Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.10.09Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMTuesday, October 9, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft August 13, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft September 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft September 10, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 1846 and 1860 Rollins Road, zoned RR - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Conditional Use Permit Amendment for supplemental parking for a non -retail service use in the drainage easement (James Abeyta, applicant and architect; 1846 Rollins LLC and Rollins Partners LLC, property owners) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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. 229 Bloomfield Road, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Dale Meyer Associates, Dale Meyer, applicant and designer; Rob and Kristin Flenniken, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal a. 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: 1354 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for One Year Permit Extension for a previously approved application for Design Review and Special Permit for basement ceiling height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Mac White, Michael G. Imber Architects, applicant and architect; Naveen and Seshu Sastry, property owners) (117 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. 1354 Columbus Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 1354 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1422 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a major renovation (new construction) for a first and second story addition to a single family dwelling and a new detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (RC Wehmeyer, applicant and designer; Kamal and Pritee Thakarsey, property owners) (157 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 1422 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1422 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1422 Capuchino Ave - Plans 1422 Capuchino Ave - Rendering Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: 185 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Barzin Keyhan Khadiv, applicant; Durwin and Carey Beth Tsay, property owners) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal b. 185 Pepper Ave - Staff Report 185 Peppr Ave - Attachments 185 Pepper Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 185 Pepper Ave - Plans Attachments: 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue, zoned DAC - Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study for an Application for Environmental Review, Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Code to allow a multi -family residential use, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a new three-story, 14-unit mixed use commercial /residential building (John Britton, applicant; Britton Trust, property owner; Gary Gee Architects, Inc ., architect;) (317 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Staff Report 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Attachments 1214-1220 Donnelly Ave - Renderings 1214 Donnelly Ave - Plans Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting October 1, 2018 1455 Cortez Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.a. 1455 Cortez Ave - FYI Memorandum 1455 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 October 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill Regarding Peninsula Health Care District’s Wellness Community b. Memorandum Attachments Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 9, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on October 19, 2018, 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, August 13, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA No changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA No public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.28 Bloomfield Rd, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a 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. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 28 Bloomfield LLC, property owner) (133 noticed) Staff Contact: ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 28 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 28 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 28 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 - b.125 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing residential apartment building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (2). (Karen Such, Such Home Enhancements, Inc ., applicant and designer; Ramon and Maria Flores, property owners) (170 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 125 Park Rd - Staff Report 125 Park Rd - Attachments 125 Park Rd - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multi Family Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking. (Fore Property Company, applicant; John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G. Ohlund Et Al, Doris J. Mortensen Tr. - property owners; Withee Malcolm Architects LLP, architects) (320 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 8.13.18 920 Bayswater Ave - Resolutions 920 Bayswater Ave - Application Materials 920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Letters 7.17.17 Meeting 920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Letters 11.13.17 Meeting 920 Bayswater Ave - CEQA Comments 920 Bayswater Ave - CEQA 920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Comments, Notice and Aerial 920 Bayswater Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Loftis each met with the applicant. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. >Does the Density Bonus require findings? (Keylon: No, the Density Bonus regulations are mandated Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes by State Law, and do not require findings.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Pilarczyk of Fore Property Company, Derk Thelen of Withee Malcolm Architects, and Dave Gates of Gates + Associates represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is the reason for the grid between the glass on the vinyl windows? (Pilarczyk: With the number of windows, need to have the grids between the glass to facilitate cleaning. Harder to clean large quantities of windows with the external grids.) >If the windows are double -hung, could they be cleaned from the indside? (Pilarczyk: Would not want to clean from the inside since management would need to enter each unit.) >On the balconies will the design with the four columns be hard to keep clean compared to a single column? (Pilarczyk: Yes, but the four columns are consistent with the Craftsman style.) >Should mailboxes be more centralized for everyone to have more equidistant access? (Pilarczyk: Can consider that. Maybe a sub group closer to the Anita Road side.) >What material is the base of the balconies? (Pilarczyk: Trex.) Is real wood an option? (Pilarczyk: Longevity would be a concern.) Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: Grateful for the process, and extra steps. Posts on the balconies were originally single and looked spindly, and perhaps they could be a single wide column but these look good. Appreciates the simplicity of the windows, could consider only grids on the tops and keep the bottoms clear. Second best choice would be no grids at all. Appreciates the efforts for saving the trees. Kent Mar, 4409 Bloomfield Road: Assumption that location along the rail corridor will compel residents to take the train. Expects only 2% of residents to take the train. Could build higher density anywhere . Caltrain ridership has peaked and Samtrans ridership has declined. Cars allow the flexibility that transit cannot fulfill. Washington School enrollment is close to limit. Cannot add another floor to Washington School. Mary Tao, Bayswater: Appreciates the changes, but concern with density. Concern with traffic flow, expects each family to have more than one car. Neighborhood already has issues with parking, and having space for garbage cans. Neighborhood was not designed for this type of growth. Proposal for time limit on street, would need to pay $54 per year for permit, and not sure it will resolve the issue. There is another parking lot across the street that may become another development in the future. What is the visibility from the fourth floor, potential for people looking into backyards? Concern with invasion of privacy. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Refinements are substantial. >Would not want to lose the substance of the volume of balcony posts. Would consider a combined post of the same volume, but does not want to lose the volume. >Would rather not have the grids at all rather than have them between the glass. Could be considered as an FYI. >Environmental review has studied potential impacts, and determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration can be supported. >Project will represent a substantial change to the community, but the community needs housing. >Would be a loss if the grids were not in the windows, but does not support grids between the glass. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Suggestion to eliminate the grids in the courtyards and french doors. >Suggest cladding the four balcony posts rather than a single large post. >Project fits within the parameters in terms of size, impact on schools, density. It is all allowed by the provisions of the zoning and conditional use permit. >Would like the doors to have true divided lites. If they go away will look stale with the Trex and Hardie Board. >Project is big and highly repetative. Materials make the building look cheap, and the project is large and will be in place for a long time. Bothered by the nostalgia of the project. >Design is significantly better than where it began. Neighborhood has a lot of sloping rooflines; this will fit in. >Hardie Board can look good if it is applied well. >Likes the architectural details. >Appreciates the trees being retained, but they will need to be maintained so the new trees grow. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application with the following condition: >that the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with an FYI for review of the type and style of windows to be used for the project prior to building permit issuance; the windows shall not have internal grids. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - b.300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment to Conditions of Approval #6 (retail and food service provisions) and #21 (Transportation Demand Management provisions) of a previously approved office /life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 300 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report 300 Airport Boulevard - Attachments Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Terrones, Loftis, and Comaroto had conversations with the legal representatives for the applicant. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Would the changes approved in 2017 to remove the roof decks from two of the buildings be retained? (Gardiner: Yes, those have not been proposed to be changed with this application.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Tosta, Arent Fox, represented the applicant. In his presentation he provided an update that that the public-facing amenity is proposed to be increased and combined into 2,500 square feet in Building 1. Chris Hom, Facebook, represented the prospective tenant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Had hoped for a restaurant that would be open to the public, beyond the needs of the tenant, and would be an attraction for the Bayfront. Traffic generation was not the only consideration; had hoped to Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes enliven the Bayfront, and thought the restaurant would be an attraction. >What went into the math to change from 1,600 square feet to 2,500 square feet? (Tosta: 6,000 square feet in the orignal approval anticipated a commercial success of the retail and restaurants from the tenants, with a two-year trial period. Facebook needs at least 60,000 square feet for its own needs and it cannot be shared with the public; the more space that is created for the public, the less available for Facebook for its own purposes. Facebook will be attracting trade to this part of the city; the experience in Menlo Park has been a lot of changes to the surrounding area.) >There needs to be some "pioneer species" to enliven the Bayfront. >The rooftop terraces were removed to allow space for additional mechanical equipment for biotech uses, but this is not a biotech. Could the rooftop terraces be restored? Will the other two rooftop terraces remain? (Hom: Still needs the rooftop space for mechanical units .)(Tosta: The other two rooftop terraces will be retained.) >Example of Google Charleston East example has a green loop running through the project and a public-facing restaurant shared between Google and the public. Could there be a public restaurant here too? (Tosta: The space here is intended to function similarly, and serve both Facebook and the public . The 2,500 square feet is comparable to the space in the Google example, and is a viable area for a commercial space that can be maintained over time.) >How was the location for the amenity space determined? (Tosta: Intent to get people into the promenade. Wants to activate the promenade.) What would prevent the amenity space from facing the water, rather than the promenade? (Hom: Balance with the rest of the use of the building, including the location of the kitchen.)(Tosta: Did not want it to be remote. Wanted a front-door location.) >Why couldn't a destination restaurant on the Bayfront be successful? (Tosta: Not enough traffic for a white tablecloth restaurant.) Would like to offer people an additional reason to go over to the Bayfront. >Kincaids is a busy restaurant, and it's on the Bayfront. It is busy at lunch and dinner. Wants more attractions for going out to the Bayfront. Not sure the economic feasibility argument is correct. (Hom: Facebook's kitchen is specific to Facebook. To have another restaurant it would need to have its own kitchen, which requires more space .)(Tosta: Size is not as important as what is in the space. Something more than a coffee destination.) >Had wanted another restaurant - another reason for people to come to the Bayfront. Viability of the restaurant requires tenants of the new building to support it. Should find a restaurant who wants to be in the Bayfront location. >Originally wanted more retail to enliven the area. Why would there not be other tenants like a bicycle rental or tackle shop? (Tosta: It takes a lot of traffic to support a bike shop. There is 2,500 square feet that could include some bay -specific products. Retailers are in a lot of trouble with flattening retail trade . Could consider some pop -up uses on the weekends. Had proposed a farmer's market in Belle Haven in Menlo Park, but it was not economically viable. Instead Facebook modulated it into a truck that drives into the neighborhoods.) >Issue with the word "may" for Bay Trail users. (Tosta: Did not want it to be specific to a particular market such as people on the Bay Trail .)(Kane: Emphasis has been to maintain flexibility over time without locking into a particular solution. Needs to have long -term enforceability, and assumes there will be some experimentation to determine what works in this location. Use patterns may change over time, particularly as other developments are built in the area.) Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: This project has been 15 years in process, and each time it has been an effort to get the developer to provide something for the public. Seems like each time something is taken away; a thousand cuts are being made to try to make a tenant happy. Likes the pop-up idea, something creative. Scott Kirkman: Owns the site across the street comprising 8.76 acres, and has looked for 30 years to figure out what to build. It is hard to attract uses in this area. This could be a benefit to the other surrounding properties. Tim Tosta: Can set aside an additional 2,000 square feet as a "reserve" to allow expansion in the future . Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The market does not exist now but this could accommodate something later. Chris Hom: It is less about the square footage than it is about what is going to be built. Willing to put the energy into working to find what that is. Note from City Attorney Kane: All commissioners file a Form 700 which disclose financial interests. Some commissioners may have Facebook stock as an individual holding. The identity of Facebook is not crucial to the application; the question is whether the conditions language should be amended to accommodate a single tenant. The action is being sought by the original applicant (Genzon); whether or not a commissioner has holdings in Facebook would not be material to this application. If Facebook were to become the applicant, staff would need to conduct a conflicts analysis. Note from Community Development Director Gardiner: The 2,500 square feet is an envelope that can be split between different tenants, or could be combined into one. The distribution can be changed over time. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Amendment to the Transportation Demand Management condition is supportable. Allows flexibility over time with review by the Community Development Department. >Can support the amendment that the 1,600 square feet of space becomes 2,500, and that the applicant crafts an additional setaside of 2,000 square feet. >Likes the synergy of the two spaces together. Would work better than two separate spaces in different buildings. >Can support 2,500 square feet plus the setaside for 2,000 square feet. >Needs to determine the location of the public-facing space. >If the public-facing space faces the central promenade, it ensures the promenade will remain open to the public rather than being closed off in the future. >If Facebook gets more involved with the community in the future, it could host uses such as pop -ups on the central promenade. >Could add a local angle to the space, perhaps a mural or something to commemorate the former drive-in. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >The project shall provide an additional 2,000 sf of "reserve" space for expansion of public-amenity uses. The location of the public-serving amenity space(s) and reserve space shall be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - c.521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property owner; Stewart Associates, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Patrick Gilson represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Could there be an awning window? It would provide privacy and add some light. Would give a classic look. (Gilson: Had considered it. Proposes a town and country fireplace with a direct vent, which presents some clearance issues. Needs to keep a set distance from the flue. Had considered two 2 x 2 windows but wants to have bookcases inside. Proposes 24- or 36-inch box trees to screen the side.) >Could the flue go up through the chimney? (Gilson: The size of the top of the chimney would not be large enough unless the shroud is expanded.) >Why was having the two 2-foot small windows rejected? (Gilson: Too invasive. Neighbors would be able to look into the home. It's in a clear line of sight from 232 Burlingame Avenue.) >Could there not be a window covering for privacy? (Gilson: It's a main focal point of the house, with the fireplace wall and bookcases. There is a total of 35 windows and doors on this house, and that side of the house has many windows.) >Because there are so many windows, the blank wall stands out. (Gilson: Could have some wrought-iron planters to break it up a bit, or stoning the chimney, or elaborate tilework. Was a design mistake to have the windows there in the first place.) >Question would whether it would have been approved in the first place. Would expect it would have been an issue if proposed like this originally. Is there anything else that could be done to get more light into the room? (Gilson: There is a 10-foot bifold glass door on the east side of the room that will allow plenty of daylight to come in.) >Could consider leaded or obscured glass to address the privacy concern. >Concern is the exterior appearance, not the amount of light in the interior. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Architect's letter mentions privacy issue from the sidewalk. Does not understand what these windows on this wall present as a privacy issue versus the large window on Clarendon. >Would not have approved a blank wall originally. High wall windows with bookcases below is a very traditional fireplace wall design. Commission needs to consider how it looks from the street, and it is not approvable as it has been presented. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.829 Maple Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review (Major Renovation) for first and second story additions to an existing house, Special Permits and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Gary Diebel, AIA - Diebel and Company Architects, applicant and architect; Aidani Santos, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 829 Maple Ave - Staff Report 829 Maple Ave - Attachments 829 Maple Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, Deibel and Company Architects, represented the applicant. There were no Commission Questions/Comments: Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Revisions are great. >Excellent design that speaks of Craftsman style. A current interpretation of how to accommodate square footage in attic spaces. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - e.1660 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions, applicant and designer; Amauri Campos Melo, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1660 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Amauri Campos Melo represented the applicant. There were no Commission Questions/Comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes. Needs to specify that the windows have simulated true divided lites. Wants to clarify that detachable grids would not be acceptable, as they do not hold up over time. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve with the application with the following condition: >that the window muntins be simulated true divided lites. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - f.1615 Ralston Avenue, 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, applicant and designer; Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1615 Ralston Ave - Staff Report 1615 Ralston Ave - Attachments 1615 Ralston Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tom Saviano represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Drafting error still showing 4 x 4 rafter tails. (Saviano: Can make that correction.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >All the changes that were requested have been made. >Plans need to to specify simulated true divided lites. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve with the application with the follwing condition: >Plans shall indicate that the window muntins shall be simulated true divided lites. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - g.2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit to enlarge an exiting second -story deck at a single-family residence. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant ot CEQA Guidelines 15301 (e) (1). (Panko Architects, Stan Panko, applicant and designer; Tom O' Brien, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 2516 Valdivia Way - Staff Report 2516 Valdivia Way - Attachments 2516 Valdivia Way - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Stan Panko, Panko Architects, represented the applicant. There were no Commission Questions/Comments: Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Cable rail system will be a good choice. The neighbor should be happy with it. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.717 Neuchatel Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Front Setback Variance, and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect; Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 717 Neuchatel Ave - Staff Report 717 Neuchatel Ave - Attachments 717 Neuchate Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Would the metal porch railing need to be higher than 24 inches? (Davis: Only if it is higher than 30 inches from grade. Will note on the site plan.) >What is driving the placement of the dormer window in front of the bathtub in the master bathroom? (Davis: Exterior appearance, so it would look less horizontal.) >Variance application could be strengthened with referencing extraordinary conditions of small lot. The standard setbacks and block average requirements are based on a typical lot. This lot is less than 3,500 square feet. Furthermore the house is built as it is, and in order to keep the bedrooms as they are the circumstances could support a variance. >Where did the average front setback calculation come from? (Davis: A neighbor was doing a remodel and had a surveyor prepare a survey the block. 19'-6" is the prevailing block average from the survey.) >Porch seems deep. Is there a possibility of having the porch be partially recessed into the house, and just a 3-foot projection forward, just to reduce the depth of the porch projection? The recessed garage makes the porch feel like it is projecting even more. Perhaps even just 18 inches. (Davis: Existing porch has enough depth to have a 3-foot arched opening on either side. Arches would be squished if it the porch were pushed back. >Why does the right-hand side wall on the family room not have any windows? It does not seem like it would have a privacy issue with neighbors. (Davis: Can look at it. Was designed to accommodate book shelves inside. The adjacent neighbor to the right reviewed the plans specifically to make sure nobody could see their side, and they were fine with what is proposed.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes project, including the porch. Does not think it will be very intrusive. >Minor quibble: dormer seems to clutter an otherwise nice simple design, but it is not very visible so is not critical. >Family room wall was a concern but it can't be seen. Would not make it unapprovable. >The wall in the family room would provide a place for a television, since there are the glass doors across the back. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - b.133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and a Special Permit for building height for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, applicant and designer; Greg Gambrioli, 133 Crescent LLC, property owner) (113 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 133 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 133 Crescent Ave - Attachments 133 Crescent Ave- Historic Resource Analysis Report 133 Crescent Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item since she lives within 500 feet of the property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >It is a traditional style but has been broadened. Has there been consideration of changing materials between first and second floor? Or some kind of articulation such as a flair line, or trim with dentils and corbels. (Raduenz: Would be open to it. Tried to do something at the bottom with the clinker brick and the band. Would be open to doing a flare with the trim detail at the second floor line.) >Have the concerns in the neighbor's letter been addressed? (Raduenz: Yes. Will make the change to the landscaping and get a letter from the neighbor.) >Sheet 3.1 the driveway elevation looks like it is the same as the left side elevation. (Raduenz: Will correct it.) >Was 9' first floor/8' second floor considered? (Raduenz: Looked at it, but the design has been patterned off of a remodeled house on Poplar Avenue in San Mateo Park with the same proportions.) Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There are a lot of lines on the drawing, it is confusing to read. Would like to see a model, or photos of the inspirational house. (Raduenz: Had submitted a model to staff.) >If there is precedent with a house in San Mateo Park it would be helpful to see photos. >Why is there a curved wall in the back from the first floor to second floor. (Raduenz: It is a detail to create some flow. Could make it more rigid and square off the cap, or put more detail on it.) >Would suggest more parity to the windows in Bedrooms #3 and 4. Bedroom #2 has nice windows on two sides of the bedroom. The elevation on Sheet A 3.0 shows a spot above the Living Room window to put a bedroom window in that corner. On Bedroom #4 where the curve detail is, it accentuates a blank spot; perhaps a window facing the back yard. (Raduenz: Bedroom #4 can be done, Bedroom #3 might have impacts on neighbors. Will take a look at it.) >Tension in the center window above the front porch pediment. Could the sill be raised in line with the other two windows? The bottom of the casing is touching the top of the ridge. (Raduenz: Yes.) >Needs to see a roof plan. (Raduenz: Will include in the next round, as well as the 3-D rendering.) Public Comments: Joe Holmes: Adjacent on the south side. Spent some time with the applicant on the positions of the windows. Matched the placement so they are not staring at each other, particularly on the second floor . Large redwood in back is next to property line is uplifting the patio and fence, would like to have it removed. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Confused by the design. Seems broad at the front, and would be a big house for the neighborhood. A lot of the houses in the area are broken up more. This seems like it would overpower the block compared to the other homes. House seems to be more appropriate for a wider lot with more room in front. >Could change materials between the first and second floor or adding a flare would be helpful. >Not as supportive of special permit. Lowering the plates to a more standard height would reduce the height. With the large roof form there is room for the second floor to have vaulted ceilings to make it more spacious. >Other houses in the neighborhood have second stories tucked more into the rooflines, including the neighboring house to the right. The neighboring house could be overpowered by this house, so would be hard to grant the special permit for height. >Has approved a similar design previously, but it was broken down with two layers. >Most of the front porches in the neighborhood have larger sitting areas. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.212 Howard Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing two -story single family dwelling. (Steve Lesley, applicant and architect; Jason and Anya Sole, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 212 Howard Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 212 Howard Ave - Plans- 08.13.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steven Lesley represented the applicant, with property owner Jason Sole. Commission Questions/Comments: >When were the existing vinyl windows installed? Particularly the windows over the garage? (Sole: Those were installed prior to purchasing the house.) >Would the new windows be white vinyl, or would they be painted to match the existing windows? (Sole: Yes, match existing as much as possible.) >Why vinyl windows? To match the existing windows? (Sole: Correct.) Would need to see the specifications of the proposed windows. >The existing house has more charm and character than what is conveyed in the elevations. Eaves should show the exposed rafter tails. Space between the head of the garage door and the corbel brackets is larger than what is shown. The house has more character than what the drawings convey, and hope the addition will capture some of the same character. >Some of the existing windows appear to be in disrepair. Should step up the quality of the windows on the addition, in an effort to possibly replace all the others later. Will be happier in the long run. A wood window clad on the exterior is close to the same cost as a good quality vinyl window. >Top left wall is lacking windows, looks stark. Will be very visible from the side street. (Sole: There is a closet along that side .)(Lesley: Could add a window in the shower, but would prefer to avoid having a window in the closet. Concern with clothes being faded.) Suggest a low -e window in the closet, should not have a problem with fading of clothes. Natural light can be desirable in a closet. (Sole: Open to having more windows on the left side to provide balance.) >The addition looks really tall. Consider a lower plate height. 8'-1" would look better from the exterior; the ceilings could be vaulted to provide height inside. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Roof plan indicates a jumble. Hard to understand how the addition is organized. The existing building is straightforward but the addition gets highly complicated. >Not understanding the windows, but it's based on the floor plan and interior layout. >Details can be best addressed with a design review consultant. >Direction for the design review consultant: plate heights, window selection and placement, capturing some of the character and charm of the existing structure in the addition, and simplifying the addition . From the front, the addition looks like it is looming over the house; bringing down the plate heights and simplifying the roof forms should help it better integrate with the rest of the structure. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Permit and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (Melinda Kao, applicant; Levy Design Partners, architect; Accelerate Holdings LLC, property owner) (387 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report 1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 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. Community Development Director Gardiner 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, and Chris Ford of CFLA, landscape architect, represented the applicant, with Vincent Joutain, representing the developer. Commission Questions/Comments: >How do cars circulate in and out of the site? (Feeser: There is one drive aisle that provides access to the garage, which will contain two standard parking spaces with the remaining spaces provided in a mechanical puzzle stacker.) >On sheet A3.1, the East Elevation, the shadow lines on second story shows a recess, but doesn't show on floor plans. (Feeser: There may be an error on the building elevation. Will look into this and make corrections if necessary.) >There may be a drafting error on sheet A 0.7, drawing #4, think you meant to say plan unit 7, not 3-7. (Feeser: That is correct, we will revise the plan.) >What is the path of travel to dispose of garbage? (Feeser: Garbage room is located on ground floor next to lobby. Residents would access the garbage room using the stairway and main corridor on the second floor, through the lobby and into the garbage room; there is also an exterior door in the garbage room to take the garbage /recycling bins out to the street. Residents in Unit 8 could use the main corridor or the exterior pathway along the right side of the building.) >Is the rounded stairway at the front of the building open air? (Feeser: Most of the stairway is covered by the deck above; only a portion is open air.) >The pedestrian use and character section of the Downtown Specific Plan encourages a pronounced entrance with some definition. Looks more like a side entrance, is small in scale and has no weather protection. Encourage revisiting the design of this element. (Feeser: Will revisit design to create a better entry.) >What is the thought with the composite wood on the west elevation? Why is the geometry arranged as it is? (Feeser: Have used a few different composite products that can be looked into including Resysta and Cali Bamboo. The proposed geometry seemed to have the right amount of playfulness, but still tied everything together.) >What is the thought with the turret at the front? (Feeser: There are a lot of buildings in the area with a stair feature at the front facade. This was our way of incorporating the stair feature, which would have lighting coming out from the top.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Vice-Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Programmatically the project is supportable. >Slight reduction in scale. >Have precedent that supports the concept for the parking. >Parking is now at grade, with ample space for parking based on the street this project is located on. >Similar questions with the front turret element. Seems foreboding, not inviting. Does not celebrate the entry. For the sake of visitors would like it to be more inviting. >Likes the palatte of materials on the west elevation, but the geometry seems a bit random and jumbled for the context of the neighborhood; should be revisited. >Support for building height, particularly with fourth floor being stepped back. It is well articulated and presents itself as a three-story building. >Encourage possibilities for common outdoor space, cush as vegetable gardens if there is enough light and air. >Nice project but needs to calm down. West facade interplay of materials works, but does not need the geometry. >Entrance turret is not working, should revisit. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to bring the item back on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Gaul1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS All accepted. a.834 Crossway Road - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. 834 Crossway Rd - Memorandum 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments Attachments: b.825 Edgehill Drive - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. 825 Edgehill Dr - MemorandumAttachments: c.1500 Cypress Avenue/101-105 El Camino Real - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a previously approved 4-unit residential condominium project. 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 ECR - Memorandum 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1697 Broadway - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1697 Broadway - Memorandum 1697 Broadway- Attachment Attachments: e.772 Walnut Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 772 Walnut Ave - MemorandumAttachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:23 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 August 13, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 23, 2018, 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 $551.00, 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 17City of Burlingame Printed on 10/5/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, September 10, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Acting City Attorney Sheryl Schaffner. 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent4 - Sargent, Kelly, and ComarotoAbsent3 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft July 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8a (1433 Floribunda Avenue) was continued to the September 24, 2018 meeting because of lack of quorum. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.General Plan Update - Historical Preservation Policies Staff Report Attachments Attachments: Dan Amsden, MIG, made a presentation. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are the options presented "both/and" options or "either/or?" Could there be a mix and match of Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes options, versus choosing one approach over the the other? (Amsden: The examples shown illustrate different ways cities have addressed historic resources. The loss of a potentially historic resource is a potentially significant impact under CEQA. There is some discretion for local jurisdictions to avoid the significant impact from a historic resource being destroyed. It could include local registrations, for example.) >Right now there are two triggers for conducting a historic evaluation: location in Burlingame Park, and anything in the Downtown area that is on the list from the survey prepared for that plan. However there is no trigger for anything outside of those two areas to determine historic eligibility? (Gardiner: Correct. CEQA does not allow categorical exemptions for potentially historic resources, but there has not been pre-screening for areas outside Downtown or Burlingame Park. If an application comes forward that could impact a potentially historic resource, we won't necessarily know whether it may qualify without some type of pre-screening.) >The current practice in Burlingame treats some applications very different than most others. >How was 50 years determined to be the threshold for review? Soon 1970s homes would qualify, as well as all of the Mills Estate. (Amsden: It is a standard CEQA threshold, and is also used as a threshold for State eligibility. The intent is not necessarily the age itself as the criteria; a property less than 50 years old might qualify if is was designed by a famous architect, for example.) >Could a different threshold be established, such as 75 years? (Gardiner: There are two aspects. First is CEQA, where 50 years is an initial screening criteria for determining potential environmental impacts . The other is community values, which may identify a different threshold than 50 years but would not be tied to CEQA. For example, Redwood City has a threshold of 1940 based on designating pre -war development to be an era of interest, which would be regarded differently for purposes of community character. A community could identify a threshold based on its own history, such as a particular subdivision. However that would not address the CEQA element.) >There is an Eichler development in Burlingame, worth preserving and maintaining. >If someone is coming into town and purchasing a home, could the historic evaluation be prepared in conjunction with the sale of the home? Similar to the sewer lateral report that has to be completed prior to selling or purchasing a home. (Gardiner: Could look into it further. The current trigger is an application for a discretionary development permit before the Planning Commission. Not sure a city could make that requirement as a policy matter, however it is a disclosure. One aspect of CEQA is that is discloses potential environmental impacts. Sometimes real estate professionals will inquire about the historic status of a property when preparing a listing because they are preparing disclosures.) >Real estate agents in Burlingame Park are often already aware of this, and advise an evaluation as part of the disclosures. >Needs to clarify to the community that just because a structure is over 50 years old, it is not automatically considered historic, or could be designated as historic, unless and until it goes through an evaluation that deems it to be potentially eligible for a State or other register. There is a high threshold for determining the significance, beyond the 50 year threshold. >Would think many could be ruled out without doing the full research. A major renovation, for example. >The historical society database information can provide guidance on whether a building could be ruled out. >Evaluations are not cheap. There needs to be a streamlined process for determining yes or no. >The threshold cannot be subjective. It needs to be definitive in how it is applied. >Are there different approaches for how this is achieved? There could be a staff member who is trained to make an initial determination. (Amsden: That could be an option. However the draft as written requires the evaluation for any discretionary permit. It could be implemented by staff, or could be prepared by an outside consultant.) >Are there statistics for how many buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places? Statistically, there is probably a low number of buildings that meet the standards to qualify for the registry . Concerned that a lot of people will be paying $3500 to determine their house older than 50 years is not historic, since the great majority of buildings in the city are not historic. >Concerned if something is written into the General Plan that forces people to spend more money than they already have to spend to do renovations. >Could have evaluations of areas with high potential for historic properties. Even in those areas, would Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes not expect to have many eligible. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: Historical society members are not licensed to provide evaluations. A licensed professional looks at certain criteria, including special aspects of a property that may not be evident. Never ceased to be surprised by some of the evaluations. There are areas with older homes that are more in tact, which is why Burlingame Park is treated differently. However there are properties that would be of interest in other areas too. The determinations cannot be dependent on specific historic society staff. Has advocated for the trigger to be where an application is submitted for a major project. Maybe Page & Turnbull can provide a tiered approach. Would not recommend it being at staff level, as pressure would be put on staff members. If someone is buying an older house and does not plan to do a major project, should not need to conduct an evaluation, so would not suggest the evaluation be done at time of the sale. Focus should be on the trigger; a teardown would absolutely be a trigger, but if the home is being left alone or is just having minor changes, does not see a need to have an evaluation prepared. Leslie McQuaid: Examples of cities with historic resources: Amsterdam, Washington DC, Savannah, Chicago. The focus is on the outside of the building; alterations can be made on the inside as long as the outside maintains the historic qualities. Each of these cities is a tourist destination. Would prefer a district where they are all together, as these other cities have done. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >If an application requires discretionary review, it is a potentially significant project. There are not that many $5,000, $10,000 to $15,000 projects that come to the Planning Commission as discretionary reviews. The trigger that determines that something should go to the Planning Commission is important. In the past the older, smaller houses were candidates for teardowns, but now most are all gone. Now the teardowns involve more substantial houses, and there is some angst to see the house go away. >Should not rely on the historical society to make designations. Could be difficult for staff to be required to be arbiters for making the determination. The detached professional analysis may help with applicants who are resistant to the process. >Something needs to be done, since some properties are being treated differently than the rest of the City. >The economics drive the demolition of houses; a house has a certain life. Perhaps there could be an incentive to restore them. One of the examples shown in the presentation had a tear -down fee to deter or discourage demolitions, or perhaps a reduction in other fees to allow for a professional evaluation. Or if the house character could be maintained better than just tearing it down. >Could have other language to stipulate when a home would be catagorized, to meet the CEQA requirements without stating the number of years. >Wants the process to be fair, objective, and definitive. >Likes good old buildings; doesn't like bad old buildings. Just wants to be careful so it does not become misguided. Would want the city to keep data to track the evidence, rather than just nostalgia. This was a Study Item so there was no action from the Planning Commission. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 Sta1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report 1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - MND Addendum 1433 Floribunda Ave - IS/MND 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 09.24.18 1433 Floribunda Ave - Memorandum - Tentative Condominium Map 1433 Floribunda Ave - Tentative Condominium Map Attachments: This item was continued to the September 24, 2018 meeting because of lack of quorum for this item. b.133 Crescent Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, applicant and designer; Greg Gambrioli, 133 Crescent LLC, property owner) (113 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 133 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 133 Crescent Ave - Attachments 133 Crescent Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 133 Crescent Ave - Plans - 09.10.18.pdf Attachments: 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 Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why not the change to plate heights as suggested in the study meeting? (Raduenz: The scale of the two houses next to each other. Does not think the proposal is unreasonable. Seems like 8 feet on the second floor hurts the scale.) >The 3D rendering does not show the revised height? (Raduenz: Correct.) >What is the design logic of the mud porch with the vertical siding and flat roof? (Raduenz: Characteristic of older houses. Would typically have a different vernacular than the rest of the house. This is meant to follow that tradition. Flat roof is meant to reduce the scale.) >Could use a different gesture to better integrate the added -on element, such as the same brick /stone from the rest of the house continued onto this piece. Would show intent and care. (Raduenz: Agreed.) >Reference at 160 West Poplar is set further back, and on a wider lot. Could this one be set back Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes further? Should have a larger front yard, a more formal approach. (Raduenz: Could be set back 3 or 4 feet. Neighboring house is close.) >If homeowner is parking in the driveway or garage, maybe a covered porch at the mud room door to come in with groceries. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the house and the changes, but has an issue with the plate heights. Typically requests the second floor to be no more than 8 feet. Needs to be applied fairly. >There are not other taller houses in the neighborhood. If the ceilings upstairs are 8 feet volume could still be gained with coffered ceilings. >Nice application, approvable as stands. The commission does not have a hard and fast rule with the plate heights; 10 feet/9 feet seems like more of an issue. >Special permit for height has been removed. Only request is design review. Would benefit from being pushed back on the lot further. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: -An FYI application shall be submitted to show that the front setback has been increased by 3 to 4 feet, that the stone base for the main house has been extended to the mud room at the rear, right side of the house, and that a roof cover be considered at the back door. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, and Tse3 - Nay:Loftis1 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2 Kenmar Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Tim Raduenz, Form One, applicant and designer; Eric and Serena Fong, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2 Kenmar Way - Staff Report 2 Kenmar Way - Attachments 2 Kenmar Way - Plans - 09.10.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why are the window heads pushed up on the addition? (Raduenz: Can look into it. They can be aligned.) >Master Bedroom has tall windows that look like doors. Is that intentional? (Raduenz: Yes, it is their view to the Bay.) > >Attic vent gable on the rear elevation seems large. (Raduenz: Can reduce it.) >Will there be any new landcaping? (Raduenz: Working on it. Will bring it back in the resubmittal. Will also have a civil plan with drainage.) >On the site plan how confident are you in the location of the adjacent houses? (Raduenz: They are not accurate.) The survey does not show anything on either side of the property. Trying to guess whether there is a view issue. (Raduenz: The neighboring house is elevated. The owner has reviewed the plans. The addition is being kept single story.) >There is only one window on the neighbor's side. It appears to be a bedroom window, not a window from a living area. (Raduenz: The living area is on the other side of the house.) >Is there a reason why the casing is cut off of from the left window? Or could the width of the Master Bedroom be reduced to allow room to expose the casing? (Raduenz: Yes. May be a drafting error.) >How does the cathedral ceiling in the Master Bedroom correspond to the roof form? Does it center on the room or the roof form? (Raduenz: It will be a truss roof. Likely to be centered on the room.) >The Master Bedroom has a 9'-6" plate height while the rest of the house is 8 feet. >Are story poles required since it is an application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit? (Gardiner: Not unless there is reason to believe there may be a view impact. The Planning Commission can request story poles if it would be helpful for determing whether there would be a view impact .)(Raduenz: Can get a letter from the neighbor. We have been in correspondence.) >Rear elevation Master Bedroom and lower Family Room windows are not aligned above and below . (Raduenz: Not intentional. May also add a trellis to the lower Family Room.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Good application. Just needs to fix a few details with lining up the windows. >Taller 9'-6" plate height is OK since the context supports it. >From the street it looks like a one -story addition. Likes that it is not adding a second story on top of a rancher. >Would want to have a letter from neighbor specifically addressing story poles. >Wants the neighbor to acknowledge the ridge height will be taller than the existing roof. May not be apparent from just reading the plans. Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing. >Raduenz: Could put up a ridge height pole, and obtain a letter from neighbor. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Regular Action Calendar with the following condition: >Construct a ridge height pole, and obtain a letter from the adjacent neighbor addressing the height and view issue. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - b.1408 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for new construction (major renovation) of a two and a half story single family dwelling with the existing detached garage to remain. (Young & Borlik Architects, applicant and architect; Holli and John Rafferty, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1408 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1408 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1408 Bernal Ave - Plans - 09.10.18 1408 Bernal Ave - Rendering Attachments: 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 Gaul opened the public hearing. John and Holli Rafferty represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The roof deck has been reduced in size. How big was the deck previously compared to now? (Holli Rafferty: Does not have those numbers here. It's pretty small .)(John Rafferty: Entrance to the deck is now from the Master Bedroom, rather than the hallway.) It looks like it is less than 100 square feet. >What is the space above Bedroom #2 in the left elevation? (Holli Rafferty: Small attic crawl space for toy storage, about 3 feet in height.) Wanted to determine if a window was proposed, since there is not a window on the elevation. (Holli Rafferty: No window proposed for this space.) >Would the glass in the large Master Bathroom window have obscured glass, or would there be a window treatment? (John Rafferty: No, there would be window treatments, not obscured glass. The reason the window is large is to match the other side of the house.) >Would there be agreement to bringing up the sill heights on the upper windows on the front elevation? There is still a lack of hierarchy between the first and second floors. Just bring the sill height up a small amount. (Holli Rafferty: Looked at that option but it threw off the balance, looked odd. They are a bit smaller on the second floor.) >Why the Hardie siding? (Holli Rafferty: Needed it for the fire rating .)(John Rafferty: Not committed to it . The appearance of the house is important.) Suggests wood siding. Although wood requires maintenance, so does Hardie. Hardie siding is hard to miter the corners, so there ends up being corner caps which cheapen the appearance. Wood would be richer in appearance. Unless the wall is on the property line there would not be a fire rating issue. >Neighbor on side has a window looking into the roof deck. Has this been discussed with the Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighbor? (John Rafferty: Neighbor has previously expressed support in the prior design, and the the deck was larger in that version.) >The window across from the deck is an attic window. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes. Much better application. More highly integrated. >Wood siding would be preferable, and without corner caps. >Likes the improvements over the previous design. >The roof deck is modest in size and accessed from the Master Bedroom, which will limit its use. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse4 - Absent:Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto3 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Request for the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to reconvene to discuss some of the ongoing issues, in particular the plate height issue and also the metal roof concern. Would like to receive a list of projects that have just been finished and signed off. Would like to see how projects turn out. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Commission request that the application for Hillside Area Construction Permit at 2668 Martinez Drive be reviewed by the Planning Commission, citing concern with the addition and deck and potential need for story poles so neighborhood would be aware of the proposal. Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the September 4, 2018 City Council meeting, the Council voted to adopt the proposed amendments to the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations as recommended by the Planning Commission. At the same meeting, the appeals of the wireless facilities applications were continued at the applicant's suggestion to allow time to work on alternative proposals. a.1337 California Dr - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1337 California Dr - Memorandum 1337 California Dr - Plans - 09.10.18 Attachments: Pulled, citing concern with the plank siding on the second floor and removal of the corbels. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:54 p.m. Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 September 10, 2018Planning 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 September 10, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on September 23, 2018, 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 9City of Burlingame Printed on 10/3/2018 8/28/2019 18-766 - 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/2 18-766 - 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans /31 8/28/2019 18-766 - 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/2 18-766 - 1846 and 1860 Rollins Rd - Plans /31 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/5 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report /51 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/5 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report /51 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/5 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report /51 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/5 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report /51 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/5 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report /51 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 6/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 7/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 8/8 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Attachment /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/6 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/6 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/6 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/6 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/6 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans /81 8/28/2019 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 6/6 18-773 - 229 Bloomfield Rd - Plans /81 M I C H A E L G. I M B E RA R C H I T E C T111 WEST EL PRADOSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212© 2018 Michael G. Imber ArchitectFAX (210) 824-7706(210) 824-7703SASTRY RESIDENCEFEBRUARY 7, 2018CITY PLANNING FYI SUBMITTALOWNER INFORMATION:NAVEEN & SESHU SASTRY1354 COLUMBUS AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(650) 525-1843APN: 027-152-320NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA3.01EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"24'-0"sidesetback42'-0"4'-0"sidesetback9'-6"proposeddriveway1'-10"9'-10" 7'-6"+90.24 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ WEST P.L.-1'-9" (REF.)+90.70 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ EAST P.L.-1'-4" (REF.)6'-11"11'-2"29'-9"MASTER BEDRM. PLATE HT.+18'-7" (REF.)45.00°12'-0" 12'-0"45.00°30'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curbp r o p e r t y l i n e p r o p e r t y l i n e DECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ EAST SIDEDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ WEST SIDE834"EAVE OVERHANGBEYOND ENVELOPE(UP TO 2'-0" OVER-HANG ALLOWED)EXTERIOR FACE OFWALLLOCATEDWITHIN D.H.E.2'-0"STONE VENEER ATCHIMNEY AS SELECTEDCUT STONE CHIMNEY CAPCHAMFERED CORNERCHIMNEY POT AS SELECTED12163-COAT STUCCOFINISH -ARCHITECTTO SELECT COLOR& TEXTUREPLASTER BUTRESSOPEN TOPORCHBEYONDSTONE BASE ASSELECTEDSTONE GARDEN WALLVENEER STONEAS SELECTEDROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCO FINISH -ARCHITECT TO SELECT COLOR & TEXTURESTONE GARDEN WALL1212STAINEDTIMBER TRIMAS SELECTEDPTD. TRIM & V-GROOVE SIDINGFINISH AS SELECTED6.5124121012MTL. CHIMNEY TIE ROD3129.512TIMBER, FINISHAS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT7'-6"+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)WOOD CLAD CASEMENTWINDOW AS SELECTED,SIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BARS, TYP.(92.56 + 88.94)2(91.88 + 88.6)26" V-GROOVE PLANKINGPAINTEDFINISH AS SELECTEDPTD. TRIM W/V-GROOVE PLANKINGPAINTED FINISH AS SELECTED2'-4" X 4'-5" EGRESSWINDOW - WOODEXT. CLAD CASEMENTSIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BAR, TYP.(EGRESS)2'-0"METAL STEPFLASHINGAS SELECTED30'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curbEXISTING GRADE @BUILDING FOOTPRINTSHOWN DASHEDSCREEN WALL REMOVED FOR CLARITY -SHOWN DASHED21'-0"second floor frontsetback21'-0"FIRST floor frontsetbackp r o p e r t y l i n e1214 12121214OPEN TOPORCHBEYONDTAPERED STONE COLUMNROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &FINISHSTONE GARDEN WALL3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR& FINISH126.5129.5312COPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUTCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT, TYP.VENEER STONEAS SELECTEDTIMBER, FINISHAS SELECTEDPTD. COMPOSITE SIDING& TRIM AS SELECTED1'-8"2'-3 1 4"3'-0"BASEMENT WINDOWWELLS SHOWN DASHED2'-0"'LOWER FLOOR'AREA SHOWNWITH HATCH2'-3"FOUNDATIONWALL BEYOND+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)1'-10"9'-10" 29'-9" 18'-1"LIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.12'-0" B/CLG. AT DORMERWOOD CLAD CASEMENTWINDOW AS SELECTED,SIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BAR, TYP.STAINED WOOD ENTRYDOOR W/VISION PANELWOOD CLAD EXTERIORDOOR AS SELECTED,SIMULATED DIVIDEDLITE W/ SPACER BAR3-COAT STUCCO SCREENWALL AS SELECTED6" V-GROOVEPLANKING - PAINTEDFINISH AS SELECTEDWOOD/COMPOSITEGUARDRAIL & PICKETSAS SELECTED - RE:DETAILS/ A4.011'-6"BAY PROJECTION2'-4" X 3'-7" EGRESSWINDOW - WOODEXT. CLAD PUSH-OUTCASEMENT, SIMULATEDDIVIDED LITE W/SPACER BAR, TYP.(EGRESS)2'-4" X 3'-7" EGRESSWINDOW - WOOD EXT.CLAD PUSH-OUT CASEMENT(EGRESS)SIM.WINDOW FILM TO BE ADDEDTO (5) STAIRWELL AND (5)CLERESTORY WINDOWS, TYP.WINDOW FILM TOBE ADDED TO (2)BEDROOM WINDOWSARCHED WINDOWS W/TRANSLUCENT GLASSAS SELECTED, TYP. OF (3) M I C H A E L G. I M B E RA R C H I T E C T111 WEST EL PRADOSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212© 2018 Michael G. Imber ArchitectFAX (210) 824-7706(210) 824-7703SASTRY RESIDENCEFEBRUARY 7, 2018CITY PLANNING FYI SUBMITTALOWNER INFORMATION:NAVEEN & SESHU SASTRY1354 COLUMBUS AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(650) 525-1843APN: 027-152-320NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA3.02EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSNORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"24'-0"sidesetback42'-0"4'-0"sidesetback+90.24 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ WEST P.L.-1'-9" (REF.)8'-5" PLATE HT.45.00° 12'-0" 12'-0"45.00°30'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curbp r o p e r t y l i n e p r o p e r t y l i n e DECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ EAST SIDEDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ WEST SIDE834"EAVE OVERHANGBEYOND ENVELOPE(UP TO 2'-0" OVER-HANG ALLOWED)EXTERIOR FACE OFWALL LOCATEDWITHIN D.H.E.ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED12161212SIDINGAS SELECTED,PAINTED1281012125.53121243-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTURE3-COAT STUCCO - ARCHITECTTO SELECT COLOR & TEXTURETIMBER BRACKETFINISH AS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCO SCREENWALL AS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT6'-0" STAINED WD. FENCE AS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER7'-6" 7'-6" STAINED WD. GATEAS SELECTED+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+90.70 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ EAST P.L.-1'-4" (REF.)LIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.WOOD CLAD EXTERIORDOOR & TRANSOMASSEMBLY AS SELECTEDSIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/SPACER BAR, TYP.(92.56 + 88.94)2(91.88 + 88.6)2GUARD RAIL SHOWNDASHED (REMOVEDFOR CLARITY)2'-4" X 3'-7" EGRESSWINDOW - WOODEXT. CLAD CASEMENT(EGRESS)2'-0"(EGRESS)8.512101212830'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curb21'-0"second floor frontsetbackp r o p e r t y l i n e STONE VENEER ATCHIMNEY AS SELECTEDCUT STONE CHIMNEY CAPCHAMFERED CORNERCHIMNEY POT AS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTUREROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED12141031212PLASTER BUTTRESSW/STONE BASE AS SELECTEDSTONE BASE ASSELECTEDROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTUREROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUTIRON GUARDRAIL & PICKETSAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTUREBASEMENT WINDOWWELL SHOWN DASHED -RE: DETAILS/A4.013-COAT STUCCO SCREENWALL AS SELECTEDSTONE LANDSCAPESTEPS AS SELECTED'LOWER FLOOR'AREA SHOWNWITH HATCHFOUNDATION WALLBEYOND4'-1"+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)DIRECT VENTTHROUGH CHIMNEYLIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.2'-0"21'-0"FIRST floor frontsetback1'-6"BAY PROJECTION4'-0" X 4'-5" EGRESSWINDOW - WOOD EXT.CLAD FRENCH CASEMENTSIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BAR, TYP.WOOD/COMPOSITEGUARDRAIL & PICKETSAS SELECTED - RE:DETAILS/ A4.01COMBUSTION AIR INTAKE FORBASEMENT MECH. ROOM - LOUVERAS SELECTED & 14 " MESH (EXACT SIZETO BE COORDINATED WITH MECH.)4'-0" X 4'-0" EGRESSWINDOW - WOOD EXT.CLAD FRENCH CASEMENT(EGRESS)(EGRESS)1214 M I C H A E L G. I M B E RA R C H I T E C T111 WEST EL PRADOSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212© 2018 Michael G. Imber ArchitectFAX (210) 824-7706(210) 824-7703SASTRY RESIDENCEFEBRUARY 7, 2018CITY PLANNING FYI SUBMITTALOWNER INFORMATION:NAVEEN & SESHU SASTRY1354 COLUMBUS AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(650) 525-1843APN: 027-152-320NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA3.03GARAGE ELEVATIONSGARAGE - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1GARAGE - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"4GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"3GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2GARAGE - SECTIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"5p r o p e r t y l i n eROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTEDDORMERBEYONDPARGE COAT FLUSHWITH STUCCO3123-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR& FINISHLIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.12712722'-4"14'-1134"SOLID PANEL DOORS2'-0"SOLIDPANELDOORp r o p e r t y l i n e ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED312PROPOSEDGAS METERPROPOSEDELECTRIC METER1271272'-0"ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTEDDORMER W/ WD.LOUVERS - FINISHAS SELECTEDPARGE COAT FLUSHWITH STUCCO127ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &FINISH12712712714'-113 4"17'-10"LIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.HARDIE 4" LAP SIDINGLOUVER PANEL ASSEMBLY312127127ROOF COLLAR TIESLOCATED GARAGE DOORTRACKS, RE: STRUCT.STORAGE ABOVECOLLAR TIESBUILT-UPCURB4"THERMAL INSULATIONIN ROOFSLOPEDORMER WITHCEMENTITIOUS PLANKINFILL AS SELECTED Planting Notes 1. Contractor to verify that all soil is 5" below house stucco line. 2. No mulch shall come within 3" of house stucco line. 3. Soil shall be graded away from building at 2% slope for 5'. L1 Sastry MN 1/25/2018 Sastry.vwx - ProposedSastry ResidenceLandscape Design1354 Columbus Ave.Site Plan Reviewed by: Drawn by: Date: Jenna Bayer Garden Design, Inc. 1954 Old Middlefield Way Suite B Mountain View California 94043 Tel: 650.988.9600 Fax: 650.988.9602 info@jennabayer.com www.jennabayer.com Issued for: Project ID: CAD File: Burlingame, CADescriptionDate#Issue/Revision:Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018Time: 1:37:07 PMFile name: Sastry MN (1).vwx(E) 24"MAGNOLIA 8"WALNUT N55°04'35"W50.02'N34°56'00"E120.00'N55°04'32"W50.02'COLUMBUS AVENUEALLEY4'-0"4'-0"SETBACKSETBACKN34°56'00"E120.00' GAS 3 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 2 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 1 T89 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 6 V9 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 3 S162 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 18 T104 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 3' TALL DRIVE COURT GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPOSED ELEC. METER LOCATIONA L L E YEXIST. JOINT POLE (WITH RISER)EXIST. POWER LINEUP LOW WALLSANITARY SEWER DN +92.23 T.O.C. ELEVATION +91.77 T.O.C. ELEVATION +88.6 ELEVATION +88.84 ELEVATION +92.56 ELEVATION +91.88 ELEVATION PROPOSED SAN. SEWER RECYCLING COMPOST TRASH GATE (E) FENCE (N) FENCE, 6' TALL + 1' TRELLIS 3' HIGH FENCE TO SIDEWALK GATE (2) 24" FENCE PB PB PB LAWN 215 SF GARAGE PATIO STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS DRIVEWAY ENTRY COURT STONE PAVERS ENTRY WALK HOUSE ROOF EAVE TRASH PB (N) GATE, 36" R=12"SIDEWALKFLAGSTONE STEPPINGSTONES 3R@5.5" 2T@11.5" 4R@6" 3T@13" HANDRAIL LANDING GUARD- & HANDRAIL 1R@3" DN PBPB PB PB PBPB PB 1'-9"5'-3"3'-0" R=24" 1 2 3 4 2nd FLOOR BAY PROJECTION (N) 3' TALL STUCCO WALL (MASONRY) (E) HEDGE (N) 36" GATE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PB (N) TALL STUCCO WALL (FRAMED) 2'-11"4'-0"3'-3"20'-11"(E) PLANT WINDOW 14" 21'-0" SETBACK PB 6' TALL(N) BBQ 21'-8" VERIFY ALIGN(N) A/C CONDENSERS ON 1'-6" x 8'-0" CONC. PAD (E) CONC. CURB TO REMAIN (DO NOT DISTURB) EVERGREEN FLOWERING VINES, TBD ~15'-0" on 5' centers 3'-6"DIMENSION TO BE VERIFIED BY SURVEYOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 5'-6" VERIFY band continue? on 24" x 36" Proposed Site Plan Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 L1 0 5 15 25 35 45 FT Areas AREA SQ. FT. HARDSCAPE 2,270 LAWN 240 PLANTING BEDS 1,771 LOT 6,000 Abbreviations AD AREA DRAIN BOW BOTTOM OF WALL CO CLEAN OUT DI DRAIN INLET DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE DS DOWNSPOUT (E)EXISTING EO ELECTRICAL OUTLET EM ELECTRIC METER ETR EXISTING TO REMAIN FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FH FIRE HYDRANT GM GAS METER HB HOSE BIBE L/S LANDSCAPING (N)NEW NIC NOT IN CONTRACT OC ON CENTERS POC-W POINT OF CONNECTION WATERMAIN(P)PROPOSED PB PLANTING BED SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TFS TRANSPLANT FROM SITE TOS TOP OF SLOPE TOSTP TOP OF STEP TOW TOP OF WALL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WM WATER MAIN +100 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION +(100)PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION W SS Gas UNDERGROUND GAS LINE UNDERGROUND SEWER SANITARY LINE UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Plant Schedule Image ID Qty Latin Name Common Name Scheduled Size Remarks T31 2 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE V9 6 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 5 gal T553 2 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora'Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T89 1 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T104 18 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 15 gal S1592 5 Rosa x 'JACtou'Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 5 gal S162 3 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 15 gal on 5' centers Removed Trees (see tree removal plan L0) 5" Podocarpus 6" Podocarpus 6" Walnut 10" Aristocrat Pear Magnolia REPLACEMENT TREE DESIGNATION Legend 1 1 T1996 Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' 'Aristocrat' Callery Pear Tree PLANT TAG PB - PLANTING BED LAWN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PLANT TO REMAIN Staked Tree & Bubbler Irrigation Details N.T.S. 2 L1 Proposed plan3/2/2017Pln Chk Response7/19/201711 1 Location of A/C Condensing Units to be determined 38'-11" Current Location of Wood Fence Return 3'1-1/2"Construction Notes 1. Distance City Sidewalk to Existing Wood Fence Return at neighbor's is 39'11" 2. Distance of Neighbor's house to outside edge of existing concrete curb is 3'1-1/2" 3. New Stucco wall to be completely on property at 1354 Columbus Ave. Burlingame (Owners:Sastrys) 4.Contractor to protect Neighbor's existing planting during construction 5. Contractor to provide tree protection as required by City of Burlingame, along property line 6. Verification of property line prior to construction to be performed, and viewed by Neighbors at 1350 Columbus Ave. Burlingame.Stucco Wall Revs. 01/29/2018 Planting Notes 1. Contractor to verify that all soil is 5" below house stucco line. 2. No mulch shall come within 3" of house stucco line. 3. Soil shall be graded away from building at 2% slope for 5'. L1 Sastry MN 1/25/2018 Sastry.vwx - ProposedSastry ResidenceLandscape Design1354 Columbus Ave.Site Plan Reviewed by: Drawn by: Date: Jenna Bayer Garden Design, Inc. 1954 Old Middlefield Way Suite B Mountain View California 94043 Tel: 650.988.9600 Fax: 650.988.9602 info@jennabayer.com www.jennabayer.com Issued for: Project ID: CAD File: Burlingame, CADescriptionDate#Issue/Revision:Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018Time: 1:37:07 PMFile name: Sastry MN (1).vwx(E) 24"MAGNOLIA 8"WALNUT N55°04'35"W50.02'N34°56'00"E120.00'N55°04'32"W50.02'COLUMBUS AVENUEALLEY4'-0"4'-0"SETBACKSETBACKN34°56'00"E120.00' GAS 3 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 2 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 1 T89 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 6 V9 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 3 S162 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 18 T104 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 3' TALL DRIVE COURT GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPOSED ELEC. METER LOCATIONA L L E YEXIST. JOINT POLE (WITH RISER)EXIST. POWER LINEUP LOW WALLSANITARY SEWER DN +92.23 T.O.C. ELEVATION +91.77 T.O.C. ELEVATION +88.6 ELEVATION +88.84 ELEVATION +92.56 ELEVATION +91.88 ELEVATION PROPOSED SAN. SEWER RECYCLING COMPOST TRASH GATE (E) FENCE (N) FENCE, 6' TALL + 1' TRELLIS 3' HIGH FENCE TO SIDEWALK GATE (2) 24" FENCE PB PB PB LAWN 215 SF GARAGE PATIO STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS DRIVEWAY ENTRY COURT STONE PAVERS ENTRY WALK HOUSE ROOF EAVE TRASH PB (N) GATE, 36" R=12"SIDEWALKFLAGSTONE STEPPINGSTONES 3R@5.5" 2T@11.5" 4R@6" 3T@13" HANDRAIL LANDING GUARD- & HANDRAIL 1R@3" DN PBPB PB PB PBPB PB 1'-9"5'-3"3'-0" R=24" 1 2 3 4 2nd FLOOR BAY PROJECTION (N) 3' TALL STUCCO WALL (MASONRY) (E) HEDGE (N) 36" GATE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PB (N) TALL STUCCO WALL (FRAMED) 2'-11"4'-0"3'-3"20'-11"(E) PLANT WINDOW 14" 21'-0" SETBACK PB 6' TALL(N) BBQ 21'-8" VERIFY ALIGN(N) A/C CONDENSERS ON 1'-6" x 8'-0" CONC. PAD (E) CONC. CURB TO REMAIN (DO NOT DISTURB) EVERGREEN FLOWERING VINES, TBD ~15'-0" on 5' centers 3'-6"DIMENSION TO BE VERIFIED BY SURVEYOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 5'-6" VERIFY band continue? on 24" x 36" Proposed Site Plan Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 L1 0 5 15 25 35 45 FT Areas AREA SQ. FT. HARDSCAPE 2,270 LAWN 240 PLANTING BEDS 1,771 LOT 6,000 Abbreviations AD AREA DRAIN BOW BOTTOM OF WALL CO CLEAN OUT DI DRAIN INLET DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE DS DOWNSPOUT (E)EXISTING EO ELECTRICAL OUTLET EM ELECTRIC METER ETR EXISTING TO REMAIN FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FH FIRE HYDRANT GM GAS METER HB HOSE BIBE L/S LANDSCAPING (N)NEW NIC NOT IN CONTRACT OC ON CENTERS POC-W POINT OF CONNECTION WATERMAIN(P)PROPOSED PB PLANTING BED SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TFS TRANSPLANT FROM SITE TOS TOP OF SLOPE TOSTP TOP OF STEP TOW TOP OF WALL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WM WATER MAIN +100 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION +(100)PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION W SS Gas UNDERGROUND GAS LINE UNDERGROUND SEWER SANITARY LINE UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Plant Schedule Image ID Qty Latin Name Common Name Scheduled Size Remarks T31 2 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE V9 6 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 5 gal T553 2 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora'Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T89 1 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T104 18 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 15 gal S1592 5 Rosa x 'JACtou'Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 5 gal S162 3 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 15 gal on 5' centers Removed Trees (see tree removal plan L0) 5" Podocarpus 6" Podocarpus 6" Walnut 10" Aristocrat Pear Magnolia REPLACEMENT TREE DESIGNATION Legend 1 1 T1996 Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' 'Aristocrat' Callery Pear Tree PLANT TAG PB - PLANTING BED LAWN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PLANT TO REMAIN Staked Tree & Bubbler Irrigation Details N.T.S. 2 L1 Proposed plan3/2/2017Pln Chk Response7/19/201711 1 Location of A/C Condensing Units to be determined 38'-11" Current Location of Wood Fence Return 3'1-1/2"Construction Notes 1. Distance City Sidewalk to Existing Wood Fence Return at neighbor's is 39'11" 2. Distance of Neighbor's house to outside edge of existing concrete curb is 3'1-1/2" 3. New Stucco wall to be completely on property at 1354 Columbus Ave. Burlingame (Owners:Sastrys) 4.Contractor to protect Neighbor's existing planting during construction 5. Contractor to provide tree protection as required by City of Burlingame, along property line 6. Verification of property line prior to construction to be performed, and viewed by Neighbors at 1350 Columbus Ave. Burlingame.Stucco Wall Revs. 01/29/2018 1A101 A1011 SIM GRAPHIC SYMBOLS CENTERLINE WINDOW TAG WALL TAG DOOR TAG KEYNOTE ROOM TAG GRID HEAD LEVEL HEAD SPOT ELEVATION SLOPE TRIANGLE CALLOUT HEAD SECTION/ ELEVATION HEAD INTERIOR ELEVATION HEAD REVISION TAG REVISION CLOUD NORTH ARROWPROJECT NORTHT R U E N O R T H 101 Name ElevationElevation +0.00 1i Elevation +0.00 Location 1 ?06 11 00.D5 1i 0 A1011 6 4 Room name ABBREVIATIONS &And @At (E) Existing (N) New ADJ Adjustable AFF Above Finished Floor ALUM Aluminum APPROX Approximately ARCH Architectural BLDG Building BLKG Blocking BM Beam BSMT Basement BDRM Bedroom BYND Beyond BOT Bottom CAB Cabinet CL Centerline CLG Ceiling CLR Clear CO Cased Opening COL Column CONC Concrete CONT Continuous CPT Carpet CLO Closet CONST Construction DET Detail DEPT Department DBL Double DEMO Demolish DIA Diameter DIM Dimension DN Down DR Door DWG Drawing DS Downspout EA Each EL Elevation ELEC Electrical ENG Engineer EQ Equal EXT Exterior FAR Floor Area Ratio FL Floor FO Face Of FND Foundation FPL Fireplace GA Gauge GC General Contractor GALV Galvanized GFCI Ground Fault Interrupter GYP Gypsum HT Height HR Hour HVAC Heating, Ventilating, And Air Conditioning ILO In Lieu Of IN Inch INSUL Insulation INT Interior LO Low MAT Material MAX Maximum MECH Mechanical MEMBR Membrane MIN Minimum MTL Metal MISC Miscellaneous N/A Not Applicable NIC Not In Contract NTS Not to Scale NO Number NOM Nominal OC On Center OBS Obscure OPG Opening PLUMB Plumbing PLYWD Plywood PNT Paint PBO Provided by owner RBR Rubber RCP Reflected Ceiling Plan REQD Required RM Room REFR Refridgerator RD Roof Drain SCH Schedule SECT Section SF Square Foot SIM Similar SPEC Specification SSTL Stainless Steel STL Steel STRUCT Structural STOR Storage SSD See Structural Drawings TBD To Be Determined TO Top Of TOC Top Of Curb TOS Top of Slab TYP Typical UON Unless Noted Otherwise U/S Underside VIF Verify In Field W/ With W/O Without WH Water Heater WD Wood WDW Window AS NOTED 36"x 24" SCALE DATE FORMAT C RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2018 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions No. Date Description PROJECT DESCRIPTION "CONSTRUCTION HOURS" WEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M.- 7:00 P.M. SATURDAYS 9:00 A.M.- 6:00 P.M. SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: PROHIBITED CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT -OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 5:00 PM. PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE PARCEL APN ZONING NEIGHBORHOOD INTERSECTIONS LOT SIZE LOT AREA OCCUPANCY TYPE CONSTRUCTION TYPE CODE USED NUMBER OF UNITS BUILDING FLOOR AREA STORIES/ BASEMENTS BUILDING HEIGHT FIRE SPRINKLERS DESIGNER Wehmeyer Design Robert Wehmeyer, PBD AIBD rob@rcwehmeyer.com GENERAL CONTRACTOR Wehmeyer Custom Homes CSLB #969354 gregorio@rcwehmeyer.com RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1716_Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino.rvtA0.0 COVER SHEET 1422 Capuchino Ave. Kamal & Pritee Thakarsey 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 (408)316-0260 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THAKARSEY 9/26/2018 Burlingame, CA 94010 1422 Capuchino Ave. 9/26/2018 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 R-1 BURLINGAME GROVE CAPUCHINO AVENUE & GROVE AVENUE 50'-0" WIDE X 120'-0" DEEP 6,000 SF R-3 1-UNIT RES V-B 1 11 15'-4 1/2"29'-10 1/2"30'-0" 1 2 2-1/2 1,797 SF 3,332 SF 3,356 SF NO YES N/A PROJECT SCOPE IS THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STORY HOUSE WITH A DETACHED GARAGE ON A 6,000 SF LOT ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE. PROPOSED BUILDING FLOOR AREA IS 3,332 SF WHERE THE ALLOWABLE IS 3,356 SF. THAKARSEY RESIDENCE VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX Sheet Number Sheet Name A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.1 NOTES A0.2 EXTERIOR 3-D VIEWS A1.0 EXISTING SITE/ ROOF PLAN A1.1 PROPOSED SITE/ ROOF PLAN A1.2 UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE PLAN A2.0 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND DEMO PLAN A2.1 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.2 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.3 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATIONS A2.4 SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS A3.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATIONS A3.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS A3.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED NORTH (REAR) ELEVATIONS A3.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS A3.4 BUILDING SECTIONS NORTH-SOUTH A3.5 BUILDING SECTIONS EAST-WEST A5.0 DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE A9.0 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS L1.1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN T1 SITE SURVEY PLAN 1422 CAPUCHINO AVE. Issue Date Description 3/30/2018 Planning Department Submittal 9/7/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 9/24/2018 9/26/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 10/9/2018 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 gregorio@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2018 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions No. Date Description RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1716_Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino.rvtA0.2 EXTERIOR 3-D VIEWS 1422 Capuchino Ave. Kamal & Pritee Thakarsey 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 (408) 316-0260 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THAKARSEY 9/26/2018 Issue Date Description 3/30/2018 Planning Department Submittal 9/7/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 9/24/2018 9/26/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 10/9/2018 T.O. SLAB GARAGE +13.17 FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +24.42 (E) T.O. RIDGE +29.20 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.8315'-4 1/2"AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +14.44 +13.99 +13.63 +13.15 +13.94 +13.66 12'-0"12'-0"4'-9 1/4"8'-0"2'-7"12'-1" 4'-11" W3 W26W27W28W10 W4 W2 D14 4" 12" +/- 4" 12" +/- FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +26.59 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +34.59 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.83 T.O. RIDGE +43.71 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +25.429'-1 1/2"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-7"29'-10 1/2"7'-6"7'-6"17'-1 1/2"10'-2"2'-7"1422 4'-11" 8'-6"11'-5" W54 W53W55 W76 W75W77W57W56W58 D17D18 W88 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE T.O.C. ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +14.44 +13.99 +13.63+13.15 +13.94 +13.66 12'-0"12'-0"8" 12" 7" 12" 8" 12" 7" 12" W89 7" 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 gregorio@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2018 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions No. Date Description RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1716_Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino.rvtA3.0 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SOUTH (FRONT) ELEVATIONS 1422 Capuchino Ave. Kamal & Pritee Thakarsey 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 (408) 316-0260 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THAKARSEY 9/26/2018 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(N) 10" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND CORBEL TYP. (N) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING AT SECOND FLOOR TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE 4" EXPOSURE TYP. (N) SINGLE-CAR GARAGE WITH WOOD AND GLASS DOOR AND FINISH MATERIALS AND DETAILING TO MATCH (N) RESIDENCE. SEE A2.3 FOR PROPOSED PLAN AND ELEVATIONS (E) WOOD WINDOWS WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES AND WOOD TRIM TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. 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. SHEET NOTES (E) CONCRETE FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) ROOF FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (N) 6" STONE WATER TABLE TYP. (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR(E) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (E) SIDING EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/ PAINTED WOOD TRIM. SEE A 5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAILLEFT SIDE SETBACK LINE(N) DARK BRONZE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT FIRST FLOOR TYP. (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) LEDGESTONE VENEER ON FRONT ELEVATION TO MATCH PORCH COLUMNS TYP.RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINELEFT PROPERTY LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(N) WOOD FRONT PORCH COLUMNS W/ STONE BASE AND PAINTED WOOD RAILING TYP. EGRESS DOOR FOR OFFICE W/ CLEARANCE OF 72" X 80" EXCEEDING MIN. DIMENSIONS 20" WIDE X 24" HEIGHT (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS (N) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS FRONT DOOR W/ WOOD TRIM. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (N) SKYLIGHT OVER STAIRWELL (N) SHED DORMER W/ STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF TO MATCH FIRST FLOOR Issue Date Description 3/30/2018 Planning Department Submittal 9/7/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 9/24/2018 9/26/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 10/9/2018 FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +24.42 (E) T.O. RIDGE +29.20 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.83 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +14.44 15'-4 1/2"4'-9 1/4"8'-0"2'-7"W1 W25 W24 W21W22W23 W33W32 D15 FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +26.59 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +34.59 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.83 T.O. RIDGE +43.71 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +25.4229'-10 1/2"9'-1 1/2"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-7"17'-1 1/2"10'-2"2'-7"W52 W51 W49 W48 W69 W68W71W72W73W74 D19 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +14.44 7" 12" W50 W87 W86 8" 12" 8" 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 gregorio@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2018 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions No. Date Description RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1716_Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino.rvtA3.1 EXISTING AND PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS 1422 Capuchino Ave. Kamal & Pritee Thakarsey 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 (408) 316-0260 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THAKARSEY 9/26/2018 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 EAST ELEVATION EXISTING 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION PROPOSED (N) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TYP. (N) WOOD FRONT PORCH COLUMN W/ STONE BASE AND PAINTED WOOD RAILING FRONT PROPERTY LINEFRONT PROPERTY LINE(E) WOOD WINDOW WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) STONE VENEER REAR DECK AND STAIRS W/ PAINTED WOOD RAILING TO MATCH FRONT PORCH (N) DARK BRONZE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT FRONT PORCH TYP. EGRESS WINDOW BEDROOM 2 W/ CLEARANCE OF 24 1/2" X 42 1/2" EXCEEDING MIN. DIMENSIONS 20" WIDE X 24" HEIGHT W/ SILL AT LESS THAN 44" ABOVE FLOOR (E) SIDING EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TO BE DEMOLISHED 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE ALUMINUM 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 SHEET NOTES (N) 12" WOOD BELLY BAND (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) 10" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND CORBEL TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE 4" EXPOSURE TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD RAILING ON (N) BALCONY (N) 6" WOOD WATER TABLE TYP.(N) CHIMNEY FOR LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE W/ LEDGESTONE VENEER TO MATCH FRONT PORCH EGRESS WINDOW GUEST BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 24 1/2" X 42 1/2" EXCEEDING MIN. DIMENSIONS 20" WIDE X 24" HEIGHT W/ SILL AT LESS THAN 44" ABOVE FLOOR EGRESS WINDOW GUEST BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 24 1/2" X 42 1/2" EXCEEDING MIN. DIMENSIONS 20" WIDE X 24" HEIGHT W/ SILL AT LESS THAN 44" ABOVE FLOOR (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/ PAINTED WOOD TRIM. SEE A 5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS DOOR W/ WOOD TRIM. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE Issue Date Description 3/30/2018 Planning Department Submittal 9/7/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 9/24/2018 9/26/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 10/9/2018 FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +26.59 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +34.59 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.83 T.O. RIDGE +43.71 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +25.42 2'-7"9'-0"1'-2"8'-0"9'-1 1/2"2'-7"10'-2"17'-1 1/2"29'-10 1/2"4'-11" 8'-6" 11'-5" D20 D28 7'-6"7'-6"AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +13.63 +13.1512'-0"12'-0"7" 12" 8" 12" W70 W47 W46 W45 W44 8" 12" 7" 12" W88 W89 W84 W83 W82 W81 7" 12" FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +24.42 (E) T.O. RIDGE +29.20 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.8315'-4 1/2"2'-7"8'-0"4'-9 1/4"4'-11"12'-1" W17 W15W16W18W20W19 D3 AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE AVG. (E) GRADE ELEVATION ON PROPERTY LINE +13.63 +13.1512'-0"12'-0"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 gregorio@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2018 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions No. Date Description RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1716_Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino.rvtA3.2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED NORTH (REAR) ELEVATIONS 1422 Capuchino Ave. Kamal & Pritee Thakarsey 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 (408) 316-0260 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THAKARSEY 9/26/2018 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 EXISTINGRIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT PROPERTY LINE (E) COMPOSITION ROOFING AND FRAMING TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (N) STONE VENEER PORCH AND STAIRS W/ PAINTED WOOD RAILING (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (E) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) CHIMNEY FOR LIVING ROOM FIREPLACE W/ LEDGESTONE TO MATCH ELEVATIONS (E) WOOD WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE ALUMINUM 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 SHEET NOTES RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK LINERIGHT PROPERTY LINELEFT PROPERTY LINE DECLINING HEIGH ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE(E) SIDING EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) CHIMNEY AND FIREPLACE TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TYP. (N) 10" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND CORBEL TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE 4" EXPOSURE TYP. (N) LEDGESTONE VENEER ON REAR ELEVATION TO MATCH FRONT ELEVATION (N) 6" STONE WATER TABLE TYP. (E) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST FLOOR (N) RIGHT SIDE SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR (N) LEFT SIDE SETBACK TO FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS (N) SKYLIGHT OVER STAIRWELL EGRESS DOOR FOR MASTER BEDROOM W/ CLEARANCE OF 59" X 80" EXCEEDING MIN. DIMENSIONS 20" WIDE X 24" HEIGHT (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/ PAINTED WOOD TRIM. SEE A 5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) PAINTED WOOD AND GLASS DOOR W/ WOOD TRIM. SEE A5.0 FOR DOOR SCHEDULE (N) DARK BRONZE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT FIRST FLOOR TYP. Issue Date Description 3/30/2018 Planning Department Submittal 9/7/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 9/24/2018 9/26/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 10/9/2018 FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 SECOND FLOOR F.F. +26.59 SECOND FL. T.O. PLATE +34.59 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.83 T.O. RIDGE +43.71 FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +25.429'-1 1/2"8'-0"1'-2"9'-0"2'-7"17'-1 1/2"10'-2"2'-7"29'-10 1/2"W37 W36W38 W42 W41W43 W60 W59W61W62W63W66W67 W88 W64 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +13.94 W89 7" 12" W40 W39 8" 12" 8" 12" W80 W79 W78 W65 7" 12" FIRST FL. F.F. +16.42 (E) FIRST FLOOR T.O. PLATE +24.42 (E) T.O. RIDGE +29.20 AVG TOC CAPUCHINO +13.83 FRONT PROPERTY CORNER ELEVATION +13.9415'-4 1/2"4'-9 1/4"8'-0"2'-7"W6 W5W7W9W8W14W11 D1 W12W13 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 gregorio@rcwehmeyer.com RESIDENCE APN CLIENT 2018 RCW DESIGN ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PROJECT NOTES: Revisions No. Date Description RC Wehmeyer I Design I Build 1204 Burlingame Avenue, Suite No. 7 Burlingame, CA 94010 650.340.1055 www.rcwehmeyer.com C:\Users\Katrina\Desktop\Server Files\1716_Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino\02 - Revit Drawings Working\Thakarsey_1422_Capuchino.rvtA3.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS 1422 Capuchino Ave. Kamal & Pritee Thakarsey 1422 Capuchino Ave. 026-074-210 (408) 316-0260 Burlingame, CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 94010 THAKARSEY 9/26/2018 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION PROPOSED 0'4'8'2'1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION EXISTING FRONT PROPERTY LINEFRONT PROPERTY LINE(E) CONCRETE FRONT PORCH AND STAIRS TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED 1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS IN PROPOSED ELEVATION ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE DENOTED AS EXISTING (E) 2. ALL NEW WINDOWS ARE ALUMINUM 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 SHEET NOTES (E) WOOD WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (N) SKYLIGHT OVER UPPER HALL (E) SIDING EXTERIOR TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TO BE DEMOLISHED (N) FRAMING AND COMPOSITION ROOFING TYP. (N) STONE VENEER REAR PORCH W/ PAINTED WOOD RAILING (N) 10" PAINTED WOOD FASCIA AND CORBEL TYP. (N) PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE 4" EXPOSURE TYP. (N) BALCONY AT MASTER BEDROOM W/ PAINTED WOOD RAILING (N) WOOD FRONT PORCH COLUMN W/ STONE VENEER BASE AND PAINTED WOOD RAILING (N) 6" STONE WATER TABLE TYP. (N) DARK BRONZE STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF AT FRONT PORCH AND FIRST FLOOR TYP. (N) 12" BELLY BAND TYP. (N) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/ PAINTED WOOD TRIM. SEE A 5.0 FOR WINDOW SCHEDULE AND A9.0 FOR WINDOW DETAIL (N) SKYLIGHT IN MASTER CLOSET Issue Date Description 3/30/2018 Planning Department Submittal 9/7/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 9/24/2018 9/26/2018 Planning Commission Mtg 10/9/2018 (N) RECESSED ELECTRICAL PANEL LOCATION CONNECTED TO OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL SERVICE WITH HIDDEN WEATHERHEAD. PROJECT LOCATION 185 Pepper Avenue Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Front Setback Variance Address: 185 Pepper Avenue Meeting Date: October 9, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Barzin Keyhan Khadiv APN: 028-263-010 Property Owners: Durwin and Carey Beth Tsay Lot Area: 9,796 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame P ark No. 3 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, I nc., dated May 17, 2018. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. Environmental Review Status: Since the project is not considered to be eligible for historic listing, t he proposed project can be determined categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing two-story, five-bedroom house with an attached two car garage is located on a corner lot (corner of Pepper Avenue and Ralston Avenue) and contains 3,005 SF (0.30 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes a first and second story addition and would increase the floor area to 3,888 SF (0.39 FAR) where 4,035 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed as per code. The proposed project is 147 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The applicant is requesting a Front Setback Variance for the p roposed first and second story addition. Based on the average of the block, the minimum required front setback to the first and second floors is 56’-6”. The proposed front setbacks on the first and second floors are 19’-1¼” and 45’-1⅞, respectively. The project proposes to maintain the existing bedroom count. For a five-bedroom house, three parking spaces are required, two of which must be covered. The existing two-car garage would be retained and there is space for one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 20’-0”) in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off- street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and  Front Setback Variance for a first and second story addition (19’-1¼” to the first floor and 45’-1⅞” to the second floor proposed, where 56’-6” is the minimum required based on the block a verage) (C.S. 25.26.072 (b) (1) (3)). Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review and Front Setback Variance 185 Pepper Avenue 2 185 Pepper Avenue Lot Size: 9,796 SF Plans date stamped: September 27, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 25’-5¼” (to garage) ¹ 19’-1¼” (to addition) ³ 56’-6”(block average) (applies to 1st and 2nd floors) (2nd flr): 50’-7⅞” ¹ 45’-1⅞” (to addition) ³ Side (interior): (exterior – 1st floor): (exterior – 2nd floor): 4’-1” (to garage) ² 7’-8 ¾” 12’-1¾” No change 10’-2⅛” 12’-0” 7'-0" 7'-6" average of 12’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 70’-3⅜” 68’-11⅜” 70’-3⅜” 73’-10⅞” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,006 SF 20.4% 2,734 SF 27.8% 3,918 SF 40% FAR: 3,005 SF 0.30 FAR 3,888 SF 0.39 FAR 4,035 SF 4 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 No change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’-2” X 20’-10”) 1 uncovered (9’-0” X 20’-0”) No change 2 covered (18’X18’ for existing) 1 uncovered (9' X 20') Height: 23’-8” 24’-7” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ Existing nonconforming front setbacks to first and second floors. ² Existing nonconforming interior side setback. ³ Front Setback Variance required for first and second floor addition. 4 (0.32 x 9,796 SF) + 900 SF = 4,035 SF (0.41 FAR) Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that Ralston Creek runs along the exterior side of the property. There are no improvements propose d beyond the top of bank. 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. Design Review and Front Setback Variance 185 Pepper Avenue 3 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 substa ntial 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. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Barzin Keyhan Khadiv, applicant and designer Durwin and Carey Beth Tsay, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Letter from the Property Owners, submitted August 23, 2018 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 28, 2018 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historic Resource Evaluation conducted b y Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated May 17, 2018 REVISIONS SHEET BY OF DRAWN JOB SCALE DATE SHEETS 185 PEPPER AVE., APN: 028263010 ADDITION & REMODELING FOR: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 “” 56-6" REVISIONS SHEET BY OF DRAWN JOB SCALE DATE SHEETS § § § “” REVISIONS SHEET BY OF DRAWN JOB SCALE DATE SHEETS REVISIONS SHEET BY OF DRAWN JOB SCALE DATE SHEETS REVISIONS SHEET BY OF DRAWN JOB SCALE DATE SHEETS REVISIONS SHEET BY OF DRAWN JOB SCALE DATE SHEETS PEPPER AVE(R/W 50')RALSTON AVE (R/W 50') 1ƒ ( 126.14' 6ƒ : 150.32'6ƒ (1ƒ :65.84'L = 3 9 . 0 8 'R= 2 5 . 0 0 ' T-1 APN: 028-263-010 SAN MATEO COUNTY 185 PEPPER AVE. BURLINGAME, CA TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP .')'0& #$$4'8+#6+105 PROJECT LOCATION 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue Item No. 9c Environmental Scoping & Design Review Study Item No. 9c Environmental Scoping & Design Review Study City of Burlingame Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study for a New Mixed Use Commercial/Residential Development Address: 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue Meeting Date: October 9, 2018 Request: Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study for an application for Environmental Review, Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan and Zoning Code to allow a multi-family residential use, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit and Lot Merger for construction of a new three-story, 14-unit mixed use commercial/residential development. Applicant: John Britton APN: 029-151-150, -160 and -170 Architect: Gary Gee Architects, Inc. Lot Area: 15,706 SF (combined lots) Property Owner: Britton Trust General Plan: Commercial Uses: Office Zoning: DAC Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Donnelly Avenue Area Adjacent Development: Public parking lot, retail and multifamily residential. Environmental Scoping: Environmental review is required for this project because it includes a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and a building that exceeds 10,000 SF in floor area, and therefore does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). As a part of preparing the initial study for the environmental document for this project, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission comment on any potential environmental effects which it feels should be investigated. The standard list of items investigated in an Initial Study is attached for reference. The issues identified by the Commission will be incorporated into the initial study for the project. The standard list of items investigated in an initial study is attached for reference. At this time, staff notes that based on preliminary analysis, it appears that the type of CEQA document required will be a Mitigated Negative Declaration. However, the type of CEQA document will be finalized during the environmental review process. Background: On November 23, 2013, a fire destroyed the existing structure at 1218 Donnelly Avenue (containing two residential units). In February of 2015, a demolition permit was issued to demolish the existing building at 1218 Donnelly Avenue, as well as an existing single story building (containing one residential unit) at the rear of the site. The fire also spread to a portion of the building at 1214 Donnelly Avenue (previously containing residential and office uses). The structures at 1220 Donnelly Avenue (containing three residential units in the front building and one residential unit in the rear building) were not damaged by the fire. The structure at 1214 Donnelly Avenue (referred to as the “Gates House”) was identified as a potentially historic property in the Draft Inventory of Historic Places prepared in conjunction with the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property, which concluded that 1214 Donnelly Avenue was not architecturally significant, but that it was eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with early settlement patterns in the town of Burlingame, and Criterion 2 (Persons) for its association with original owner and long-time occupant George W. Gates (the third stationmaster for the Burlingame railroad station). The structure at 1214 Donnelly Avenue remained vacant and exposed to the elements since the date of the fire, though the site was secured with a fence as required by the City. Concerned with the damage the building sustained from the fire and exposure to the elements for several years, the property owner contacted the Community Development Department to explore the possibility of demolishing the structure in advance of a new development being approved for the site. Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 2 Based on the Chief Building Official’s assessment of the condition of the structure, and his finding that the structure was substandard, unsafe, contained evidence of illicit activities, and could not be reasonably rebuilt, issuance of a Demolition Permit was warranted in order to mitigate the impacts upon the public health and safety. A Demolition Permit was issued in May 2018 and the structure was demolished shortly thereafter. Project Summary: The project site is located midblock on Donnelly Avenue between Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue. The project site consists of three separate lots (1214, 1218 and 1220 Donnelly Avenue) which would be combined into one lot for the proposed project. The site is surrounded by multifamily residential buildings to the north, retail buildings and parking lots to the south, public parking lots to the west and retail buildings to the east. The proposal includes construction of a new three-story mixed use commercial/residential development consisting of a commercial use on the ground floor and 14 residential condominium units on the second and third floors. All existing buildings remaining on the lots would be demolished to build the proposed development. Parking for 23 vehicles will be provided in an enclosed garage located behind the commercial space. The ground floor will consist of approximately 4,704 SF of commercial space, which can be configured as one or two tenant spaces with storefront entrances on Donnelly Avenue. The ground floor will also contain an entry court and lobby providing pedestrian access to the residential units on the second and third floors. The remainder of the ground floor will contain rooms for utilities, resident bicycle storage, trash/recycling containers and general storage. The second and third floors will contain 12, 2-bedroom units and 2, 1-bedroom units for a total of 14 residential units. Each unit will contain a living/dining area, kitchen, one or two bathrooms, laundry closet and one or two bedrooms. The residential units range from 528 SF to 1,040 SF in area, with an average unit size of 913 SF. In the zoning districts within the Downtown Specific Plan, the average maximum unit size permitted is 1,250 SF. The common open space required for the residential units is provided on the podium level (second floor) above the garage at the rear of the site. During preliminary review Planning staff identified the following applications required for this project:  Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (Donnelly Avenue) and Donnelly Avenue Commercial District to allow residential use above the first floor on properties located north of Donnelly Avenue that have sole frontage on Donnelly Avenue;  Design Review for construction of a new three-story, mixed use commercial/residential building with at- grade parking (C.S. 25.36.045, 25.57.010 (c)(1) and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);  Conditional Use Permit for building height (43’-10” to top of parapet and 54’-3” to top of stairway enclosure proposed, where a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building exceed 35’-0”; 55’-0” maximum building height allowed) (C.S. 25.36.055);  Condominium Permit for 14 residential condominium units (each unit to be privately owned) (C.S. 26.30.020); and  Lot Merger to combine three existing lots into one lot. Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 3 General Plan and Zoning: T he Burlingame General Plan designates this site for Commercial Uses - Office. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, which serves as an element of the General Plan. W ithin the Downtown Specific Plan, the site is located in the Donnelly Avenue Area and is described as follows: The Donnelly Avenue area consists of properties on either side of Donnelly Avenue between Primrose Road and Lorton Avenue. Ground floor retail use is allowed but not required. Existing residential uses may remain and be improved, but new residential uses are not allowed. Currently, the Donnelly Avenue Area within the Downtown Specific Plan and the Donnelly Avenue Commercial (DAC) zoning regulations do not permit residential uses of any type. With this application, the applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission consider amending the Downtown Specific Plan and DAC zoning regulations to allow residential use above the first floor, only on those properties within the DAC zone that lie north of Donnelly Avenue that have sole frontage on Donnelly Avenue (see highlighted properties in the map below). This would include the project site (three lots) and two public parking lots. Properties such as the Il Fornaio property (327-329 Lorton Avenue) and the McGuire Real Estate property (480 Primrose Road) are not proposed to be included in the amendment in order to preserve the primary retail characteristics of the streets on which those properties front (Lorton and Primrose respectively). One rationale for this rather limited amendment is that the Donnelly Avenue facing properties are adjacent to primarily multifamily residential land uses to the rear on the north side of that block (facing Bellevue Avenue), and as such would be compatible with the adjacent residential uses. The property at 1210-1212 Donnelly Avenue was not included because based on its substandard lot size (4,132 SF) and lot width (41.29’), it would be difficult to develop the site with a mixed use residential building given that parking for residential uses is required to be provided onsite (whereas commercial and office uses are either exempt or may be provided through payment of in-lieu fees). The Downtown Specific Plan includes various Goals and Policies to guide growth and development in Downtown Burlingame. The proposed mixed use development, which includes residential units above ground floor commercial space, is consistent with Policy LU-6.1, which encourages allowing housing in the Howard Avenue area as well as on the periphery of Downtown. Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 4 Design Review: Design Review is required for new mixed use building pursuant to Code Sections 25.36.045 and 25.57.010 (c) (1). Design Review was instituted for commercial projects in 2001 with the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidebook. The project is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame Downtown Special Plan and therefore subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-3 through 5-12) provides design guidelines specifically for commercial and mixed use areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-26) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown. The relevant pages of the plan have been included as an attachment for convenience of commissioners. The proposed exterior facades will consist of a variety of materials including cement plaster siding, Hardie smooth lap siding and exposed concrete or concrete block at the blind walls, decorative metal guardrails, canvas sunshades with decorative metal stanchions, decorative foam relief panels and glazed pottery inserts. The ground floor treatment will include inset painted wood window sashes, painted wood entry doors, canvas awnings and a painted metal garage door. The upper edge of the building will consist of varying architectural elements, including Spanish barrel clay roof tiles with foam eave brackets/corbels and articulated parapets with ornamental metal trim. Details of the architectural elements are provided on sheet A3.1a. Renderings of the proposed project are provided on sheets A0.0, R1 and R2. The following design review criteria for mixed use development projects are outlined in the zoning code: (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. Conditional Use Permit Request for Building Height: The Donnelly Avenue Commercial District states that no building shall exceed a height of 55’-0” and that a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building which exceeds 35’-0” in height. As measured from average top of curb level, the proposed height will be 43’-10” to the top of the building parapet and 54’-3” to the top of the stairway enclosure (the stair enclosure on the roof extends more than 10’-0” above the top of parapet and therefore is counted as part of the building height). In order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit the following findings must be made by the Planning Commission: (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; Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 5 (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. Off-Street Parking: The proposed project consists of 4,704 SF of commercial space on the ground floor and 14 residential units on the second and third floors. Retail, personal service and food establishment uses located on the ground floor within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan are exempt from vehicle parking requirements as set forth in code section 25.70.090 (a). The subject property is located within the parking sector; therefore no additional off-street parking is required for the proposed commercial use on the ground floor. The commercial tenant has not yet been determined. Off-street parking is required for the residential units on the upper floors. For residential uses within the Downtown Specific Plan, the proposed project is required to provide 20 parking spaces for the residents of the units (1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit and 1 space for each 1-bedroom unit) and an area for a service/delivery vehicle, for a total of 21 parking spaces. There is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan. The at-grade garage, located behind the commercial space, provides a total of 23 parking spaces (21 spaces in a puzzle stacker, one disabled-accessible space and one service/delivery vehicle space). Access to the garage would be from Donnelly Avenue by way of an 18’-0” wide driveway at the west end of the property. Twenty-one parking spaces would be provided by way of a puzzle car stacker system. A puzzle stacker is a mechanical parking option that provides independent access to all cars parked on the system. The puzzle stacker to be installed is a KlausTrendVario 4200 (see attached specifications) and is able to accommodate passenger cars and medium size vans and SUVs. The Municipal Code does not include specifications for parking lift systems, so the City currently does not have a standard mechanism for review and approval. However, as a policy the Downtown Specific Plan encourages “creative approaches” to providing on-site parking including vehicle puzzle stackers. Puzzle stackers could be considered “creative approaches” to providing the required on-site parking, and therefore be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with parking lift systems including puzzle stackers. Common and Private Open Space: There is a total of 2,695 SF (192.5 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the residential condominium units where 1,400 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. The common open space is provided on the podium level at the rear of the building. Of the required common open space, a minimum of 50% must be in soft landscaping (700 SF); 817 SF of the provided common open space is proposed to be landscaped and therefore is in compliance. There is 87 SF to 338 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Planting Plans (see sheets L1.1 through L2.2). A variety of plants and shrubs are proposed along the front of the building, as well as on the podium level at the rear of the building within the common open space. Permeable and brick pavers along the building frontage provide walkways to the commercial and residential components of the building and seating areas for the ground floor commercial spaces. Four existing trees, located at the front of the property at 1214 Donnelly Avenue, are proposed to be removed. One of the three trees, a 20-inch diameter Brisbane box, qualifies as a protected size tree. The applicant will be required to apply for and obtain a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division in order to remove this tree. The applicant provided a Tree Survey, prepared by SBCA Tree Consulting and dated April 1, 2016, to Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 6 identify the trees within the project property that are subject to the City’s Reforestation Ordinance (see attached). The survey provides tree protection measures for the existing street tree which was to remain at the time the survey was prepared. However, in consultation with the City Arborist it was determined that this street tree should be replaced (see below). There is one existing street tree, a Sycamore/London plane tree, along Donnelly Avenue in front of the project property. The Parks Division is requiring that this existing street tree be replaced by five new 36-inch box street trees to achieve uniformity along the project frontage (see Planting Plan, sheet L1.1) Table 1 - Compliance with DAC Regulations Lot Area: 15,706 SF Plans date stamped: October 1, 2018 Proposed Allowed/Required Land Use: 4,704 SF commercial space on ground floor 14 residential units on upper floors ¹ commercial use allowed as a permitted use Lot Size: 15,706 SF (combined) 5,000 SF minimum Street Frontage: 146.94 feet 50’-0” minimum Setbacks and Build-to-line: Front (Donnelly Avenue): varies from 3’-5” to 11’-11” 75% of the of building is located within 10’ of the front property line) no minimum required at least 60% of building must be located at front property line or no more than 10’ from the front property line) Left Side Setback: 0'-0" no minimum required Right Side Setback: 0'-0" no minimum required Rear Setback: 0’-0” no minimum required Building Height: 43’-10” to top of parapet ² 54’-3” to top of stair enclosure ² 55’-0” maximum >35’-0” with CUP Ground Floor Ceiling Height: 15’-0” 15’-0” minimum Off-Street Parking: 21 spaces in puzzle stacker 1 disabled-accessible space 1 service/delivery space 23 spaces 12, 2 bdrm units x 1.5 = 18 spaces 2, 1 bdrm units x 1 = 2 spaces service/delivery space = 1 21 spaces Private Open Space: 87 SF – 338 SF/unit 75 SF per unit Common Open Space: SF Landscaped: 2,695 SF 817 SF (58.3% of required) 1,400 SF 700 SF (50% of required) ¹ Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (Donnelly Avenue) and Donnelly Avenue Commercial District to allow residential use above the first floor on properties located north of Donnelly Avenue that have sole frontage on Donnelly Avenue ² Conditional Use Permit for building height (43’-10” to top of parapet and 54’-3” to top of stairway enclosure proposed, where a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building exceed 35’-0”). Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 7 Staff Comments: None. Affordable (Below -Market Rate) Units: The City’s previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development standard incentives offered by the ordinance. The applicant has not chosen to apply any of the development standard incentives offered by the Density Bonus Ordinance and therefore is not providing any affordable units as part of the project. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fee is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Based on the proposed mixed use commercial/residential development (4,704 SF of commercial space and 14 residential units) and providing a credit for the existing 9,500 SF of office and seven residential units, payment of the public facilities impact fee is not required since the amount for the proposed project was calculated to be less than the amount for the existing uses. Planning Commission Action: 1. Environmental Scoping: As the first discussion item, the Planning Commission should review and take public comment on the proposed project and the areas of potential environmental effects as listed in the staff report. The Commission should add any additional effects of the project that it believes should be addressed in the CEQA document. The areas of investigation for environmental evaluation as defined by CEQA are listed in the attached Initial Study Checklist for your reference. 2. Design Review Study: As the second discussion item, the Commission should comment on the design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and to the following design criteria for commercial, industrial and mixed use projects: a. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and b. 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 c. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and d. 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 e. 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 f. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Because a CEQA document is being prepared for this project, it is important that any changes to the building envelope be made early enough in the process so that any changes are reflected in the environmental review. Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study 1214-1220 Donnelly Avenue 8 Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. John Brintton, applicant Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letters of Explanation, dated March 8, 2016 and April 11, 2016 Conditional Use Permit Application Klaus TrendVario 4200 Specifications Tree Survey, prepared by SBCA Tree Consulting, dated April 1, 2016 Environmental Information Form Environmental Checklist from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 28, 2018 Area Map SBCA TREE CONSULTING SBCA TREE CONSULTING SBCA TREE CONSULTING SBCA TREE CONSULTING Steve Batchelder, Consulting ArboristSteve Batchelder, Consulting ArboristSteve Batchelder, Consulting ArboristSteve Batchelder, Consulting Arborist 1534 Rose Street, Crockett, CA 94525 WC ISA Certified Arborist #228 CUFC Certified Urban Forester #134 Calif. Contractor Lic. (C-27) 533675 Phone (510) 787-3075, Fax (510) 787-3065 E-mail: steve@sbcatree.com Date: April 1, 2016 To: John Britton W.J. Britton & Co. 1345 Mission St San Francisco, CA 94105 Subject: Tree Survey for Development Project Location: 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame PARCELS: 029-151-150, 029-151-160, 029-151-170 Assignment: Arborists were requested to identify trees within the parcels that are subject to City of Burlingame Tree Ordinance. Arborist Qualifications: Arborists Steve Batchelder and Molly Batchelder are both certified as arborists by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). Introduction The following arborist report provides information regarding two Protected Trees associated with a development permit. One is located on a parcel designated to be developed. The other is a City street tree. Appendix material Appendix 1: Tree Location Map Appendix 2. Tree Protection Guidelines Summary The City street tree, a London Plane (Platanus x hispanica syn. Platanus x acerifolia) located in the sidewalk in front of parcel 029-151-150, will be protected during construction activities. Only one tree, located within parcel 029-151-150 where the structure is located, qualifies as a City Protected Tree. This tree is proposed for removal to accommodate the site development plans. Three additional trees identified on the site did not qualify as protected trees. 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame 4-1-16 W.J. Britton Co. 2 of 4 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com City of Burlingame Tree Ordinance (f) “Protected tree” means: (1) Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty- four (54) inches above natural grade; or (2) A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance or other factor; or (3) A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Tree Descriptions 1. City Street Tree – London Plane (Platanus x hispanica) DBH1 – 21.5” Health – Fair to Good. Structure – Good This tree will require protection during site demolition and construction activities. See: Tree Protection Guidelines in Appendix 2. 2. Site Tree – Brisbane Box (Lophostemon confertus) DBH – 20” Health – Good Structure – Fair to Good, multi branching Spread – 35’ This tree will be removed to accommodate the project design. Recommendations Pre-Demolition and Pre-Construction Meetings – Critical to the success of any tree protection plan is informing the contractors of the requirements. All tree protection measures must be in place prior to the beginning of activities. Submitted by: Steve Batchelder, Consulting Arborist ISA Certified Arborist WE 228A CaUFC Certified Urban Forester #138 Calif. Contractor Lic. (C-27) 533675 1 DBH – Diameter at Breast Height or measured at 4.5’ above soil grade 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame 4-1-16 W.J. Britton Co. 3 of 4 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com Photo Supplement Photo 1. Photo to the right shows the 20 inch diameter Brisbane Box tree #2. This tree will be removed to accommodate the proposed development project. Photo 2. Photo to the right shows the City street tree #1 that will require protection during the proposed construction project. Tree protection requires that the current fencing and sidewalk remain in place for the duration of the project. The lower 10 feet of the tree will require protection from mechanical injury. 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame 4-1-16 W.J. Britton Co. 4 of 4 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com Photo 3. Photo to the right shows the two African Fern Pines (Afrocarpus gracilior). The trees have diameters of 4” and 5” and do not qualify as protected trees. Photo 4. Photo shows the Japanese Maple tree that will also be removed. The tree has a diameter of 8.5” when measured at 2’ above soil grade, also not a protected tree. End 1214 Donnelly Ave. Appendix 1 4/1/2016 W.J Britton & Co. Tree Location Map 1 of 1 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame 4/1/2016 W.J Britton & Co 1 of 3 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com Tree Preservation Guidelines The tree protection is for the City of Burlingame owned London Plane tree located in the sidewalk in front of 1214 Donnelly Avenue. The focus of the tree protection will be the following: 1. Pre-Construction Meeting - Contractors must attend a pre-construction meeting with project arborist with all tree protection measures inspected and approved. 2. Fencing Remains in Place - Current fencing along the sidewalk is to remain in place for the duration if the project. 3. Excavation within (RPZ)1 - All excavation, trenching or sidewalk repairs within 22 feet of the London Plane tree shall be under the direct supervision of project arborist. 4. Preliminary Investigation and Root Pruning - Excavation along the property boundary, immediately behind the sidewalk is to be preceded by exploratory excavation (hand, air spade or Ditchwitch) with any necessary root pruning undertaken prior to the use of equipment. PRE-CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES These activities should be undertaken prior to initiation of construction activity. In addition to modifications to the project design to reduce tree impacts, all steps that improve the health of trees prior to construction will greatly improve the chance of survival. Timing of Root Loss – Root loss that occurs in late fall season is preferable to cutting tree roots in the spring. Pruning activities are best undertaken in mid to late summer or winter. Pruning both the canopy and roots at the same time should be avoided if possible. Design – The design must be consistent with the requirements of the trees. Where possible, the project design should allow for roots to occupy the soil behind the sidewalk. Graphic description showing under sidewalk pavement treatments have been provided in appendices. Such treatments allow tree roots to access the available soil with minimal potential for sidewalk pavement displacement. Designate Tree Root Protection Zone–The tree Root Protection Zone (RPZ) designates an area surrounding a tree or grouping of trees that is to be fenced off from all access until designated by a certified arborist. The RPZ is commonly defined as one (1) foot radial distance for every one (1) inch in tree diameter (DBH). Arborist can modify the RPZ distance from the base of the tree based upon site conditions and the level of root presence. An arborist should monitor all grading and trenching activity that is within twice the distance of the RPZ. 1 RPZ is the tree root protection zone. Determined to be one radial foot from the base of the tree for every one inch in tree diameter (DBH). 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame 4/1/2016 W.J Britton & Co 2 of 3 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com Tree Root Protection Zone Fencing – In this situation, the current fencing will suffice as long as it remains in place for 22 feet to either side of the tree. Until decisions are finalized regarding excavation activities occurring within the project site and 22 feet from the London Plane tree, soil protections must be in place as the area cannot be saved. Root Protection and Root Pruning – Root protection measures must be in place prior to the beginning of construction activities. This includes the use of mulch, trenching plates and/or plywood to reduce construction related soil compaction. Necessary root pruning is best accomplished prior to the beginning of construction activities and preferably in the late fall season. After being exposed by hand or air excavation, roots are pruned under arborist supervision. Construction activities are then free to occur outside of the root pruning boundary. Supplemental Irrigation – Arborist will designate supplemental irrigation based upon the level of root loss, soil conditions, tree health and time of year. Mulching – Use of four to six inches of organic mulch (wood chips are best) on soil surface will reduce soil compaction and evaporative soil moisture loss. Recommended material is wood chips generated from tree trimming. Fresh redwood, incense cedar and walnut chips are not acceptable, nor is palm generated mulch. Pruning – No pruning is likely to be required. All pruning must comply with ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Pruning must be minimized, particularly when root loss occurs. Pruning prior to construction should include: Necessary Clearance Pruning, Deadwood Removal and Safety Pruning. TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION The level of arborist monitoring of the project can be quite variable, depending upon the degree of encroachment into root systems and the early levels of contractor compliance with the tree protection guidelines. Pre-Construction Meeting with all Construction Personnel – It is important that construction crew understands the tree protection requirements. All personnel working on site should be provided an orientation to tree preservation measures and rules by the arborist assigned to monitor tree preservation. Observe Fenced RPZ – This area is off limits to all personnel, equipment, materials storage, or any other activities. Fencing may be relocated only under arborist supervision. WORK ACTIVITIES OCCURING WITHIN THE DESIGNATED RPZ Arborist Supervision – All activities occurring inside of the designated RPZ must be approved and an arborist must be present to supervise tree protection and root pruning activities. In addition to root pruning within the project limits it includes sidewalk replacement or repair. 1214 Donnelly Ave., Burlingame 4/1/2016 W.J Britton & Co 3 of 3 SBCA Tree Consulting Phone (510) 787-3075 1534 Rose St. Crockett, CA 94525 Fax (510) 787-3065 steve@sbcatree.com www.sbcatree.com Trunk and Scaffold Protection – To protect the base of the tree from mechanical injury, the trunk is protected up to 10 feet. Protection can be vertical boards strapped to the outer side of the tree and wrapped with orange plastic construction fencing or use of straw waddles likewise wrapped with orange plastic fencing. Soil Moisture Control – If root pruning must occur, supplemental irrigation is required. Open trenches with exposed roots require minimum three layers of damp burlap or other acceptable covering at all times. Project arborist will determine the amount of supplemental watering required. Required Method of Trenching Within Critical Root Zone – Carefully hand excavation or tunneling shall be the accepted method for installing underground utilities. The Air Spade can also be used much more efficiently when a large amount of such trenching must be undertaken. Arborist is to supervise any such activity. POST CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION Arborist is to certify that the tree has been protected and cared for during the course of construction activities. Monitoring Tree Health – Regular visual inspection of trees will aid in assessing where further mitigation is required. Tree decline should be recorded and referenced against pre-construction health assessment. Leaf and stem insects and fungal pathogens are a sign of poor tree health (low energy reserves). Monitoring of Soil Moisture – It is important that significant changes in soil moisture levels within tree root zones be identified early, prior to visible evidence of tree decline. Moisture should be monitored by visual inspection using a soil probe or through the use of tensiometers placed at key locations. Supplemental irrigation is best provided during middle and late spring. In cases where trees have suffered root loss, supplemental irrigation will be required for a number of years in the area where roots were severed. Mitigation of Soil Compaction – The level and depth of soil compaction must be assessed and mitigated as necessary. Mitigation of soil compaction in areas where roots are present must minimize root loss. Tools most suitable to mitigate soil compaction are the water jet or air spade. Pest Management Program – Healthy trees do not generally have serious pest problems. Stressed trees are attractive hosts to pathogens, which can contribute to decline and eventual death. Pest management is prescribed when monitoring indicates a need and tree health is marginal. END 5.0 Design & Character 5- and doors at ground level. Architecture should include the type of well-crafted architectural details that are common to Burlingame, and convey that architectural heritage in terms of material, color, propor- tion, window type, and overall composition. Commercial and mixed use development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area are subject to the City of Burlingame’s Commercial Design Guidebook. In addition, the following recommendations apply specifically to Downtown development: 5.2.1 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER 5.2.1.1 Entrances Commercial entrances should be recessed from the façade, creating a small alcove. This establishes a more definitive sense of entry and affords an alternative view of merchandise in the display windows. Existing recessed entries should be retained. The doors of a commercial storefront typically contain large glass panels with vertical proportions that present a visual connection to the streetscape. Storefronts should continue to exhibit this pattern, whether a new project or the re-use of an existing space. 5.2.1.2 Ground-Level Corner Uses High activity-generating uses are especially encouraged at the Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue intersections with side streets. Store façades along side streets should be designed to help entice pedestrians onto the side streets. To achieve this, the façades should include windows and continuation of the architectural details from the main storefront extending across the sidestreet façade. Entries to elevator lobbies should not be located at these intersections where they would serve to diminish pedestrian activity at these highly visible locations. FIGURE 5-3: Commercial entrances should be recessed from the facade, creating a small alcove. FIGURE 5-4: Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate special features such as rounded or cut corners, special corner entrances, display windows, corner roof features, etc. but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.1.3 Ground Level Treatment The unique community character created by the mixture of building ages and architectural styles should be maintained. All street-frontage establishments should provide primary access directly to the street. Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian’s range of touch and view. For instance, the use of special storefront detailing and façade ornamentation such as plant- ers, flower boxes, and special materials can reinforce the pedestrian nature of the street. To ensure ease in caring for landscaping, major remodels and new projects should provide outdoor water spigots and electric sockets. When businesses have access to water, they can more easily care for their plants and trees, and keep the streets cleaned as well. 5.2.1.4 Site Access Curb cuts are prohibited on Burlingame Avenue and should be avoided to the extent feasible on Howard Avenue and California Drive. Any on-site parking garage should be accessed in a safe, attractive manner and should not significantly detract from pedestrian flow, nor interfere with the orderly flow of traffic on public streets and within parking lots. Where possible, parking garage access should be from the side streets or alleys. In some cases, access to on-site parking could be provided from city-owned parking lots. FIGURE 5-6: Downtown Burlingame is characterized by relatively narrow building increments, predominantly 15 to 50 feet in width. FIGURE 5-5: Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian’s range of touch and view. 50' 25'25'15'15' 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.2.2 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy 5.2.2.1 Building Scale Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such as setbacks and height. Beyond conforming to the basic building mass, new development should preserve the rhythm and fine- grained pedestrian scale of existing buildings within the commercial districts by respecting the relatively narrow building increments, which typically range from 15 feet to no more than 50 feet in width. To be consistent with the existing character of Downtown Burlingame, to provide a welcoming retail environment, and to accommodate a range of potential uses over the lifetime of the building, first floors should have a floor to finished ceiling height of at least 15 feet. New development should also be sensitive to the human scale of Downtown with sensitivity to building height. Buildings should not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street and should account for the relationship between building height and street width. Where building mass and height might overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street, design strategies such as upper floor setbacks and articulated building mass should be considered to ensure comfortable human scale. FIGURE 5-7: Buildings should not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street and should account for the relationship between building height and street width. Wider Narrow FIGURE 5-8: Building scale should preserve he rhythm and fine-grained pedestrian character of downtown, particularly at the pedestrian level. Ground floor bays with narrow, pedestrian-scaled increments 15'-50'15'-50'15'-50' Upper floors may have wider bays as part of an overall composition Minimum 15' floor-to-ceiling height on ground floor 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-9: oN-SITE STRUCTURED PARKING IN CommERCIAl AND mIXED USE AREAS A. Wrapped on Ground Level An above-ground parking structure where non-parking uses such as retail spaces are integrated into the ground level of the building along the street frontage of the parcel. The parking structure may be exposed to the building street frontage on upper levels, with appropriate design and screening. Application: Municipal parking structure. B. Wrapped on All Levels An above-ground parking structure where non-parking uses are integrated into the building along the entire street frontage of the parcel on all levels of the building. The parking structure is totally hidden behind a "liner building" of non-parking uses. Application: Projects with relatively large amount of parking provided on-site. Typically requires a relatively large site to accommodate the parking structure and liner building. C. Underground A parking structure that is fully submerged underground and is not visible from the street. Depending on amount of parking provided, may also include a level of at-grade parking hidden behind non- parking uses such as retail. Application: Can be suitable for projects on relatively small sites, as well as larger sites. Could also be combined with in-lieu arrangement, where some parking is provided on-site (such as for residential uses) and other parking is provided off-site in a municipal facility through in-lieu fees. Parking Structure Retail Parking Structure Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office Underground Parking Upper-Level Courtyard Ground-Level Courtyard Parking Structure Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office Underground Parking Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.2.2 on-Site Structured Parking Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures or under- ground. However, the parking should not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Ground level enclosed parking should be fronted or wrapped with actively occupied spaces such as storefronts and lobbies. Access to parking shall be designed so that it is not prominent and ties into the adjacent architectural style. 5.2.2.3 Upper-Story Setbacks – Burlingame Avenue Frontages While the height limit allowed by conditional use permit is 55 feet on Burlingame Avenue, many existing buildings and in particular, many buildings with historic character, have façades of a smaller scale. New buildings and building additions should reinforce the historic pattern with heights and setbacks oriented to the many two- and three-story buildings. Where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, newer taller buildings should consider matching lower façades to those of adjoining lower buildings and setting upper floors back at least 10 feet from the lower façade. 5.2.2.4 Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area The unique mix of residential and commercial uses in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use area offers an opportunity to create a niche district with its own style distinct from other parts of downtown. Recognizing the varied auto-related commercial character of the area, new development and redevelopment projects within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area should be encouraged to feature a blend of both commercial and residential design features. Design features could include corrugated metal roofs and sidings, simple multi-paned metal rimmed windows, and recycled "green" building materials. Buildings may even draw inspiration from the style of utilitarian buildings found in such mixed use districts such as sheds and quonset huts. The creation of this commercial, live/work identity for the Myrtle Road area will allow it to be a unique subarea of Downtown Burlingame that accommodates infill while respecting existing uses. FIGURE 5-11: Design features such as corrugated metal roofs and sidings, simple multi-paned metal rimmed windows, and recycled "green" building materials can maintain the existing varied character of the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area. FIGURE 5-10: Where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, newer taller buildings should consider matching lower facades to those of adjoining lower buildings with upper floors set back. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.3 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy 5.2.3.1 Facade Design To maintain the present scale and character of buildings in Downtown, large uninterrupted expanses of horizontal and vertical wall surface should be avoided. Building façades should respond to the relatively narrow increments of development (15 to 50 feet) with variation in fenestration, building materials and/or building planes. Facades should have generous reveals such as inset doorways and windows. Doors, windows, and details should be in keeping with pedestrian scale, as opposed to a monumental scale that is out of proportion to the surrounding context. Design details should be authentic and have purpose, rather than being applied or strictly decorative. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways and windows). Facades on both new and rehabilitated buildings should include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas and awnings. New buildings need not mimic an “historic” architectural style (and in fact should avoid imitation that results in caricatures) but should include a level of archi- tectural detailing and quality of materials that complements existing buildings. Where older exiting buildings are renovated, preservation of existing architectural details and materials is encouraged. Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the façade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the façade. Storefronts can be demarcated from each other within the same build- ing by subtle variations in the color or pattern of surfaces of doors, tiling, signage or entries. Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate features such as rounded or cut corners, corner entrances, display win- dows, corner roof features, wrap-around awnings/overhangs, blade signs, etc. FIGURE 5-12: Facades on both new and rehabilitated buildings should include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas and awnings. Interesting Roofline or Profile Cornice and Ornamentation Recessed Windows Create Shade and Shadow Building Ornament Recesses in Facade Create Interest and Depth Transom Windows High Quality Storefront Glazing Awnings Within Building Bays Street Entrance Doors Every 50 Feet Maximum, 15-25 Feet Preferred Signage to be Integral with Building Design Ornamental Base, 18" to 30" Height Compositional Change in Facade Every 15 to 50 Feet FIGURE 5-13: Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the façade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the facade. Large Space Large Space Small Space Small Space 15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50' 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.3.2 Windows General Windows are important for providing "eyes on the street" and enliven- ing streetscapes. Building walls should be punctuated by well-propor- tioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be inset from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. The use of high-quality window products that contrib- ute to the richness and detail of the façade is encouraged. Reflective glass is considered an undesirable material because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a forbidding appearance. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture pres- ent in the Downtown area is encouraged. Display Windows Display windows should be designed to enliven the street and provide pedestrian views into the interior of the storefront. Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape. Glass used in the display windows should be clear so it is possible to see inside, and display cases that block views into stores are strongly discouraged. Noticably tinted glazing is discouraged and mirrored/reflective glass is not permitted. 5.2.3.3 Awnings Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protec- tion. The placement of awnings should relate to the major architec- tural elements of the facade, avoiding covering any transom windows or architectural elements such as belt courses, decorative trim and simi- lar features. The position of awnings should also relate to the pedes- trian and provide a sense of shelter, with awnings situated to corre- spond to the tops of doorways and scale of pedestrians rather than high up on the facade with a monumental scale. Separate awnings should be used over individual storefront bays as defined by the col- umns or pilasters rather than placing a continuous awning across the FIGURE 5-15: Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protection. FIGURE 5-14: Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape 5.0 Design & Character 5-0 building frontage. Backlit awnings that visually appear as large light sources will not be permitted. 5.2.3.3 Materials Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest; reference should be made to materials used in notable examples of his- toric Downtown architecture. Metal siding and large expanses of stuc- co or wood siding are also to be avoided, except in the Myrtle Mixed Use area. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, and tile accents should also offer color variation. Character and richness in Downtown can be enhanced from the incor- poration of details and ornamentation into the design of the buildings. These elements can include elements that have been traditionally used such as cornices, brackets or moldings. 5.2.3.4 Rear and Side Facades Because the side streets and alleys in Downtown are highly visible and are used for both pedestrian access and vehicular access, rear and side façades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisti- cated levels of design and materials. Rear and side façades of existing buildings should be improved with design features and quality materi- als where possible. Buildings should have windows and doors oriented to the alleys and side streets. Entry doors, garage doors and windows should be attractive and durable. Where buildings abut public parking lots, they are strongly encouraged to have rear entrances in addition to their principal street entrances. Rear facades may look like the back of a building, but still be pleasant and inviting. Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. Roofs and trellises are recommended for screening views from above. Whenever possible, trash and recycling enclosures should be consolidated and designed to serve several adjacent businesses provided they do not become over- FIGURE 5-16: Rear and side facades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisticated levels of design and materials of a quality similar to front facades. Buildings facing public parking lots are strongly encouraged to have rear entrances in addition to their principal street entrances. FIGURE 5-17: Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. 8 0 Downtown Precise Plan A rea-Specific Standards, Guidelines and Pro t o t y p e s 8.Open Space Requirements For residential/mixed-use projects, a minimum of 30 percent of the site area must be devot- ed to open space.The Zoning Administrator may reduce the requirements for residential/mixed-use projects where it is found that such a reduction improves the quality of the project. 9.Development on Public Parking Lot A mixed-use development is allowed on one public parking lot in Area H. The development is subject to the requirements for Area H with these additional requirements or exceptions: a .Vehicular access shall be from Hope Street, Bryant Street or an adjacent alley; b .Existing public parking shall be replaced on-site; and c .Parking for private development shall be provided in accordance with Section II.C, except that the parking requirement cannot be met by paying in-lieu fees. See Guidelines: Development on Public Parking Lot. S e rvice facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the build - ing architecture in form, material and detail. 8 8 13.Guidelines for Rears of Buildings Because the alleys in downtown are highly visible and are used for both pedestrian access and vehicular service access, rear facades should exhibit high levels of design and materials qual- ity similar to front facades. Rear facades of existing buildings should be improved with design features and quality materials where possible. Buildings should have windows and doors oriented to the alley. Entry doors, garage doors and windows should be attractive and durable. Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. Roofs and trellises are recommended for screening views from above. Where security devices are desired or warranted, designs should be artful with decorative grillwork that enhances the overall building design. Alley areas should be well lit but should be designed so as not to adversely impact adjacent properties. Downtown Precise Plan A rea-Specific Standards, Guidelines and Pro t o t y p e s Trash and loading areas should be well screened from view in structures that are consistent with the building design in both materials and detailing. 5.0 Design & Character 5- sized or too ungainly. Care should be taken to ensure refuse areas do not become noxious or smelly. Where security devices are desired or warranted, designs should be art- ful with decorative grillwork that enhances the overall building design. Alley areas should be well lit but should be designed so they are attrac- tive and do not adversely impact adjacent properties and detract from the ambiance of Downtown. 5.2.4 SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES 5.2.4.1 Building Coverage In order to create well-defined street spaces consistent with the scale of Downtown Burlingame, side yards are generally discouraged in favor of contiguous building façades along the street. However, narrow mid-block pedestrian passages that encourage through- block pedestrian circulation and/or arcaded spaces that create wider sidewalk areas for cafés, etc. are encouraged. 5.2.4.2 Open Space Private open space within Downtown is not intended to provide recreational or large landscaped areas, since this is a more urban environment. However, open space is an important element and should be used to articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential mixed-use developments, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards and perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged. Commercial development should typically have less open space in order to maintain a direct pedestrian relationship and continuous storefront streetscape. Entry alcoves, courtyards, and employee open space are examples. Open space for nonresidential projects should provide a visual amenity for the development and an attractive buffer to adjacent residential uses where applicable. FIGURE 5-18: Open spaces such as retail plazas and outdoor seating areas should be located at building entries, or along or near well- traveled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. FIGURE 5-19: In residential mixed-use developments, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards and perimeter landscaping. 5.0 Design & Character 5- Open spaces such as retail plazas and outdoor seating areas should be located at building entries, or along or near well-traveled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Plazas and open spaces should be generously landscaped with trees, planters and vines. Permeable paving and/or creative site planning elements such as rain gardens are encouraged to alleviate the impacts of paved areas on drainage. Low walls may be used to screen service and mechanical areas, create spatial definition and to provide seating. Low walls should be designed of quality materials that are complementary to the architecture of the primary structure(s) on the property. 5.2.5 RESIDENTIAl mIXED-USE DEVEloPmENTS WITHIN COMMERCIAL AREAS 5.2.5.1 Setbacks To reinforce the Downtown commercial character of Downtown Burlingame, mixed-use buildings with a residential component shall conform to the setback standards for commercial projects (outlined in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3). The Community Development Director may allow increased side and rear setbacks to enhance the residential portion of a mixed-use project provided the setbacks do not detract from the commercial storefront character of the Downtown district. Setbacks and overall building form should maintain the human scale of Downtown and be in keeping with the character of the surround- ings, with emphasis on mainintaining an active street edge and sidewalk boundary. 5.2.5.2 Noise and Ground Vibrations Projects with a residential component on California Drive should be designed to minimize noise impacts on residents from the Caltrain FIGURE 5-20: To reinforce the Downtown commercial character of Downtown Burlingame, mixed-use buildings with a residential component shall conform to the setback standards for commercial projects. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4 ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL AREAS OF DOWNTOWN 5.4.1 LAND USE TRANSITIONS Where appropriate, when new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties. 5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done through different building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings. 5.4.1.2 Privacy Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. 5.4.1.3 Boundaries Where appropriate, when different land uses or building scales are adjacent, boundaries should be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences. FIGURE 5-36: Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done though building types or treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Boundaries can be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences. Transition Area Medium Density Low Density High Density buffer / paseobuffer / mewsTransition Elements 2-Story 3-Story Low Density 1-2 Story street / mews4-Story FIGURE 5-37: Transitions can also be made by stepping massing down within a project, with lower building elements providing a buffer between taller elements and adjacent lower-density development. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-39: Example of two different land use intensities joined with a common paseo pathway. FIGURE 5-38: Following a cooperative, rather than defensive design approach for the spaces between buildings results in a more coherent downtown feel, as opposed to a collection of unrelated projects. PL PL DEFENSIVE Fence separates projects COOPERATIVE Plaza/pathway visually unites buildings 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4.2 SHADoW ImPACTS Every building invariably casts some shadows on adjoining parcels, public streets, and/or open spaces. However, as the design of a project is developed, consideration should be given to the potential shading impacts on surroundings. Site plans, massing, and building design should respond to potential shading issues, minimizing shading impacts where they would be undesirable, or conversely maximizing shading where it is desired. As part of the design review process, development in the Specific Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding structures should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/ shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. At a minimum, shadow diagrams should be prepared for 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM on March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 21st (approximately corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify extreme conditions and trends. If warranted, diagrams could also be prepared for key dates or times of day — for example, whether a sidewalk or public space would be shaded at lunchtime during warmer months. FIGURE 5-40: Sample shadow analysis shows the range of shading conditions through the year. Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project 9 am 12 noon 3 pm March 21st March 21st March 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project June 21st June 21st June 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project September 21st September 21st September 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project December 21st December 21st December 21st 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.4.3 SUSTAINABIlITy AND GREEN BUIlDING DESIGN Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into projects. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction and aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: • Resilient, durable, sustainable materials and finishes. • Flexibility over time, to allow for re-use and adaptation. • Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. • Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. • Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, and provide on-site bicycle parking. • Maximize on-site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement. • On flat roofs, utilize cool/white roofs to minimize heat gain. • Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy use. • Create healthy indoor environments. • Pursue adaptive re-use of an existing building or portion of a building as an alternative to demolition and rebuilding. • Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants as part of project open space, or providing garden plots to residents for urban agriculture. To reduce carbon footprint, new projects are encouraged to follow the standards and guidelines of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and pursue LEED certification if appropriate. FIGURE 5-41: Use of shading devices to control solar loads in summer and gain passive heat in winter. FIGURE 5-42: Minimize stormwater runoff to impermeable areas with landscaping, green roofs, and rain gardens when possible. Winter Sun Summer Sun South facing windows with shading devices to control overheating in Summer Direct sunlight through south facing windows would improve passive heating in Winter 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4.4 lANDSCAPE TREES The City of Burlingame has a long history of proactive tree planting and proper tree care. From the late 1800’s when trees were planted along El Camino Real and Easton Drive to the current day, Burlingame has enjoyed the many benefits trees provide to an urban area. Burlingame's longtime commitment to trees is evidenced by recogni- tion as a "Tree City USA" for 30 consecutive years. This is the longest streak in the County, 5th longest in the State and one of the longest in the Country for receiving this award. In Downtown Burlingame, trees include street trees lining sidewalks and roadways (typically within the public right-of-way), as well as trees on private property in settings such as landscaped setback areas, court- yards, and roof gardens. Chapter 4: Streetscapes & Open Space) provides guidance for street trees within the public right-of-way. Landscape trees on private prop- erty have equal importance as part of the "urban forest," in contrib- uting environmental and aesthetic benefits to downtown. Trees are important for their beauty, shade and coolness, economic benefits, and role in reducing energy use, pollution, and noise. The City of Burlingame has an Urban Forest Management Plan that includes policies and management practices for both city and private trees. Maintaining existing trees is a priority, and large trees on private property are protected by City Ordinance. Any tree with a circumfer- ence of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above the ground is a "Protected Tree." A permit is required to remove or heavily prune a protected tree. Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space plans. Property owners should consult the Burlingame Urban Forest Management Plan for design considerations, planting techniques, and maintenance guidance. FIGURE 5-43: Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space plans. 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 98 Brady Street, #8 San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel 415/863-8881 Fax 415/863-8879 COPYRIGHT 1984 - 2018 BY GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AS INSTRUMENTS OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICE, ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE ARCHITECT. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT TO BE USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, FOR ANY PROJECTS OR PURPOSES WHATSOEVER, WITHOUT THE PRIOR SPECIFIC WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION OF GARY GEE ARCHITECTS, INC. Burlingame California Donnelly Avenue 1214 A Mixed-Use Condominium Project APN 029-151-150, 160, 170 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 4, 2018 Director’s Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: October 9, 2018 FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill Regarding Peninsula Health Care District’s Wellness Community At its meeting on October 1, 2018, the City Council reviewed letters from U.S. Representative Jackie Speier and State Senator Jerry Hill regarding the Peninsula Health Care District’s proposed Wellness Community. For context, in 2016 the Peninsula Health Care District (PHCD) submitted an application for a master plan for the site. The Planning Commission conducted scoping meetings for the master plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on February 8, 2016, and January 23, 2017. Since the submittal of the master plan application, the planning process has been on hold while the applicant selected a development team and engaged with area residents. The environmental review, which was initiated and then paused, will not resume until direction has been provided by the applicant and its development team. PHCD has indicated that it is likely to submit an application for a development project rather than a master plan. As such, the application will be subject to Planning Comm ission review as a project application. As a development project, the scope of the environmental review will also change from a “program-level” EIR to a “project-level” EIR, which typically involves more detailed study given the greater amount of detail represented in a development project application compared to a master plan or specific plan amendment. Because a new permit application for a development project has not yet been submitted, the Council chose to not engage in direct planning or discussion of the proposed project at this time. However given that the project will ultimately be subject to review by the Planning Commission, the Council directed staff to forward the letters to the Planning Commission for its information and consideration in the future. Any plans that are submitted will be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a development project, allowing for public input through the public hearing process. Status and history of the Wellness Community proposal may be found at: www.burlingame.org/wellnesscommunity. Exhibits:  City Council staff report  Letter from Representative Speier  Letter from State Senator Hill 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: MEETING DATE: October 1, 2018 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Date: October 1, 2018 From: Lisa K. Goldman, City Manager – (650) 558-7243 Subject: Letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill Regarding Peninsula Health Care District’s Wellness Community DISCUSSION The Mayor would like the City Council to discuss the City’s response, if any, to the attached letters from Representative Speier and State Senator Hill regarding the Peninsula Health Care District’s Wellness Community. Exhibits:  Letter from Representative Speier  Letter from State Senator Hill JACKIE SPEIER 14TH DrsrRtcr, cALrFonNtA 2465 RAyBURN HousE OFFIcE BUILDING WasHrNGroN, DC 2051 5-0514 12021 225-3531 F^x: l2OZ) 226-4143 'I 55 BovET Roao, SurrE 780 SAN MATEo, CA94402 {650) 342-0300 FAx: (650) 375-427O M.SPEIEF.HOUSE.GOV WW,FACEAOOK.COM/JACKIESPEIER WWW. TWITTEN.COM/FEPSPEIEB ffongrrss of tlyffintteb Stutes Tbouse of Bepr egentatibtg @,asbrngt on, D@ 2 0515 - 0514 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEES: RANKNG MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND lNwslGATloN MILITARY PEFSoNNEL PERMANENT SELECT COIVIMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEES: EMEBGiNG THREATS NSA AND CYBERSEcUBTTY Scnior Whip September 12,2018 Lawrence W. Cappell, PhD Peninsula Health Care District 1 8 l9 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Chair Cappell and Directors: It has come to my attention that the disrict is exploring whether to construct 300-400 independent living units for seniors. In addition, the district is examining whether to allow construction of a medical oflice building. All of this would be on land leased from the district by a private developer under terms yet to be determined. It is also my understanding that, while the district is exploring this idea, it might also decide to go in an entirely different direction. I would like to respectfully suggest that the district conduct a much more significant outreach effort to the general public concerning the district's plans and examine if the public might feel that other uses would provide a greater public benefit. As I am confident district directors are aware, we are in the midst of an affordable housing crisis on the Peninsula. Depending upon who is doing the estimate, I understand that there may have been as many as 68,000 jobs created in San Mateo County between 201I and 2016, while there were approximately 2,800 housing units developed. Thousands more jobs have been created since then to the point where my office is regularly contacted by low income, middle income, and moderately well-off persons who cannot afford to rent. In my conversations with business leaders, their #1 and#2 concerns are housing costs and ffaffic. Fortunately, there are sound choices that can be made with respect to these concerns. For example, the San Mateo County Community College District has led the way amongst public agencies in the creation of workforce housing for employees. Using existing public lands, the district is offering rents that are 25Yo- 50% below market rate and that offer up to seven years oftenancy. The advantage ofusing public property translates directly into below-market rents and more stable future rents. Generally speaking, turnover amongst staff in these townhomes has plummeted and staff satisfaction has skyrocketed. When the debt is paid, the district expects to eam about $l million per year for the dishict's general fund, over and above the costs ofoperation, depreciation and maintenance. A nonprofit board, appointed by the district's elected governiug body, governs the units, hires the management company, and deals with policy issues. These benefits, however, do not have to be limited to a single public employer. District properly could help many public agencies, and the hospital itself, by providing workforce housing to support these public missions. I am confident that there are many nonprofit housing developers in the community that would be willing to explain to your board what might be done with the available property owned by the health care district. These include developers that regularly create mixed income developments for all ages. Federal policy on affordable housing, with respect to San Mateo County, is at risk of being reversed with severe, adverse, impacts. Eligibility for generous types of housing tax credits could be removed through an administrative process, as almost happened during the Obama Administration. My advocacy and work done by San Mateo County retained eligibility for a period of a few years, but that period will also come to an end if a different administrative judgment were to be made. It is therefore important for the district and other agencies with under-utilized public lands to make a timely determination about what may be possible. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER @@rr The community also has a need for specific skills, such as those of teachers, teacher's aides, public safety personnel, and medical personnel. All of these persons, and more, call my office throughout the year to explain their hardships in our housing market. Even local hospitals and medical practices, recruiting physicians to serve us all, report that it is "difhcult to compete" with other locales offering more affordable housing options. I am told that this is particularly true for our VA hospitals who serve veterans throughout our community. I respectfully suggest that a new informational hearing be proposed by the district to the Burlingame City Council, or held by the district on its own, to specifically explore workforce housing needs in the community. You could invite nonproht housing developers to first examine the property of the district and then explain what they might do on the property. You might also wish to invite housing advocates, such as the Housing Leadership Council, as well as representatives of schools and cities within the district. If you wish, and if my schedule permits, I can participate in the hearing. I also suggest that Senator Hill and Assemblyman Mullin, both of whom are deeply committed to encouraging workforce housing, be invited to participate. I believe that it will be a loss to the community if primarily market rate housing is created on district properfy. Market rate housing may,by dehnition, be created anywhere that land is for sale at a market rate. District property, in contrast, is not sold and therefore offers the chance to make rents much more affordable. I believe that you will be much more confident of the needs of the public if you are able to obtain much broader input than has perhaps, to date, been possible. All the best, ackie Speier State Senator Jerry Hill 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 303 San Mateo, CA 94402 Assemblyman Kevin Mullin 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 The Honorable Michael Brownrigg Mayor, City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo 2905 So. El Camino Real San Mateo, CA 94403 The Honorable Dave Pine President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors 400 County Center, First Floor, Board of Supervisors Office Redwood City, CA 94063 Chancellor Ron Galatolo San Mateo County Community College District 3401 CSM Drive San Mateo, CA 94402 cc KJS/bp a,zlllr D e-t- $.alifsrnia fital.c firlnattCAPITOL OFFICE STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO CA 954]4 rEL (916) 65l -4O13 FAx (916)651-4913 DISTRICT OFFICE I52A S, EL CAMINO REAL SUITE 3O3 SAN MATEO. CA94402 TEL (650) 212-3313 FAX (650r212-3320 SENATOR JERRY HILL THIRTEENTH SENATE DISTRICT COMMITTEES BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS & ECONOMIC OEVELOPMENT CHAIR APPROPRIATIONS ENERGY, UTILITIES & COMMUNICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION www.sENATE.cA.GOv/HrLL SENAToR.HTLL@SENATE cA.Gov September t 7, 201 8 Lawrence W. Cappell, Ph.D. Peninsula Health Care District I 819 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Chair Cappell and Directors: I am writing in reference to the Peninsula Health Care District's exploration of constructing 300-400 independent living units for seniors and a medical office building on district land. I understand that this is an early concept, in which a private developer would lease the land from the district, under terms to be determined. I respectfully invite the district to seize the opportunity to think bolder and deeper by reaching out to the general public about the district's plans. Explore if the public might feel that other uses would provide a greater public benefit. We are in the middle of an affordable housing crisis on the Peninsula. Ourregion has done erponentially well at creating jobs. But our workers across the spectrum of incomes, frorn low to moderately well ofI. cannot afford the rents near theirjobs. And that is seen on our roads, highways and even residential streets. Business leaders up and down the Peninsula identifu housing and traffic as the top problems holding back our communities' ability to sustain our prosperity and quality of life. Bold+hinking public entities in San Mateo County have shown us that we, too, can be innovative -- and we have resources to help us in creating solutions. For example, the San Mateo County Community College District has been a leader, leveraging its public land to create workforce housing for employees. Using its public land, the district is offering rents that are 25 percent to 50 percent below market rate, and up to seven years oftenancy. The advantage ofusing public property translates directly into below-market rents and more stable future rents for staff. SMCCCD reports that staff turnover has plummeted and satisfaction has skyrocketed. When the debt is paid, the SMCCCD expects to earn about $1 million per year for the district's general fund, over and above the costs of operation, depreciation and maintenance. A nonprofit board, appointed by the district's elected goveming body, govems the units, hires the management company, and deals with policy issues. These benefits, however, do not have to be lirnited to a single public employer. Peninsula Health Care District properry could help many public agencies, and the hospital itself, by providing workforce housing to support these public missions. Taking a page from SMCCCD's experience, Santa Clara County embarked this year on such an exploration. The county, the city of Palo Alto and the Foothill-De Anza Community College District have pledged money, making quick strides since January toward a concept to use that county's properfy to create up to 120 units of teacher housing. Our area boasts several experienced nonprofit housing developers in the community, any of whom would be able to explain to your board what might be done with the available properry owned by the health care district. These include developers that regularly create mixed income developments for all ages. Lawrence W. Cappell, Ph.D. September 17,2018 I respectfully suggest that a new informational hearing be proposed by the district to the Burlingame City Council -- or held by the Peninsula Health Care District on its own -- to specifically explore workforce housing needs in the community. You could invite nonprofit housing developers to first examine the property of the district and then explain what they might do on the property. You might also wish to invite housing advocates, such as the Housing Leadership Trust, as well as representatives of schools and cities within the district. I am willing to participate in the hearing if my schedule permits, along with my colleague, Assemblymember Kevin Mullin. I know that U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier has offered the same. Our communities need teachers, teacher's aides, public safery personnel, and medical personnel. We need doctors in our local hospitals and Veterans Administration hospitals. But all are having difficulty serving our residents because it is becoming nearly impossible to be residents themselves. I believe that it will be a loss to the community if primarily market rate housing is built on district propeffy. h might also be a lost opporlunity to make an indelible impact on a critical need of our times. Market rate housing may, by definition. be created anywhere that land is for sale at a market rate. District properry, in contrast, is not sold and therefore offers the chance to make rents much more affordable. I believe that you will be much more confident of the needs ofthe public ifyou are able to obtain much broader input than has perhaps, to date, been possible. With warm H U.S. Rep. Jackie Speier 155 Bovet Road, Suite 780 San Mateo, CA 94402 Assemblymember Kevin Mullin 1528 South El Camino Real, Suite 302 San Mateo, CA 94402 The Honorable Michael Brownrigg Mayor, City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo 2905 So. El Camino Real San Mateo, CA 94403 The Honorable Dave Pine President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors 400 County Center, First Floor, Board of Supervisors Office Redwood City, CA 94063 Chancellor Ron Galatolo San Mateo County Community College District 3401 CSM Drive San Mateo, CA 94402