 15’ deep if a plaza; c. Have a clear line of sight to the back of the paseo, gathering place, or focal element; and d. Be at least 50% open to the sky or covered with a transparent material. 4. Industrial/Residential Interface. Any live/work unit or other residential unit on a site abutting an industrial use on an adjoining site shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet 12 from the lot line shared by the property with the industrial use. A minimum six-foot-high masonry wall or other buffering feature suitable to the review authority shall be provided along the shared property line. 5. Residential Notice. Residents of new live/work, mixed-use, and stand-alone residential development projects, whether owners or tenants, shall be notified in writing before taking up residence that they will be living in an urban-type environment, that the noise levels may be higher than in a strictly residential area, and that there may be odors associated with commercial and industrial uses. The covenants, conditions, and restrictions of any development with a residential use shall require that prospective residents acknowledge the receipt of the written noise notification. Such written noise notification shall be provided in residential leases. Signatures shall confirm receipt and understanding of this information. C. Community Benefit Bonuses – Tiers for Increased FAR, Density, and Height. 1. Purpose and Applicability. To provide an incentive for development, and in partnership with the City to provide community benefits that would not otherwise be created, the Planning Commission may grant increased FAR, density, and/or height in return for provision of specific community benefits, as listed below or subsequently identified by the City Council, if doing so is in the City’s interest and will help implement the Ge neral Plan and further, if these benefits cannot be realized without granting increased FAR, height, and/or density. A variety of objectives are listed to ensure that proposed project features are appropriate for the site and surroundings, and to allow for a wide range of possible project types. 2. Tier 2 – Number of Community Benefits. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 2 projects if it determines that the project includes at least two community benefits from subsection 4 of this Section (Community Benefits Objectives). At least one affordable and workforce housing objective from 4.a shall be chosen. 3. Tier 3 – Number of Community Benefits. The Planning Commission may approve Tier 3 projects if it determines that the project includes at least three community benefits from subsection 4 of this Section (Community Benefits Objectives). At least one affordable and workforce housing objective from 4.a shall be chosen. 4. Community Benefit Objectives. a. Affordable and Workforce Housing. i. The project provides affordable housing at the rate of five percent for low-income households, or 10 percent for moderate-income households, as a percentage of the total number of housing units built, for a period of 55 years or greater. ii. The project qualifies for, and utilizes, a density bonus in compliance with the City’s affordable housing incentives (Chapter 25.63). b. Pedestrian Amenities. The project includes major pedestrian connections in excess of minimum paseo requirements. 13 c. Public Plazas Beyond Minimum. Public plazas or other publicly accessible open spaces at least 50 percent larger than the minimum required. Where provided, such public plazas and open spaces shall be subject to the following: i. The public plaza shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the developer or property manager in accordance with an approved maintenance plan to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director; ii. Each part of the public plaza shall be accessible from other parts of the open space without leaving the open space area; iii. The public plaza shall be on the ground level and directly accessible from the sidewalk, and be accessible to persons with disabilities; iv. The public plaza shall be open to the public, without charge, each day of the year, except for temporary closures for necessary maintenance or public safety; and v. At a minimum, the following elements shall be included: trees and landscaping, seating, bicycle racks, trash and recycling receptacles, and signage that include hours of operation. d. Off-Site Streetscape Improvements. Does not include improvements along the frontage of a development site that would normally be required. Examples include: i. Enhanced pedestrian and bicycle-oriented streetscapes; ii. Protected bicycle lanes and pedestrian pathways, improved bicycle and pedestrian crossings/signals, bicycle racks/shelters; iii. New pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit facilities, neighborhoods, trails, commercial areas, etc.; iv. Removal of existing pedestrian and bicycle barriers (e.g. dead-ends and cul-de- sacs); v. Upgrading traffic signals to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. e. Cultural Arts Space. Includes space for visual arts, performing arts, artist housing, and other activities that support arts and culture. f. Pedestrian and Similar Paths and Connections between Adjacent Properties. To effectuate the goal of creating walkable and bikeable environments, improved pedestrian ways and other paths open to the public that accommodate easy movement across and between properties under separate ownership. g. Historic Preservation (Off-Site). Where there are no historic resources on the project site, the project provides for the permanent preservation of a building off site that is listed in the City’s inventory of historical resources through the recordation of a historic preservation agreement. 14 h. Mode Split. The project provides for a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of up to 25 percent for building occupants through a Transportation Demand Management Program. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a covenant agreement shall be recorded that discloses the required Transportation Demand Management provisions. This agreement shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of any ongoing programmatic requirements. i. Zero Net Energy. The project provides 100 percent of total building energy load measured as kilowatt per square foot through solar panels, wind turbines, or other renewable sources. j. Publicly Accessible Park Space. Contribution towards the provision of public parks in the North Rollins Road area. Contribution can be in the form of dedication of land, provisions of improvements, or payment of fee in excess of that normally required for parks. k. Public Parking Facilities. The project provides publicly accessible parking to serve area-wide parking needs. To qualify, the parking spaces should be permanently available for public use and subject to easements or restrictions acceptable to the City. l. Flexible (Miscellaneous) Benefit. The applicant agrees to provide a currently undefined community benefit approved by the City Council that is significant and substantially beyond normal requirements. Examples are inclusion of a child care center or community event space in a new development project, off-site utility infrastructure improvements above and beyond those required to serve the development, additional funding for City programs such as contribution to a local façade improvement program, or subsidy for existing commercial tenants or other local small businesses. 25.39.040 Design Standards and Objective Design Criteria. A. Design Standards. All new development shall be designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. The overall design intent of the RRMU zone is to provide for an eclectic mix of residential, live/work, commercial, and light industrial development that has an industrial and contemporary look in terms of materials used, architectural styles, and building forms. 2. Site and building design shall provide for internal compatibility among the different uses in terms of noise, hours of operation, vehicle and pedestrian circulation, access, use of open space, and similar operating characteristics. 3. Potential noise, odors, glare, pedestrian traffic, and other potentially significant impacts on residents shall be minimized to allow a compatible mix of residential and nonresidential uses on the same site. 4. The design of any live/work or mixed-use project shall take into consideration potential impacts on adjacent properties and shall include specific design features to minimize potential impacts. 15 5. The design of the mixed-use project shall ensure that the residential units are of a residential character and that privacy between residential units and between other uses on the site is maximized. 6. The design of the structures and site planning shall encourage integration of the street pedestrian environment with the nonresidential uses through the use of plazas, courtyards, walkways, and street furniture. 7. Site planning and building design shall be compatible with and enhance the adjacent and surrounding built environment in terms of scale, building design, color, exterior materials, roof styles, lighting, landscaping, and signage. B. Building Orientation, Entrances, and Articulation. 1. Building Design. Recognizing the varied commercial and industrial character of the area, new development and redevelopment projects should be encouraged to feature a blend of both commercial and residential design features, including modern, industrial type building design. 2. Orientation. The main building of a development shall be oriented to face a public street. Building frontages shall be generally parallel to streets. For all residential, retail, and office uses, at least one primary entrance to a ground-floor use shall face the adjacent street right-of-way. Ground-related entrances include entrances to ground-floor uses. 3. Ground Floor Transparency. At least 45 percent of the exterior walls on the ground floor facing the street shall include windows, doors, or other openings. 4. Nonresidential Entrances. Entries shall be clearly defined features of front façades and of a scale that is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed. Larger buildings shall have a more prominent building entrance while maintaining a pedestrian scale. 5. Transitional Space at Residential Entries. New residential buildings shall provide transitional spaces in the form of stoops, overhangs, and porches between public areas fronting the primary street and entrances. This type of element or equivalent shall be required for each unit or group of units, but no less than one of this type of element shall be provided. 6. Building Articulation. Except for buildings housing industrial uses, no street frontage wall may run in a continuous plane for more than 25 feet without an opening (door or window) or offsets, or as approved by the review authority if the project is constrained by unusual parcel size, shape, use, or other features that the responsible review authority accepts as rendering this requirement infeasible. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall have transparent glazing and provide views into work areas, display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces. Offsets shall vary in depth and/or direction of at least 18 inches, or a repeated pattern of offsets, recesses, or projections of similar depth. 7. Structured Parking. Structured parking facing public streets should be fronted or wrapped with actively occupied spaces such as storefronts, live/work units, residential community amenities, and lobbies. Access to parking shall be designed so that it is not prominent and ties into the adjacent architectural style. 16 C. Site Layout 1. Streetscape. Street frontages shall meet the standards set forth in Table 25.39-3 (RRMU Street Frontage Standards). TABLE 25.39-3: RRMU STREET FRONTAGE STANDARDS Street Type Frontage – Measured from Back of Curb to Building Face Mixed-Use Arterial (Rollins Road) Building Frontage Setback 15 ft. minimum Walk Zone (Public) 10 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. minimum Mixed-Use Collector (Adrian Road) Building Frontage Setback 12 feet Walk Zone (Public) 6 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 5 ft. minimum Tree Wells 5 ft. by 5 ft. min Mixed-Use Access (Adrian Court, Broderick Road, Guittard Road, Ingold Road) Building Frontage Setback 10 feet Walk Zone (Public) 6 ft. minimum Amenity/Planter Zone 4 ft. minimum Tree Wells 4 ft. by 4 ft. minimum Build-To Lines At least sixty (60) percent of the structure shall be located at the Building Frontage Setback. Exceptions Exceptions to Building Frontage Standards may be granted to accommodate conflicts with recorded easements, rights-of-ways, etc. 2. Pedestrian Access. On-site pedestrian circulation and access shall be provided per the following standards: a. Internal Connections. A system of pedestrian walkways shall connect all buildings on a site to each other, to on-site automobile and bicycle parking areas, and to any on-site open space areas or pedestrian amenities. b. To Circulation Network. Regular and convenient connections between on-site walkways and the public sidewalk and other existing or planned pedestrian routes, such as safe routes to school, shall be provided. An on-site walkway shall connect the primary building entry or entries to a public sidewalk on each street frontage. c. To Adjacent Areas. Direct and convenient access shall be provided among adjoining residential and commercial areas and along creeks to the maximum extent feasible while still providing for safety and security. Public access easements minimum 10 feet in width shall be provided to allow for future connections. d. To Transit. Safe and convenient pedestrian connections shall be provided from adjacent transit stops to building entrances. 17 3. Location of Parking. Any surface parking facilities shall be located to the side or rear of any proposed project. No more than 33 percent of the site area at the ground level may be used for surface parking facilities. 4. Service and Delivery Areas. Unenclosed service and loading areas shall be screened from residential areas and integrated with the design of the building. Special attention shall be given when designing loading facilities in a location that is proximate to residential uses. Techniques such as block walls, enhanced setbacks, or enclosed loading shall be used to minimize adverse impacts to residents. 25.39.050 Parking A. Off-Street Vehicle Parking. Parking shall be provided as set forth in Chapter 25.70 (Off- Street Parking), with the following exceptions for live/work units, stand-alone residential development, and the residential component of a mixed-use development: TABLE 25.39-4: RRMU OFF-STREET VEHICLE PARKING Number of Bedrooms in a Unit Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required 0 (Studio or Loft) 1 space/unit 1 1 space/unit 2 1.5 spaces/unit for multifamily housing; 2 spaces/unit for live/work 3 or more 2 spaces/unit Guest parking None required B. Vehicle Parking Stall Dimensions. All parking stalls may be provided in a single dimension, eight and one-half feet in width by 17 feet in length, except for required accessible parking spaces which shall meet the dimensions required in the California Building Code in effect at the time a project is submitted for City review. No compact parking stalls shall be allowed if only a single dimension stall is used. C. Aisle Dimensions. All aisles within a parking area shall be as follows: TABLE 25.39-5: RRMU PARKING AISLE DIMENSIONS Parking Space Angle Required Backup Aisle 90 degree 24 feet 60 degree 18 feet 30 degree 13 feet D. Stacked/Mechanical Parking. Parking utilizing stackers or mechanical systems may be approved with a Conditional Use Permit. 18 E. Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking shall be provided as follows: TABLE 25.39-6: RRMU BICYCLE PARKING Class Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required Class I – Resident bicycles 0.5 spaces/unit Class II – Guest bicycles 0.05 spaces/unit F. Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stalls. 5 percent of all spaces shall be prepared for EV charging equipment. G. Parking Reductions for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Projects utilizing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan per Section 25.39.030.C.4.h. shall be allowed up to 20 percent reduction in required off-street vehicle parking (not including bicycle parking and EV stalls) provided the project provides for a permanent mobility mode shift towards alternative transportation of 25 percent or greater for building occupants through the TDM program. 25.39.060 Review Procedures A. Design Review Required. Design review is required pursuant to Chapter 25.57 (Design Review). B. Planning Commission Approval of Community Benefits Bonuses. The Planning Commission shall be the final review authority for an application for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. 19 1 & 45 Adrian Road 500’ Radius APN # 025.169.350 & 025.169.999 © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A0.0.1 PROJECT INFORMATION 05/01/2019 ZONING: NORTH ROLLINS RD. MIXED-USE ZONE APN: 025-169-999, 025-169-350 LOT AREA: 2.83 ACRES RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 265 COMMERICAL SF: 3,730 RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: 93.6 DU/ACRE OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS R-2 RESIDENTIAL A-3 POOL/COURTYARD, CLUB ROOM S-2 PARKING GARAGE ACCESSORY ROOF DECK TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION GARAGE: TYPE IA RESIDENTIAL: TYPE IIIA APPLICABLE CODES: 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889 APPLICABLE ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS: THE ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT OF 1969 (ABA) SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FHA) THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), CHAPTERS 11A AND 11B. HIDDEN CONDITIONS: ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OPF THE PLANS PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK. PROJECT TEAM PROJECT INFORMATION APPLICANT / OWNER SUMMERHILL APARTMENT COMMUNITIES 777 S. CALIFORNIA AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 P: 650.842.2404 ARCHITECT SEIDEL ARCHITECTS 545 SANSOME ST. SUITE 901 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 P: 415.397.5535 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT APRIL PHILIPS DESIGN WORKS, INC. 819 FIFTH AVENUE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901 P: 415.457.2774 CIVIL ENGINEER BKF ENGINEERS 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 200 REDWOOD CITY, CA 94065 P: 650.482.6300 MEP ENGINEER EMERALD CITY ENGINEERS 21705 HIGHWAY 99 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036 P: 425.741.1200 JOINT TRENCH GIACALONE DESIGN SERVICES 5820 STONERIDGE MALL RD #345 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 P: 925.467.1740 Adrian Court will be a new 265 unit residential mixed use community in the North Rollins Road Mixed Use District in Burlingame. The site is conveniently located within walking distance of the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station. In keeping with the lowrise industrial character of the surrounding neighborhood, the community is conceived with a contemporary urban character. Two seven story buildings address the street frontages with an activated and pedestrian friendly ground level. Approximately 3800 square feet of commercial space is located facing Adrian Road. Along Adrian Court, ground level uses include a fitness center, leasing office, and a central pedestrian plaza leading to the building lobbies. A pedestrian paseo leads from the Adrian Court cul-de-sac to a new public park established at the western edge of the site. The paseo will be lined with two story residential units with front entries from the pedestrian paseo. The park will provide significant new amenities for both the residents and the public alike. It will feature seating areas, a bocce court, a landscaped stormwater garden feature, and a dog park among other pleasant amenities. The park is overlooked by the resident amenity courtyard at the third level where a swimming pool and clubroom are located, as well as outdoor cooking, dining, and social areas. Additional roof terraces at the 7th level of each of the two buildings will feature dramatic views of surrounding landscape and provide additional space for outdoor relaxation and socializing. The architectural character of the community incorporates a variety of materials, including composite wood siding, an enhanced tile base, plaster, and metal panels intended to elevate neighborhood character in a way that is compatible with the surrounding commercial and industrial development. Parking for the project is screened from the public view by the commercial and residential uses located along the street frontages. PROJECT DESCRIPTION GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLIST NOTE: 2 COMPLETED COPIES OF THE GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLIST WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE PLANS FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN CHECK. SIGNAGE NOTE: ALL SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT A LATER DATE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE COMMON OPEN SPACE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE - PARK & PASEO - PEDESTRIAN PLAZA TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED 4,760 SF 30,765 SF 21,062 SF 3,736 SF 60,324 SF NAME AREA OPEN SPACE PROVIDED BUILDING AMENITIES NAME AREA LEVEL BIKE CENTERS CLUB ROOM CO-WORKING FITNESS LEASING ROOF DECKS WIFI LOUNGE WORKSHOP 1,720 SF 1,602 SF 613 SF 1,461 SF 1,411 SF 2,568 SF 637 SF 825 SF 1ST / GROUND FLOOR 3RD / PODIUM FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 1ST / GROUND FLOOR 1ST / GROUND FLOOR 7TH FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR STANDARD PROVIDED DENSITY - TIER 3 NON RESIDENTIAL F.A.R. HEIGHT - TIER 3 FRONT SETBACK (ADRIAN CT.) INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK STREET SIDE SETBACK (ADRIAN RD.) REAR SETBACK LOT COVERAGE OPEN SPACE PARK & PASEO AREA PEDESTRIAN PLAZA AREA - TIER 3 CORNER PLAZA AREA LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 70 DU/AC + DENSITY BONUS 1.0 7ST. / 80' 15' 15' 10' 20' 60% MAX 125 SF/DU MIN 33,125 SF - 2,250 SF - 20% 93.6 DU/AC .033 79' 15'-2" 15'-0" 15'-0" 54' 45% 242 SF/DU 60,324 SF 21,062 SF (0.48 ACRES) 3,736 SF 816 SF 20.3% NORTH ROLLINS ROAD MIXED-USE STANDARDS Total Parking Required 312 Totals 13 1 PER 300 SQFT @ 3,701 SF COMMERCIAL PARKING Totals 299 197 UNITS X 1 = 197 68 UNITS X 1.5 = 102 1 PER STUDIO 1 PER 1 BR 1.5 PER 2 BR RESIDENT PARKING PARKING REQUIRED Total Parking Provided 315 Grand Totals 8 1 14 2 290 315 Totals 0 0 0 0 13 13 2nd Floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ground Floor 0 0 0 0 13 13 ACC VAN ACC EVCS VAN EVCS STANDARD 8'-6" X 17'TOTAL COMMERCIAL PARKING Totals 3 0 1 1 8 13 2nd Floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ground Floor 3 0 1 1 8 13 ACC VAN ACC EVCS VAN EVCS STANDARD 8'-6" X 17'TOTAL RESIDENT VISITOR PARKING Totals 5 1 13 1 269 289 2nd Floor 0 0 4 0 164 168 Ground Floor 5 1 9 1 105 121 ACC VAN ACC EVCS VAN EVCS STANDARD 8'-6" X 17'TOTAL RESIDENT PARKING PARKING PROVIDED PARKING TABULATION Total 147 Ground Floor 133 On-Site 14 Bike Parking Provided BIKE PARKING UNIT TABULATION CITY OF BURLINGAME NOTES 1. AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, PLANS AND ENGINEERING WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR SHORING AS REQUIRED BY 2016 CBC, CHAPTER 31 REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED BY OSHA. A. THE WALLS OF THE PROPOSED BASEMENT SHALL BE PROPERLY SHORED, PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THIS EXCAVATION MAY NEED TEMPORARY SHORING. A COMPETENT CONTRACTOR SHALL BE CONSULTED FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND DESIGN OF SHORING SCHEME FOR THE EXCAVATION. THE RECOMMENDED DESIGN TYPE OF SHORING SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD OR SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO USAGE. B. 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 BE FIVE (5) FEET. BEYOND THAT HORIZONTAL BENCHES OF 5 FEET WIDE WILL BE REQUIRED. TEMPORARY SHORES SHALL NOT EXCEED 1 TO 1 (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL). IN SOME AREAS DUE TO HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT / WATER TABLE, FLATTER SLOPES WILL BE REQUIRED WHICH WILL BE RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER IN THE FIELD. C. IF SHORING IS REQUIRED, SPECIFY ON THE PLANS THE LICENSED DESIGN PROFESSIONAL THAT HAS SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DESIGN AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE SHORING, BRACING, FORMWORK, ETC. AS REQUIRED FOR THE PROTECTION OF LIFE AND PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. D. SHORING AND BRACING SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FLOORS, ROOF, AND WALL SHEATHING HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED. E. SHORING PLANS SHALL BE WET-STAMPED AND SIGNED BY THE ENGINEER-OF-RECORD AND SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF APPLICABLE, INCLUDE SURCHARGE LOADS FROM ADJACENT STRUCTURES THAT ARE WITHIN THE ZONE OF INFLUENCE (45 DEGREE WEDGE UP THE SLOPE FROM THE BASE OF THE RETAINING WALL) AND / OR DRIVEWAY SURCHARGE LOADS. 2. AN OSHA PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINED PER CAL/OSHA REQUIREMENTS. 3. A GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 4. ALL PATHS OF TRAVEL AND COMMON USE SPACES WILL BE ACCESSIBLE AND ALL LIVING UNITS WILL BE ADAPTABLE. TOTAL OPEN SPACE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE REQUIRED 33,125 SF 125 SQFT PER UNIT x 265 UNITS PROVIDED ± Net Rentable SF 15111 1935 1704 1470 1984 62484 3340 7634 670 6840 7400 11475 3400 3895 589 3475 749 7947 4265 1183 1274 8808 17586 9096 1218 977 4824 9664 1166 2120 7404 5368 1229 4424 222,708 %74.3%25.7%100% Totals 197 68 Totals 23 3 2 1 2 82 4 11 1 10 10 17 5 5 1 5 1 9 5 1 1 8 18 8 1 1 4 8 1 2 6 4 1 4 265 7th Floor 3 7 11 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 2 1 1 45 6th Floor 5 19 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 51 5th Floor 5 1 19 1 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 55 4th Floor 5 1 20 2 2 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 54 3rd Floor 5 1 16 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 50 2nd Floor 1 1 1 3 Ground Floor 2 1 2 1 1 7 ± SF 657 645 852 1470 992 762 835 694 670 684 740 675 680 779 589 695 749 883 853 1183 1274 1101 977 1137 1218 977 1206 1208 1166 1060 1234 1342 1229 1106 Unit Type JR 1BR ST 1 BR LOFT (L-1) 1 BR LOFT (L-3) 1 BR LOFT (L-5)1A 1A-3 1A-4 1A-5 1B 1D 1E 1F 1G 1G-2 1H 1J 1P 1Q 2BR LOFT (L-2) 2 BR LOFT (L-4)2A 2A-2 2A-3 2A-4 2A-5 2A-6 2B 2B-2 2B-3 2B-4 2B-5 2B-6 2C TOTALS © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A0.0 COVER SHEET 05/01/2019 A D R I A N C O U R T B U R L I N G A M E , C A L I F O R N I A DRAWING INDEX VICINITY MAP LANDSCAPE L1 GROUND PLANE SITE PLAN L2 PARK & PASEO ENLARGEMENT L3 MAIN PLAZA & STREETSCAPE ENLARGEMENTS L4 PODIUM COURTYARD ENLARGEMENTS L5 ROOF TERRACE ENLARGEMENTS L6 PLANT PALETTE AND NOTES L7 LANDSCAPE COVERAGE DIAGRAM CIVIL C1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN C2.0 PROPOSED SITE PLAN C3.0 PROPOSED GRADING PLAN C4.0 PROPOSED UTILITY PLAN C5.0 PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN C6.0 SECTIONS VTM 1.0 TITLE SHEET VTM 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN VTM 3.0 PROPOSED PARCELIZATION JOINT TRENCH INT1 JOINT TRENCH INTENT TITLE SHEET INT2 JOINT TRENCH INTENT INT3 JOINT TRENCH INTENT PHOTOMETRICS PM1 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC STUDY PM2 SITE LIGHTING PHOTOMETRIC STUDY ARCHITECTURE A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.0.1 PROJECT INFORMATION A0.1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT A0.2 SITE PHOTOS A0.3 SITE PLAN GROUND LEVEL A0.4 SITE PLAN PODIUM LEVEL A0.5.1 PERSPECTIVE AT INTERSECTION A0.5.2 PERSPECTIVE AT ADRIAN COURT A0.6 CIRCULATION PLANS A0.7 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAM A0.8 FIRE ACCESS PLAN A2.1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN A2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.3 THIRD FLOOR (PODIUM) PLAN A2.4 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A2.5 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN A2.6 SIXTH FLOOR PLAN A2.7 SEVENTH FLOOR PLAN A2.8 ROOF PLAN A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.6 MATERIAL BOARD A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS A5.1 UNIT PLANS A5.2 UNIT PLANS A5.3 UNIT PLANS A5.4 UNIT PLANS A5.5 UNIT PLANS A5.6 UNIT PLANS L1 & L2 A5.7 UNIT PLANS A5.8 UNIT PLANS A6.1 GROSS BUILDING AREA DIAGRAMS A6.2 FIRE DIAGRAMS A6.3 FIRE WALL & ALLOWABLE AREA DIAGRAMS A6.4 EXIT SEPARATION A6.5a ACCESSIBILITY PLANS A6.5b ACCESSIBILITY PLANS A7.1 WINDOW DETAILS A7.2 TRASH STAGING PLAN AND SECTIONS PROJECT SITE 1/2 MI RADIUS BIRD'S EYE VIEW PROJECT SITE GOODWILL PUBLIC STORAGE PERSPECTIVE PROJECT SITE BAYSHORE FREEWAYMILLBRAE BART/CALTRAIN STATION SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT CALIFORNIA DRIVEMILLBRAE AVENUE MILLS-PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER MILLS HIGH SCHOOL PENINSULA MUSEUM OF ART ADRIAN ROAD ROLLINS ROADBAYFRONT PARKBURLINGAME PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER FRIENDSHIP PLAZA GROCERY/RETAIL © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A0.1 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 05/01/2019 A0.1 1 VICINITY MAP UNITED STATES POST OFFICE © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A0.5.1 PERSPECTIVE AT INTERSECTION 05/01/2019 © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A0.5.2 PERSPECTIVE AT ADRIAN COURT 05/01/2019 STOPP A R K 17,526 SF COMMERCIAL / OFFICE 3,730 SF FITNESS 1,461 SF BIKE (RESIDENT) 65 TRASH FAN ELEC.ELEC.ELEC.STAIR STAIRPEDESTRIAN PLAZA 3,736 SF TRASH AUTO RAMP UP P A S E O AUTOS A D R I A N C O U R T A D R I A N R O A D16'-0"STAIRA4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 BIKE (RESIDENT) 68 PLAZA 816 SF STAIRG A T E RESIDENT PARKING (121) COMMERCIAL PARKING (13)FIRE RMSTAIR24'-0" 24'-0"27'-0" 123456789101112141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 144 145 MAINT. 13 AUTOS A3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 2 L-1 L-1 L-4 L-3L-2 RESIDENT VISITOR PARKING (13) 38 78 109 14218'-0" TYP.17'-0"24'-0"17'-0"8'-6" TYP.15'-0"18'-0"24'-0" TYP.EAST LOBBY WEST LOBBY 15'-10 1/2"146 ELEC. +501.4' AVG. T.O.C. + 502.5'147 L-5 L-5 14326'-6 3/4"1 3 2 '-7 1 /2 " 2 9 '-0 "82'-4 3/4" 206'-11 1/2" 15'-0"148'-6 1/2"60'-3 1/4"20'-1 1/2"22'-8"103'-8 3/4" 8'-6" (TYP.) 10'-0" (TYP. AT WALL) (TYP.) @ EVCS 9'-0" 2 3 '-9 "17'-7"15'-3"15'-10"15'-2"PKG. RM.MAIL ROOM 1'-0" MIN. TYP. AT WALL RESIDENT ACCESS SLIDING GATE 8'-6"46'-6"61'-8"15'-2"LEASING OFFICE B.O.H.7'-0"7'-0"17'-3"27'-0 1/2"21'-10 1/2" 10'-0" 411'-8 1/4"21'-11 1/4"12'-0" 5'-0"18'-0"9'-0"5'-0" MIN. © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.1 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 05/01/2019 0'10' 20'40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH VAN ACC PARKING DIAGRAM ACC PARKING DIAGRAM PUBLIC PARK SEE NOTE 3 UPPER LOBBY FAN STAIRDN POOL VAULT STAIRWI-FI LOUNGE 637 SF STAIRA4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 CO- WORK 613 SF STAIR1 G SPA VAULT / POOL ROOM T R WORKSHOP 825 SF OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW STAIR12345678910111314151617181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 95 96 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 131 132 A3.1 2 TR A3.3 1 A3.2 2 OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW L-4L-3 L-2 L-1 L-5 UPPER LOBBY OPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO BELOW 46 47 55 94 97 106 130 133 RESIDENT PARKING (166)18'-0" TYP.17'-0"24'-0"17'-0"8'-6" TYP. ELEC. BELOW L-5 L-1 1245 168 82'-4 3/4"44'-0"20'-10" 103'-8 3/4"22'-8"60'-3 1/4"20'-1 1/2"26'-6 3/4"(TYP. AT WALL) 10'-0" (TYP.) @ EVCS 9'-0" (TYP.) 8'-6"27'-0 1/2"15'-0"15'-10 1/2"15'-2 3/4"16'-0"17'-3"1 A -31A 15'-0"1'-0" TYP. AT WALL8'-6" 61'-8"53'-5"15'-2"15'-2"398'-0 1/4"21'-8 1/2"1 9 0 '-1 1 1 /2 " 206'-11 1/2"148'-7 3/4" © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 05/01/2019 0' 10' 20' 40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH STAIRCOURTYARD COURTYARD POOL ROOFT R TR 1J M W 2 A -3 W E S T B U I L D I N G A4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 STAIR2A-2 1E 1E 1B JR 1BR 1A 1A 1A STAIR1 G 2A-2 1B 2B-5 1A 1A EAST BUILDING JR 1BR STAIR2A JR 1BR 1A 1Q 2 B -4 CLUB ROOM 1 A 1E JR 1BR 2A-2 2A 1P 1P 1P 2B A3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 2 JR 1BR STAIRSPA ST 60'-3"15'-0"15'-10 1/2"1H 1D 1A 1F 1D 2A-3 15'-0"48'-4 1/4"34'-9"26'-7"82'-4 1/4" 61'-8 3/4" 163'-4"20'-9 1/4"7'-7 1/2"152'-5 3/4" 124'-11 1/4"18'-0"21'-2"73'-6"2 6 2 '-7 1 /4 "71'-4 1/2"104'-3 3/4"16'-0"1A-3 2A-4 37'-1" 1 A 1 A 17'-2"19'-10"30'-0" 1 A 2B 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 15'-2"STAIR15'-2"390'-3"21'-8 1/4"17'-3"1 9 0 '-1 1 3 /4 " 202'-11 3/4"124'-11" © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.3 THIRD FLOOR (PODIUM) PLAN 05/01/2019 0' 10' 20' 40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH STAIRT R A4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 STAIRSTAIRTR 2C STAIRA3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 2 STAIROPEN TO BELOW OPEN TO COURTYARD BELOW 82'-4 1/4" 61'-8 3/4" 163'-4"20'-9 1/4"390'-3" 15'-4"152'-5 3/4"47'-0 3/4"73'-6"2 6 2 '-7 1 /4 "67'-4 1/2"202'-11 3/4"23'-8 1/4"27'-11 3/4"15'-0"26'-7"27'-0 1/2"17'-3"W E S T B U I L D I N G EAST BUILDING15'-2"2 A -3 1 G 1 A 1 A 1 A 2B 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 ASTAIR 1E 2A-2 2A-2 1E 1B JR 1BR 1A 1A 1A 2A-2 1B 1A 1A JR 1BR2A JR 1BR 1A 1Q JR 1BR 2A 1P 1P 1P 2B JR 1BR ST 1H 1D 1A 1F 1D 2A-3 1E 1E BALCONY, TYP. BALCONY, TYP.15'-2"1A 1A 2A-6 2 B -4 2B-5 1 A 1 9 0 '-1 1 3 /4 "124'-11" © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.4 FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 05/01/2019 0' 10' 20' 40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH T R A4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 TRSTAIR STAIRSTAIRSTAIRA3.1 2 A3.3 1 A3.2 2 STAIROPEN TO COURTYARD BELOW 82'-4 1/4" 61'-8 3/4" 163'-4"20'-9 1/4"390'-3" 152'-5 3/4"15'-4"46'-0 3/4"202'-11 3/4"67'-4 1/2"2 6 2 '-7 1 /4 "73'-6"27'-11 3/4"15'-0"26'-7"27'-0 1/2"17'-3"W E S T B U I L D I N G EAST BUILDING 15'-2"2 A -3 1 G 1 A 1 A 1 A 2B 2C 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1E 1E 1E 2A-2 2A-2 1E 1B JR 1BR 1A 1A 1A 2A-2 1B 1A 1A JR 1BR2A JR 1BR 1A 1Q JR 1BR 2A 1P 1P 1P 2B JR 1BR ST 1H 1D 1A 1F 1D 2A-3 BALCONY, TYP. BALCONY, TYP.15'-2"STAIR1A 1A 2A-6 2 B -4 2 B -4 2B-5 1 A -3 1 9 0 '-1 1 3 /4 "124'-11" © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.5 FIFTH FLOOR PLAN 05/01/2019 0' 10' 20' 40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH T R A4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 STAIRTR STAIRSTAIRSTAIRA3.1 2 ROOF A3.3 1 A3.2 2 STAIROPEN TO COURTYARD BELOW 35'-2 1/4"6'-0"82'-4 1/4" 61'-8 3/4" 163'-3 1/4"37'-7"111'-1 1/4"21'-10 1/2"390'-3"46'-0 3/4"202'-11 3/4"71'-4 1/2"2 6 2 '-7 1 /4 "73'-6"26'-7"27'-0 1/2"17'-3"63'-1 3/4"15'-0"W E S T B U I L D I N G EAST BUILDING 15'-2"2 A -3 1 G 1 A 1 A 1 A 2B 2C 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1 A 1E 1E 1E 2A-2 2A-2 1E 1B JR 1BR 1A 1A 1A 2A-2 1B 1A 1A JR 1BR2A JR 1BR 1A 1Q JR 1BR 2A 2B JR 1BR 1H 1D 1A 1F 1D 2A-3 1A BALCONY, TYP. BALCONY, TYP.15'-2"STAIR1A 2A-6 2 B -4 2 B -4 2B-5 1 A -3 1 9 0 '-1 1 3 /4 " © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.6 SIXTH FLOOR PLAN 05/01/2019 0' 10' 20' 40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH ROOF DECK A4.1 1 A4.1 2 A4.1 3 A3.21 A3.1 1 STAIRTR STAIRSTAIR1 G -2 1 A -4 2 A -5 2C TR STAIRROOF DECK STAIR1 A -5 A3.1 2 DN 2B-6 2 B -2 A3.3 1 A3.2 2 ROOF ROOF OPEN TO COURTYARD BELOW 1 A -4 1 A -41A-4 1 A -4 1 A -41A-4 1 A -4 1 A -4 82'-4" 61'-8 3/4" 153'-5 1/4"36'-0" 36'-0" 36'-0"144'-8"21'-10 1/2"369'-7"20'-8"47'-11"182'-3 3/4" 2 0 1 '-1 1 "66'-5"64'-2 1/4"30'-3 3/4"26'-7"32'-5 1/2"27'-0 1/2"17'-3"22'-9 1/4"63'-1 3/4"15'-0"15'-10 1/2"W E S T B U I L D I N G EAST BUILDING 19'-2"1E 2A-2 2A-2 1E 1B JR 1BR 1A 1A 1A 2A-2 1B 1A 1Q JR 1BR JR 1BR 1H 1D 1A 1F 1D BALCONY, TYP.46'-5"ROOFROOF, TYP.4'-0"STAIR1A-4 ROOF 2A-2 ROOF 1A-4 BALCONY 2A-2 2A-2 2B-3 2A-6 2B-3 1A 1A 1 9 0 '-1 1 3 /4 " BALCONY ROOF © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A2.7 SEVENTH FLOOR PLAN 05/01/2019 0' 10' 20' 40' TRUE NORTH PROJECT NORTH 1ST / GROUND FLOOR +502.50'ADRIAN ROAD PLASTER 1 PLASTER 2 COMPOSITE WOOD SIDINGPAINTED METAL PANEL SIDING 1 PORCELAIN TILE CONCRETE PAINTED METAL AWNING VINYL WINDOW PLASTER 3 WATER FEATURE AVG. T.O. CURB +501.40'4'-0"79'-0" ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM W/ GLAZING PAINTED METAL AWNING LEASING PAINTED METAL DOOR PAINTED METAL BRIDGE METAL AWNING PAINTED METAL DOORFRITTED WINDOWPERFORATED CORTEN GLASS RAILING PAINTED METAL PANEL 2 PLASTER 6 CERAMIC TILE 1ST / GROUND FLOOR +502.50' PLASTER 1 PLASTER 2 COMPOSITE WOOD VINYL PORCELAIN TILE PLASTER 3 PARK AVG. T.O. CURB +501.40'4'-0"79'-0" PAINTED METAL AWNING PAINTED METAL AWNING FRITTED WINDOW PAINTED METAL DOOR PAINTED METAL GATE © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 05/01/2019 ADRIAN COURT ELEVATION PASEO ELEVATION 0' 8' 16' 32' NOTE: REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR RELATIONSHIP OF NOTED ELEVATIONS TO ACTUAL GRADE. SIGNAGE NOTE: ALL SIGNAGEWILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT A LATER DATE ADRIAN COURT COMPOSITE WOOD VINYL CONCRETE PAINTED METAL AWNING PLASTER 1 PAINTED METAL PANEL SIDING 1 PLASTER 2 PAINTED METAL AWNING PLASTER 6 PAINTED CORRUGATED METAL SIDING AVG. T.O. CURB +501.40'8'-6"79'-0" ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM W/ GLAZING PAINTED METAL DOOR PAINTED METAL GATE PAINTED METAL PANEL 2 27'-0"1ST / GROUND FLOOR +502.50' PLASTER 1 COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING VINYL WINDOW METAL AWNING PLASTER 3 METAL AWNING PAINTED METAL RAILING PLASTER 7 COMPOSITE WOOD SIDING VINYL WINDOW AVG. T.O. CURB +501.40'4'-0"79'-0" GLASS RAILING METAL AWNING PLASTER 5 PAINTED METAL GRILL ART WALL (TBD) PLASTER 2 © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 05/01/2019 ADRIAN ROAD ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 0' 8' 16' 32' NOTE: REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR RELATIONSHIP OF NOTED ELEVATIONS TO ACTUAL GRADE. SIGNAGE NOTE: ALL SIGNAGEWILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT A LATER DATE 1ST / GROUND FLOOR +502.50' ADRIAN ROAD PLASTER 7 PAINTED CORRUGATED METAL SIDING VINYL WINDOW PAINTED METAL PANEL SIDING 1 CONCRETE PLASTER 4 EXTENT OF PUBLIC STORAGE BEHIND DOTTED PLASTER 2 AVG. T.O. CURB +501.40'8'-6"79'-0" PAINTED METAL DOOR PLASTER 7 EXTENT OF GOODWILL BEHIND DOTTED PAINTED METAL AWNING PLASTER 3GLASS RAILING ART WALL (TBD)PAINTED METAL GRILLPLASTER 7 © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 05/01/2019 SOUTH ELEVATION 0' 8' 16' 32' NOTE: REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR RELATIONSHIP OF NOTED ELEVATIONS TO ACTUAL GRADE. SIGNAGE NOTE: ALL SIGNAGEWILL BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE SUBMITTAL AND SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT A LATER DATE © SEIDEL ARCHITECTS INC, 2019 ADRIAN COURT Burlingame, CA A3.6 MATERIAL BOARD 05/01/2019 ALUMINUM SIDING WOOD GRAIN FINISH DARK CHERRY PLASTER SAND FLOAT FINISH VINYL WINDOW BRONZE ALUMINUM STOREFRONT BRONZE PLASTER 2 BENJAMIN MOORE OC-69 WHITE OPULENCE PORCELAIN TILE ARIZONA BROWN CORTEN STEEL PANEL PLASTER 3 DUNN-EDWARDS DE6360 CLOUDED VISION CONCRETE VERTICAL METAL PANEL CORRUGATED METAL PANEL PLASTER 4 DUNN-EDWARDS DEA160 HOPE CHEST PLASTER 5 DUNN-EDWARDS DE6192 NOMADIC TAUPE SMOOTH PLASTER W/ REVEAL PLASTER 1 DUNN-EDWARDS DE6369 LEGENDARY GRAY PLASTER 6 DUNN-EDWARDS DEA156 CHERRY COLA PAINTED METAL 1 OLD ZINC GRAY VERTICAL METAL PANEL PAINTED METAL 2 DUNN-EDWARDS DE6370 CHARCOAL SMUDGE RAILINGS AND AWNINGS PAINTED METAL 3 ACCENT DOORS & BRIDGE DUNN-EDWARDS DEA156 CHERRY COLA PAINTED METAL 4 CORRUGATED METAL PANEL WEATHERED ZINC © L1 GROUND PLANE SITE PLAN 05/01/2019 LEGEND PASEO W/ SPECIAL PAVING & ENTRY PORTALS: SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS STORMWATER GARDEN W/ SURROUNDING PATHWAY: SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS PUBLIC PARK W/ LAWN, 'WAVE FIELD', DOG PARKS, SEATING, SEATING AREA AND BOCCE BALL COURT: SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS PATHWAY & FLOW THROUGH STORM WATER PLANTERS: SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS MAIN PLAZA & ENTRY TO LOBBY W/ SEAT WALLS, FOUNTAIN & PLANTING: SEE SHEET L3.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS STREET SCAPE PLANTING, STREET TREES AND 7' PATHWAY: SEE SHEET L3.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS COMMERCIAL ENTRY PLAZA: SEE SHEET L3.0 FOR ENLARGEMENTS BIKE PARKING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 DOG PARKS FOR LARGE AND SMALL DOGS WAVE FIELD PARK BIKE PARKING AND SITE FURNITUREFREE PLAY AND PLAYFULL ART IN WAVE FIELD BOCCE COURT PUBLIC PLAZAS AT MID BLOCK AND CORNER STREET TREE PLANTINGS PASEO / PARK GATEWAY ELEMENT STREET SCAPE GARDEN PLANTINGS © L2 PARK & PASEO ENLARGEMENT 05/01/2019 PARK LEGEND LARGE EVERGREEN TREES EXISTING POWER LINE TOWER W/ PLANTING AND ACCENT LIGHTING PALM CLUSTERS AT TOWER 'WAVE FIELD' MOUNDS SMALL TREE SEAT WALL SALVAGED STEEL ENTRY PORTAL & BENCH W/ ACCENT LIGHTING PASEO WALK WITH SPECIAL PAVING SEATING & CHARCOAL BBQ AREA AT PUBLIC PARK W/ SPECIAL PAVING STORMWATER GARDEN SPECIAL PAVEMENT AT OVERLOOK LAWN BOCCE BALL COURT W/ ARTIFICIAL TURF & LIGHTING AROUND HEADER GRANITECRETE PERVIOUS PATHWAY 6' SOLID FENCE MEDIUM SCREENING TREES ARTIFICIAL TURF AT SMALL DOG PARK CONCRETE PAVEMENT & SEATING ARTIFICIAL TURF AT LARGE DOG PARK FENCING AT DOG PARK SECURITY GATE FLOW THROUGH STORM WATER PLANTERS LARGE COLUMNAR TREE BIKE RACKS BOLLARD LIGHTING METAL SUNSHADE PER ARCHITECTURE PLANS EXISTING ELECTRICAL POLE TO REMAIN LOW UNIT FENCE AND GATE SUPER GRAPHIC ON BUILDING WALL, SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS 6' POROUS PERIMETER FENCE ADIRONDACK LOUNGE CHAIRS POLE LIGHTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 15 32 SALVAGED STEEL PASEO PATH LIGHTING WAVE FIELD MEADOW BOCCE COURT W/ ARTIFICIAL TURF LARGE DOG PARK & SMALL DOG PARK WITH SEATING AND ENGAGING ART EXISTING POWER LINE TOWER W/ PLANTING AND ACCENT LIGHTING STORMWATER GARDEN AND OVERLOOKPOROUS AND INDUSTRIAL FENCE CONCEPTS PERIMETER MEADOW PICNIC GATHERING AND LAWN AREASEATING NOTE: ACCESS EASEMENT FOR FUTURE TRAILS TBD PARK LIGHTING © L3 MAIN PLAZA & STREETSCAPE ENLARGEMENTS 05/01/2019 GARDEN EDGE STREETSCAPE TREE WELLS FOCAL WALL AT MAIN STAIRS TO BE A COMBINATION OF MOSS, CORTEN AND WATER FEATURE FOR SOUND LINEAR PAVERS AND STAGGERED PATTERNS BENCH & MODULAR SEATING W/ ACCENT LIGHTING PLAZA AT COMMERCIAL CORNER BIKE PARKING CONCEPTS PLAZA AT MID BLOCK WITH PAVERS, BENCHES, PLANTINGS AND ART MAIN PLAZA LEGEND LARGE STREET TREES AT ADRIAN COURT PER BURLINGAME APPROVED LIST PLAZA AT LOBBY ENTRANCE W/ SPECIAL PAVING STAGGERED PLANTING AREAS SEAT WALLS/ BENCHES & LITTER/RECYCLING BINS COBBLE TREE WELLS STREETSCAPE PLANTING AREAS MEDIUM DECIDUOUS TREES UNIT ENTRY PATHWAY FOCAL FOUNTAIN WALL FOCAL CORTEN WALL WITH LIGHTING BIKE PARKING MODULAR BENCH STORMWATER PLANTER 7' SIDEWALK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STREETSCAPE LEGEND PLAZA AT COMMERCIAL ENTRY W/ SPECIAL PAVING LARGE EVERGEEN 48" BOX STREET TREES AT ADRIAN ROAD PER BURLINGAME APPROVED LIST MEDIUM DECIDUOUS TREES COBBLE TREE WELLS STREET SCAPE PLANTING AREAS SECURITY GATE LARGE COLUMNAR TREE BIKE PARKING STORMWATER PLANTER, SEE ALSO CIVIL PLANS 7' SIDEWALK 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 © L4 PODIUM COURTYARD ENLARGEMENTS 05/01/2019 SCALE: 1" = 30'- 0" 0 15'30'60' SCALE: 1" = 20'- 0" 0 10'20'40'PODIUM LEGEND CLUB HOUSE DINING AREA SMALL FIRE PIT AND SEATING GUARDRAIL PER ARCHITECTS CHAISE LOUNGE CHAIRS LOW RAISED PLANTERS SPECIAL PAVING CABANAS ARTIFICIAL TURF GREENROOF PLANTING TABLES WITH UMBRELLAS FIRE PIT WITH LOUNGE FURNITURE POOL FENCE & GATE BENCH SEATING PAVING AT POOL AREA SPECIAL UNIT PAVER SPECIAL LINEAR UNIT PAVING DAY LOUNGERS 'PEBBLE' SEATING AREA STORM WATER PLANTERS PLANTING AREA PALM TREES BUILT IN BBQ MEDIUM TREES TABLE & CHAIRS BAR TOP & SEATING W/ PLANTING IN THE CENTER & OVERHEAD STRUCTURE BAR TOP COUNTER LOUNGE FURNITURE SMALL TREES PING PONG/ DINING TABLE MODULAR PLANTERS 8' ACOUSTICAL GLAZE WALL; SEE ARCHITECTURE PLANS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 13 14 15 16 28 29 30 31 LOW PLANTERS ON PODIUM FIRE PIT LOUNGE WITH HEAT LAMP CABANAS & DAYBEDS AT POOL POOL AND SPA WITH LOUNGERS INDUSTRIAL STYLE PLANTERS AND MATERIALS CENTRAL DINING / COMMUNITY ZONE WITH TRELLIS AND FESTIVAL LIGHTS PEBBLE SEATING AREA © L5 ROOF TERRACE ENLARGEMENTS 05/01/2019 BAR TOP AT SUNSET VIEW FIRE /WATER PIT LOUNGES WITH HEAT LAMPS AND FURNITURE SUNSET VIEW EDGE VARIATIONS WITH GLASS AND STRUCTURES GLASS PARAPETS AT VIEWS TO HILLS BEYOND - MODERN INDUSTRIAL STYLE COORDINATED WITH OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENTS PLAYFUL ELEMENTS : TABLE TOP GAMES & OUTDOOR THEATER ON UPPER TERRACES © L6 PLANT PALETTE AND NOTES 05/01/2019 PLANTING & WATER USE NOTES: 1. ALL PLANT GROUPS ARE DESIGNED FOR LOW WATER USE, AND LAID OUT BY HYDROZONES 2. PLANTS HAVE BEEN SELECTED FOR RESISTANCE TO WIND, SIZE AT MATURITY, AND LOW WATER USE. NO INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES HAVE BEEN INCLUDED (PER CAL-IPC). 3. ALL GROUNDCOVER PLANTING AREAS ARE EXPECTED TO UNIFORMLY COVER THE PLANTING AREA IN TWO (2) YEARS. ALL SHRUB PLANTING AREAS ARE EXPECTED TO UNIFORMLY COVER THE PLANTING AREA IN FIVE (5) YEARS. 4. ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF 3” DEPTH LAYER OF ORGANIC, COMPOSTED WOOD CHIP MULCH APPLIED. STABILIZING MULCH PRODUCTS SHALL BE APPLIED TO SLOPES OF 3 TO 1 OR GREATER. 5. THIS PROJECT SHALL UTILIZE A DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM. GENERAL NOTES: 1. DESIGN SHALL MEET ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL CODES. 2. SEE CIVIL PLANS FOR GRADES, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DEMOLITION, EXISTING TREE REMOVAL, AND ADA PATH OF TRAVEL. 3. VERIFY EXISTING SITE INFORMATION, INCLUDING GRADES, UTILITIES, PROPERTY LINES, SETBACKS, EASEMENTS, LIMITS OF ROADWAYS, CURBS AND GUTTERS. 4. MAINTENANCE SPECIFICATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT PERMIT DOCUMENTATION TIME. ROBINA X AMIGUA POPULUS NIGRA ‘ITALICA’ MAHONIA REPENS ASPARAGUS DENSIFLORA DAPHNE ODORA PYRUS SPP. SYAGRUS ROM.CHAMAEROPS HUM.ARCTOSTAPHYLOS SPP. LOMANDRA LONGIFOLIA MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA LYONOTHANAMNUS FLOR. PHORMIUM ‘BRONZE BABY’ CORREA ‘IVORY BELLS’ GINKGO BILOBA MAGNOLIA LITTLE GEMARBUTUS VIBURNUM DAVIDII GREVILLEA SPP.EPILOBIUM CANUM CAREX TESTACEA JUNCUS PATENS ‘ELK BLUE’ ADRIAN CT. ADRIAN RD. COVER SHEETPLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A-000 01-04-2019SHEET INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Name A-204 ROOF PLAN A-301 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-302 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Name A-000 COVER SHEET A-001 SITE PLAN A-201 FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 1 A-202 FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 2 A-203 FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 3 SITE PLANPLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A-001 Project North SCALE: 1/64" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN 01-04-2019 1,053 SF ADMIN HUB 361 SF SALES 216 SF BRKRM 1,354 SF MAINTENANCE TRASH LINEN PARK PATIO MAINT. OFFICE ELEVELEV 419 SF ENTRY VESTIBULE 932 SF LOBBY 6,718 SF ATRIUM ELEC. BAR BEV. STATION DATA MECH. BAG IN BOX BAG STORAGE FIRE RISER JAN. OFFICEOFFICEOFFICE HITTING BAYS EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR STAIR 356 SF PRO SHOP 300 SF V.H. BAY 299 SF V.H. BAY 303 SF V.H. BAY MEN WOMEN FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 1 PLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A-201 01-04-2019SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"1 FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 1 Project North Level One Total Occupancy : 1,421 Shipping Dock 1,312 300 gross sf 5 Break Room 216 15 gross sf 15 Mercantile / Pro Shop 356 60 gross sf 6 Office/Business Areas 1,814 100 gross sf 19 Exterior Patio 7,491 15 gross sf 500 Hitting Bays 4,000 12 gross sf 267 Game Area 900 11 gross sf 82 Mechanical 250 300 gross sf 1 Storage 831 300 gross sf 3 Scullery/Kitchen 129 200 gross sf 1 Concessions / Back of Bar 445 200 gross sf 3 Event (Table & Chairs)982 15 net sf 66 Lobby (standing only)2,261 5 net sf 453 Room Name Area (sq. ft.) Factor Load Level One - Occupancy Calculations Total Building Area (Square Feet) : 71,024 Level One Building Area (Square Feet) : 27,632 OPEN TO BELOWPARK PATIO BELOWELEV2,693 SFKITCHEN386 SFPRIVATE EVENTOPEN TO BELOWCHILDREN AREALOUNGEROOF TERRACEBARELEC.BEV. STATIONSTORAGESTAIRELEVBAG ROOMJAN.WOMENMENHITTING BAYSEXTERIOR STAIREXTERIOR STAIR1,366 SFMECHANICAL COURTYARDFLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 2PLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA-20201-04-2019SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 2ProjectNorthLevel Two Total Occupancy : 601Exterior Patio821 15 gross sf 55Hitting Bays4,000 12 gross sf 267Game Area692 11 gross sf 63Mechanical189 300 gross sf 1Storage553 300 gross sf 2Scullery/Kitchen2,822 200 gross sf 15Concessions / Back of Bar445 200 gross sf 3Event (Table & Chairs)1,751 15 net sf 117Lobby (standing only)386 5 net sf 78Room Name Area (sq. ft.) Factor LoadLevel Two - Occupancy CalculationsTotal Building Area (Square Feet) : 71,024Level Two Building Area (Square Feet) : 22,590 OPEN TO BELOWTERRACE BELOWMENROOF TERRACEROOFBARBEV. STATION993 SFVIP665 SFVIP635 SFVIPSTORAGEMECHANICAL COURTYARD ROOF BELOWJAN.HITTING BAYSWOMENSTAIRELEVELEVEXTERIOR STAIREXTERIOR STAIRFLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 3PLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA-20301-04-2019SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN- LEVEL 3ProjectNorthLevel Three Total Occupancy : 612Exterior Patio2,200 15 gross sf 147Hitting Bays4,000 12 gross sf 267Storage200 300 gross sf 1Scullery/Kitchen129 200 gross sf 1Concessions / Back of Bar445 200 gross sf 3Event (Table & Chairs)2,890 15 net sf 193Room Name Area (sq. ft.) Factor LoadLevel Three - Occupancy CalculationsTotal Building Area (Square Feet) : 71,024Level Three Building Area (Square Feet) : 20,852 ROOF BELOWROOF ROOF ROOF ROOF PLANPLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA-20401-04-2019SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLANProjectNorth PAINTED E.I.F.S. PANELS 146'-0" 128'-0" 114'-0" 100'-0" T.O. PARAPET WALL LEVEL 3 LEVEL 2 GROUND LEVEL PAINTED STEEL STRUCTURAL SUPPORTS WITH COLUMN WRAPS SEALED CONCRETE SLAB ALUMINUM OPERABLE OVERHEAD GLAZING METAL PANEL STAIR ENCLOSURE PAINTED E.I.F.S. PANELSCONCRETE PANELS WITH REVEALS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING METAL PANEL ILLUMINATED CANOPY BAND WALL SURFACE LIGHT BAND INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE STOREFRONT GLAZING METAL PANEL STAIR ENCLOSURE 100'-0" PAINTED STEEL CANOPY 114'-0" 134'-0" 146'-0" T.O. CONCRETE PANEL LEVEL 2 GROUND LEVEL T.O. PARAPET WALL ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE METAL PANELS PAINTED E.I.F.S. WALL EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA A-301 01-04-2019SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"02 NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"01 EAST ELEVATION CONCRETE PANELS WITH REVEALSMETAL PANEL100'-0"146'-0"134'-0"T.O. PARAPET WALLT.O. CONCRETE PANELGROUND LEVELPAINTED CONCRETE PANELSPAINTED E.I.F.S. WALLSINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGEALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZINGALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZINGINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGEILLUMINATED SIGNAGEPAINTED CONCRETE PANELSALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZINGILLUMINATED CANOPY BANDSURFACE WALL LIGHT BANDILLUMINATED SIGNAGEMETAL PANELSPAINTED E.I.F.S. WALLCONCRETE PANELS WITH REVEALS146'-0"128'-0"114'-0"100'-0"T.O. PARAPET WALLLEVEL 3LEVEL 2GROUND LEVELMETAL PANELSPAINTED E.I.F.S. WALLSMETAL PANEL STAIR ENCLOSURESEALED CONCRETE SLABALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZINGEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSPLANNING & ZONING - BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAA-30201-04-2019SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"1SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0"2WEST ELEVATION CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: May 6, 2019 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: May 13, 2019 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, ZONED R-3. Summary: An application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit for building height for construction of a new four-story, 8-unit residential condominium at 1433 Floribunda Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on September 24, 2018 (see attached September 24, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes ). The applicant recently submitted for a building permit; however a permit has not yet been issued. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following revision being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit:  that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of a redesigned front entry, with the direction to make the entry and lobby more open and inviting, which could include elements such as an entrance canopy, a wider entry landing and double glazed entry doors. Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project architect, dated April 12, 2019, for an explanation and detailed list of changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s direction. Please note that there are additional proposed changes to all four facades of the building; the proposed changes do not affect compliance with zoning code reguations. Revised plans and renderings, date stamped April 16, 2019, were submitted to show the changes to the originally approved project. The originally approved plans have been attached for reference. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager c. Toby Levy, Levy Design Partners Inc., architect Attachments: Explanation Letter from Applicant, dated April 12, 2019 September 24, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Originally Approved and Proposed Plans, date stamped April 16, 2019 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 24, 2018 a.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 4-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy Design Partners, architect; Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (367 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Chair Gaul was recused from this item as he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. 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. Vice-Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Casey Feeser of Levy Design Partners, architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: •Trying to understand new entry form. Like the change that has been made to the turret. •There is a single door on lower level of wood box element. Door has no glazing, correct? (Feeser: It would be a perforated metal panel door or a wooded slat door.) •Do the two windows above the front entry area look into the lobby area? (Feeser: Two punched openings would be into the double height space with the stairway in it.) •Regarding entry way form, talked about identifying the entry and providing a shelter from the elements . Did you consider adding some type of overhang? (Feeser: Entire stair is covered by the third floor deck . Also added canopy above front entry door; believe it was added after the revised plans were submitted.) •What does the canopy look like and what material will be used? (Feeser: Canopy will be a metal frame with glass or perforated metal, something solid.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: •Like changes on west elevation façade, regularizing that façade makes a lot of sense. •Still concerned with the front entry, it ’s not very inviting and seems closed. Canopy helps, but feels very solid and not very inviting. •Stairway in modernist apartment building at corner of Adeline Drive and El Camino Real has exposed stairway, is inviting and see pedestrian activity. Entry is threshold between public and private spaces . Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 5/4/2019 September 24, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes This project feels extremely private and shut off from Floribunda Avenue. Should reconsider design of front entry element. •Primary entrance is not very inviting and secondary entrance on west side is not identifiable. There is something wrong with the engagement of the building with the public realm; needs to be looked at again and opened up somehow. •Project is greatly improved and has come a long way. •Entry is uninviting; perhaps reducing the planter adjacent to the entry, to allow for double glazed doors, or a glazed door with a sidelight. Needs something to make lobby an inviting space, especially because it’s right on the street. Perhaps these changes can return as an FYI. •Generally program is supportable, reviewed it from a CEQA standpoint and project needs to move forward. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, 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 a redesigned front entry, with the direction to make the entry and lobby more open and inviting, which could include elements such as an entrance canopy, a wider entry landing and double glazed entry doors. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Gaul1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 5/4/2019 TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDCOVERSHEET A0.0CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEBURLINGAME, CABUILDING DATARENDERINGGENERAL NOTESCONTACT LISTAREA MAP·······························DEFERRED SUBMITTALSAPPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDSSUMMARY ADA STANDARD FLORIBUNDA AVENUEUNIT 1UNIT TYPE ATOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:1ST FLOOR A2.1PLAN: 1ST FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersGENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTES LEGENDDIMENSION NOTES UNIT 1UNIT TYPE ATOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:MEZZANINE A2.1BPLAN: MEZZANINE11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersGENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTES LEGENDDIMENSION NOTES UNIT 8UNIT TYPE EUNIT 7UNIT TYPE DUNIT 6UNIT TYPE CUNIT 5UNIT TYPE CUNIT 4UNIT TYPE CUNIT 3UNIT TYPE CUNIT 2UNIT TYPE BTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:2ND FLOOR A2.2PLAN: 2ND FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersGENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTES LEGENDDIMENSION NOTES UNIT 8UNIT TYPE EUNIT 7UNIT TYPE DUNIT 6UNIT TYPE CUNIT 5UNIT TYPE CUNIT 4UNIT TYPE CUNIT 3UNIT TYPE CUNIT 2UNIT TYPE BTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:3RD FLOOR A2.3PLAN: 3RD FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersGENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTES LEGENDDIMENSION NOTES UNIT 8UNIT TYPE EUNIT 7UNIT TYPE DUNIT 6UNIT TYPE CUNIT 5UNIT TYPE CUNIT 4UNIT TYPE CUNIT 3UNIT TYPE CUNIT 2UNIT TYPE BTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:4TH FLOOR A2.4PLAN: 4TH FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersGENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTES LEGENDDIMENSION NOTES TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:ROOF A2.5PLAN: ROOF11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersGENERAL NOTESSHEET NOTES LEGENDDIMENSION NOTES 1433FLORIBUNDATOBY LEVYAS NOTEDELEVATIONS:EXTERIOR A3.1ELEVATION: PROJECT EAST21/8"=1'-0"ELEVATION: FLORIBUNDA AVENUE ELEVATION (PROJECT NORTH) 11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersLEGENDGENERAL NOTES TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDELEVATIONS:EXTERIOR A3.2ELEVATION: PROJECT SOUTH11/8"=1'-0"ELEVATION: PROJECT WEST 21/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersLEGENDGENERAL NOTES TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDEXTERIORRENDERINGS A3.3RENDERING: LOOKING NORTH-EAST DOWN FLORIBUNDA AVENUE1RENDERING: LOOKING SOUTH-WEST DOWN FLORIBUNDA AVENUE2CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEBUILDING PERMIT04-12-20191433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design Partners TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDCOVERSHEET A0.01433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEBURLINGAME, CAABBREVIATIONSLEGENDGENERAL NOTESRENDERINGAREA MAPPLANNING DATA··········DRAWING INDEXBUILDING DATACONTACT LIST··················APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONSCONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018 SETBACKSETBACK ADA STANDARD LOBBY⅊PRIVATE OPENSPACE: 100 S.F.COMMON OPENSPACE: 800 S.F.FLORIBUNDA AVENUEUNIT 1⅊SETBACKSETBACK TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:1ST FLOOR &MEZZANINE A2.1PLAN: 1ST FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"PLAN: MEZZANINE21/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018·· EXTERIOR EXIT BALCONY⅊UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 8SETBACKSETBACK UNIT 6UNIT 3UNIT 7UNIT 2⅊SETBACKSETBACK UNIT 6UNIT 2UNIT 5UNIT 4UNIT 3UNIT 7UNIT 8TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:2ND & 3RDFLOORS A2.2CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018PLAN: 2ND FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"PLAN: 3RD FLOOR21/8"=1'-0"·· ⅊UNIT 2UNIT 3UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 6UNIT 7SETBACKSETBACK UNIT 8⅊SETBACKSETBACK TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDFLOOR PLAN:4TH FLOOR& ROOF A2.3CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018PLAN: 4TH FLOOR11/8"=1'-0"PLAN: ROOF21/8"=1'-0"·· 1433FLORIBUNDA43"=1'-0"WINDOW DETAIL: RECESSED WINDOW SILLCEMENT PLASTER33"=1'-0"WINDOW DETAIL: RECESSED WINDOW HEADTOBY LEVYAS NOTEDELEVATIONS:EXTERIOR A3.1ELEVATION: PROJECT EAST21/8"=1'-0"ELEVATION: FLORIBUNDA AVENUE ELEVATION (PROJECT NORTH) 11/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018 TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDELEVATIONS:EXTERIOR A3.2ELEVATION: PROJECT SOUTH11/8"=1'-0"ELEVATION: PROJECT WEST 21/8"=1'-0"CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018 TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDEXTERIORRENDERINGS A3.3RENDERING: LOOKING NORTH-EAST DOWN FLORIBUNDA AVENUE1RENDERING: LOOKING SOUTH-WEST DOWN FLORIBUNDA AVENUE2CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0308-27-2018