Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.08.13Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, August 13, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft July 9, 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 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/13/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 a. 28 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 28 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 28 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 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 b. 125 Park Rd - Staff Report 125 Park Rd - Attachments 125 Park Rd - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 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 a. 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: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/13/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 b. 300 Airport Boulevard - Staff Report 300 Airport Boulevard - Attachments Attachments: 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 c. 521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 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 d. 829 Maple Ave - Staff Report 829 Maple Ave - Attachments 829 Maple Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 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 e. 1660 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/13/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 f. 1615 Ralston Ave - Staff Report 1615 Ralston Ave - Attachments 1615 Ralston Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 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 g. 2516 Valdivia Way - Staff Report 2516 Valdivia Way - Attachments 2516 Valdivia Way - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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 a. 717 Neuchatel Ave - Staff Report 717 Neuchatel Ave - Attachments 717 Neuchate Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 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 b. 133 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 133 Crescent Ave - Attachments 133 Crescent Ave- Historic Resource Analysis Report 133 Crescent Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/13/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 c. 212 Howard Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 212 Howard Ave - Plans- 08.13.18 Attachments: 1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium 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 d. 1433 Floribunda Ave - Staff Report 1433 Floribunda Ave - Attachments 1433 Floribunda Ave - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - Next Planning Commission Meeting: August 27, 2018 834 Crossway Road - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. a. 834 Crossway Rd - Memorandum 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments Attachments: 825 Edgehill Drive - FYI for requested revisions by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. b. 825 Edgehill Dr - MemorandumAttachments: 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. c. 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 ECR - Memorandum 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Plans - 08.13.18 Attachments: 1697 Broadway - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.d. 1697 Broadway - Memorandum 1697 Broadway- Attachment Attachments: 772 Walnut Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.e. 772 Walnut Ave - MemorandumAttachments: Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/13/2018 August 13, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 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 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 8/13/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 9, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was adjourned at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Sargent, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the meeting minutes with corrections previously submitted. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - a.Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: b.Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: c.Draft June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.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.sr - Action.doc 829 Maple Ave - Attachments.pdf 829 Maple Ave - Plans - 08.13.18.pdf Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel, Diebel and Company Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has a concern with second floor dormer. How much was the wall pulled in on the driveway side? (Diebel: 6 inches. Can't go any further because of the egress window.) >What is the dimension in the bedroom from the closet wall to the driveway wall? (Diebel: 14 1/2 feet.) That is a gracious dimension; there is also an elongated wall where the tub is located, which could be pulled in. >Doesn't capture the feel of the craftsman style with modest dormers from the attic. >Sheet A1.2 garage key notes has some errors in the materials. (Diebel: Can review. Maybe the software did not update.) >Appears the driveway wall was brought in but the dimension still shows 28'-3" on both sets of plans . Should clarify. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >If the wall is only moving in 6 inches, why bother moving it at all? Will be costly and ineffectual. >Would look better to bring it back further, but needs to have area for the egress window. >Could see the wall moved back 2-3 feet and still have the bedroom and bathroom work. >Tries to reference the historic feel but with the large floor area it looks like a two -story house. Can't approve it unless it is pushed back further so it achieves the second floor dormer appearance. >Front elevation has a lot of different depths that look nice and complex, but side is a sheer wall and lacks the depth. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Should look at the second floor plate height. Could benefit with an 8-foot height, would help it get more towards the look being discussed. >Should also look at the dormers on the garage. Looks elongated. Could have a simple one -vent dormer. >The side wall does not need to be one length. Could be broken up with a recess. Would help with stepping it back. Chair Gaul reopened to allow the applicant to indicate when revisions would be ready. The applicant indicated that revisions would be ready for the August 13th meeting. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the item to the August 13th Planning Commission meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - b.301 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and Special Permits for a basement with a ceiling height of over 6'6", a direct exit and a bathroom greater than 25 SF. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Catherine Nilmeyer, applicant and architect; Dale and Elaine Chang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 301 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 2 301 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item for non-statutory reasons. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had ex parte communication with the applicant. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Cathy Nilmeyer represented the applicant, with property owners Dale and Elaine Chang Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project, particularly after visiting the neighborhood. There's an eclectic mix of styles in the Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes neighborhood. >Feels traditional but not formulaic. >Sees the logic with the special permits. If exterior access to basements is going to be allowed, this is an ideal location, situated along the street side and not in between two houses. Works here as a corner lot. >The terracing and stair provides some outdoor space; it's not just a window well into a basement. >Has a traditional form, but a nice balance between traditional elements and some more modern elements. Seems like a good transitional design, is a fresher look and will look good in the neighborhood. >Handsome house but it seems so close to the Bloomfield side. Second floor looks like a big forehead, might look too big from the street side. Not sure this is the right house for this corner. >Great job on the exterior of the house, fits well with the neighborhood. The size of the lot is a challenge. >Beautifully designed, creative in use of space. Basement allows lot coverage to be kept to a minimum. >Likes the articulation. Notes a bit of a forehead, but not enough to not support the project. >Applicant did a nice job of working with their neighbors. Good practice for everyone to keep in mind, especially with corner lots. >Good mix of materials. The metal roof complements the house, works well in this application. >Concern with potential colors of metal roofs in general. Unlike other exterior materials such as walls and windows which may change over time, roof colors will be long lasting particularly for standing -seam metal roofs. Neighborhood subcommittee should look at issue of roof colors for houses. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse5 - Nay:Gaul1 - Recused:Loftis1 - c.2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor 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). (Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner; Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2720 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report 2720 Trousdale Dr - Attachments 2720 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Gaul spoke with the homeowner . Commissioner Gaul also accessed the rear of the property where the addition is proposed. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gautam Dusija represented the applicant, with Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is both the new and previous design still being considered? (Dusija: Open to either floorplan.) >Would you consider a combination with the previous plan but with a flat roof? (Dusija: Had considered this but didn't feel it was designed well - it felt like a forced addition. Wants it to feel more natural, aligned with the rest of the existing house rather than a boxy addition.) >Would lose a lot of back yard with the more recent addition, compared to the 5 feet in the original . (Dusija: Would prefer to have the longer addition to avoid having a flat roof.) >Would you prefer the design being considered here, or something else? (Dusija: >Current plan is 14 feet longer than the original proposed design? (Dusija: Yes.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Visited the adjacent property. Does not see a view issue with the current proposed design based on the story poles; the ridge will align approximately with the height of the fence. Can be approved in terms of the findings for the Hillside Area Construction Permit. >Liked the original design better. >Circumstances are unfortunate. The plan is contorted, and has been forced into an odd configuration . However is approvable from the perspective of the hillside ordinance. >The earlier design appeared to fall within the realm of view obstruction in terms of the hillside ordinance. Although the current floor plan may have issues, it is approvable in terms of the hillside ordinance. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - d.1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environemntal Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Jack Backos Architects, applicant and designer; Miki and Spencer Behr, property owners) (63 noticed) staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments 1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused as she owns a property located within 500 feet. 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. Jack Backus represented the applicant, with property owner Spencer Behr. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Questions/Comments: >Was working with the design review consultant productive? (Backus: Yes.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the changes, and can be approved with the conditions and findings in the staff report. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - e.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review 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. (John Nguyen, Dulon Inc ., applicant and designer; Diane Mcglown, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments 834 Crossway Dr - Plans - 07.09.18 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. John Nguyen, Dulon Inc., represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why the metal roof? (Nguyen: Wanted to add a more modern feel to the overall design of the house, something a little bit more contemporary.) To make a traditional home more contemporary? (Nguyen: A blend.) >Is the plan to have mitered corners on the siding? (Nguyen: Mitered corners. Does not want corner trims.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Metal roofs seems akin to the consensus to not allow vinyl windows. Does not believe metal roofs fit in Burlingame. This one feels gratuitous. >The steeper the roof, the more prominent the metal roof becomes. >The commission has been open to approving metal roofs in the past. Does not seem out of place in this project. >Project has come a long way, and is approvable provided there is a condition that the corners of the siding be mitered. >Metal roofs are reviewed on a case by case basis. >Seems too tall for the neighborhood. >Can't deny a metal roof if there aren't rules to that effect. >Would like to receive an FYI to show a color consistent with the reference images provided. Neutral, gray tone comparable to an asphalt composition shingle. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing notes on the plans that the proposed siding will have mitered corners and that the proposed metal roof color will be a neutral gray tone; The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 - Nay:Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul3 - f.1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Ron Stanford, applicant; Jeffrey J. Burris, architect; Olive Group Capital, LP, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1117 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1117 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1117 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ron Stanford represented the applicant, with business owner Doug Wong. Commission Questions/Comments: >How will the glass between the slats be cleaned? (Stanford: Anticipates using a hose to spray out debris. For the lower window it could be in a frame so it could also be removed for cleaning.) >How will the material look with sun exposure? (Stanford: Ipe fades to a gray unless it's kept oiled . Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Could commit to keeping the visible piece of the awning and lower portion treated. For example Rubio Monocoat as a durable oil finish.) >Will the tall hopper window be limited to a range of operation? (Stanford: Typically they only open about 6 inches.) >Inconsistency in proposed elevations. In one the wood slats in the eaves are longer than the other side, but in the other elevation they overhang equally. Believes the intention is to have the eaves overhang equally on both sides of the steel member of the awning. (Stanford: Wanted to address the issue of it being close to the adjacent awning, but get it balanced over the opening. Is probably slightly longer on the right side since there is nothing abutting it on that side.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Changes are really good. >Design is laid-back and quite refined. Commissioner Loftis 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 - g.310 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment in an existing commercial building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Jason Cooper, Wine Revelry, LLC, applicant; Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, architect; Green Banker LLC, property owner) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 310 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 310 Lorton Ave - Attachments 310 Lorton Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto had communications with one of the owner's friends. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Are the hours of operation similar to other restaurants in the area? (Hurin: The closing times are probably similar to other restaurants. 10 pm or 11 pm is typical, but some may be open later.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, represented the applicant, with applicant Jason Cooper. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is the story behind the name? (Cooper: "Velvet" is a texture often used to describe wines. Easy Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to drink, and does not need hearty food to enjoy the wine. "48" is the year his mother was born; she passed away and left money that will be used to start the venture.) >Will it be available for private events? (Cooper: Yes. Would still need to limit capacity to 49 people.) >Has the garbage circulation been worked out? (Nilmeyer: It is an odd site. The property is comprised of four separate buildings. Echo keeps their trash bins in the hallway.) >Does the trash setup in the corridor currently seem manageable to the tenants? (Nilmeyer: Seems to be.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Good application. Not changing the building, not asking for a lot. >Unique use. >Sees the logic in the limitation to 49 people. Would be hard to accommodate more than 49 given the furniture and display cases. >Can support the application. >Can see a desire for this in Downtown Burlingame. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - h.Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards DSP Amendments - Staff Report DSP Amendments - Attachments Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jennifer Pfaff: When the Downtown Specific Plan was put together, had not realized buildings would be maxed out because of land values. When dealing with the setbacks when projects come forth, a 10 or 15-foot setback is not very much when there is a 55-foot or 60-foot building. State requirements will take away from local control, so suggests should make standards generous or keep what is had in place . Concern there will be no air, too squished. Needs to maintain control where it can be maintained. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The edits are straightforward. Understands the transposing, and the multiple generations of the tables and standards. >When the tables and setbacks are reviewed in the future, agrees with the point that if conditional use Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes or special permits are available to reach a higher height, developers will take advantage of the opportunity . Should look at the setbacks again when updating the zoning together with the General Plan. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; 28 Bloomfield LLC, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 28 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 28 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 28 Bloomfiled Rd - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Commissioners Sargent and Comaroto were recused as both have financial interests in the property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the design, fits in well with the neighborhood. >Appreciates that the design is reaches back to the era of the original. >Retaining the palm trees in the front is a nice touch. >The slight encroachment into the declining height envelope is justified given the style of the four-square house. >Feels like the old house is being lifted up. The dormer and front porch columns are reminiscent of the existing. >Large lot, and the house will not overwhelm the site. Will have a nice back yard, and the Hollywood driveway is a nice touch. >Nice application. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Recused:Sargent, and Comaroto2 - b.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. (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 - 07.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul met with the property owner and was able to access the back yard. Commissioner Terrones met with the property owner and had a brief conversation about the application, was able to access the back yard, and also visited with the neighbors at 2720 Valdivia Way. Planning Manager Hurin 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. Commission Questions/Comments: >Owner has been considering a cable rail system. Neighbors seemed encouraged by that, and did not see a view intrusion if it were a cable rail. (Panko: The current design is based on the existing, but a cable rail can work as well.) Public Comments: Neighbor, 2512 Valdivia Way: Intends to extend out in the future, wants to make sure extension will not be blocking neighbor's view. (Gaul: Recommends to talk with Planning staff.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Visited the applicant's property and the uphill neighbor. Neighbors appreciative that they were able to review the plans, and grateful that the application had put up a simulation indicating the extent of the addition. Does not see an issue with the view ordinance. >Does not need story poles since it is a deck railing; in this instance the simulation is adequate, assuming it is accurate. >Should have clarification of the design of railings when it comes back. >Should get verification from the architect on the accuracy of the simulation. Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing: Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Has the simulation been verified for accuracy? (Panko: Has not verified the simulation. The extension would go out 4 feet towards the rear, which is the about the width of the existing stairs.) >When item comes back, should verify that it is an accurate representation. There should also be representation of the height, given that currently it is a 36-inch rail at the most but it will need to be increased to at least 42 inches. Should have something string between to indicate location of railing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar with direction that the applicant and architect work together on an accurate simulation of the deck rail, and that the design of the railing is confirmed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS The Planning Commission will hold a special meeting on July 11th to review the Draft General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The meeting will provide an introduction to the contents of the EIR, an overview of the plan, and description of how comments will be collected. Ruben Hurin has been appointed Planning Manager. Senior and Associate Planners will be added to the rotation for the Planning Commission meetings. a.521 Burlingame Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 521 Burlingame Ave - Memorandum 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Pulled for further review. Concern with the removal of the two windows, and the resulting view of the elevation. b.841 Rollins Road - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. 841 Rollins Rd - MemorandumAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:13 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 July 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 July 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 $551.00, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 PROJECT LOCATION 28 Bloomfield Road Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Item No. 7a Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 28 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant and Architect: James Chu, Chu Design Associates APN: 029-183-010 Property Owner: 28 Bloomfield LLC Lot Area: 7,875 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single -family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exe mpt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single -family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and the applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 4,013 SF (0.51 FAR) where 4,020 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 197 SF covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain five bedrooms. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the detached garage (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for the second floor to extend 37 SF (0’-9” x 49’) beyond the Declining Height Envelope along the left side of the property. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and  Special Permit for declining height envelope (37 SF along the left side property line extends beyond the declining height envelope (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)). 28 Bloomfield Road Lot Area: 7,875 SF Plans date stamped: June 21, 2018 SETBACKS PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-0” 25’-0” 19’-3” (block average) 20’-0” Side (left): (right): 5’-0” 10’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 63’-6” 83’-6” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,754 SF 35% 3,150 SF 40% Design Review and Special Permit 28 Bloomfield Road 2 SETBACKS PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED FAR: 4,013 SF 0.51 FAR 4,020 SF 1 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’ x 20’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 26’-6” 30'-0" DH Envelope: 37 SF (0’-9” x 49’) encroachment along left side Special Permit (C.S. 25.26.035 (c))2 1 (0.32 x 7,875) + 1,100 + 400 SF = 4,020 SF (0.51) FAR 2 A structure in the R-1 District that encroaches into the DHE requires approval of a Special Permit (CS 25.26.035 (c)). Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 9, 2018, the Commission stated that the overall design fits in well with the neighborhood and that the architectural style respects the original style of the existing house. The Commission also noted that the encroachment into the declining height envelope is justified and voted to place this item on the cons ent calendar (see attached July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). No changes to the design of the project were suggested by the Commission. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed project (featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs and dormer, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, and roof eave braces) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties ; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at loc ations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Design Review and Special Permit 28 Bloomfield Road 3 Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings: That because the subject property slopes down from the street, the point of departure for the declining height envelope along the left side of the house is 2’-3” below the finished floor of the house which causes the declining height envelope to extend into the house at a lower elevation; that the proposed second floor wall along the left side property line extends 0’-9” beyond the declining height envelope and is considered a minor encroachment into the declining height envelope; and the architectural style will be maintained and is consistent with the residential design guidelines , the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped June 21, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, L.1, and L.2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified o r changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination Design Review and Special Permit 28 Bloomfield Road 4 and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the s treet; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum appr oved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Buildi ng Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans . ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer 28 Bloomfield LLC, property owner Attachments: July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Letter of Explanation dated July 3, 2018 Neighbor Letter of Support – Received July 6, 2018 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map PROJECT LOCATION 125 Park Road Item No. 7b Consent Calendar City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 125 Park Road Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing residential apartment building. Applicant and Designer: Such Home Enhancements, Inc. APN: 029-222-080 Property Owners: Ramon & Maria Flores Lot Area: 7,762 SF General Plan: Shopping and Service – Downtown Specific Plan (Bayswater Mixed Use Area) Zoning: BMU Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF, and if all public facilities are available for maximum development permissible in the general plan, and the site is not in an environmentally sensitive area. History: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to the existing residential apartment building was originally approved by the Planning Commission on May 22, 2017 (see attached May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). A building permit was never issued and the Planning approval for the Design Review expired in May 2018 (applicant has one year to secure a building permit). The applicant is now applying for approval of the same project approved in 2017; there are no changes proposed with this application. The property owners were not able to obtain a building permit within one year of the Planning Commission approval because it took longer than expected to secure the funding required to build this project and because they live outside of the country which caused delays in communication. The Planning Division would note that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar Item since the same project has already been approved previously by the Planning Commission and there are no changes proposed to the previous approvals. Project Description: The project site currently contains four, 2-bedroom residential units in a two-story apartment building and a detached garage at the rear of the site. The proposal includes demolishing the dining rooms in Apartments A and B on the ground floor and uncovered decks for Apartments C and D on the second floor, and replacing these areas with dining rooms for each of the four units. A new exterior stairway from the second floor is also proposed at the rear of the building. W ith the proposed project, there will be an increase in the lot coverage from 2,944 SF (37.9%) to 3,030 SF (39%) where 5,822 SF (75%) is the maximum allowed. There is no maximum floor area ratio in the BMU zoning district. Design Review: Design Review is required for second story additions to any building in a mixed-use district pursuant to Code Sections 25.35.045 and 25.57.010 (c) (3). The project is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan and therefore subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 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 existing building consists of horizontal vinyl siding, wood-framed windows with vinyl window trim, and a flat roof. Materials on the proposed addition include wood horizontal siding, galvanized steel windows (see attached Optimum window specifications) and wood window trim, and a metal railing at the stairway. Condition of approval #1 notes that double-hung steel windows are required to be installed as part of the project. Conditions of approval #2 and #3 also note that the exterior trim around the new windows and exterior doors on the addition shall be wood and that prior to the final inspection, all of the security bars on the windows throughout the building shall be removed. Item No. 7b Consent Calendar Design Review 125 Park Road 2 There are no changes proposed to the front façade and portions of the side building facades to remain. The overall height of the addition is proposed at 23'-11" above average top of curb level where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed; the existing building measures 29’-4” in height. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition and to an existing residential apartment building (CS 25.28.045 and 25.57.010 (c) (3)). Off-Street Parking: A total of six (6) on-site parking spaces are required for the four (4) existing 2-bedroom units (1.5 parking spaces per unit required). The existing detached garage, located at the rear of the site, provides five parking spaces and one uncovered space is provided next to the garage, for a total of six parking spaces. There is no increase in the number of bedrooms with this project. Therefore, no additional parking spaces are required and the proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements. 125 Park Road Lot Size: 7,762 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front: 21’-9” no change 10'-0" Left Side: 12'-5" 15’-4 13/16” no minimum required Right Side: 3'-1 3/8" 6’-8 11/32” no minimum required Rear: 73’-9 5/8” 66’-8 11/32” 20'-0” Lot Coverage: 2944 SF 37.9% 3030 SF 39% 5822 SF 75% Off-Street Parking: 5 covered 1 uncovered 6 parking spaces no change 1.5 spaces per each 2- bedroom unit; 4, 2- bedroom units exist 4 x 1.5 = 6 parking spaces Building Height: 29’-4” 23’-11” to addition 55'-0" max CUP if >35’-0” Staff Comments: None. Findings for Multiple-Family Residential Design Review: The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and Design Review 125 Park Road 3 (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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition at the rear of the building (featuring a combination of a flat roof, matching plate heights, horizontal wood siding, galvanized steel windows) is compatible with the existing building and character of the neighborhood; that there is no change to the off-street parking which does not dominate the street frontage since it is located at the rear of the lot; and that architectural design uses a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s six design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 26, 2018, sheets SD-100, and AR-101 through AR-108; and that double-hung steel windows shall be installed throughout the addition; 2. that the exterior trim around the new windows and exterior doors on the addition shall be wood; 3. that prior to the final inspection, all of the security bars on the windows throughout the building shall be removed; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; Design Review 125 Park Road 4 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Such Home Enhancements, Inc., applicant and designer Attachments: May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, email dated July 10, 2018 Window Specifications for Optimum Double-Hung Windows Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 13, 2018 Area Map Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing residential apartment building at 125 Park Road, Zoned BMU, Ramon and Maria Flores, property owners, APN: 029-222-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 13, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e) (2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF, and if all public facilities are available for maximum development permissible in the general plan, and the site is not in an environmentally sensitive area, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 125 Park Road Effective August 23, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 26, 2018, sheets SD-100, and AR-101 through AR-108; and that double-hung steel windows shall be installed throughout the addition; 2. that the exterior trim around the new windows and exterior doors on the addition shall be wood; 3. that prior to the final inspection, all of the security bars on the windows throughout the building shall be removed; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 125 Park Road Effective August 23, 2018 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 125 PARK 300’ Radius APN 029.222.080 xWEEKDAYS8:00AM - 7:00PMxSATURDAYS9:00AM - 6:00PMxSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYSNO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPALCODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITYPUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYSBETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PMCONSTRUCTION HOURS:PROJECT TITLE / LOCATION :PROPOSEDRENOVATION OF ATWO-STOREY APARTMENTBUILDING125 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CAOWNER:SHEET CONTENTS :DateR E V I S I O N SRev. No.DescriptionRELEASED BYDATE RELEASEDPURPOSE OF ISSUANCE:CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUMDATE RECEIVEDREVISIONS / CORRECTIONSRECEIVED BYSUPPLIER'S QUOTATIONOWNER'S APPROVALFOR CONSTRUCTIONDRAWN:SCALE:ISSUED DATE:APPROVED:CHECKED:xTHIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIARESIDENTIAL, 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICALCODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE,INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED INORDINANCE 1889.xTHIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS.xIF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BEOBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKSxANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORKTO PERFORMED BEYOND HE SCOPE OF THEBUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PLANS MAYREQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALSINCLUDING REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION.xTHIS DRAWING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITHSTRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL,SANITARY, AND FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS.REFER TO ARCHITECT'S AND STRUCTURALENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING DETAILS.DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITEBEFORE ANY WORK IS PUT IN HAND ORPRE-FABRICATED. THIS DRAWING IS TO BEREAD IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR'S SHOPDRAWINGS.GENERAL NOTES:OTHERSTENDER / BID DOCUMENTSFOR BUILDING PERMITLOCAL CLEARANCEFOR COORDINATIONPROJECT NUMBER:1513-125_BMUDANGELITA L. BONDOCSHEET NUMBER :JPDCAS SHOWNANCJANCJ Table of ContentsSHEET NO.SHEET CONTENTS SD - 100PERSPECTIVETABLE OF CONTENTS AR - 101EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANPROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANEXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLANEXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN AR - 102 AR - 104 AR - 105EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLANEXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONEXISTING REAR ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE : VIEW OF PROPOSED RENOVATIONPERSPECTIVE : FRONT VIEW OF EXISTING BUILDING BMUD_SD-100PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLANPROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN AR - 106EXISTING RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATIONEXISTING LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION AR - 107PROPOSED RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATIONPROPOSED LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION AR - 108PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONPARTIAL SECTION-APARTIAL SECTION-B-TABLE OF CONTENTS-PERSPECTIVE AR - 103GROUND FLOOR DEMOLITION PLANSECOND FLOOR DEMOLITION PLAN PROPOSED RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATION PROPOSED LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION x WEEKDAYS 8:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS NO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROJECT TITLE / LOCATION : PROPOSED RENOVATION OF A TWO-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING 125 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA OWNER: SHEET CONTENTS : Date R E V I S I O N S Rev. No.Description RELEASED BY DATE RELEASED PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE: CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUM DATE RECEIVED REVISIONS / CORRECTIONS RECEIVED BY SUPPLIER'S QUOTATION OWNER'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN: SCALE: ISSUED DATE: APPROVED: CHECKED: x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. x IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS x ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO PERFORMED BEYOND HE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION. x THIS DRAWING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, SANITARY, AND FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING DETAILS. DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITE BEFORE ANY WORK IS PUT IN HAND OR PRE-FABRICATED. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR'S SHOP DRAWINGS. GENERAL NOTES: OTHERS TENDER / BID DOCUMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT LOCAL CLEARANCE FOR COORDINATION PROJECT NUMBER:1513-125_BMUD ANGELITA L. BONDOC SHEET NUMBER : JPDC AS SHOWN ANCJ ANCJ BMUD_AR-107 -TABLE OF CONTENTS -PERSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION PARTIAL SECTION - A PARTIAL SECTION - B x WEEKDAYS 8:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS NO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROJECT TITLE / LOCATION : PROPOSED RENOVATION OF A TWO-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING 125 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA OWNER: SHEET CONTENTS : Date R E V I S I O N S Rev. No.Description RELEASED BY DATE RELEASED PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE: CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUM DATE RECEIVED REVISIONS / CORRECTIONS RECEIVED BY SUPPLIER'S QUOTATION OWNER'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN: SCALE: ISSUED DATE: APPROVED: CHECKED: x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. x IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS x ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO PERFORMED BEYOND HE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION. x THIS DRAWING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, SANITARY, AND FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING DETAILS. DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITE BEFORE ANY WORK IS PUT IN HAND OR PRE-FABRICATED. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR'S SHOP DRAWINGS. GENERAL NOTES: OTHERS TENDER / BID DOCUMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT LOCAL CLEARANCE FOR COORDINATION PROJECT NUMBER:1513-125_BMUD ANGELITA L. BONDOC SHEET NUMBER : JPDC AS SHOWN ANCJ ANCJ BMUD_AR-108 -TABLE OF CONTENTS -PERSPECTIVE CONSTRUCTION HOURS: EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION EXISTING REAR ELEVATION EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN LEGEND: x WEEKDAYS 8:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS NO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROJECT TITLE / LOCATION : PROPOSED RENOVATION OF A TWO-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING 125 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA OWNER: SHEET CONTENTS : Date R E V I S I O N S Rev. No.Description RELEASED BY DATE RELEASED PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE: CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUM DATE RECEIVED REVISIONS / CORRECTIONS RECEIVED BY SUPPLIER'S QUOTATION OWNER'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN: SCALE: ISSUED DATE: APPROVED: CHECKED: x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. x IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS x ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO PERFORMED BEYOND HE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION. x THIS DRAWING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, SANITARY, AND FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING DETAILS. DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITE BEFORE ANY WORK IS PUT IN HAND OR PRE-FABRICATED. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR'S SHOP DRAWINGS. GENERAL NOTES: OTHERS TENDER / BID DOCUMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT LOCAL CLEARANCE FOR COORDINATION PROJECT NUMBER:1513-125_BMUD ANGELITA L. BONDOC SHEET NUMBER : JPDC AS SHOWN ANCJ ANCJ BMUD_AR-105 -TABLE OF CONTENTS -PERSPECTIVE x WEEKDAYS 7:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS 10:00AM - 6:00PM (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: EXISTING RIGHT-SIDE ELEVATION EXISTING LEFT-SIDE ELEVATION x WEEKDAYS 8:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS NO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROJECT TITLE / LOCATION : PROPOSED RENOVATION OF A TWO-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING 125 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA OWNER: SHEET CONTENTS : Date R E V I S I O N S Rev. No.Description RELEASED BY DATE RELEASED PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE: CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUM DATE RECEIVED REVISIONS / CORRECTIONS RECEIVED BY SUPPLIER'S QUOTATION OWNER'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN: SCALE: ISSUED DATE: APPROVED: CHECKED: x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. x IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS x ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO PERFORMED BEYOND HE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION. x THIS DRAWING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, SANITARY, AND FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING DETAILS. DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITE BEFORE ANY WORK IS PUT IN HAND OR PRE-FABRICATED. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR'S SHOP DRAWINGS. GENERAL NOTES: OTHERS TENDER / BID DOCUMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT LOCAL CLEARANCE FOR COORDINATION PROJECT NUMBER:1513-125_BMUD ANGELITA L. BONDOC SHEET NUMBER : JPDC AS SHOWN ANCJ ANCJ BMUD_AR-106 -TABLE OF CONTENTS -PERSPECTIVE x WEEKDAYS 7:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS 10:00AM - 6:00PM (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN x WEEKDAYS 8:00AM - 7:00PM x SATURDAYS 9:00AM - 6:00PM x SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS NO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM CONSTRUCTION HOURS: PROJECT TITLE / LOCATION : PROPOSED RENOVATION OF A TWO-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDING 125 PARK ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA OWNER: SHEET CONTENTS : Date R E V I S I O N S Rev. No.Description RELEASED BY DATE RELEASED PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE: CLARIFICATION / ADDENDUM DATE RECEIVED REVISIONS / CORRECTIONS RECEIVED BY SUPPLIER'S QUOTATION OWNER'S APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION DRAWN: SCALE: ISSUED DATE: APPROVED: CHECKED: x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. x THIS PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS. x IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS x ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO PERFORMED BEYOND HE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION. x THIS DRAWING SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH STRUCTURAL, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, SANITARY, AND FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. REFER TO ARCHITECT'S AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING DETAILS. DIMENSIONS MUST BE CHECKED ON SITE BEFORE ANY WORK IS PUT IN HAND OR PRE-FABRICATED. THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACTOR'S SHOP DRAWINGS. GENERAL NOTES: OTHERS TENDER / BID DOCUMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT LOCAL CLEARANCE FOR COORDINATION PROJECT NUMBER:1513-125_BMUD ANGELITA L. BONDOC SHEET NUMBER : JPDC AS SHOWN ANCJ ANCJ BMUD_AR-101 -TABLE OF CONTENTS -PERSPECTIVE City of Burlingame Mitigated Negative Declaration, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development Address: 920 Bayswater Avenue (main project address) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 (Includes 908 Bayswater Avenue, 108-124 Myrtle Road) Request: Application for Environmental Review, 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. Applicant: Fore Property Company, Mark Pilarczyk Property Owner: Multiple Property Owners - 7 parcels (Baird/Hower/Ohlund/Mortensen) Architect: Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP- Dirk Thelen APN: 029-235-160, 170, 180,190, 200, 210, 220 Lot Area: 1.26 acres General Plan: Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area/ Anita Road Residential Area (53,012 SF combined lots) Zoning: MMU (Myrtle Mixed Use) / R-3 (Anita Road Overlay) Adjacent Development: Auto sales, Auto storage, Multifamily and Single Family Residential Current Use: 920 Bayswater Avenue: Auto Repair / 908 Bayswater Avenue: Single Family Dwelling / 108 Myrtle Road: Apartments / 112 Myrtle Road: Auto storage/ 116 Myrtle Road: Apartments/ 120 & 124 Myrtle Road: Single Family Dwelling Proposed Use: 128-unit residential apartment development. Allowable Use: MMU- retail, personal service, office, service commercial R-3 - Multifamily, duplex, and single family residential uses. Project Summary: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road. The site is composed of 7 separate parcels, including 908 and 920 Bayswater Avenue and 108 -124 Myrtle Road. The largest of the 7 parcels, 920 Bayswater Avenue, is located on the corner of Myrtle Road and Bayswater Avenue and currently contains an automobile repair garage, while 908 Bayswater Avenue, 124 and 127 Myrtle Road all contain single family dwellings, and 108 and 116 Myrtle Road contain apartment buildings. All of the parcels, except for 908 Bayswater Avenue, are located in the MMU (Myrtle Road Mixed Use) zoning district where 908 Bayswater Avenue is zoned R-3, with the Anita Road Residential Overlay. All of the properties are located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses including, auto storage, auto sales, multifamily residential, and single family residential. The proposed project includes merging the 7 parcels, demolishing all of the existing structures on all of the parcels and constructing a new, 4-story 128-unit apartment development. There would be two-levels of below grade parking that would provide a total of 183 spaces. The below grade parking would be accessed from a two-way driveway along Myrtle Road. The proposed development would be broken up with setbacks and building breaks to reduce the massing along the street and to provide spacing between the main buildings so that they appears as 3 separate structures. The R-3 zoned portion, along Bayswater Avenue, has a smaller, three (3) story building with slightly different architectural details so that it provides a transition to the adjacent neighborhood to the east. The main portion of the development would be 4-stories (45’) plus a roof top deck above, the building location the R-3 portion (along Bayswater Ave) would be 3-stories (39’). The new apartment development would contain 29 studio units, 54 one-bedroom units, 3 one-bedroom units with a den, 33 two-bedroom units and nine three-bedroom units. Studio units would range from 519 SF – 530 SF, one-bedrooms would range from 696-987 SF, two-bedrooms would range from 904 SF – 1,225 SF, and Item No. 8a Regular Action Item New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 2 the three-bedroom units would range from 1,236 SF – 1,310 SF. The total gross floor area would be approximately 130,160 SF, though neither zoning district (MMU/R-3) regulates floor area ratio. Code section 25.34.030 requires a Conditional Use Permit for multifamily residential uses in the MMU zoning district, and an average maximum unit size of one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) square feet; the average unit size for the proposed development is 853 SF. Staff would note that apartment projects are not required to provide common open space or private open space, as is required for condominium developments. However, common space for residents and visitors, includes approximately a combined total of 12,500 SF of courtyard area and a 4,000 SF roof deck area. Other amenities on-site include an enclosed entry and lobby area with a 1,060 SF community room and a 1,300 SF gym provided on the ground floor. In addition, some units would have decks or balconies provided for open space. The following applications are requested for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new four-story, 128-unit apartment building with below-grade parking (C.S. 25.28.045 (R-3 portion), C.S. 25.34.045 (MMU portion) and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);  Lot Combination (7 parcels into 1) (C.S. 26.04);  Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) Zone (C.S. 25.34.030(a)); and  Density Bonus Incentive (C.S. 25.63.0401(a) and (C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1)). Lot Area: 5,000 SF - R-3 48,012 SF MMU, combined 55,012 SF (combined) Plans date stamped: July 12, 2018 PROPOSED PROJECT – ENTIRE SITE (53,012 SF) Land Use: 128 apartment units1 & 2 Multifamily residential - permitted use in R-3 zone C.S, 25.28.020(B). Multifamily residential - Conditional Uses in MMU zone per C.S. 25.34.030(a) Building Height: 45' 2 45’-0" maximum/ CUP required to exceed 35’-0” Rooftop Projections: 1,410 SF 4.4% (10’ above 45’ max height limit allowed for 5% of roof area) 31,810 SF roof top area 5% or 1,590 SF can project up 10’ above 45’ height Off-Street Parking: 183 Total 91 spaces on the lower level 88 spaces on upper level Studio – 1 sp x 29 = 29 1 bdrm – 1 sp x 57 = 57 2 bdrm – 2 spaces x 33 = 66 3bdrm – 2 spaces x 9 = 18 Total = 170 spaces (based on CS 25.63.040(a) – density bonus) Clear Back-up Space/Aisle width: 24'-0" 24'-0" or all spaces can be exited in three maneuvers or less New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 3 Parking Space Dimensions: All parking spaces meet minimum dimension requirements 9’ x 20’ covered spaces Driveway Width: 2 - 12'-0" driveways Parking areas with more than 30 vehicle spaces shall have two 12'-0" wide driveways or one 18’ driveway R-3 PORTION ALONG BAYSWATER AVENUE (APPRX. 5,000SF) PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 15’-0” (all floors)* 15’ or block average whichever is greater Left Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 0* 0* 0* N/A because parcels will be merged- zoning is still split R-3 and MMU Right Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 9'-6” 9'-6" 9'-6" 5'-0" 6'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,395 SF 47.9% 2,500 SF 50% Front Setback Landscaping: 452 SF 60% 452 SF 60% MMU PORTION (48,012 SF) PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front: 10’-0” all floors) 10’ Left Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 4’-2” 2’-4” 2'-4" 1'-1" None required Right Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 10’-3” 10'-3" 10'-3" 10’-3” 7’-0” 8’-0” 9’-0” 10’-0” New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 4 Abuts residential therefore must comply with R-3 standards (C.S. 25.28.075) per C.S. 25.34.060(d) Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 32,045 SF 65.6 % 36,009 SF 75% Front Setback Landscaping: 994 SF 88.9% 112 SF 10% of front setback ¹ Conditional Use Permit required for multifamily residential in the MMU zone, 128-units proposed, C.S. 25.34.030(a). 2 Exercising C.S. 25.63.040 (c)(1) Development concessions and incentives, which allows a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit. Background: The proposed project was submitted on January 30, 2017 and first appeared before the Planning Commission as a Design Review Study item on July 10, 2017 and again on November 13, 2017. There have been substantial changes to the project from the original proposal that was submitted, most notably: • number of units was reduced from 140 originally proposed to 128 units; • originally no existing trees on the site were proposed to be retained, with the revised project 8 of the 16 existing trees on-site will be retained; and • the design has be revised from a modern architectural style to a craftsman style architecture. The minutes from both of the previous Planning Commission meetings are attached and a brief summary of each meeting is provided below. July 10, 2017 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Meeting: On July 10, 2017 an environmental scoping meeting and design review study meeting was held for the proposed project. This was the first review of the project by the Planning Commission. There were several public comments at the public hearing and over 40 letters were received with a variety of concerns. The Planning Commission also had several comments and concerns; the minutes from the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting are attached for reference. A brief summary, focusing on the design comments, is provided below: • Design is not consistent/compatible with the neighborhood, too massive need to break it into smaller sizes; • Project feels like it is bursting at the seams; is maxed-out, too massive and not broken up well; too modern; could achieve this style in more traditional ways; • Need a "graceful" transition between the two areas of the town, not just a small setback; • Courtyards should be redesigned to try to save some of the existing trees, particularly along perimeter of the buildings; Would like to see more landscaping and add more around the outside to make it more pedestrian-oriented; A lot of the trees on the site could be saved; • No argument for the variance; can’t make required variance findings, reduce the height of the building to stay within limits; variance request is because the project is too large; • Sheer number of units is too large; the parking is sufficient for the number of units though; units will still not be affordable; • Rooftop deck needs to be oriented more toward the street and away from the adjacent residential area; • Do not like the proposed vinyl windows and wood-like plastic cladding. New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 5 In response to the Planning Commission and public comments at the July 10, 2017 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study meeting the applicant reached out to a core group of residents, which reside in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood, to discuss their concerns about the project. There were several meetings that were held in July and August and after considering both the public and Commission comments the applicant worked with their architect to redesign the proposed apartment development. The proposed design and building mass and bulk have substantially changed from the original proposal. In addition the unit count was reduced by 10 from 138 units (140 units in the original submittal) to 128 units; there are still 13 units proposed to be affordable (moderate income at 120% AMI). Please see the applicant’s letter which details the changes made to the project, along with the revised plans and renderings date stamped October 10, 2017, in response to the Planning Commission’s and public comments from the July 10 design review study and environmental scoping meeting. The major changes to the proposed project are summarized below: • Ten (10) units removed, 138-units proposed originally, reduced to 128-units currently proposed; • Complete redesign of building architecture from modern industrial design to craftsman/bungalow style; • Massing broken up with setbacks and offsets- appears as 3 different structures; • 8 existing trees on-site will be retained; • Roof deck size and location revised; reduced from 6,300 SF to 4,000 SF and location was shifted west (toward Myrtle Road); • Fourth (4th) floor removed from Bayswater/R-3 portion resulting in building height being lowered by 4’-8” for Bayswater/R-3 portion from 43’-8” to 39’ tall; and • Variance for Rooftop Projections Eliminated, all rooftop projections are under the allowable 5% (of rooftop area) November 13, 2017 (Second) Design Review Study Meeting: On November 13, 2017 a second Design Review Study meeting was held for the proposed project. There were eight (8) speakers at the public hearing and approximately 20 letters were received with a variety of concerns, the most frequently heard concerns included the size and number of units, parking and traffic. On balance the Planning Commission felt that the revised project was a vast improvement over the original proposal with many concessions made, but they had the following comments and concerns (see attached November 13, 2017 minutes for reference): • Rooftop deck will be a valuable amenity for people living there, and noise issues after hours are a police matter. It is appropriate that it has been moved to the Myrtle side; • Would like more space on the Bayswater side so it is not so close to the adjacent property; • Agrees with suggestion of having solid walls on the balconies, especially those close to the other units on Bayswater; • Outreach to the community has been very impressive; Refreshing to hear that the applicant has reached out to neighbors as much as they have, and tried to incorporate their concerns; • Don’t think it is the right scale and scope for the location; 4 stories does not fit this neighborhood; concerned with the scale of the lot consolidation -7 lots combined into 1; • Shares concerns with the size but also understands the need for housing in the city. The City is expensive, business owners can't find people to work here, and people have to drive from far away to get to jobs here; • There are quite a few three story buildings in the area, and designers have done a great job making the four-story building blend in with the three-story neighbors; • Concerned with the window style, they still look contemporary in a craftsman-styled building; • Concerned there is not enough parking, would expect 200 spaces; and • Revisit architectural details in the roofline, floating gables need to be addressed, as well as columns and wrap-around porches. In response to the Planning Commission and public comments at second Design Review Study session at the November 13, 2018 meeting the applicant made additional changes to the plans. The changes were primarily architectural, with other internal changes to the building that did not result in changes to the building footprint or height. New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 6 The major changes to the proposed project from the November 13, 2017 meeting include the following: • porch and balcony support columns have been redesigned to reflect the craftsman style; • proposed single hung windows have been enhanced by an integral grid within glazing; detailed trim molding has been added around windows; • ornamental metal railings on the balcony have been redesigned; • roof gable and roof eve brackets have been added throughout the roof line; • northern edge of the property has been redesigned proving a landscape buffer to the adjacent uses; • vehicular and pedestrian circulation has been revised for better internal queuing; and • garage layout has been refined to add four (4) additional off-street parking spaces, from 179 to 183 full sized off-street parking spaces. Please refer to the applicant’s letter (attached) and the revised plans date stamped July 12, 2018, for a detailed overview of the changes made to the project since the Planning Commission’s last review on November 13, 2017. The project analysis and description below is based on the most recent set of revised drawings for the project (drawings dated July 12, 2018). Please refer to the applicant’s letter (attached), date stamped November 8, 2017, and the revised (redesigned) plans date stamped October 10, 2017, for a detailed overview of the changes made to the project since the Planning Commission’s last review on July 10, 2017. The project analysis and description below is based on the redesigned project (drawings dated October 10, 2017). Environmental Review: On July 10, 2017 the Planning Commission held an Environmental Scoping meeting where staff requested the Planning Commission to provide comments on any potential environmental effects to be considered in the CEQA document. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the project was prepared and determine that there were no environmental impacts that were identified that could not be mitigated to less than significant levels. The public review period occurred from Friday June 8 to Thursday June 28, 2018 and five comment letters were received. Responses to these comments were prepared and included as part of the administrative record and are attached. Comments included concerns with displacement of existing residents and traffic and parking. On the basis of the Initial Study and the whole record, it has been determined that the proposed action, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures described below, will not have a significant impact on the environment. Areas identified with potential environmental impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels were in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, noise, tribal cultural resources and utilities and service systems. Mitigation measures for these areas are included in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-599P) is attached for reference. The mitigation measures in the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (in italics). Design Review: Design Review is required for new residential buildings pursuant to C.S. 25.57.010(c). There were two Design Review Study meetings held for this project. The first Design Review Study meeting was held along with the Environmental Scoping meeting on July 10, 2017. In response to both the Planning Commission’s comments and the public comments received at that meeting the applicant completely changed the architectural style of the building. The applicant requested a second study meeting to obtain additional feedback on the revised project from the Planning Commission while the CEQA document for this project was being prepared. That meeting was held on November 13, 2017. The purpose of the second design review study meeting was to provide further comments on the revised design, from the original modern architectural style to a craftsman style architecture. New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 7 The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 through 5-16) provides design guidelines specifically for mixed-use areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.2.2.4 (page 5-7) specifically provides guidance on the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area; more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown are also provided in this chapter. The last 50 feet of the site along Bayswater Avenue is zoned R-3 and is part of the Anita Road Residential overlay therefore the multifamily residential design guidelines would also apply to this project given the split zoning. Because this is a 100% residential project, the Design standards for residential areas are generally most applicable in this case and can be found in Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) of the Downtown Specific Plan. Section 5.4 provides additional design standards for all areas of downtown that would also apply to this project, such as transitions to lower-scale residential areas (pages 5-22 and 5-23). The materials proposed for the exterior of the building include stucco, horizontal cement fiber siding, wood balcony railings, wood trellises and columns and a shingle roof. Colored vinyl windows with simulated divided lites are proposed throughout the building and the applicant will be providing a window sample at the Planning Commission meeting. There would be two courtyard areas within the development with landscaping, fire features, barbeque area and outdoor dining areas. In addition there would be a 4,000 SF roof deck space that would provide common recreational open space that would include a fireplace, fire feature, mounted television, barbeque area, landscaping and seating areas with a shade structure. Off-Street Parking: Parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit. Zoning Code Section 25.70.032 provides reduced residential parking standards specific to properties located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. In the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area the minimum parking requirement is 1 space for each studio unit, 1.5 spaces for each one-bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each unit with two or more bedrooms. However C.S. 25.63.040(a) provides by right parking incentives upon request by the applicant for developments that are eligible for an affordable housing density bonus as provided in C.S. 25.63 (Density Bonus) which is consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p). With this provision the applicable parking minimum parking standard is 1 space for each studio unit or one-bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each two-or three-bedroom unit. The project requires a total of 170 off-street parking spaces where 183 below-grade parking spaces in a two- level below grade garage are proposed. There would be 94 spaces on the lower level and 89 on the upper level. There will be two electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces/stations and conduit for wiring will be installed so that an additional five EV charging spaces can be added if needed in the future. An area for on-site deliveries is not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Access to the below-grade parking spaces will be along the Myrtle Road frontage from a 24’-0” wide driveway (12’ each direction). The Zoning Code parking space dimensions for multifamily are a minimum of 9'-0” wide x 20'-0” deep; all of the required spaces proposed comply with the dimensional requirement. The proposed project will include storage space to accommodate 88 bicycles within the upper level of the below grade parking. Bicycle parking is not currently required under the zoning code but is recommended in Chapter 7.4.3 (page 7-11) of Downtown Specific Plan. There will be a 12 SF locker provided to each dwelling unit (128 - 4’ x 3’ lockers), the lockers will be located on the lower level of the parking garage. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (sheets L1 through L5). The R-3 zoning regulations require 60% of the front setback to be landscaped and the MMU regulations require that 10% of the front setback to be landscaped. The project includes 60% (452 SF) landscaping within the front setback for the R-3 portion of the project and 88.9% (994 SF) landscaping within the front setback of the MMU portion. There were no existing trees to be retained as part of the original proposal due to the excavation required for the subterranean garage. However the project was revised with the footprints modified to allow the retention of New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 8 eight (8) of the sixteen (16) existing trees; including the redwood trees at the rear of 908 Bayswater Avenue and the pepper tree in front of 124 Myrtle Road. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2,000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of 18 landscape trees are required on site. There are 16 trees existing on-site. The redesigned project allows the retention of eight (8) of those existing trees. The landscape plan proposes the planting of 18 new trees, which is in compliance with the replanting requirements for the proposed tree removal and with the reforestation requirements. The proposal includes the installation of street trees as well, with (3) new Ginkgo Boloba trees along Bayswater Avenue (one of which is existing) and fourteen (14) new Crimson Spire Oak street trees along Myrtle. There will be landscaping provided in the courtyard areas as well as in containers on the roof top deck, and around the perimeter of the site. There will be 30 trees throughout the courtyard areas that will be a mixture of Maple, Crape Myrtle, Prunus, Arbutus, and Zelkova. Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Staff notes that the standard Fire Code regulations could not be met for all parts of the building for the required 150-foot fire hose pull, therefore staff (including Fire, Building and Planning) met with the applicant to agree on an Alternate Means of Protection that would comply with the Fire code, but would also not compromise Building or Planning regulations. The applicant has agreed to the terms/mitigations discussed with staff and has been approved for an Alternative Means of Protection, which is attached and is also included as a condition of approval. Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The City’s Density Bonus Ordinance (C.S. 25.63) was adopted to be 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. C.S. 25.63.40 allows development concession and incentives where affordable units are offered. In accordance with State law (Government Code Section 65915(p)), the project is entitled to a by-right parking incentive, which allows reduced parking rates with studio- and one-bedroom units to provide 1 on-site parking space and two- to three-bedroom units to provide 2 on-site parking spaces. In addition, C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1) allows 1 incentive for projects with 10% of the total units offered to those that qualify as moderate-income earners. “Moderate Income” is defined as persons and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size (C.S. 25.63.015(i), referencing Health and Safety Code Section 50093). The 2018 San Mateo County Area Median Income (AMI) is $118,400 (based on a household of four); the corresponding “Moderate Income” figures are up to $99,450 for a single household, $113,700 for a two- person household, $127,900 for a three-person household, and $142,100 for a four-person household. The applicant is proposing to include 10% (13) of the units to be affordable offered at no more than 120% AMI and therefore under C.S. 25.63 the project is eligible for a concession received in the form of additional height without the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1)). Together with the reduced parking requirements (C.S. 25.63.040(a)), the concession will theoretically allow the project to reach a higher density than what would have been able to under the regular development standards. Building Height- Incentive: The project application includes a request for a density bonus incentive for height. This incentive states that where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, a height up to forty-six (46) feet may be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. The overall height of the majority of the building, as measured to the top of the ridge, is 45’ above average top of curb level. The portion of the proposed structure located in the R-3 zone measures approximately 39’ from average top of curb. The project includes a request for a density bonus incentive per C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1) which allows a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit in zoning districts where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height. Both the R-3 (Anita Road Overlay) zone and the MMU zone have a height limit of 35’ by right with a maximum height New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 9 allowance of forty-five (45) feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), however with the incentive the proposed height at 45’ would not require approval of a CUP application for height. General Plan, Specific Plan and Zoning: In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan, specifically in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area and Anita Road Residential Area. The zoning for the site is split, with the majority of the site located in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area and the smaller portion along Bayswater Avenue (approximately 5,000 SF) located within the R-3 zoning district that is part of the Anita Road Residential Overlay. The land use designation under the Downtown Specific Plan is also Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area and Anita Road Residential Area. The land use chapter of the Downtown Specific Plan, Section 3.3.7 details the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area as an area that is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district area and the residential neighborhoods to the east. Development is to be consistent with the existing neighborhood scale of small streets and mix of varied commercial and residential buildings. The Anita Road Residential Area includes the blocks to the west of Anita Road between Burlingame Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. The land use in this area is medium-density Multifamily Residential, with development to remain consistent with the existing neighborhood scale of small streets, small apartment buildings and single-family homes. The area is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and Myrtle Mixed Use Area to the west, and single-family neighborhood to the east. Special development standards apply to the Anita Road area to establish standards such as setbacks, building heights, and massing standards compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. The Downtown Specific Plan and corresponding zoning do not provide for specific density limits (dwelling units per acre); therefore, a number of bonus units is not applicable. However, because the proposed project includes 10% of the units to be offered to moderate-income households (up to 120% AMI), under C.S. 25.63 the project is eligible for a concession received in the form of additional height (C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1)), as well as the provision for reduced parking (C.S. 25.63.040(a)- as detailed above), which theoretically allows the project to reach a higher density than what would have been able to under the regular development standards. The Downtown Specific Plan includes various Goals and Policies to guide growth and development in Downtown Burlingame. The table below shows how the proposed project meets these Goals and Policies. GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Goal LU-3: Ensure sensitive transitions between the existing adjacent residential areas and the downtown area. The proposed apartment development includes as a three-story building adjacent to the residential use along Bayswater Avenue which provides a sensitive transition between new development and the existing adjacent two-story multi-family development on the east side (corner of Anita Road and Bayswater Avenue). Policy P-1.3: Conceal parking areas through the use of attractively designed above- or below-ground parking structures. The project has been designed with only one entrance to the two-levels of below grade parking with the entrance located far from the corner, along the most northern portion of the property on Myrtle Road. Policy C-2.6: Consider the needs of pedestrian, bicycles, and people with disabilities. There will be 88 bicycle racks provided in the below grade garage. New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 10 GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Policy S-1.3: Streetscapes should reflect Burlingame’s destination as a “tree city.” Trees should be planted throughout the downtown as an integral part of the streetscape, and mature streets trees should be persevered whenever possible. There are 16 trees existing on-site. The project allows the retention of eight (8) of those trees. The landscape plan proposes the planting of 18 new trees. The proposal includes the installation of street trees as well, with (3) new Ginkgo Boloba trees along Bayswater Avenue (one of which is existing) and fourteen (14) new Crimson Spire Oak street trees along Myrtle Road. There will be landscaping provided in the courtyard areas as well as in containers on the roof top deck, and around the perimeter of the site. There will be 30 trees throughout the courtyard areas that will be a mixture of Maple, Crape Myrtle, Prunus, Arbutus, and Zelkova. Policy D-3.1: Ensure that new development is appropriate to Burlingame with respect to size and design. The project includes a request for a density bonus incentive per C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1) which allows a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit in zoning districts where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height. Both the R-3 (Anita Road Overlay) zone and the MMU zone have a height limit of 35’ by right with a maximum height allowance of forty-five (45) feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), however with the incentive the proposed height at 45’ does not require approval of a CUP application for height and the project is subject to design review. Section 5.2.5.6 Development Massing New residential development on larger parcels should echo the narrow parcel increments that characterize Downtown, with sensitivity to the traditional building size and storefront. While the proposed project includes the assemblage of 7 separate parcels, the project has been redesigned with the buildings broken up. The R-3 portion along Bayswater Avenue is a separate, three- story building and the other four-story portions of the buildings have separations in between to provide breaks rather than one large block face. Section 5.3.1 Architectural Diversity Residential properties should respect the diversity of building types and styles in the residential areas Downtown and seek to support it by applying the following principles: - Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the neighborhood. - Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent building even when using differing architectural styles. - Maintains the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used. - Create buildings with quality materials and thoughtful design to last into the future. The proposed building has been designed in a craftsman style to be compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The top, 4th floor, has been tucked within the gables to help reduce the overall massing and respect the fine scale of the residences to the east. The architectural details include materials such as wood railings, wood columns, horizontal cement fiber siding and wood trellises. The building along Bayswater Avenue transitions down to 3-stories to blend in with the scale of the adjacent property and the neighborhood. The massing is broken up with the buildings separated by courtyards to create narrower sections and to reduce the scale. The corner has a plaza where the entrance to the building is located along with the leasing office which provides a pedestrian entrance. In addition the ground floor units New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 11 GOAL/POLICY PROJECT PROPOSED Section 5.3.3 Architectural Compatibility The residential areas within Downtown Burlingame have a range of building heights, and so particular attention must be paid to the massing of new building to ensure an appropriate transition with surrounding development. Massing and street façade shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Burlingame neighborhoods. Section 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. have patios enclosed with wooden fencing that provides a softened pedestrian relationship with the building and the street/sidewalk. The proposed density is that which was envisioned and is consistent with the Downtown Specific Area Plan and the design has variations to the façade, breaks in the building and height transitions to adjacent properties to help to integrate this development into the site which serves as a transitional area between downtown Burlingame and the residential uses to the east. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fees 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 128-unit multifamily dwelling apartment development and providing a credit for the existing commercial building, single family dwellings and multifamily dwelling units, the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is $587,924.49. One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of the building permit; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Findings for a Mitigated Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration, finding that on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated. Suggested Findings for Mitigated Negative Declaration: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, the environmental analysis in the Initial Study was conducted to determine if there were any project-specific effects that are peculiar to the project or its site. Based on the environmental analysis, it was determined that the proposed project would have no adverse environmental impacts on the environmental in the areas of agriculture and forestry services, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, and transportation and traffic. Although the environmental analysis did find that the project could have a significant effect in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural (including tribal) resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, utilities and service systems and mandatory findings of significance, there were mitigations measures identified New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 12 to reduce adverse impacts to acceptable levels. Therefore, based on the Initial Study, there will be no significant environmental effects as a result of this project. Findings for Multiple-Family Residential Design Review: The criteria for design review in mixed use districts is detailed in Code Section 25.57.030 (g) and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the proposed 128-unit apartment development has been redesigned in a craftsman style architectural that supports the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize this transitional zone and alludes to the vernacular styles found in the nearby residential neighborhood. The proposed project is four-stories and has been massed to fit the project site which is visually prominent and serves as a gateway site between the downtown area and the adjacent multi-family and single family neighborhood. The project has a fourth floor that is tucked beneath the gables which helps the new building blend with the other nearby residential buildings in design and scale. The placement of the project on the site and the design respects and promotes pedestrian activity with an open plaza area located at the corner of Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road; this is also where the leasing office is located that includes an open storefront feel with plate glass windows, inviting to pedestrians. The project has been designed with only one entrance to the 183 off-street parking spaces that are all located below grade so that it does not dominate street frontages and it is located farthest away from the corner along the north end of the property on Myrtle Road. The ground floor units have been designed to have patios with wooden railing along both Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road that bring the pedestrian feeling to the street and will promote ground floor activities on this corner development. The R-3 portion of the property along Bayswater Avenue is a separate building, which helps break up the massing and reduces the height to three stories to provide a transition between the four story buildings on the corner and Myrtle Road side and the abutting multi-family buildings along Bayswater Avenue and Anita Road that are two and three-stories in height. The proposed materials and architectural features on the craftsman style building include stucco, gables with composition shingle roofing material, cement fiber horizontal siding and wood railings and columns that complement and blend with the existing development found in this transitional area New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 13 between the downtown and the Lyon Hoag residential neighborhood. The project includes retention of eight of the existing trees on-site with three Ginkgo Biloba trees along Bayswater Avenue and along Myrtle Road there will be 14 new crimson spire oaks planted that will enhance the existing streetscape. For the reasons above the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s six design review criteria. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (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. (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed. Suggested Findings for a Conditional Use for Multifamily Residential in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) Zone: The subject property location is within the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan and further identified within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) zoning district for a majority of the site, which requires a Conditional Use Permit for multi-family residential uses. The area is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and the residential neighborhoods to the east; the proposed development is consistent with the existing uses currently found on the site and in the vicinity while also being consistent with the intent of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan for this area. The required parking is met on-site and the open space provided for the units is located on the roof top and in courtyards that are focused toward the Myrtle Road side of the property to reduce impacts on other residential properties in the vicinity. The aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the proposed project is compatible with other properties in the general vicinity. Half of the existing trees on- site will be retained and protected during construction and among the courtyards there will be 30 trees that will be planted with a mixture of Maple, Crape Myrtle, Prunus, Arbutus, and Zelkova, that exceeds the reforestation requirements set forth in the code. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings for accepting the environmental document (Mitigated Negative Declaration), Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Please note that the conditions below include mitigation measures taken from the IS/MND (shown in italics). If the Commission determines that these conditions do not adequately address any potential significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for this project. The mitigations will be placed on the building permit as well as recorded with the property and constitute the mitigation monitoring plan for this project. New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 14 At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 12, 2018, sheets 01 through 30, sheets C1 through C11 and sheets L1 through L5; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $293,962.25, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 5. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection, the applicant shall pay the second half of the public facilities impact fee in the amount of $293,962.25, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 6. that the project shall include thirteen (13) affordable units for a 30-year term; the applicant shall enter into an agreement for the administration of the renting or leasing of the affordable units at least 120 days before the final inspection; 7. that the required affordable dwelling units shall be constructed concurrently with market-rate units; 8. that the thirteen (13) moderate income restricted affordable units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated income group for a minimum period of thirty (30) years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program); 9. that the thirteen (13) restricted affordable units shall be built on-site and be dispersed within the development. The number of bedrooms of the restricted affordable units shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix and average sizes of the non-restricted units in the development; except that the applicant may include a higher proportion of restricted affordable units with more bedrooms. The design and construction of the affordable dwelling units shall be consistent with the design, unit layout, and construction of the total project development in terms of appearance, exterior construction materials, and unit layout; 10. that following the appeal period the applicant shall enter into a regulatory agreement with the City; the terms of this agreement shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney’s Office, and reviewed and revised as appropriate by the reviewing City official; this agreement will be a form provided by the City, and will include the following terms: (a) The affordability of very low, lower, and moderate income housing shall be assured in a manner consistent with Government Code Section 65915(c)(1); (b) An equity sharing agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(c)(2); New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 15 (c) The location, dwelling unit sizes, rental cost, and number of bedrooms of the affordable units; (d) A description of any bonuses and incentives, if any, provided by the City; and (e) Any other terms as required to ensure implementation and compliance with this section, and the applicable sections of the density bonus law; 11. that the above noted regulatory agreement regarding the thirteen (13) restricted affordable units shall be binding on all future owners and successors in interest; the agreement required by this Zoning Code Section 25.63.0820 is hereby a condition of all development approvals and shall be fully executed and recorded prior to the issuance of any building or construction permit for the proposed project; 12. that the conditions of the Building Division's September 19, 2017, June 29, 2017, April 7, 2017 and February 1, 2017 memos; the Parks Division’s November 1, 2017, June 28, 2017 May 23, 2017, April 17, 2017 and February 13, 2017 memos; the Engineering Division’s May 24, 2017, April 7, 2017 and March 2, 2017 memos; the Fire Department’s October 19, 2017, July 16, 2017 and February 9, 2017 memos, and the Stormwater Division’s May 23, 2017, April 20, 2017 and February 9, 2017 memos shall be met; 13. that the project shall be constructed in accordance with the April 26, 2018 “Request for Alternate Materials or Methods of Construction” agreement between Fore Property Company and Central County Fire Department which requires the following: a) the project to have a sprinkler system installed under the NFPA 13 to include attic protection; b) all stairwells shall be positively pressured and shall extend to the roof through enclosures; c) standpipe outlets shall be provided at the intermediate landings of all stairwells, including outlets on the roof; 14. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 15. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 16. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to October 1 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 17. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 18. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 19. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 16 20. that this proposal shall comply with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 21. that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City’s noise requirement; 22. that prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division a sanitary sewer analysis that assesses the impact of this project to determine if the additional sewage flows can be accommodated by the existing sewer line. If the analysis results in a determination that the existing sewer line requires upgrading, the applicant shall perform the necessary upgrades as determined by the Engineering Division; 23. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit shall be required from the City of Burlingame Parks Division to remove any existing protected size trees on the subject property and that the project shall comply with the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 24. that the applicant shall coordinate with the City of Burlingame Parks Division regarding the planting of at least two (2) new Ginkgo Boloba trees along Bayswater Avenue and fourteen (14) new Crimson Spire Oak street trees along Myrtle Road; 25. that eight (8) of the existing sixteen (16) trees shall remain on site, as shown on the plans date stamped July 12, 2018, sheet L3, shall not be removed or damaged, and the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared which documents how each tree on the site should be protected during construction; this report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the contractor shall call for the Arborist to inspect the protection measures installed before a building permit shall be issued; 26. that if any existing tree on the site dies within five years of the final inspection of the project, it shall be replaced with a new, 36-inch box tree with a species determined to be appropriate by the City Arborist; new trees shall be replaced in the same location unless it is determined by the City Arborist that the location should be adjusted based on the site conditions; 27. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 28. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 29. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 17 30. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 31. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 32. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 33. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 34. that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation (30.2’) of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the Building Division; 35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 36. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 37. that the maximum elevation to the top roof shall not exceed elevation 68.7' and 74.9’, respectively, as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Bayswater Avenue (29.47') for a maximum height not to exceed 46’" to the top of the parapet; the garage lower finished floor elevation shall be elevation 9.2', garage upper finished floor elevation shall be 19.2’; the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed by a licensed surveyor who shall provide certification of that height to the Building Division; Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; Mitigation Measures from Initial Study Aesthetics 38. the project developer shall install low-profile, low-intensity lighting directed downward to minimize light and glare. Exterior lighting shall be low mounted, downward casting, and shielded. In general, the light footprint shall not extend beyond the periphery the property. Implementation of exterior lighting fixtures on all buildings shall also comply with the standard California Building Code (Title 24, Building Energy Efficiency Standards) to reduce the lateral spreading of light to surrounding uses, consistent with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 that requires that all new exterior lighting for residential developments be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the light element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or wall. In addition, lighting fixtures would not be located more than nine feet above adjacent grade or required landing; walls or portions of walls would not be floodlit; and only shielded light fixtures which focus light downward would be used, except for illuminated street numbers required by the fire department; New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 18 Biological Resources 39. If construction activities commence during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting near the site (typically February 1 through August 31 in the project region), a pre- construction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within two weeks prior to the commencement of construction activities. If active nests are found in areas that could be directly affected by construction and would be subject to prolonged construction-related noise, a no-disturbance buffer zone shall be created around active nests during the breeding season or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged. The avoidance buffer size shall be 300 feet for raptor species and 150 feet for all other bird species. The size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted within buffers will be determined by a qualified biologist by taking into account factors such as the following: • Noise and human disturbance levels at the construction site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; • Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the construction site and the nest; and • Sensitivity of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds; Cultural Resources 40. in the event Native American or other archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work shall be halted within 100 feet of the discovered materials and workers shall avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. If an archaeological site is encountered in any stage of development, a qualified archeologist will be consulted to determine whether the resource qualifies as an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource. In the event that it does qualify, the archaeologist will prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan to be implemented prior to or during site construction. The archaeologist shall also prepare a written report of the finding, file it with the appropriate agency, and arrange for curation of recovered materials; 41. a discovery of a paleontological specimen during any phase of the project shall result in a work stoppage in the vicinity of the find until it can be evaluated by a professional paleontologist. Should loss or damage be detected, additional protective measures or further action (e.g., resource removal), as determined by a professional paleontologist, shall be implemented to mitigate the impact; 42. in the event that human remains are discovered during project construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains. The county coroner shall be informed to evaluate the nature of the remains. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Lead Agency shall work with the Native American Heritage Commission and the applicant to develop an agreement for treating or disposing of the human remains; Geology and Soils 43. project design and construction shall adhere to Title 18, Chapter 18.28 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, and demonstrate compliance with all design standards applicable to the California Building Code Zone 4 would ensure maximum practicable protection available to users of the buildings and associated infrastructure; 44. project design and construction, including excavation activities, shall comply with Chapter 33 of the CBC, which specifies the safety requirement to be fulfilled for site work. This would include prevention of subsidence and pavement or foundations caused by dewatering; New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 19 45. the applicant shall prepare a monitoring program to determine the effects of construction on nearby improvements, including the monitoring of cracking and vertical movement of adjacent structures, and nearby streets, sidewalks, utilities, and other improvements. As necessary, inclinometers or other instrumentation shall be installed as part of the shoring system to closely monitor lateral movement. The program shall include a pre-construction survey including photographs and installation of monitoring points for existing site improvements; Hazards and Hazardous Materials 46. the contractor shall comply with Title 8, California Code of Regulations/Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements that cover construction work where an employee may be exposed to lead. This includes the proper removal and disposal of peeling paint, and appropriate sampling of painted building surfaces for lead prior to disturbance of the paint and disposal of the paint or painted materials; 47. the applicant shall contract a Certified Asbestos Consultant to conduct an asbestos survey prior to disturbing potential asbestos containing building materials and following the Consultant’s recommendations for proper handling and disposal; 48. the applicant shall prepare, and submit, a Soils Management Plan (SMP)/Environmental Management Plan to the San Mateo County Health Department for approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The SMP/Environmental Management Plan shall address the possibility of encountering subsurface contaminants, including groundwater, during construction activities, and the relevant measures for identifying, handling, and disposing of subsurface contaminants. The SMP/Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted and approved by the San Mateo County Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit; 49. the contractor shall ensure the appropriate handling, storing, and sampling of any soil to be removed from the subject property, as per the SMP, so as to eliminate potential health and safety risks to the public, including construction workers; 50. in the event that groundwater, or other subsurface contaminants, are encountered during excavation, grading, or any other demolition/construction activities at the project site, the contractor shall ensure that the procedure for evaluating, handling, storing, testing, and disposing of contaminated groundwater is implemented, as per the SMP (see Mitigation Measure HAZ-3); 51. workers handling demolition and renovation activities at the project site will be trained in the safe handling and disposal of any containments with which they are handling or disposing of on the project site; Noise 52. outdoor mechanical equipment shall be located, hooded, and/or shielded in a manner that limits exposure to adjacent residences prior to building occupancy. Typically, the shielding of HVAC units reduces noise levels to no greater than 55 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the source; 53. Construction-Related Noise Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project.  Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 20 equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.  Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from adjacent multi- family residential development as feasible.  Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.  Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity.  Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in reverse.  Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.  Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. During the demolition, site preparation, grading, and building phases of construction, temporary sound barriers rated to Sound Transmission Class 20 or higher shall be installed and maintained facing the north and northwestern boundaries of the project site. Temporary sound barriers shall block line of sight between noise-generating construction equipment and adjacent residential windows and shall be placed as close to the source equipment as feasible; Utilities and Service Systems 54. the project sponsor shall coordinate with the City Engineer to improve the public sanitary sewer infrastructure. Prior to issuance of a building permit, project sponsors shall develop a plan to facilitate sanitary sewer improvements. The plan shall include a schedule for implementing sanitary sewer upgrades that would occur within the development site and/or contribution of a fair share fee toward those improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The plan shall be reviewed by the City Engineer; and 55. prior to issuance of a building permit, development plans for projects proposed in the Plan Area, shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal to determine if fire flow requirements would be met given the requirements of the proposed project, and the size of the existing water main(s). If the Fire Marshal determines improvements are needed for fire protection services, the project sponsor shall be required to provide a plan to supply adequate water supply for fire suppression to the project site, consistent with the Fire Marshal’s requirements. The plan shall be reviewed by the Fire Marshal. The project sponsor shall be responsible for implementation of the plan including installation of new water mains, and/or incorporation of fire water storage tanks and booster pumps into the building design, or other measures as determined by the Fire Marshal. Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue 21 c. Fore Property Company – Mark Pilarczyk, applicant Attachments: Proposed Resolutions (CEQA / Entitlements) PC Meeting Minutes & Applicant’s Responses o November 13, 2017 (2nd) Design Review Study – Planning Commission Minutes o Applicant’s Progress Letter- Summary of Changes to the Proposed Project, dated July 12, 2018 o July 10, 2017 Design Review Study and Environmental Scoping – Planning Commission Minutes o Applicant’s Progress Letter – Summary of Revised Project (Changes), dated November 8, 2017 Application Materials o Application to the Planning Commission o Letter of Authorization from Property Owners o Applicant’s Project Description, dated January 30, 2017 o Conditional Use Permit Application-Multifamily Residential o Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach and Project Revisions letter, dated June 20, 2017 Neighborhood Letters- Various (Including those received at 7/10/17 Study Mtgs on previous design & 11/13/17 Second Study Mtg) o CEQA Comments CEQA (Environmental Review) o Proposed Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously provided to Planning Commission; available at 920 Bayswater Ave Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration) o Final Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation o Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program o Response to Comments Memorandum Staff Comments o Central County Fire Department- Alternate Material and Methods of Construction Approval Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Aerial Photo 2251 West 190th Street Torrance, CA 90504 t. 310. 217. 8885 www.witheemalcolm.com JOB NO. 20166168 DATE: 07/10/2018 WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 20 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, #300 Los Gatos, CA 95030 FORE PROPERTY COMPANY 408/467-9100 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 1730 N. FIRST STREET SUITE 600 408/467-9199 (FAX) LEGEND ABBREVIATIONS BENCHMARK 920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA COURTYARD ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN JULY 2018JULY 2018 0 5 10 20 SCALE: 1”=10’-0” CRIMSON SPIRE OAK W/IN CITY R.O.W. POTS ALONG ENTRY CONCRETE PAVERS ON PODIUM PREFAB PLANTER W/ SEATING PREFAB PLANTER W/ SEATING RAISED CONCRETE PLANTER LOW, WALKABLE PLANTING FOR FIRE ACCESS WATER FEATURE FIRE FEATURE LOUNGE SEATING MOVEABLE FURNITURE IN FIRE LADDER ZONE FIRE LADDER CLEAR AREA, TYP. FIRE LADDER CLEAR AREA, TYP. BBQ/ FOOD PREP AREA RAISED CONCRETE PLANTER DOG RUN W/ SYNTHETIC TURF & FENCING BAYSWATER AVE FRONT SETBACK SQ FT 2120 SQ FT 1800 SQ FT 85% FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE SQ FT % SQ FT LANDSCAPE MYRTLE RD. FRONT SETBACK SQ FT 3,640 SQ FT 2,195 SQ FT 60% FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE SQ FT % SQ FT LANDSCAPE SHADE STRUCTURE W/ DINING TABLE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN LOUNGE SEATING ENTRY GATE W/ TRELLIS FIREPIT W/ LOUNGE SEATING EXISTING REDWOOD TREE FIRE LADDER TURN RADIUS GINKGO BILOBA TREE @ STREET ALONG BAYSWATER TO MEET THEMED BLOCK REQUIREMENT EUONYMUS OR PITTOSPORUM SCREEN AROUND TRANSFORMERBAYSWATER AVEMYRTL E R D. MYRTL E R D. L1 920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA ROOF DECK ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN JULY 2018JULY 2018 0 5 10 20 ACCENT TREE TRASH & RECYCLING RECEPTACLES PEDESTAL PAVING/ DECKING SYSTEM DINING TABLE & CHAIRS W/ SHADE STRUCTURE BBQ/ FOOD PREP AREA SCALE: 1”=10’-0” ACCESS GATE BENCH SEATING AREA DINING TABLES RAISED PLANTER, TYP. SHADE STRUCTURE W/ LIGHTING AND LOUNGE SEATING FIREPLACE W/ TV DIVIDER WALL W/ TV FIRE PIT W/ SEATING RAILING ENCLOSURE BAYSWATER AVEMYRTL E R D. L2 920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA EXISTING TREE PLAN JULY 2018JULY 2018 0 5 10 20 SCALE: 1”=10’-0” 1 Schinus terebinthifolia Obstructs new architecture Obstructs new architecture Obstructs new architecture Obstructs new architecture Obstructs new architecture Obstructs Varchitecture Per City Arborist Request Keep, requires maintenance Per City Arborist Request Keep, requires maintenance Keep, requires maintenance Keep, requires maintenance Keep, requires maintenance Keep, requires maintenance Keep, requires maintenance Keep, requires maintenance 48”Keep Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Remove Keep Remove Remove Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep Keep TREE # TREE #SPECIES DBH KEEP OR REMOVE COMMENTS 2 Pyrus calleryana 5” 3 Maytenus boaria 6” 4 Juglans regia 9” 5 Sequoia sempervirens Sequoia sempervirens Sequoia sempervirens Sequoia sempervirens Betula pendula Betula pendula Betula pendula Betula pendula Ficus microcarpa 38” 6 Quercus agrifolia 28” 7 Schinus terebinthifolia 20” 8 Ligustrum lucidum 20” 9 10” SPECIES DBH KEEP OR REMOVE COMMENTS 10 6” 11 6” 12 6” 13 8” 14 24” 15 18” 16 22” X 8 1 x2 x3 x6 x4 x5 x7 x10 MYRTL E R D. 9 14 15 16 11 12 13 L3L3 JULY 2018920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA PLANT PALETTE PLANTERS TREES SHRUBS/ GRASSES SCULPTURAL PLANTS GROUNDCOVER JULY 2018L4 JULY 2018 SEATING SHADE/ TRELLIS WATER FEATURE RAISED PLANTER WALLSFIRE FEATURE AMENITIES PAVING 920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA JULY 2018 CHARACTER IMAGES JULY 2018L5 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 300 Airport Boulevard APN: 026-350-130 APPLICANT/ARCHITECT/DESIGNER: Genzon Investment Group (Applicant), Gensler (Architect) PROPERTY OWNER: Burlingame Point LLC GENERAL PLAN/ZONING: Commercial Uses: Office Use; Bayfront Specific Plan Anza Point Area; Anza Point North (APN) Zoning LOT AREA: 18.13 AC PROJECT DESCRIPTION Burlingame Point is a proposed office/life science campus consisting of four office buildings and an amenities building with a total of 767,000 square feet of floor area on an 18.13 acre site located at 300 Airport Boulevard. The application was approved by the City Council on June 18, 2012. The project consists of two 5-story buildings, one 7-story building, one 8-story building and a 2-story amenities building. Parking will be provided in a five-story parking structure, in a podium level parking area below the four office buildings, and in smaller parking lots scattered throughout the site. Airport Boulevard will be realigned through the project site. The project also includes public access improvements along the San Francisco Bay frontage and along Sanchez Channel. The site is currently vacant, and formerly contained the Burlingame Drive-In Theater, which was demolished about fifteen years ago. On August 22, 2016 the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Design Review Amendment application and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum to allow design refinements to the previously approved project. The revisions to the design included adjustments to building locations and footprints, changes to building forms and architectural treatments, and refinements to the configuration of amenities and open spaces. On November 27, 2017 the Planning Commission approved a Design Review Amendment to allow removal of the private rooftop terraces on two of the four office buildings to provide additional space for rooftop mechanical equipment. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The applicant is seeking approval of amendments of the Conditions of Approval to accommodate anticipated specifications of a single tenant for the project. Please refer to the letter from the applicant, dated August 2, 2018 (attached). Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 2 There would be no significant changes to the physical design of the buildings. The amendments are particular to the use and allocation of the food service and retail uses, and to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) provisions, in both instances to better match the operational characteristics of a single-tenant user. Although the amendments do not involve the design of the project, technically the amendment would be a Commercial Design Review Amendment because the conditions of approval are situated within the Commercial Design Review permit. The amendments to the conditions of approval would not preclude occupation by multiple tenants, either at completion of the project or in the future. While the amendments are intended to address the anticipated operational characteristics of a single-tenant user, the existing provisions for a multiple-tenant scenario would continue to remain in the conditions of approval for that circumstance. Requested Modification to Condition #6: The applicant requests provisions be added to Condition #6 to accommodate the anticipated food and services characteristics of a single-tenant scenario. Please refer to the letter from the applicant, dated August 2, 2018 (attached) for a discussion of the request. Condition #6 currently reads as follows: that the project shall include approximately 6,655 square feet of retail use and 19,750 square feet of food service use that may be located in buildings B1, B2 and the amenities building, and Developer shall use its best commercial efforts to lease this space for retail or food service, including recreation-related uses such as bike rentals, and interactive educational space, as the case may be, for two years following issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for each building. Thereafter, any change to the use of the space designated for retail, recreation-related or food service use shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission using the process set out in Municipal Code Sections 25.16.040 through 25.16.085, using the conditional use permit findings as the standard of review; Should the Planning Commission be agreeable to the applicant’s request for provisions to accommodate a single-tenant scenario, the existing text would remain and text to the effect of the following could be added to the condition: Notwithstanding the above requirements, which are applicable in the event the project is occupied by multiple tenants, if the entire project is leased to a single tenant, then that tenant shall provide a minimum of approximately 26,400 square feet of food service uses, and other convenience goods and services, to its employees and invited guests which may be located in buildings B1, B2, or the amenities building. In addition to this space, the project shall use its best commercial efforts to provide a minimum of 1,600 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 3 square feet of space in buildings B1 or B2 (facing the shoreline) for public-serving amenities, which may include food/beverage service and other retail services to serve recreational users of the Bay Trail and members of the public. Such public amenities are encouraged to be provided and open for business on days and times when substantial use along the shoreline is anticipated, including weekends and holidays, and are required to provide restrooms accessible to the public. If after two years of operation the tenant has evidence that the demand for the public amenities is so limited as to justify discontinuing such services, it may request a change of use. Any significant change of use of the public amenity space or request to discontinue services shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. As noted in the applicant letter, and in the suggested wording for the condition of approval above, in a single-tenant scenario the applicant is proposing a minimum of 800 square feet of space in each of buildings B1 and B2 (facing the shoreline) for public-serving amenities (for a total of 1,600 square feet), which may include food/beverage service and other retail services to serve recreational users of the Bay Trail and members of the public. For reference, 800 square feet is comparable to the “ready-to-eat food shop” category in the Burlingame Zoning Code (Code Section 25.08.550-1). Examples of establishments classified as ready-to-eat food shops include Jougert Bar at 1115 Burlingame Avenue (951 square feet), and the recently approved Tuna Kahuna at 1117 Burlingame Avenue (810 square feet). While the applicant has proposed two 800 square foot spaces in separate buildings, the suggested wording of the condition is broader in that it would not preclude a single, larger 1,600 square foot space. For reference, a 1,600 square foot space would be slightly larger that Peet’s Coffee & Tea at 1241 Burlingame Avenue (1,205 square feet) or Phliz Coffee at 305 Primrose Road (1,375 square feet). Requested Modification to Condition #21: The applicant requests modifications to Condition #21 to allow greater flexibility in the selection of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) components, provided overall trip-reduction performance meets or exceeds those specified in the original approval. Given the evolving nature of TDM since the original program for the project was approved in 2011 and into the future, an amendment could be beneficial for either a single- or multiple-tenant scenario provided the originally intended trip-reduction targets are met (or exceeded). Condition #21 currently reads as follows: that the property owner shall comply with the Transportation Demand Management Program prepared by Fehr and Peers for 350 Beach Road, LLC dated April 6, 2011 including the following measures: Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 4 a. Secure Bicycle Storage: Secure, indoor bicycle storage for at least 26 bicycles shall be provided in a lobby or garage level room within each of the four office buildings. In addition, bicycle racks for up to 50 bicycles will be located outside of Buildings #1 or #4. b. Showers and Changing Rooms: Shower facilities with changing rooms shall be provided throughout the site, with access available to all employees. Shower facilities (two men's and two women's) and changing rooms (one men's and one women's) shall be provided in each of the four office buildings, the amenities center shall include 12 showers and two changing rooms. c. Shuttle Service: Coordinate with the Peninsula Commuter Alliance to add two stops within the project site to the existing commuter shuttle from the Millbrae Intermodal Station. The shuttle provides 10-minute headways during peak periods. d. Carpool Parking: Provide 15 preferential parking spaces for carpools at each of the four office buildings. e. Vanpool Parking: Provide two preferential parking spaces for vanpools at each of the four office buildings. f. Commute Assistance Center: 1) Provide an on-site one-stop shopping for transit and commute alternatives information. 2) Provide a part-time on-site TDM coordinator available to assist building tenants with trip planning. g. Employees' Surveys: The TDM coordinator shall develop and administer two surveys per year to examine TDM program participation and best practices. h. Video Conferencing Center: One video conferencing center of approximately 8500 sf shall be installed for use by the tenants of the facility. i. On-Site Amenities/Accommodations: On-site amenities, including banking, retail, delivery dry cleaning, exercise facilities, child care center, delivery pharmacy and food service shall be provided at the project site to encourage people to stay on site during the work day; j. On-Site Bicycles for Employee Use• Bicycles shall be provided at each office building. Employees will have access to bicycles during breaks for personal or business use. k. Child Care Services: Child care center service shall be provided on site; l. Guaranteed Ride Home Program: Employees will have access to the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program administered by the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) for emergencies. The program provides v ouchers for taxicabs or rental cars for this purpose. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 5 m. Transportation Action Plan: The TDM coordinator shall work with the Alliance to create a Transportation Action Plan for each tenant. n. Transportation Management Association: If the office park has multiple tenants, each tenant shall provide a representative to form a Transportation Management Association and be a liaison to the TDM Coordinator. o. Coordination of Transportation Demand Management Programs: The TDM coordinator shall coordinate with other TDM programs with existing developments/employers in the surrounding area. p. Subsidy for Transit Tickets: Employers shall offer subsidies to employees to compensate them for the cost of transit tickets. q. Electric Vehicle Stations: The applicant shall provide plug-in stations for electric vehicles. r. House Car for Employee Use: Each building will provide employees with access to a "house car" for use during the day. Should the Planning Commission be agreeable to the applicant’s request for provisions to allow flexibility in the specific elements of the TDM program, the list of the various elements would remain but the first paragraph of the condition could be replaced with text to the effect of the following: that the Property Owner, in the event the Property is leased to multiple tenants, or the tenant in the event that the entire Property is leased to a sole tenant, shall implement a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director in order to achieve the same or greater peak hour trip reductions as the TDM Program prepared by Fehr and Peers for 350 Beach Road, LLC dated April 5, 2011. Such TDM Program may include measures such as: Commercial Design Review: Although the amendments do not involve the design of the project, technically the amendment would be a Commercial Design Review Amendment because the conditions of approval are situated within the Commercial Design Review permit. Design Review Criteria: For reference, criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 6 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations to existing structures are exempt from environmental review. In this instance, the approved project is considered an existing structure for purposes of CEQA. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the initial approval in 2012, and an EIR Addendum was prepared for the Design Review Amendment approved in 2016. The proposed amendments to the Conditions of Approval would be consistent with the analyses contained in the EIR and EIR Addendum. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings for accepting the Amendment to the Conditions of Approval contained in the Commercial Design Review Permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The proposed Conditions of Approval are unchanged from those approved by the Planning Commission on November 27, 2017 except for an amendment to Condition of Approval #6 to address the allocation of the food service and convenience uses, and to Condition of Approval #21 to address Transportation Demand Management (TDM) provisions (edits shown in tracked changes). At the public hearing the following mitigation measures and conditions should be considered: Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 7 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped July 29, 2016, Sheets: COVER SHEET; 1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION; 2 SITE PLAN; 3 B1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN; 4 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS - EAST CAMPUS; 5 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS - WEST CAMPUS; 6 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 01; 7 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 01; 8 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 01; 9 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 02; 10 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 02; 11 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 02; 12 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 13 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 14 L5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 15 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 16 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 17 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 18 L5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 19 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 20 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 01; 21 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 01; 22 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 02; 23 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 02; 24 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 25 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 26 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 27 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 28 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 29 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 30 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 31 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 32 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 01 & 02; 33 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 03; 34 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 03; 35 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 04; 36 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 04; 37 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN – GARAGE; 38 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 05 GARAGE; 39 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 05 GARAGE; 40 BUILDING SECTION – GARAGE; 41 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - AMENITY BUILDING; 42 L2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - AMENITY BUILDING; 43 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - AMENITY BUILDING; 44 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - AMENITY BUILDING; 45 OVERALL GRADING PLAN; 46 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN; with amendments to Buildings 3 and 4 as indicated on plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 5, 2017. 2. that prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with the following FYIs: a. a complete landscape plan indicating size, species, quantities and locations of all plantings; and b. analysis of compliance with Complete Streets provisions; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that the project shall include installation and maintenance of the Bay Trail and Sanchez Channel improvements as shown in the submitted plans and shall obtain approval from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for the work within BCDC jurisdiction; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 8 6. that the project shall include approximately 6,655 square feet of retail use and 19,750 square feet of food service use that may be located in buildings B1, B2 and or the amenities building, and Developer shall use its best commercial efforts to lease this space for retail or food service, including recreation - related uses such as bike rentals, and interactive educational space, as the case may be, for two years following issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for each building. Thereafter, any change to the use of the space designated for retail, recreation-related or food service use shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission using the process set out in Municipal Code Sections 25.16.040 through 25.16.085, using the conditional use permit findings as the standard of review. Notwithstanding the above requirements, which are applicable in the event the project is occupied by multiple tenants, if the entire project is leased to a single tenant, then that tenant shall provide a minimum of approximately 26,400 square feet of food service uses, and other convenience goods and services, to its employees and invited guests which may be located in buildings B1, B2, or the amenities building. In addition to this space, the project shall use its best commercial efforts to provide a minimum of 1600 square feet of space in buildings B1 or B2 (facing the shoreline) for public-serving amenities, which may include food/beverage service and other retail services to serve recreational users of the Bay Trail and members of the public. Such public amenities are encouraged to be provided and open for business on days and times when substantial use along the shoreline is anticipated, including weekends and holidays, and are required to provide restrooms accessible to the public. If after two years of operation the tenant has evidence that the demand for the public amenities is so limited as to justify discontinuing such services, it may request a change of use. Any significant change of use of the public amenity space or request to discontinue services shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 7. that the following items agreed to by the applicant shall be included as a part of the project: a. Drinking fountains shall be provided as a part of the Bay Trail improvements, and shall include ground-level spouts for dogs. b. The educational nodes provided within the Bay Trail improvements shall include interactive features such as binocular/telescope stands and pictographic educational elements regarding local flora, fauna, marine and wind phenomena. c. The Sanchez Channel open space shall include an area for active use (e.g. frisbee or catch); 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 7, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. an application for a building permit for this project received after December 31, 2013 must comply with the 2013 California Building Codes and adopted City of Burlingame Ordinances unless specific land use provisions for the project were approved by the City of Burlingame prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013. If the Planning Commission has approved the project then the building permit application for that project may use the provisions found in the 2010 California Building Codes including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856 2010. This project must comply with the City of Burlingame Green Building Ordinance in effect at the time of building permit applications. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 9 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Codes (CBC) which will be employed by the City of Burlingame beginning January 1, 2011. 2) Comply with the City of Burlingame Green Building Ordinance in effect at the time of Planning Commission approval for this project. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 5) Indicate on the plans that ail work shall be conducted within the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance. See City of Burlingame Ordinance Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details. 6) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards or standards in effect at the time of building permit application. Note: All projects for which a building permit application is received on or after January 1, 2010 must comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://wvvw.enerov.ca.qov/fitle24/2008standards/ for publications and details. 7) Indicate on the plans that all roofing systems will comply with Cool Roof requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (f) 12. The 2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line at http://www.enerciy.camovititle24/2008standardst. 8) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines. 9) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 10) Obtain a survey of the property lines. 11) Indicate on the plans that, at the time of Building Permit application, plans and engineering will be submitted for shoring as required by 2010 CRC, or applicable Building Code, regarding the protection of adjacent property and as required by OSHA. On the plans, indicate that the following will be addressed: a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction activity. This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competent contractor shall be consulted for recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the excavation. The recommended design type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to usage. b. All appropriate guidelines of OSHA shall be incorporated into the shoring design by the contractor. Where space permits, temporary construction slopes may be utilized in lieu of shoring. Maximum allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5) feet. Beyond that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required. Temporary shores shall not exceed 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). In Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 10 some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter slopes will be required which will be recommended by the soils engineer in the field. c. If shoring is required, specify on the plans whose sole responsibility it is to design and provide adequate shoring, bracing, formwork, etc. as required for the protection of life and property during construction of the building. d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and wall sheathing have been entirely constructed. e. Shoring plans shall be wet-stamped and signed by the engineer-of-record and submitted to the city for review prior to construction. If applicable, incl ude surcharge loads from adjacent structures that are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up the slope from the base of the retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge loads. 12) Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained for the shor ing* at the excavation in the basement per CAL / OSHA requirements. See the Cal / OSHA handbook at: http://www.ca-osha.com/pdfpubs/osha userquide.pdf. *Construction Safety Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6 , Section 1541.1. 13) Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 14) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 15) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 16) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 17) Prior to applying for a Building Permit the applicant must obtain an address for each structure on the site, acceptable to the Fire Marshal, from the Engineering Department. Note: The correct address must be referenced on all pages of the plans. 18) On your plans provide a table that includes the following: a. Occupancy group for each area of the building b. Type of construction c. Allowable area d. Proposed area e. Allowable height f. Proposed height g. Proposed fire separation distances h. Exterior wall and opening protection i. Allowable Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 11 ii. Proposed i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered 19) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2010 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 4-1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A - Occupant Load Factor. 20) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2010 CBC for commercial buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. A level landing must be provided on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. c. Accessible countertops d. Accessible bathrooms e. Accessible parking 21) Per CEO 3003.5, all structures four or more stories in height must have at least one elevator that can accommodate a stretcher. See the referenced code section for dimensions (80" x 54") and other details. 22) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 23) In Assembly occupancies specify aisle widths that comply with Section 1025.9. 24) Specify the total number of parking spaces on site 25) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003 — 2004 Montanez) as follows: a. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings. b. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. 26) Include with your Building Division plan check submittal a complete underground fire sprinkler plan. Contact the Burlingame Water Division at 650-558-7660 for details regarding the water system or Central County Fire for sprinkler details. 27) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit. 9. that the conditions of the NPDES Coordinators February 8, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 12 a. The project will need to comply with additional and new Low Impact Development (LID) requirements under the Municipal Regional Permit, C.3 Provisions, which became effective on December 11, 2011. For details and technical guidance on these C.3 requirements visit the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) at http://www/flowstobay.orianas new development.php. b. The following C.3 forms/worksheets have been updated and project proponents will need to use and submit these forms as part of the final construction documents and associated building permits: 1) NPDES Permit Impervious Surface Data Collection Worksheet* 2) C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist*. *both forms are available for download at http://www/flowstobay.orcebs new development.php. c. When submitting plans for a building permit include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) as project notes and include them as a separate full size plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or larger. Project proponents may use the attached Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) plan sheet to comply with this requirement. Electronic file is available for down load at http://www/flowstobay.orq/bs construction.php (scroll about half -way down the page and click on Construction BMP Plan Sheet). 10. that the conditions of the Parks Supervisor's February 6, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. Submit a Landscape Project Application to the Parks Division in compliance with the Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. b. New trees in the Airport Boulevard islands shall be Platanus acerfolia 'Columbia'. 11. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. All buildings shall be equipped with fire alarms, fire sprinklers and standpipes where required by the California Fire Code and the Burlingame Municipal Code. b. Fire Flow and Fire Hydrants shall conform to Appendix B and C of the International Fire Code 2006 Edition. c. Fire apparatus access shall be provided for all buildings in accordance with §503 of the International Fire Code. d. Fire Control Room as required by the California Building Code shall be placed to the exterior of the building with exterior access. Rooms shall be positioned facing fir apparatus access. This requirement may negate exterior remote annunciators and key boxes intended to house HMIS/HMMP as required for Burlingame Municipal Code. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 13 e. Please see Burlingame Municipal Code specific to Addressing Requirements and Key Boxes associated with Hazardous Materials. f. The fire department shall request HMIS/HMIP in accordance with the California Fire Code. All inventory lists shall at minimum indicate the hazardous material class and quantities consistent with Table 2703.1.1(1), Title 24 CFC classes and units (i.e.: pounds, gallons, cubic feet at NTP, etc.). g. Space shall be provided wi thin each Highrise for installation of a repeater/receiver antenna and supporting equipment for City Communications. An electrical supply source shall be provided at the antenna/equipment location. Reasonable access shall be provided to City staff contractors for installation of necessary telephone lines and for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment and repair of the antenna/equipment. 12. that the conditions of the Public Works Department, Engineering Division's May 8, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. With City approval, the Developer proposes to construct a new, realigned Airport Boulevard through the Project and to construct Bay Trail and Bay frontage improvements in the City's right-of-way easement of the ori ginal Airport Boulevard. Developer understands that the underlying fee of the original Airport Boulevard ROW, from the existing Sanchez Chanel Bridge East to Fisherman's Park and South from Fisherman's Park to Beach Road, is owned by the State of California, State Lands Commission and that the City only holds a ROW easement over same. Developer shall give the State Lands Commission written notice of its development plans and specifically, notice of the proposed improvements to be constructed in the ROW of the original Airport Boulevard alignment, within ten (10) days of the Planning Commission's recommendation of the Project to the City Council. At any time, should State Lands have any concerns over said improvements, object to any aspect of the proposed improvements or initiate any type of administrative or judicial action in regard to these proposed improvements, Developer shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all fees (including attorneys' fees), damages, fines or any other costs of any kind related to such objections, claims or actions. Additionally, the Developer shall obtain letters of no objection to the proposed realignment of Airport Boulevard from all utility companies. The Project Develop er shall relocate all existing utilities from within the existing Airport Boulevard roadway to the proposed realigned Airport Boulevard roadway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and affected utility companies. b. The developer shall prepare necessary engineering drawings and construction documents to construct the Sanchez Channel Bridge widening as identified in the existing BCDC permit to provide the necessary width for pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular access along Airport Boulevard. The developer shall complete construction of these improvements at his/her expense These drawings shall be approved by the City Engineer as part of the Building Permit process. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 14 c. The developer shall be responsible to meet all San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements for the project and provide the City with documentation of all approvals by BCDC for all work within 100 feet of the shoreline band along the San Francisco Bay and Sanchez drainage channel. d. The developer shall enter into a Site Maintenance Agreement with the City for maintenance of all landscape, sidewalk, medians, and stormwater improvements as well as roadway improvements that do not conform to city standards, such as the proposed roadway intersections. The Site Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of the Building permit. e. All traffic improvements, including but not limited to traffic signals, pedestrian countdown signals, pedestrian audible signals, signal interconnection hardware, street lights, sign age, street markings, etc., shall be approved by the City Engineer and installed at the property owner's expense. The proposed streetlights must conform to current standards which require Beta LED's or equivalent. The developer shall submit and obtain appr oval of the required engineering drawings and specifications for all public improvements as part of the building permit process. f. The project shall reimburse to the City the operation, maintenance and energy costs of the proposed traffic signals. The City will maintain the newly proposed traffic signal operations. The operation cost of the traffic signal will be adjusted annually by the City based on prevailing costs. The electricity costs will be based on direct billing by PG & E. g. The developer shall provid e at his/her expense shoreline access, adequate erosion protection and site amenities to the standards established by the City and BCDC. h. The Bay and drainage channel shorelines located on this property will require stabilization improvements to provide flood protection for the public access trail and bridge. All shoreline and drainage channel slope protection measures, need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. i. The public and facility users shall be safely provided for and protected from the flooding of the site in the event of a disaster. This includes a storm or an earthquake which coincides with a maximum high tide and possible breaching of Sanchez Channel and/or Airport Boulevard levees. The property owner shall employ a qualified engineer to analyze the seismic stability of the Sanchez Channel and Airport Boulevard levees and identify protection against possible earthquake or storm event. The property owner shall submit the structural and seismic stability analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the analysis indicates that improvements are necessary along the project site to provide stability for an event, such improvements shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first building. j. The developer shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design in order to reduce the potential impacts of flooding: 1) Necessary tide gates shall be installed in the storm drain system on the project site to prevent high water from back flowing into the site during flood periods; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 15 2) Adequate drainage and pump facilities, including a sound-baffled backup power supply, shall be provided in the parking area to prevent water ponding in excess of ten (10) inches in the event of a 100-year flood; 3) Storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate any future settlement of the site, levees and other fill along the site perimeter; 4) A flood contingency plan shall be developed to provide guidelines for management of vehicles in the event of flooding of the parking area; and 5) On-site improvements shall be designed to provide 100-year flood protection. All emergency equipment, generators, controls, and motors shall be located above the 100- year flood elevation. k. The developer shall install a six-inch diameter recycled water main with the roadway improvements. This six-inch line shall extend from the existing Sanchez Channel Bridge east to the other end of the new roadway alignment near Beach Road. Initially the line shall be connected to the City water main and serve as the service connection for irrigation. This line and the irrigation system shall convert to a recycled water line once it becomes available. These improvements shall be done at the property owner's cost and shall be completed in concurrence with the roadway improvements. I. The project developer shall implement and maintain an appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures in accordance with the San Mateo County Congestion Plan to reduce the number of trips generated by this pr oject. m. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be submitted by the project developer for review by the City Engineer at the time of applying for a building permit. n. The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution during and after the construction. In addition, the project developer shall provide all documentation relating to compliance with the Regional Municipal Permit from the State of California Water Resources Board. o. It is possible that this project may require approvals and permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant must provide written records of contacting the above agencies demonstrating that a permit has been obtained or is not required. p. All street improvements plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval These improvements include but are not limited to sanitary sewer mains and laterals; water mains and services; storm drain mains and inlets; street structural sections, soils report, etc. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations are required for all designs associated with the new road alignment. The road structural section shall be designed to a traffic index of minimum 12.0 and shall withstand vertical displacement due to natural subsurface settlement. The structural section shall be designed for a 20-year life based on recommendations of a professional geotechnical engineer and accompanying soils report. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 16 q. The project developer shall perform necessary engineering studies to determine the required capacity and improvements to the system to be approved by the City Engineer. At the City's discretion, the sanitary sewer improvements shall be routed along Airport Boulevard to an existing pump station, thence along Airport Boulevard to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The sanitary sewer system improvements shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the fully built-out conditions of the project and adjacent properties. r. The project shall abandon the existing potable water main located within existing alignment of Airport Boulevard from Fisherman's Park to Beach Road. The project shall evaluate the existing condition of the water main. If necessary and at the City's discretion, the project sh all design and construct a new potable water main system along the newly proposed Airport Boulevard from Beach Road to the Sanchez Channel as well as the replace the existing potable water main segment from Sanchez Channel to Fisherman's Park. s. The project shall install purple piping in buildings for future reclaimed water use in building applications. 13. that early demolition, mass excavation, grading, shoring and foundation permits, including permits for installation of indicator/production piles, may be issued in advance of a building permit provided that prior to issuance of such permits, the applicant has submitted construction plans for the project to the Building Division, or has provided evidence that it is having such plans prepared for the project for which the demolition or grading work is intended. Further, building construction permits shall be submitted and received in accordance with the progress of the work which will occur in phases. Permits that may be submitted individually for application may include, but are not limited to, indicator/production piles, mass excavation, shoring, grading, foundations, superstructure, architecture MEP, fire protection, fire alarm, curtain wall, and so forth, subject to the consent of the City’s Building Official and the Fire Marshal. Building Permit phasing and scheduling shall be arranged with the Project Applicant and the Community Development Department – Building Division, such that the work can proceed in an orderly fashion as one continuous phase of construction; 14. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 15. Exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas), the California Energy Commission, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels. Compliance with these performance standards would minimize the dispersion of light in a manner that reduces the glow or aurora effect to acceptable and allowable levels. In addition, the project area already contains numerous sources of exterior lighting, and is not adjacent to uses that would be sensitive to light spillover. 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 17 17. that the overall height of the buildings as measured from the top of curb at Airport Boulevard (+ 14.5' elevation) to the top of the mechanical screens sh all be no taller than the following heights: Buildings B1 and B2, 97.0', Building 83, 129.0', Building B4, 144.0', Parking Structure, 67.5', and Amenities Building, 49.0'; building heights shall be surveyed at the framing of each floor and at the installat ion of the mechanical screen and shall be reported to the Building Division as each floor is framed and accepted by the City Engineer before framing of the subsequent floor or roof commences. The elevator overruns and associated structures shall be permitted to exceed the stated height limits to the degree that such exceedance is necessitated by the Uniform Building Code in order for elevators to serve their intended purpose of providing access by persons to the rooftop terraces on the buildings. The entire building height of each structure shall be surveyed to confirm conformance with the approved plans and conditions of approval before scheduling the final framing inspection. If the building does not conform at any point in the construction process, it sh all be made to conform before construction continues and any further city inspections shall be scheduled (Building Division); 18. that the applicant shall pay the required Bayfront Development Fee based on the square footage of the buildings and the current rate adjusted for inflation, the total fee due is calculated to be $1,695,070.00. Per the development agreement, one-half of the fee is due at the time of issuance of the first City Building Permit for construction of a building, and one -half is due before the final framing inspection is scheduled, for each Development Phase. The fee due shall be offset by the actual costs incurred by Developer in designing, preparing, installing and constructing (a) the realignment and widening of Airport Boulevard but limited to the customary and ordinary costs for such improvements without special pedestrian treatments, and (b) the Sanchez Channel bridge widening as outlined in the Development Agreement (Planning Division); 19. that the applicant shall pay the required public facilities impact fees based on the square footage of the buildings, and that the Parks and Recreation fee ($131,924.00) and the Storm Drain Fee ($549,939.00) shall be waived, the total remaining fee due shall be $1,102,179.00. The remaining fees shall be payable by development phase, and shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit for construction of each building as follows: Building 61: $209,802.00, Building 62: $209,802.00, Building B3: $293,722.80, Building B4, $335,683.20, and Amenities Center: $53,169.00 (Planning Division): 20. that the property owner shall be responsible to see that small delivery trucks or vans making periodic deliveries are on-site only during office hours; no trucks, recreation vehicles or other vehicles shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight, and no parking shall be leased to tenants or any other users for any purpose, 21. that the property owner shall comply with the Transportation Demand Management Program prepared by Fehr and Peers for 350 Beach Road, LLC dated April 6, 2011 including the following measures: that the Property Owner, in the event the Property is leased to multiple tenants, or the tenant in the event that the entire Property is leased to a sole tenant, shall implement a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director in order to achieve the same or greater peak hour trip reductions as the TDM Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 18 Program prepared by Fehr and Peers for 350 Beach Road, LLC dated April 5, 2011. Such TDM Program may include measures such as: a. Secure Bicycle Storage: Secure, indoor bicycle storage for at least 26 bicycles shall be provided in a lobby or garage level room within each of the four office buildings. In addition, bicycle racks for up to 50 bicycles will be located outside of Buildings #1 or #4. h. Showers and Changing Rooms: Shower facilities with changing rooms shall be provided throughout the site, with access available to all employees. Shower facilities (two men's and two women's) and changing rooms (one men's and one women's) shall be provided in each of the four office buildings, the amenities center shall include 12 showers and two changing rooms. i. Shuttle Service: Coordinate with the Peninsula Commuter Alliance to add two stops within the project site to the existing commuter shuttle from the Millbrae Intermodal Station. The shuttle provides 10-minute headways during peak periods. j. Carpool Parking: Provide 15 preferential parking spaces for carpools at each of the four office buildings. k. Vanpool Parking: Provide two preferential parking spaces for vanpools at each of the four office buildings. l. Commute Assistance Center: 3) Provide an on-site one-stop shopping for transit and commute alternatives information. 4) Provide a part-time on-site TDM coordinator available to assist building tenants with trip planning. m. Employees' Surveys: The TDM coordinator shall develop and administer two surveys per year to examine TDM program participation and best practices. o. Video Conferencing Center: One video conferencing center of approximately 8500 sf shall be installed for use by the tenants of the facility. p. On-Site Amenities/Accommodations: On-site amenities, including banking, retail, delivery dry cleaning, exercise facilities, child care center, delivery pharmacy and food service shall be provided at the project site to encourage people to stay on site during the work day; q. On-Site Bicycles for Employee Use• Bicycles shall be provided at each office building. Employees will have access to bicycles during breaks for personal or business use. r. Child Care Services: Child care center service shall be provided on site; s. Guaranteed Ride Home Program: Employees will have access to the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program administered by the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance) for emergencies. The program provides vouchers for taxicabs or rental cars for this purpose. t. Transportation Action Plan: The TDM coordinator shall work with the Alliance to create a Transportation Action Plan for each tenant. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 19 u. Transportation Management Association: If the office park has multiple tenants, each tenant shall provide a representative to form a Transportation Management Association and be a liaison to the TDM Coordinator. s. Coordination of Transportation Demand Management Programs: The TDM coordinator shall coordinate with other TDM programs with existing developments/employers in the surrounding area. t. Subsidy for Transit Tickets: Employers shall offer subsidies to employees to compensate them for the cost of transit tickets. u. Electric Vehicle Stations: The applicant shall provide plug-in stations for electric vehicles. v. House Car for Employee Use: Each building will provide employees with access to a "house car" for use during the day. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 22. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 23. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 24. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report: Measures Applicable to 300 Airport Boulevard Project as well as future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard site: 25. Amphlett Poplar Intersection: The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential improvements at the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient capacity for existing and future traffic volume. However, a specific improvement project has not been identified at this time. The Project Sponsor, and any future project sponsor for development of the 350 Airport Boulevard site, shall negotiate an agreement with the City of San Mateo to make a fair share contribution toward the cost of improvements at this intersection for each projects respective impacts (Transportation, Planning, Public Works, City of San Mateo); Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 20 26. Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce particulate matter emissions during Project excavation and construction phases, the Project contractor(s) shall comply with t he dust control strategies developed by BAAQMD. The Project Sponsor shall include in all construction contracts the following requirements or measures:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measur e Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. Thi s person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Air Quality; (Planning and Building Divisions); 27. Construction Equipment Emissions Minimization. To reduce the potential impacts resulting from Project construction activities, the Project Sponsor shall include in contract specifications a requirement for the following measures:  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes; The Project shall develop a construction plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction Project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a Project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average (as specified in California Code of Regulations Article 4.8, Section 2449 General Requirements for In-Use Off- Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets). Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after- treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available; Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 21 All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;  Use of Interim Tier 4, if applicable, or equivalent equipment for all uses where such equipment is available;  Use of Tier 3 equipment with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or alternative fuel vehicles for applications where Tier 4 Interim engines are not available;  Prohibition of diesel generators for construction purposes where feasible alternative sources of power are available;  All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working condition in accordance with manufacturer's specifications;  Diesel-powered construction equipment shall comply with BAAQMD requirements or meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 EPA/CARB standards; and  To the extent feasible, the existing electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites shall be used rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines. (Air Quality; Planning and Building Divisions) 28. Application of Low-VOC Coatings. The Project Sponsor shall use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements as per the BAAQMD Guideline (i.e., Regulation a Rule 3: Architectu ral Coatings) (Air Quality; Planning and Building Divisions); 29. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the Project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: i. Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; ii. Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound bafflers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; iii. Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and iv. Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 22 d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Division so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibra tion complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 30. Notify Nearby Businesses of Construction Activities that Could Affect Vibration -Sensitive Equipment. The Project Sponsor shall provide notification to adjacent property owners and occupants, prior to the start of construction, informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration - generating construction activities during site preparation, grading, and pile driving, if requi red. This notification shall include information warning about the potential for impacts related to vibration - sensitive equipment. The Project Sponsor shall identify a phone number for the property owners and occupants to call if they have vibration -sensitive equipment on their site. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 31. Implement Construction BMPs to Reduce Construction Vibration. The Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures during construction of all Project components:  To the extent feasible, construction activities that could generate high vibration levels at any identified vibration-sensitive locations shall be scheduled during times that would have the least impact on nearby land uses. This could include restricting construction activities in the areas of potential impact to the early and late hours of the work day, such as from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 am. or 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.  Stationary sources, such as construction staging areas and temporary generators, shall be located as far from nearby vibration-sensitive receptors as possible.  Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site where vibration - sensitive equipment is located.  Avoid pile driving when possible within 100 feet of an existing structure. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 32. Implement Alternative Pile Driving Methods. The Project Sponsor shall use alternative pile driving methods (e.g., drilled or steel piles) for piles driven in proximity to existing vibration receptors such that vibration levels at vibration-sensitive equipment shall not exceed 65 VdB. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 33. Bird Nest Pre-Construction Survey. The Project Sponsor(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction breeding-season surveys (approximately March 15 through August 30) of Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 23 the Project Site and immediate vicinity during the same calendar year that construction is planned to begin, in consultation with the CDFG as discussed below. If phased construction procedures are planned for the Project, the results of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted. A report shall be submitted to CDFG, following the completion of the bird nesting survey that includes, at a minimum, the following information:  A description of methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel with resumes, and a list of references cited and persons contacted.  A map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the Project Site. If the above survey does not identify any nesting bird species on the Project Site, no further mitigation would be required. However, should any active bird nests be located on the Project Site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. (Biological Resources, Planning Division); 34. Bird Nest Buffer Zone. The Project Sponsor(s), in consultation with CDFG, shall delay construction in the vicinity of active bird nest sites located on or adjacent to the Project Site during the breeding season (approximately March 15 through August 30) while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. If active nests are identified, construction activities should not occur within 500 ft of the nest. A qualified biologist shall monitor the active nest until the young have fledged, until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active, or if it is reasonable that construction activities are not disturbing nesting behaviors. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary construction fencing. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions); 35. In order to reduce significant impacts to the City's wastewater conveyance and treatment system associated with the Project, the Project Sponsor shall adhere to either of the two following mitigation measures.. a. Upgrade Pump Capacity at the Existing 399 Rollins Road Pump Station and Reduce Inflow and Infiltration within the Wastewater System. The Project Sponsor(s) shall contribute fair-share funds toward the upgrade of the 399 RRPS capacity, or equivalent project to increase capacity in the system, to accommodate the increased PWWF that would result from implementation of the Project. Additionally, the Project Sponsor(s) shall rehabilitate the existing wastewater system, where necessary, to reduce inflow and infiltration that contributes to PWWFs at the WWTP in an amount concomitant with increases in flows contributed by the 300 Airport Boulevard Project. b. Upgrade to the Existing Airport Boulevard Conveyance System Variant to Rollins Road Pump Station Upgrade. The Project Sponsor(s) shall coordinate with the City of Burlingame Public Works Department to upgrade the capacity of the City's wastewater conveyance and treatment system to accommodate the increased PWWF that would result from implementation of development of the 300 and 350 Airport Boulevard Sites. Such measures could include, as necessary, installation of a new pump station within public right of way or other area near the Sanchez Channel Bridge on the Project Site, upgrade the capacity of the existing Airport Boulevard Pump Station, extension of wastewater lines across Sanchez Channel, via attachment to the Sanchez Channel Bridge, to tie into existing wastewater lines Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 24 under Airport Boulevard west of the Project Site, and increasing, as required, the capa city of existing gravity lines between the Project. Site and the Airport Boulevard Pump Station and existing force main between the Airport Boulevard Pump Station and the wwrp. The Project Sponsor shall construct the necessary improvements to serve the Project Site and additional properties along Airport Boulevard that would connect to this sewer line. (Utilities, Public Works Department); 36. Undiscovered Cultural Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The Project Sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less -than- significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. 37. Unique Paleontological/Geological Features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the Project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The Project Sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less - than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The Project Sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. 38. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any Project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The Project Sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 25 verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE 300 AIRPORT BLVD. PROJECT 39. Reduce Risk of Exposure During Construction. If the childcare center is operational during the construction of Phase 2 of the Project, one of the following shall be implemented: a. A Health Risk Assessment is conducted prior to commencement of construction of Phase II that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the BAAQMD, that impacts to the children at the childcare center are less than significant during Phase II construction or specific sub phases of Phase Il construction; or b. Implement the following building design and operational restrictions. 1. The childcare center building shall be designed such that the air intake would be located at the far eastern edge of the building with the air intake facing east. 2. A MERV 15 or higher rated filter shall be installed and operated for at least the duration of construction activities. The MERV 15 or higher rated filters have the potential to remove up to 85 percent of particles of 2.5 microns or greater thereby reducing interior levels of pollutants. 3. All outdoor activities at the childcare center shall be suspended while construction activities are occurring. If implementation of this Mitigation Measure is infeasible, then the childcare center would be prohibited from operating during Phase 11 construction. (Air Quality, Building and Planning Divisions); 40. Maintenance and Testing of Generators. As part of the conditions of operation for the onsite back -up generators, all diesel emissions associated with the maintenance and testing of the generators should be conducted at such times as the daycare center is not in operation, particularly nights and weekends. (Air Quality, Building and Planning Divisions); 41. Implementation of MERV 15 Filters. The Project Sponsor shall consider implementing MERV 15 or higher rated filters for the amenities building. This would further reduce exposure of daycare students to emissions from US 101. The MERV 15 or higher rated filters have the potential to remove up to 85 percent of PM2.5 and would reduce risk while students were inside the building. (Air Quality, Buildi ng and Planning Divisions); 42. Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Maintenance Activities. The Project Sponsor shall provide infrastructure for the use of electric landscape equipment during landscaping activities, where feasible. (Climate Change, Plan ning Division and Parks Department); 43. Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated into the Site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 26 44. Renewable Energy System. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall offset 10 percent of project electricity demand through implementation of onsite renewable energy systems or through investment in offsite alternative energy systems. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 45. Drought Tolerant Landscaping. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce irrigation -related water demand by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of drought tolerant landscaping. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 46. Cool Roof Material. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall incorporate cool-roof materials into project design to reduce electricity demand associated with building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) by a minimum of 7 percent. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 47. Water Conservation Measures. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement immediate water conservation measures to reduce building water demand by 33 percent. Building water demand shall ultimately be reduced by 50 percent when the City's recycled water system is implemented. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 48. Energy Efficiency beyond Title 24 Standards. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce building energy demand beyond the 2005 Title 24 Standards by 26 percent (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 49. Operation Solid Waste Reduction. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement a solid waste reduction program to reduce operational solid waste by a minimum of 10 percent (Climate Change, Planning Division); 50. Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles and Local Building Materials. In accordance with BAAQMD BMPs, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into the construction fleet a minimum of 15 percent of construction vehicles and equipment operated by alternative fuels. Further, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a minimum of 10 percent of building materials are locally sourced, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 51. Conduct a Wetland Delineation. The Project Sponsor shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a wetland delineation of the Project Site. This delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project. If the Corps determines that the features in the Project Site are not jurisdictional, then no further mitigation would be required. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions); 52. Obtain Applicable Permits and Certifications. If the Corps determines that these features are jurisdictional, then the Project Sponsor must obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB prior to issuance of any grading permits for the Proj ect. A requirement of the permits will be compensation such that there is no net loss of wetlands. This compensation requirement can be satisfied through avoidance, onsite and/or offsite construction and preservation of wetlands or by purchase of mitigatio n credits at an Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 27 approved mitigation bank. At certified mitigation banks, the Corps typically requires a minimum 1:1 ratio, but may require higher ratios for certain wetland types. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions); 53. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100 -Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for Underground Structures. To protect underground structures from sea level rise flood risks, prior to approving grading and/or building permits the City shall ensure that the project design incorpo rates its floodplain development requirements into all applicable project features using a flood elevation of at least 7.1feet. All below -ground structures, including storm drains, sewers, equipment facilities, and others, shall be flood proofed and design ed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy from water surface elevations up to 7.1 feet in elevation. Certain portions of the shoreline open space may not be protected at the ultimate level of flooding, given proposed heights. However, developed areas of the Project would be protected. For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be developed to address end-of-century conditions. (Hydrology, Building Division and Public Works Department); 54. Provide Adequate Storm Flow Conveyance Capacity for Sea L evel Rise Conditions. To ensure that the storm drain system conveyance capacity is not constricted by sea level rise at the outlets, the Project Sponsor shall design the storm drain system to adequately convey stormwater runoff at outlet water surface elevations equivalent to the 100 -year flood event base elevation plus sea level rise of 55 inches (water surface elevation of 11.6 feet at the outlet). Prior to receiving a grading permit, the City shall review project designs and studies for adequacy of storm flow conveyance with an outlet surface water elevation of 11.6 feet and in accordance with City design standards. The City shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. The Project Sponsor shall incorpo rate applicable City Conditions of Approval into project designs, prior to receiving a grading permit. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); 55. Provide Protection of Shoreline and Flood Protection Features from Hydrodynamic Forces from Sea Level Rise Conditions. Prior to receiving a grading permit, in order to ensure that the shoreline and flood protection features associated with the proposed project provide protection under sea level rise hydrodynamic and/or hydrostatic conditions, the Project Sponsor shall prepare engineering studies to identify expected hydrodynamic forces for under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet and hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch sea level rise). For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be implemented to address end -of-century conditions. The Project Sponsor shall design shoreline and flood protection features that could accommodate hydrodynamic forces from sea level rise conditions along wherever flood protection features are identified under Mitigation Measure HY-7.1 and at shoreline protection features for stability and integrity under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The Project Sponsor shall also design flood protection features for protection against hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55-inch sea level rise). The City shall review designs and associated studies for conformance with City Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 28 requirements and adequacy of design measures to withstand hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces associated with the design criteria. The Project Sponsor shall also design erosion protection along the shoreline set-back area for protection under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The City shall review designs and associated studies for adequacy in protecting the shoreline set-back area under these conditions. The City Public Works Department shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. Prior to receiving a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City and BCDC Conditions of Approval into project designs. MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD SITE 56. Implement TDM Program as part of 350 Airport Boulevard Project. These measures could include: secure bicycle storage, showers and changing rooms, shuttle service, preferential parking for carpoolers, preferential parking for vanpoolers, commute assistance center, employees' surveys, video conferencing centers, on-site amenities accommodations, on-site bicycles for employees, child care services, guaranteed ride home program, transportation action plan, transportation management association, and coordination of TDM programs (Air Quality, Planning Division); 57. Implement enemy efficiency measures with 350 Airport Boulevard Protect. These measures could include: LEED certification or to exceed energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements which would further aid in reducing stationary source emissions (Air Quality; Planning and Building Divisions); 58. Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Maintenance Activities. The Project Sponsor shall provide infrastructure for the use of electric landscape equipment during landscaping activities, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 59. Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated into the Site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 60. Renewable Enerqy System. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall offset 10 percent of project electricity demand through implementation of onsite renewable energy systems or through investment in offsite alternative energy systems. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 61. Drought Tolerant Landscaping. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce irrigation -related water demand by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of drought tolerant landscaping. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Depart ment); 62. Cool Roof Material. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall incorporate cool-roof materials into project design to reduce electricity demand associated with building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) by a minimum of 7 percent (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 29 63. Water Conservation Measures. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement immediate water conservation measures to reduce building water demand by 33 percent. Building water demand shall ultimately be reduced by 50 percent when the City's recycled water system is implemented. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 64. Enemy Efficiency beyond Title 24 Standards. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce building energy demand beyond the 2005 Title 24 Standards by 26 percent (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 65. Operation Solid Waste Reduction. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement a solid waste reduction program to reduce operational solid waste by a minimum of 10 percent. (Climate Change, Planning Division); 66. Implement a TDM program. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site implement a TOM program similar to that described for the 300 Airport Boulevard Project, to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Traffic Engineer); 67. Pursue LEED Certification. Future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site shall seek LEED Gold certification or equivalent for development per the recommendations of the City's Green Building Ordinance. The Project Sponsor shall submit draft LEED (or equivalent) checklists to the City Sustainability Coordinator for review and consultation. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 68. Placement or Screening of HVAC Mechanical Equipment. All HVAC mechanical equipment shall be located more than 60 feet from the nearest property line. Alternatively, HVAC mechanical equipment may be installed in a noise enclosure sufficient to reduce ground-level noise levels at the nearest property boundary to 70 dBA CNEL or less. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 69. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100-Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for Underground Structures. To protect underground structures from sea level rise flood risks, prior to approving grading and/or building permits the City shall ensure that the project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements into all applicable project features using a flood elevation of at least 7.1feet. All below-ground structures, including storm drains, sewers, equipment facilities, and others, shall be flood proofed and designed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy from water surface elevations up to 7.1 feet in elevation. Certain portions of the shorelin e open space may not be protected at the ultimate level of flooding, given proposed heights. However, developed areas of the Project would be protected. For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be developed to address end-of-century conditions. (Hydrology, Building Division and Public Works Department); 70. Provide Adequate Storm Flow Conveyance Capacity for Sea Level Rise Conditions. To ensure that the storm drain system conveyance capacity is not constricted by sea level rise at the outlets, the Project Sponsor shall design the storm drain system to adequately convey stormwater runoff at outlet water surface elevations equivalent to the 100 -year flood event base elevation plus sea level Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 30 rise of 55 inches (water surface elevation of 11.6 feet at the outlet). Prior to receiving a grading permit, the City shall review project designs and studies for adequacy of storm flow conveyance with an outlet surface water elevation of 11.6 feet and in accordance with City design standards. The City shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. The Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City Conditions of Approval into project designs, prior to receiving a grading permit (Hydrology, Public Works Department); 71. Provide Protection of Shoreline and Flood Protection Features from Hydrodynamic Forces from Sea Level Rise Conditions. Prior to receiving a grading permit, in order to ensure that the shoreline and flood protection features associated with the proposed pr oject provide protection under sea level rise hydrodynamic andlor hydrostatic conditions, the Project Sponsor shall prepare engineering studies to identify expected hydrodynamic forces for under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet and hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch sea level rise). For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be implemented to address end -of-century conditions. The Project Sponsor shall design shoreline and flood protection features that could accommodate hydrodynamic forces from sea level rise conditions along wherever flood protection features are identified under Mitigation Measure HY-7.1 and at shoreline protection features for stability and integrity under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The Project Sponsor shall also design flood protection features for protection against hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch sea level rise). The City shall review designs and associated studies for conformance with City requirements and adequacy of design measures to withstand hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces associated with the design criteria. The Project Sponsor shall also design erosion protection along the shoreline set-back area for protection under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The City shall review designs and associated studies for adequacy in protecting the shoreline set-back area under these conditions. The City Public Works Department shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. Prior to receiving a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City and BCDC Conditions of Approval into project designs. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); 72. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100-Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for Above-Ground Structures. To protect structures and people from sea level rise risks at the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, prior to approving grading permits, the City shall ensure project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements for a flood depth of the identified 100-year flood hazard water surface elevation plus a 4.6-foot (55-inch) rise in sea level. At a minimum, the Project Site shall be graded to over 10 feet above msl and the finished floor elevation of all building finished floors shall be constructed to 14.5 feet (i.e., 2.9 feet above the 11.6-foot potential flood elevation), or as otherwise determined as grading plans are developed. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); and Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 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”) Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 ACTION ITEM Item No: 8(b) 31 73. Future Wind Tunnel Analysis. To reduce potential impacts associated with future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, a wind tunnel analysis shall be conducted in order to ensure that future development of the Site is designed in a way to minimize wind shadow effects at surrounding windsurfing areas. (Wind and Recreation, Planning Division). Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director c. Genzon Investment Group, applicant Burlingame Point LLC, property owner Attachments:  Applicant Letter of Explanation, dated August 2, 2018  Application to the Planning Commission  Proposed Resolution  Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed August 3, 2018 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OFFICE/LIFE SCIENCE CAMPUS AT 300 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE ANZA POINT NORTH (APN) ZONE RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, an application for Commercial Design Review for Amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan, amendments to the zoning code related to the Anza Point North and Parking Regulations, amendment to the sign code, rezoning of a portion of the site from the APS zone district to the APN zone district, tentative parcel map, development agreement, Conditional Use Permit for Day Care Use and Commercial Design Review for construction of 767,000 square feet of new uses including office space or life science uses, retail uses, food services, a childcare facility and an exercise facility at 300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN and APS, was approved by the Burlingame City Council on June 18, 2012; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the application was certified by the Burlingame City Council on June 18, 2012; and WHEREAS, an application for Commercial Design Review Amendment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum of the previously approved Office/Life Science Campus was approved by the Burlingame Planning Commission on August 22, 2016; and WHEREAS, an application for Commercial Design Review Amendment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum of the previously approved Office/Life Science Campus was approved by the Burlingame Planning Commission on November 27, 2017; and WHEREAS, an application has been made for Commercial Design Review Amendment of the previously approved Office/Life Science Campus at 300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN, Burlingame Point LLC, property owner, APN: 026-350-130; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 13, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT: Section 1. On the basis of the Environmental Impact Report, Environmental Impact Report Addendum, the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved.. RESOLUTION NO. Section 2. Said Commercial Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August, 2018 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped July 29, 2016, Sheets: COVER SHEET; 1 GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION; 2 SITE PLAN; 3 B1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN; 4 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS - EAST CAMPUS; 5 LANDSCAPE SITE SECTIONS - WEST CAMPUS; 6 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 01; 7 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 01; 8 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 01; 9 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 02; 10 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 02; 11 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 02; 12 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 13 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 14 L5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 15 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 03; 16 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 17 L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 18 L5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 19 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - BUILDING 04; 20 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 01; 21 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 01; 22 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 02; 23 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 02; 24 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 25 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 26 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 27 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 03; 28 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 29 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 30 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 31 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 04; 32 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 01 & 02; 33 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 03; 34 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 03; 35 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 04; 36 BUILDING SECTIONS - BUILDING 04; 37 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN – GARAGE; 38 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 05 GARAGE; 39 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - BUILDING 05 GARAGE; 40 BUILDING SECTION – GARAGE; 41 L1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - AMENITY BUILDING; 42 L2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN - AMENITY BUILDING; 43 ROOF CONSTRUCTION PLAN - AMENITY BUILDING; 44 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - AMENITY BUILDING; 45 OVERALL GRADING PLAN; 46 OVERALL UTILITY PLAN; with amendments to Buildings 3 and 4 as indicated on plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 5, 2017. 2. that prior to building permit issuance the applicant shall return to the Planning Commission with the following FYIs: a. a complete landscape plan indicating size, species, quantities and locations of all plantings; and b. analysis of compliance with Complete Streets provisions; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that the project shall include installation and maintenance of the Bay Trail and Sanchez Channel improvements as shown in the submitted plans and shall obtain approval from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for the work within BCDC jurisdiction; 6. that the project shall include approximately 6,655 square feet of retail use and 19,750 square feet of food service use that may be located in buildings B1, B2 or the amenities building, and Developer shall use its best commercial efforts to lease this space for retail or food service, including recreation - related uses such as bike rentals, and interactive educational space, as the case may be, for two years following issuance of the final certificate of occupancy for each building. Thereafter, any change to the use of the space designated for retail, recreation-related or food service use shall be reviewed EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 and approved by the Planning Commission using the process set out in Municipal Code Sections 25.16.040 through 25.16.085, using the conditional use permit findings as the standard of review. Notwithstanding the above requirements, which are applicable in the event the project is occupied by multiple tenants, if the entire project is leased to a single tenant, then that tenant shall provide a minimum of approximately 26,400 square feet of food service uses, and other convenience goods and services, to its employees and invited guests which may be located in buildings B1, B2, or the amenities building. In addition to this space, the project shall use its best commercial efforts to provide a minimum of 1600 square feet of space in buildings B1 or B2 (facing the shoreline) for public-serving amenities, which may include food/beverage service and other retail services to serve recreational users of the Bay Trail and members of the public. Such public amenities are encouraged to be provided and open for business on days and times when substantial use along the shoreline is anticipated, including weekends and holidays, and are required to provide restrooms accessible to the public. If after two years of operation the tenant has evidence that the demand for the public amenities is so limited as to justify discontinuing such services, it may request a change of use. Any significant change of use of the public amenity space or request to discontinue services shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; 7. that the following items agreed to by the applicant shall be included as a part of the project: a. Drinking fountains shall be provided as a part of the Bay Trail improvements, and shall include ground-level spouts for dogs. b. The educational nodes provided within the Bay Trail improvements shall include interactive features such as binocular/telescope stands and pictographic educational elements regarding local flora, fauna, marine and wind phenomena. c. The Sanchez Channel open space shall include an area for active use (e.g. frisbee or catch); 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 7, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. an application for a building permit for this project received after December 31, 2013 must comply with the 2013 California Building Codes and adopted City of Burlingame Ordinances unless specific land use provisions for the project were approved by the City of Burlingame prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013. If the Planning Commission has approved the project then the building permit application for that project may use the provisions found in the 2010 California Building Codes including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856 2010. This project must comply with the City of Burlingame Green Building Ordinance in effect at the time of building permit applications. 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Codes (CBC) which will be employed by the City of Burlingame beginning January 1, 2011. 2) Comply with the City of Burlingame Green Building Ordinance in effect at the time of Planning Commission approval for this project. 3) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 4) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 5) Indicate on the plans that ail work shall be conducted within the limits of the City's Noise Ordinance. See City of Burlingame Ordinance Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 6) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards or standards in effect at the time of building permit application. Note: All projects for which a building permit application is received on or after January 1, 2010 must comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://wvvw.enerov.ca.qov/fitle24/2008standards/ for publications and details. 7) Indicate on the plans that all roofing systems will comply with Cool Roof requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (f) 12. The 2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line at http://www.enerciy.camovititle24/2008standardst. 8) Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines. 9) Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 10) Obtain a survey of the property lines. 11) Indicate on the plans that, at the time of Building Permit application, plans and engineering will be submitted for shoring as required by 2010 CRC, or applicable Building Code, regarding the protection of adjacent property and as required by OSHA. On the plans, indicate that the following will be addressed: a. The walls of the proposed basement shall be properly shored, prior to construction activity. This excavation may need temporary shoring. A competent contractor shall be consulted for recommendations and design of shoring scheme for the excavation. The recommended design type of shoring shall be approved by the engineer of record or soils engineer prior to usage. b. All appropriate guidelines of OSHA shall be incorporated into the shoring design by the contractor. Where space permits, temporary construction slopes may be utilized in lieu of shoring. Maximum allowable vertical cut for the subject project will be five (5) feet. Beyond that horizontal benches of 5 feet wide will be required. Temporary shores shall not exceed 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). In some areas due to high moisture content / water table, flatter slopes will be required which will be recommended by the soils engineer in the field. c. If shoring is required, specify on the plans whose sole responsibil ity it is to design and provide adequate shoring, bracing, formwork, etc. as required for the protection of life and property during construction of the building. d. Shoring and bracing shall remain in place until floors, roof, and wall sheathing have been entirely constructed. e. Shoring plans shall be wet-stamped and signed by the engineer-of-record and submitted to the city for review prior to construction. If applicable, include surcharge loads from adjacent structures that are within the zone of influence (45 degree wedge up the slope from the base of the retaining wall) and / or driveway surcharge loads. 12) Indicate on the plans that an OSHA permit will be obtained for the shoring* at the excavation in the basement per CAL / OSHA requirements. See the Cal / OSH A handbook at: http://www.ca-osha.com/pdfpubs/osha userquide.pdf. *Construction Safety Orders : Chapter 4, Subchapter 4, Article 6 , Section 1541.1. 13) Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 14) Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 15) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 16) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 17) Prior to applying for a Building Permit the applicant must obtain an address for each structure on the site, acceptable to the Fire Marshal, from the Engineering Department. Note: The correct address must be referenced on all pages of the plans. 18) On your plans provide a table that includes the following: a. Occupancy group for each area of the building b. Type of construction c. Allowable area d. Proposed area e. Allowable height f. Proposed height g. Proposed fire separation distances h. Exterior wall and opening protection i. Allowable ii. Proposed i. Indicate sprinklered or non-sprinklered 19) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2010 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 4-1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A - Occupant Load Factor. 20) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2010 CBC for commercial buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. A level landing must be provided on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. c. Accessible countertops d. Accessible bathrooms e. Accessible parking 21) Per CEO 3003.5, all structures four or more stories in height must have at least one elevator that can accommodate a stretcher. See the referenced code section for dimensions (80" x 54") and other details. 22) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 23) In Assembly occupancies specify aisle widths that comply with Section 1025.9. 24) Specify the total number of parking spaces on site 25) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003 — 2004 Montanez) as follows: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 a. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings. b. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. 26) Include with your Building Division plan check submittal a complete underground fire sprinkler plan. Contact the Burlingame Water Division at 650-558-7660 for details regarding the water system or Central County Fire for sprinkler details. 27) Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to issuing the building permit. 9. that the conditions of the NPDES Coordinators February 8, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. The project will need to comply with additional and new Low Impact Development (LID) requirements under the Municipal Regional Permit, C.3 Provisions, which became effective on December 11, 2011. For details and technical guidance on these C.3 requirements visit the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) at http://www/flowstobay.orianas new development.php. b. The following C.3 forms/worksheets have been updated and project proponents will need to use and submit these forms as part of the final construction documents and associated building permits: 1) NPDES Permit Impervious Surface Data Collection Worksheet* 2) C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist*. *both forms are available for download at http://www/flowstobay.orcebs new development.php. c. When submitting plans for a building permit include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) as project notes and include them as a separate full size plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or larg er. Project proponents may use the attached Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) plan sheet to comply with this requirement. Electronic file is available for download at http://www/flowstobay.orq/bs construction.php (scroll about half -way down the page and click on Construction BMP Plan Sheet). 10. that the conditions of the Parks Supervisor's February 6, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. Submit a Landscape Project Application to the Parks Division in compliance with the Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance. b. New trees in the Airport Boulevard islands shall be Platanus acerfolia 'Columbia'. 11. that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's April 26, 2010 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. All buildings shall be equipped with fire alarms, fire sprinklers and standpipes where required by the California Fire Code and the Burlingame Municipal Code. b. Fire Flow and Fire Hydrants shall conform to Appendix B and C of the International Fire Code 2006 Edition. c. Fire apparatus access shall be provided for all buildings in accordance with §503 of the International Fire Code. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 d. Fire Control Room as required by the California Building Code shall be placed to the exterior of the building with exterior access. Rooms shall be positioned facing fir apparatus access. This requirement may negate exterior remote annunciators and key boxes intended to house HMIS/HMMP as required for Burlingame Municipal Code. e. Please see Burlingame Municipal Code specific to Addressing Requirements and Key Boxes associated with Hazardous Materials. f. The fire department shall request HMIS/HMIP in accordance with the California Fire Code. All inventory lists shall at minimum indicate the hazardous material class and quantities consistent with Table 2703.1.1(1), Title 24 CFC classes and units (i.e.: pounds, gallons, cubic feet at NTP, etc.). g. Space shall be provided within each Highrise for installation of a repeater/receiver antenna and supporting equipment for City Communications. An electrical supply source shall be provided at the antenna/equipment location. Reasonable access shall be provided to City staff contractors for installation of necessary telephone lines and for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment and repair of the antenna/equipment. 12. that the conditions of the Public Works Department, Engineering Division's May 8, 2012 memo shall be met, which includes the following comments: a. With City approval, the Developer proposes to construct a new, realigned Airport Boulevard through the Project and to construct Bay Trail and Bay frontage improvements in the City's right-of-way easement of the original Airport Boulevard. Developer understands that the underlying fee of the origin al Airport Boulevard ROW, from the existing Sanchez Chanel Bridge East to Fisherman's Park and South from Fisherman's Park to Beach Road, is owned by the State of California, State Lands Commission and that the City only holds a ROW easement over same. Developer shall give the State Lands Commission written notice of its development plans and specifically, notice of the proposed improvements to be constructed in the ROW of the original Airport Boulevard alignment, within ten (10) days of the Planning Commission's recommendation of the Project to the City Council. At any time, should State Lands have any concerns over said improvements, object to any aspect of the proposed improvements or initiate any type of administrative or judicial action in regard to the se proposed improvements, Developer shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all fees (including attorneys' fees), damages, fines or any other costs of any kind related to such objections, claims o r actions. Additionally, the Developer shall obtain letters of no objection to the proposed realignment of Airport Boulevard from all utility companies. The Project Developer shall relocate all existing utilities from within the existing Airport Boulevard roadway to the proposed realigned Airport Boulevard roadway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and affected utility companies. b. The developer shall prepare necessary engineering drawings and construction documents to construct the Sanchez Channel Bridge widening as identified in the existing BCDC permit to provide the necessary width for pedestrian, bicyclist and vehicular access along Airport Boulevard. The developer shall complete construction of these improvements at his/her expense These drawings shall be approved by the City Engineer as part of the Building Permit process. c. The developer shall be responsible to meet all San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements for the project and provide the City with documentation of all approvals by BCDC for all work within 100 feet of the shoreline band along the San Francisco Bay and Sanchez drainage channel. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 d. The developer shall enter into a Site Maintenance Agreement with the City for maintenance of all landscape, sidewalk, medians, and stormwater improvements as well as roadway improvements that do not conform to city standards, such as the proposed roadway intersections. The Site Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of the Building permit. e. All traffi c improvements, including but not limited to traffic signals, pedestrian countdown signals, pedestrian audible signals, signal interconnection hardware, street lights, signage, street markings, etc., shall be approved by the City Engineer and installed at the property owner's expense. The proposed streetlights must conform to current standards which require Beta LED's or equivalent. The developer shall submit and obtain approval of the required engineering drawings and specifications for all public improvem ents as part of the building permit process. f. The project shall reimburse to the City the operation, maintenance and energy costs of the proposed traffic signals. The City will maintain the newly proposed traffic signal operations. The operation cost of the traffic signal will be adjusted annually by the City based on prevailing costs. The electricity costs will be based on direct billing by PG & E. g. The developer shall provide at his/her expense shoreline access, adequate erosion protection and site amenitie s to the standards established by the City and BCDC. h. The Bay and drainage channel shorelines located on this property will require stabilization improvements to provide flood protection for the public access trail and bridge. All shoreline and drainage channel slope protection measures, need to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. i. The public and facility users shall be safely provided for and protected from the flooding of the site in the event of a disaster. This includes a storm or an earthquake which coincides with a maximum high tide and possible breaching of Sanchez Channel and/or Airport Boulevard levees. The property owner shall employ a qualified engineer to analyze the seismic stability of the Sanchez Channel and Airport Boulevard levees and identify protection against possible earthquake or storm event. The property owner shall submit the structural and seismic stability analysis to the City Engineer for review and approval. If the analysis indicates that improvements are necessary along the project site to provide stability for an event, such improvements shall be installed as approved by the City Engineer prior to occupancy of the first building. j. The developer shall be required to incorporate the following measures into project design in order to reduce the potential impacts of flooding: 1) Necessary tide gates shall be installed in the storm drain system on the project site to prevent high water from back flowing into the site during flood periods; 2) Adequate drainage and pump facilities, including a sound-baffled backup power supply, shall be provided in the parking area to prevent water ponding in excess of ten (10) inches in the event of a 100-year flood; 3) Storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate any future settlement of the site, levees and other fill along the site perimeter; 4) A flood contingency plan shall be developed to provide guidelines for management of vehicles in the event of flooding of the parking area; and 5) On-site improvements shall be designed to provide 100-year flood protection. All emergency equipment, generators, controls, and motors shall be located above the 100- year flood elevation. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 k. The developer shall install a six-inch diameter recycled water main with the roadway improvements. This six-inch line shall extend from the existing Sanchez Channel Bridge east to the other end of the new roadway alignment near Beach Road. Initially the line shall be connected to the City water main and serve as the service connection for irrigation. This line and the irrigation system shall convert to a recycled water line once it becomes available. These improvements shall be done at the property owner's cost and shall be completed in concurrence with the roadway improvements. I. The project developer shall implement and maintain an appropriate Transportation Demand Management measures in accordance with the San Mateo County Congestion Plan to reduce the number of trips generated by this project. m. Detailed grading and drainage plans shall be submitted by the project developer for review by the City Engineer at the time of applying for a building permit. n. The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution during and after the construction. In addition, the project developer shall provide all documentation relating to compliance with the Regional Municipal Permit from the State of California Water Resources Board. o. It is possible that this project may require approvals and permits from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The applicant must provide written records of contacting the above agencies demonstrating that a permit has been obtained or is not required. p. All street improvements plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval These improvements include but are not limited to sanitary sewer mains and laterals; water mains and services; storm drain mains and inlets; street structural sections, soils report, etc. Hydrologic and hydraulic calculations are required for all designs associated with the new road alignment. The road structural section shall be designed to a traffic index of minimum 12.0 and shall withstand vertical displacement due to natural subsurface settlement. The structural section shall be designed for a 20-year life based on recommendations of a professional geotechnical engineer and accompanying soils report. q. The project developer shall perform necessary engineering studies to determine the required capacity and improvements to the system to be approved by the City Engineer. At the City's discretion, the sanitary sewer improvements shall be routed along Airport Boulevard to an existing pump station, thence along Airport Boulevard to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The sanitary sewer system improvements shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the fully built-out conditions of the project and adjacent properties. r. The project shall abandon the existing potable water main located within existing alignment of Airport Boulevard from Fisherman's Park to Beach Road. The project shall evaluate the existing condition of the water main. If necessary and at the City's discretion, the project shall design and construct a new potable water main system along the newly proposed Ai rport Boulevard from Beach Road to the Sanchez Channel as well as the replace the existing potable water main segment from Sanchez Channel to Fisherman's Park. s. The project shall install purple piping in buildings for future reclaimed water use in building applications. 13. that early demolition, mass excavation, grading, shoring and foundation permits, including permits for installation of indicator/production piles, may be issued in advance of a building permit provided that prior to issuance of such permits, the applicant has submitted construction plans for the project to the Building Division, or has provided evidence that it is having such plans prepared for the project for which the demolition or grading work is intended. Further, building construction permits shall be EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 submitted and received in accordance with the progress of the work which will occur in phases. Permits that may be submitted individually for application may include, but are not limited to, indicator/production piles, mass excavation, shoring, grading, foundations, superstructure, architecture MEP, fire protection, fire alarm, curtain wall, and so forth, subject to the consent of the City’s Building Official and the Fire Marshal. Building Permit phasing and scheduling shall be arranged with the Project Applicant and the Community Development Department – Building Division, such that the work can proceed in an orderly fashion as one continuous phase of construction; 14. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 15. Exterior lighting for the project would be designed to meet the requirements of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.030 (pertaining to light spillage off site in commercial or residential areas), the California Energy Commission, and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America for illumination levels. Compliance with these performance standards would minimize the dispersion of light in a manner that reduces the glow or aurora effect to acceptable and allowable levels. In addition, the project area already contains numerous sources of exterior lighting, and is not adjacent to uses that would be sensitive to light spillover. 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 17. that the overall height of the buildings as measured from the top of curb at Airport Boulevard (+ 14.5' elevation) to the top of the mechanical screens shall be no taller than the following heights: Buildings B1 and B2, 97.0', Building 83, 129.0', Building B4, 144.0', Parking Structure, 67.5', and Amenities Building, 49.0'; building heights shall be surveyed at the framing of each floor and at the installation of the mechanical screen and shall be reported to the Building Division as each floor is framed and accepted by the City Engineer before framing of the subsequent floor or roof commences. The elevator overruns and associated structures shall be permitted to exceed the stated height limits to the degree that such exceedance is necessitated by the Uniform Building Code in order for elevators to serve their intended purpose of providing access by persons to the rooftop terraces on the buildings. The entire building height of each structure shall be surveyed to confirm conformance with the approved plans and conditions of approval before scheduling the final framing inspection. If the building does not conform at any point in the construction process, it shall be made to conform before construction continues and any further city inspections shall be scheduled (Building Division); 18. that the applicant shall pay the required Bayfront Development Fee based on the square footage of the buildings and the current rate adjusted for inflation, the total fee due is calculated to be $1,695,070.00. Per the development agreement, one-half of the fee is due at the time of issuance of the first City Building Permit for construction of a building, and one -half is due before the final framing inspection is scheduled, for each Development Phase. The fee due sh all be offset by the actual costs incurred by Developer in designing, preparing, installing and constructing (a) the realignment and widening of Airport Boulevard but limited to the customary and ordinary costs for such improvements without special pedestrian treatments, and (b) the Sanchez Channel bridge widening as outlined in the Development Agreement (Planning Division); 19. that the applicant shall pay the required public facilities impact fees based on the square footage of the buildings, and that the Parks and Recreation fee ($131,924.00) and the Storm Drain Fee ($549,939.00) shall be waived, the total remaining fee due shall be $1,102,179.00. The remaining fees EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 shall be payable by development phase, and shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit for construction of each building as follows: Building 61: $209,802.00, Building 62: $209,802.00, Building B3: $293,722.80, Building B4, $335,683.20, and Amenities Center: $53,169.00 (Planning Division): 20. that the property owner shall be responsible to see that small delivery trucks or vans making periodic deliveries are on-site only during office hours; no trucks, recreation vehicles or other vehicles shall be stored or parked on site continuously throughout the day or overnight, and no parking shall be leased to tenants or any other users for any purpose, 21. that the Property Owner, in the event the Property is leased to multiple tenants, or the tenant in the event that the entire Property is leased to a sole tenant, shall implement a comprehensive transportation demand management (TDM) program to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director in order to achieve the same or greater peak hour trip reductions as the TDM Program prepared by Fehr and Peers for 350 Beach Road, LLC dated April 5, 2011. Such TDM Program may include measures such as: a. Secure Bicycle Storage: Secure, indoor bicycle storage for at least 26 bicycles shall be provided in a lobby or garage level room within each of the four office buildings. In addition, bicycle racks for up to 50 bicycles will be located outside of Buildings #1 or #4. b. Showers and Changing Rooms: Shower facilities with changing rooms shall be provided throughout the site, with access available to all employees. Shower facilities (two men's and two women's) and changing rooms (one men's and one women's) shall be provided in each of the four office buildings, the amenities center shall include 12 showers and two changing rooms. c. Shuttle Service: Coordinate with the Peninsula Commuter Alliance to add two stops within the project site to the existing commuter shuttle from the Millbrae Intermodal Station. The shuttle provides 10-minute headways during peak periods. d. Carpool Parking: Provide 15 preferential parking spaces for carpools at each of the four office buildings. e. Vanpool Parking: Provide two preferential parking spaces for vanpools at each of the four office buildings. f. Commute Assistance Center: 1) Provide an on-site one-stop shopping for transit and commute alternatives information. 2) Provide a part-time on-site TDM coordinator available to assist building tenants with trip planning. g. Employees' Surveys: The TDM coordinator shall develop and administer two surveys per year to examine TDM program participation and best practices. h. Video Conferencing Center: One video conferencing center of approximately 8500 sf shall be installed for use by the tenants of the facility. i. On-Site Amenities/Accommodations: On-site amenities, including banking, retail, delivery dry cleaning, exercise facilities, child care center, delivery pharmacy and food service shall be provided at the project site to encourage people to stay on site during the work day; j. On-Site Bicycles for Employee Use• Bicycles shall be provided at each office building. Employees will have access to bicycles during breaks for personal or business use. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 k. Child Care Services: Child care center service shall be provided on site; l. Guaranteed Ride Home Program: Employees will have access to the Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program administered by the Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance (Alliance ) for emergencies. The program provides vouchers for taxicabs or rental cars for this purpose. m. Transportation Action Plan: The TDM coordinator shall work with the Alliance to create a Transportation Action Plan for each tenant. n. Transportation Management Association: If the office park has multiple tenants, each tenant shall provide a representative to form a Transportation Management Association and be a liaison to the TDM Coordinator. o. Coordination of Transportation Demand Management Programs: The TDM coordinator shall coordinate with other TDM programs with existing developments/employers in the surrounding area. p. Subsidy for Transit Tickets: Employers shall offer subsidies to employees to compensate them for the cost of transit tickets. q. Electric Vehicle Stations: The applicant shall provide plug-in stations for electric vehicles. r. House Car for Employee Use: Each building will provide employees with access to a "house car" for use during the day. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 22. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 23. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 24. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Mitigation Measures from Environmental Impact Report: Measures Applicable to 300 Airport Boulevard Project as well as future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard site: 25. Amphlett Poplar Intersection: The City of San Mateo is considering a range of potential improvements at the Amphlett Boulevard/Poplar Avenue intersection to provide sufficient capacity for existing and future traffic volume. However, a specific improvement project has not been identified at this time. The Project Sponsor, and any future project sponsor for development of the 350 Airport Boulevard site, shall negotiate an agreement with the City of San Mateo to make a fair share contribution toward the cost of improvements at this intersection for each projects respective impacts (Transportation, Planning, Public Works, City of San Mateo); EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 26. Implement Recommended Dust Control Measures. To reduce particulate matter emissions during Project excavation and construction phases, the Project contractor(s) shall comply with the dust control strategies developed by BAAQMD. The Project Sponsor shall i nclude in all construction contracts the following requirements or measures:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil , sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.  All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear si gnage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.  All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Air Quality; (Planning and Building Divisions); 27. Construction Equipment Emissions Minimization. To reduce the potential impacts resulting from Project construction activities, the Project Sponsor shall include in contract specifications a requirement for the following measures:  Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes; The Project shall develop a construction plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction Project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a Project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average (as specified in California Code of Regulations Article 4.8, Section 2449 General Requirements for In-Use Off- Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets). Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after- treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available; All construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators shall be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;  Use of Interim Tier 4, if applicable, or equivalent equipment for all uses where such equipment is available; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018  Use of Tier 3 equipment with Best Available Control Technology (BACT) or alternative fuel vehicles for applications where Tier 4 Interim engines are not available;  Prohibition of diesel generators for construction purposes where feasible alternative sources of power are available;  All construction equipment shall be maintained in proper working condition in accordance with manufacturer's specifications;  Diesel-powered construction equipment shall comply with BAAQMD requirements or meet Tier 3 or Tier 4 EPA/CARB standards; and  To the extent feasible, the existing electricity infrastructure surrounding the construction sites shall be used rather than electrical generators powered by internal combustion engines. (Air Quality; Planning and Building Divisions) 28. Application of Low-VOC Coatings. The Project Sponsor shall use low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements as per the BAAQMD Guideline (i.e., Regulation a Rule 3: Architectural Coatings) (Air Quality; Planning and Building Divisions); 29. Implement Best Management Practices to Reduce Construction Noise. The following BMPs shall be incorporated into the construction documents to be implemented by the Project contractor. a. Maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Suc h separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: i. Use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; ii. Use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound bafflers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; iii. Locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community; and iv. Minimize backing movements of equipment. b. Use quiet construction equipment whenever possible. c. Impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible. d. Prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines. e. Select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Division so that noise-sensitive areas, including residences and schools, are avoided as much as possible. f. The project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 30. Notify Nearby Businesses of Construction Activities that Could Affect Vibration -Sensitive Equipment. The Project Sponsor shall provide notification to adjacent property owners and occupants, prior to the start of construction, informing them of the estimated start date and duration of vibration - EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 generating construction activities during site preparation, grading, and pile driving, if required. This notification shall include information warning about the potentia l for impacts related to vibration - sensitive equipment. The Project Sponsor shall identify a phone number for the property owners and occupants to call if they have vibration -sensitive equipment on their site. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 31. Implement Construction BMPs to Reduce Construction Vibration. The Project Sponsor shall implement the following measures during construction of all Project components:  To the extent feasible, construction activities that could generate high vibration levels at any identified vibration-sensitive locations shall be scheduled during times that would have the least impact on nearby land uses. This could include restricting construction activities in the areas of potential impact to the early and late hours of the work day, such as from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 am. or 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.  Stationary sources, such as construction staging areas and temporary generators, shall be located as far from nearby vibration-sensitive receptors as possible.  Trucks shall be prohibited from idling along streets serving the construction site where vibration - sensitive equipment is located.  Avoid pile driving when possible within 100 feet of an existing structure. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 32. Implement Alternative Pile Driving Methods. The Project Sponsor shall use alternative pile driving methods (e.g., drilled or steel piles) for piles driven in proximity to existing vibration receptors such that vibration levels at vibration-sensitive equipment shall not exceed 65 VdB. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 33. Bird Nest Pre-Construction Survey. The Project Sponsor(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction breeding-season surveys (approximately March 15 through August 30) of the Project Site and immediate vicinity during the same calendar year that construction is planned to begin, in consultation with the CDFG as discussed below. If phased construction procedures are planned for the Project, the results of the above survey shall be valid only for the season when it is conducted. A report shall be submitted to CDFG, following the completion of the bird nesting survey that includes, at a minimum, the following information:  A description of methodology including dates of field visits, the names of survey personnel with resumes, and a list of references cited and persons contacted.  A map showing the location(s) of any bird nests observed on the Project Site. If the above survey does not identify any nesting bird species on the Project Site, no further mitigation would be required. However, should any active bird nests be located on the Project Site, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented. (Biological Resources, Planning Division); 34. Bird Nest Buffer Zone. The Project Sponsor(s), in consultation with CDFG, shall delay construction in the vicinity of active bird nest sites located on or adjacent to the Project Site during the breeding season (approximately March 15 through August 30) while the nest is occupied with adults and/or young. If active nests are identified, construction activities should not occur within 500 ft of the nest. A qualified biologist shall monitor the active nest until the young have fledged, until the biologist determines that the nest is no longer active, or if it is reasonable that construction activities are not disturbing nesting behaviors. The buffer zone shall be delineated by highly visible temporary construction fencing. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions); EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 35. In order to reduce significant impacts to the City's wastewater conveyance and treatment system associated with the Project, the Project Sponsor shall adhere to either of the two following mitigation measures.. a. Upgrade Pump Capacity at the Existing 399 Rollins Road Pump Station and Reduce Inflow and Infiltration within the Wastewater System. The Project Sponsor(s) shall contribute fair-share funds toward the upgrade of the 399 RRPS capacity, or equivalent project to increase capacity in the system, to accommodate the increased PWWF that would result from implementation of the Project. Additionally, the Project Sponsor(s) shall rehabilitate the existing wastewater system, where necessary, to reduce inflow and infiltration that contributes to PWWFs at the WWTP in an amount concomitant with increases in flows contributed by the 300 Airport Boulevard Project. b. Upgrade to the Existing Airport Boulevard Conveyance System Variant to Rollins Road Pump Station Upgrade. The Project Sponsor(s) shall coordinate with the City of Burlingame Public Works Department to upgrade the capacity of the City's wastewater conveyance and treatment system to accommodate the increased PWWF that would result from implementation of development of the 300 and 350 Airport Boulevard Sites. Such measures could include, as necessary, installation of a new pump station within public right of way or other area near the Sanchez Channel Bridge on the Project Site, upgrade the capacity of the existing Airport Boulevard Pump Station, extension of wastewater lines across Sanchez Channel, via attachment to the Sanchez Channel Bridge, to tie into existing wastewater lines under Airport Boulevard west of the Project Site, and increasing, as required, the capacity of existing gravity lines between the Project. Site and the Airport Boulevard Pump Station and existing force main between the Airport Boulevard Pump Station and the wwrp. The Project Sponsor shall construct the necessary improvements to serve the Project Site and additional properties along Airport Boulevard that would connect to this sewer line. (Utilities, Public Works Department); 36. Undiscovered Cultural Resources. If evidence of an archaeological site or other suspected cultural resource as defined by CEQA Guideline Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity (“midden”), that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, worked bone, fired clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits, or burials) is discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, all ground-disturbing activity within 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame shall be notified. The Project Sponsor shall hire a qualified archaeologist to conduct a field investigation. The City of Burlingame shall consult with the archeologist to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than- significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by a qualified archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation. 37. Unique Paleontological/Geological Features. Should a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature be identified at the project construction site during any phase of construction, the Project manager shall cease all construction activities at the site of the discovery and immediately notify the City of Burlingame. The Project Sponsor shall retain a qualified paleontologist to provide an evaluation of the find and to prescribe mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less- than-significant level. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources or geologic features is carried out. The Project Sponsor shall be responsible for implementing any additional mitigation measures prescribed by the paleontologist and approved by the City. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 38. Human Remains. If human remains are discovered at any Project construction site during any phase of construction, all ground-disturbing activity 100 feet of the resources shall be halted and the City of Burlingame and the San Mateo County coroner shall be notified immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the State Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The Project Sponsor shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. As necessary, the archaeologist may provide professional assistance to the Most Likely Descendant, including the excavation and removal of the human remains. The City of Burlingame shall be responsible for approval of recommended mitigation as it deems appropriate, taking account of the provisions of State law, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e) and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. The project applicant shall implement approved mitigation, to be verified by the City of Burlingame, before the resumption of ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of where the remains were discovered. MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE 300 AIRPORT BLVD. PROJECT 39. Reduce Risk of Exposure During Construction. If the childcare center is operational during the construction of Phase 2 of the Project, one of the following shall be implemented: a. A Health Risk Assessment is conducted prior to commencement of construction of Phase II that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the BAAQMD, that impacts to the children at the childcare center are less than significant during Phase II construction or specific sub phases of Phase Il construction; or b. Implement the following building design and operational restrictions. 1. The childcare center building shall be designed such that the air intake would be located at the far eastern edge of the building with the air intake facing east. 2. A MERV 15 or higher rated filter shall be installed and operated for at least the duration of construction activities. The MERV 15 or higher rated filters have the potential to remove up to 85 percent of particles of 2.5 microns or greater thereby reducing interior levels of pollutants. 3. All outdoor activities at the childcare center shall be suspended while construction activities are occurring. If implementation of this Mitigation Measure is infeasible, then the childcare center would be prohibited from operating during Phase 11 construction. (Air Quality, Building and Planning Divisions); 40. Maintenance and Testing of Generators. As part of the conditions of operation for the onsite back-up generators, all diesel emissions associated with the maintenance and testing of the generators should be conducted at such times as the daycare center is not in operation, particularly nights and weekends. (Air Quality, Building and Planning Divisions); 41. Implementation of MERV 15 Filters. The Project Sponsor shall consider implementing MERV 15 or higher rated filters for the amenities building. This would further reduce exposure of daycare students to emissions from US 101. The MERV 15 or higher rated filters have the potential to remove up to 85 percent of PM2.5 and would reduce risk while students were inside the building. (Air Quality, Building and Planning Divisions); EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 42. Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Main tenance Activities. The Project Sponsor shall provide infrastructure for the use of electric landscape equipment during landscaping activities, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 43. Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated into the Site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 44. Renewable Energy System. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall offset 10 percent of project electricity demand through implementation of onsite renewable energy systems or through investment in offsite alternative energy systems. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 45. Drought Tolerant Landscapi ng. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce irrigation -related water demand by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of drought tolerant landscaping. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 46. Cool Roof Material. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall incorporate cool-roof materials into project design to reduce electricity demand associated with building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) by a minimum of 7 percent. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 47. Water Conservation Measures. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement immediate water conservation measures to reduce building water demand by 33 percent. Building water demand shall ultimately be reduced by 50 percent when the City's re cycled water system is implemented. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 48. Energy Efficiency beyond Title 24 Standards. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce building energy demand beyond the 2005 Title 24 Standards by 26 percent (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 49. Operation Solid Waste Reduction. The 300 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement a solid waste reduction program to reduce operational solid waste by a minimum of 10 percent (Climate Change, Planning Division); 50. Utilize Alternative Fueled Vehicles and Local Building Materials. In accordance with BAAQMD BMPs, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate into the construction fleet a minimum of 15 percent of construction vehicles and equipment operated by alternative fuels. Further, the Project Sponsor shall ensure that a minimum of 10 percent of building materials are locally sourced, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 51. Conduct a Wetland Delineation. The Project Sponsor shall retain a qual ified biologist to conduct a wetland delineation of the Project Site. This delineation shall be submitted to the Corps for verification prior to the issuance of any grading permits for the Project. If the Corps determines that the features in the Project S ite are not jurisdictional, then no further mitigation would be required. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions); 52. Obtain Applicable Permits and Certifications. If the Corps determines that these features are jurisdictional, then the Projec t Sponsor must obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from the Corps, and a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB prior to issuance of any grading permits for the Project. A requirement of the permits will be compensation such that there is n o net loss of wetlands. This compensation requirement can be satisfied through avoidance, onsite and/or offsite construction and preservation of wetlands or by purchase of mitigation credits at an EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 approved mitigation bank. At certified mitigation banks, th e Corps typically requires a minimum 1:1 ratio, but may require higher ratios for certain wetland types. (Biological Resources, Planning and Building Divisions); 53. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100 -Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for Underground Structures. To protect underground structures from sea level rise flood risks, prior to approving grading and/or building permits the City shall ensure that the project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements into all applicable project f eatures using a flood elevation of at least 7.1feet. All below -ground structures, including storm drains, sewers, equipment facilities, and others, shall be flood proofed and designed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy from water surface elevations up to 7.1 feet in elevation. Certain portions of the shoreline open space may not be protected at the ultimate level of flooding, given proposed heights. However, developed areas of the Project would be protected. For the shoreline areas, an adaptive st rategy would be developed to address end-of-century conditions. (Hydrology, Building Division and Public Works Department); 54. Provide Adequate Storm Flow Conveyance Capacity for Sea Level Rise Conditions. To ensure that the storm drain system conveyance capa city is not constricted by sea level rise at the outlets, the Project Sponsor shall design the storm drain system to adequately convey stormwater runoff at outlet water surface elevations equivalent to the 100 -year flood event base elevation plus sea level rise of 55 inches (water surface elevation of 11.6 feet at the outlet). Prior to receiving a grading permit, the City shall review project designs and studies for adequacy of storm flow conveyance with an outlet surface water elevation of 11.6 feet and in accordance with City design standards. The City shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. The Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City Conditions of Approval into project designs, prior to receiving a grading permit. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); 55. Provide Protection of Shoreline and Flood Protection Features from Hydrodynamic Forces from Sea Level Rise Conditions. Prior to receiving a grading permit, in order to ensure that the shorel ine and flood protection features associated with the proposed project provide protection under sea level rise hydrodynamic and/or hydrostatic conditions, the Project Sponsor shall prepare engineering studies to identify expected hydrodynamic forces for un der storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet and hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch sea level rise). For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be implemented to address end -of-century conditions. The Project Sponsor shall design shoreline and flood protection features that could accommodate hydrodynamic forces from sea level rise conditions along wherever flood protection features are identified under Mitigation Measure HY-7.1 and at shoreline protection features for stability and integrity under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The Project Sponsor shall also design flood protection features for protection against hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55-inch sea level rise). The City shall review designs and associated studies for conformance with City requirements and adequacy of design measures to withstand hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces associated with the design criteria. The Project Sponsor shall also design erosion protection along the shoreline set-back area for protection under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The City shall review designs and associated studies for adequacy in protecting the shoreline set-back area under these conditions. EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 The City Public Works Department shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. Prior to receiving a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City and BCDC Conditions of Approval into project designs. MITIGATION MEASURES APPLICABLE TO THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 350 AIRPORT BOULEVARD SITE 56. Implement TDM Program as part of 350 Airport Boulevard Project. These measures could include: secure bicycle storage, showers and changing rooms, shuttle service, preferential parking for carpoolers, preferential parking for vanpoolers, commute assistance center, employees' surveys, video conferencing centers, on-site amenities accommodations, on-site bicycles for employees, child care services, guaranteed ride home program, transportation action plan, transportation management association, and coordination of TDM programs (Air Quality, Planning Division); 57. Implement enemy efficiency measures with 350 Airport Boulevard Protect. These measures could include: LEED certification or to exceed energy efficiency beyond Title 24 requirements which would further aid in reducing stationary source emissions (Air Quality; Planning and Building Divisions); 58. Incorporate GHG Reduction Measures for Maintenance Activities. The Project Sponsor shall provide infrastructure for the use of electric landscape equipment during landscaping activities, where feasible. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 59. Incorporate Trees and Vegetation into Project Design. Trees and other shade structures shall be incorporated into the Site Plan to maximize summer shade and to minimize winter shade. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 60. Renewable Enerqy System. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall offset 10 percent of project electricity demand through implementation of onsite renewable energy systems or through investment in offsite alternative energy systems. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 61. Drought Tolerant Landscaping. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project sh all reduce irrigation -related water demand by a minimum of 10 percent through the implementation of drought tolerant landscaping. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Parks Department); 62. Cool Roof Material. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall incorporate cool-roof materials into project design to reduce electricity demand associated with building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) by a minimum of 7 percent (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 63. Water Conservation Measures. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement immediate water conservation measures to reduce building water demand by 33 percent. Building water demand shall ultimately be reduced by 50 percent when the City's recycled water system is implemented. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 64. Enemy Efficiency beyond Title 24 Standards. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall reduce building energy demand beyond the 2005 Title 24 Standards by 26 percent (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 65. Operation Solid Waste Reduction. The 350 Airport Boulevard Project shall implement a solid waste reduction program to reduce operational solid waste by a minimum of 10 percent. (Climate Change, Planning Division); EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 66. Implement a TDM program. The Project Sponsor shall ensure that future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site implement a TOM program similar to that described for the 300 Airport Boulevard Project, to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. (Climate Change, Planning Division and Traffic Engineer); 67. Pursue LEED Certification. Future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site shall seek LEED Gold certification or equivalent for development per the recommendations of the City's Green Building Ordinance. The Project Sponsor shall submit draft LEED (or equivalent) checklists to the City Sustainability Coordinator for review and consultation. (Climate Change, Planning and Building Divisions); 68. Placement or Screening of HVAC Mechanical Equipment. All HVAC mechanical equipment shall be located more than 60 feet from the nearest property line. Alternatively, HVAC mechanical equipment may be installed in a noise enclosure sufficient to reduce ground-level noise levels at the nearest property boundary to 70 dBA CNEL or less. (Noise, Planning and Building Divisions); 69. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100-Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for Underground Structures. To protect underground structures from sea level rise flood risks, prior to approving grading and/or building permits the City shall ensure that the project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements into all applicable project features using a flood elevation of at least 7.1feet. All below-ground structures, including storm drains, sewers, equipment facilities, and others, shall be flood proofed and designed to withstand hydrostatic forces and buoyancy from water surface elevations up to 7.1 feet in elevation. Certain portions of the shoreline open space may not be protected at the ultimate level of flooding, given proposed heights. However, developed areas of the Project would be protected. For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be developed to address end-of-century conditions. (Hydrology, Building Division and Public Works Department); 70. Provide Adequate Storm Flow Conveyance Capacity for Sea Level Rise Conditions. To ensure that the storm drain system conveyance capacity is not constricted by sea level rise at the outlets, the Project Sponsor shall design the storm drain system to adequately convey stor mwater runoff at outlet water surface elevations equivalent to the 100 -year flood event base elevation plus sea level rise of 55 inches (water surface elevation of 11.6 feet at the outlet). Prior to receiving a grading permit, the City shall review project designs and studies for adequacy of storm flow conveyance with an outlet surface water elevation of 11.6 feet and in accordance with City design standards. The City shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. The Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City Conditions of Approval into project designs, prior to receiving a grading permit (Hydrology, Public Works Department); 71. Provide Protection of Shoreline and Flood Protection Features from Hydrody namic Forces from Sea Level Rise Conditions. Prior to receiving a grading permit, in order to ensure that the shoreline and flood protection features associated with the proposed project provide protection under sea level rise hydrodynamic andlor hydrostat ic conditions, the Project Sponsor shall prepare engineering studies to identify expected hydrodynamic forces for under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet and hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55 -inch sea level rise). For the shoreline areas, an adaptive strategy would be implemented to address end -of-century conditions. The Project Sponsor shall design shoreline and flood protection features that could accommodate hydrodynamic forces from sea level rise conditions along wherever flood protection features are identified under Mitigation Measure HY-7.1 and at shoreline protection features for stability and integrity under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The Project Sponsor shall also design flood protection features for protection against EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Commercial Design Review Amendment 300 Airport Boulevard Effective August 23, 2018 hydrostatic forces from a water surface elevation of 8.1 feet (mean higher high water plus 55-inch sea level rise). The City shall review designs and associated studies for conformance with City requirements and adequacy of design measures to withstand hydrodynamic and hydrostatic forces associated with the design criteria. The Project Sponsor shall also design erosion protection along the shoreline set-back area for protection under storm surge conditions (at least 2 percent wave run-up) and a base flood elevation of at least 11.6 feet. The City shall review designs and associated studies for adequacy in protecting the shoreline set-back area under these conditions. The City Public Works Department shall prepare Conditions of Approval, where necessary, to ensure that the design criteria are met. Prior to receiving a grading permit, the Project Sponsor shall incorporate applicable City and BCDC Conditions of Approval into project designs. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); 72. Provide Flood Protection up to the 100-Year Flood Event plus Sea Level Rise for Above-Ground Structures. To protect structures and people from sea level rise risks at the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, prior to approving grading permits, the City shall ensure project design incorporates its floodplain development requirements for a flood depth of the identified 100-year flood hazard water surface elevation plus a 4.6-foot (55-inch) rise in sea level. At a minimum, the Project Site shall be graded to over 10 feet above msl and the finished floor elevation of all building finished floors shall be constructed to 14.5 feet (i.e., 2.9 feet above the 11.6-foot potential flood elevation), or as otherwise determined as grading plans are developed. (Hydrology, Public Works Department); and 73. Future Wind Tunnel Analysis. To reduce potential impacts associated with future development of the 350 Airport Boulevard Site, a wind tunnel analysis shall be conducted in order to ensure that future development of the Site is designed in a way to minimize wind shadow effects at surrounding windsurfing areas. (Wind and Recreation, Planning Division). BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPN,,]ENT DEPARTNIENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 . FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 300 AIRPORI BOUTEVARD Ihe tily of Eurlingome Plonning (ommission onnouncei the Iollowing publit heoring on lti0llDAY. AUGU51 13, 20.l8 ot 7:00 P.m. in lhe (ity HollfountilIhombers,50l Primrose Rood, Burlinqome, IA: Applirolion for Amendment l0 [0ndilions 0f Appr0v0l #6 (reloil ond food servire provisiond ond #21 (Tr0flsp0rlolion Dem0nd Monogemefl, provisions) of o previously opproved offke/li[e stience developmenl ("Burlingome Poinl") ol 300 AIRP0RI B0IIIEYARD zoned APll 026-350-130. ftloiled: Auguri 3, 2018 (Please refer to olher side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A copy of the apprication and prans for this project may be reviewed prior tothe meeting at the Community oevetopmeni D,el;;;i at s01 primroseRoad, Burlingame, California. lf you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited torarsrng only those issues vorj or someone else raised at the public n"riingdescribed in the notice or;n written "orr".p-onl"n*JJiJrir"r"o to the city at orprior to the public hearing. of u n m Property owners who receive this tenants about this notice. notice are responsible for informing their For additionat information, please call (650) 558_7250. Thank you William lrdeeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE(Please reiet ta other side) City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 521 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. App licant and Property Owner: Patrick R. Gilson APN: 029-254-010 Architect: Stewart Associates Lot Area: 5,811 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2017 (see attached November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in March 2018 and construction is underway. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval to eliminate two first floor windows in the family room at the rear of the house. Now that the house is under construction, the applicant is concerned with lack of privacy given the lower fence/wall height and the proximity of the family room to the sidewalk on this corner lot. Please refer to the attached explanation letter, dated June 19, 2018 for an explanation of the proposed change. The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped June 21, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. The Planning Commission reviewed these changes as an FYI item on the July 9, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, but did not accept them, noting a concern that the removal of the two windows is a significant change to the rear elevation view. Project Description: The approved project includes demolishing an existing split-level house and attached garage and building a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The house and garage have a total floor area of 3,028 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,040 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling contains four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (12’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on November 13, 2017:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Design Review Amendment 521 Burlingame Avenue 2 521 Burlingame Avenue Lot Area: 5,811 SF Plans date stamped: June 19, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15'-2” 20'-0” 15-2” (block average) 20’-0” Side (exterior – 1st flr): (exterior – 2nd flr): (interior): 9'-6" to bay window average of 13’-6” 9’-7” 7'-6" average of 12’-0” 6’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 30’-0” 46’-0” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2034 SF 35% 2324 SF 40% FAR: 3028 SF 0.52 FAR 3040 SF 1 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (12’ x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 28’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5811 SF) + 900 SF + 280 SF = 3040 SF (0.52 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring a front covered porch, stucco siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, horizontal wood trim elements, cast stone windows sills, barrel tile roofing, decorative Spanish ceramic tiles, decorative clay pipe rake vents, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible Design Review Amendment 521 Burlingame Avenue 3 with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 21, 2018, sheets A1, A2 and A5; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Design Review Amendment 521 Burlingame Avenue 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property owner Stewart Associates, architect Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the architect, dated June 19, 2018 November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission (from original application) Letter Submitted by Mary and Richard Griffith, dated stamped July 16, 2018 Email Submitted by Jim Farney, dated July 30, 2018 Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 521 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned R-1, Patrick R. Gilson, property owner, APN: 029- 254-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 13, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August, 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 521 Burlingame Avenue Effective August 23, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 21, 2018, sheets A1, A2 and A5; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 521 Burlingame Avenue Effective August 23, 2018 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 521 BURLINGAME AVENUE 300’ Radius APN 029.254.010 MAIN LEVEL20.75UPPER LEVEL32.00UPPER LEVEL PL.40.08MAIN LEVEL PL.30.8310' - 1"1' - 2"8' - 1"1' - 0"HALF ROUND COPPER GUTTERWROUGHT IRON EXTERIOR LIGHT30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEACG. T.O.C.18.8212' - 0"12' - 0"45°45°AVG GR18.9519.26AVG GRWROUGHT IRON PLANTER BOX, PAINT4124127' - 6"46.30HALL PL.41.085' - 0"R 11' - 0"REMOVED WINDOWS @REAR OF FAMILY ROOM2MAIN LEVEL20.75UPPER LEVEL32.00UPPER LEVEL PL.40.08MAIN LEVEL PL.30.838' - 1"1' - 2"10' - 1"6X DECORATIVE WOOD CORBEL, PAINT2X WOOD BELLY BAND, PAINTACG. T.O.C.18.8246.30FOUNDATION VENTS, SEE SHT. A1.1 FOR CALCS.12"3A8DateScaleDrawnJobSheetOfSheets 1/4" = 1'-0"01/11/18ML1731A5521 BURLINGAME AVENUEBURLINGAME, CANEW RESIDENCEREAR ELEVATIONRIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONREVDESC.DATEBY2CLIENT REVISION6/19/18JSS WOOD FENCExxxx xxxxxxx(N) RESIDENCELINE OF UPPER LEVEL(N) GARAGEN49º30'00"E58.10'N49º30'06"E58.10'S40º30'07"E100.02'N40º30'07"W100.02'(N) CONC. DRIVEWAY21" TREE24" TREE18" TREE9' - 6"(E) DRIVEWAY TOBE DEMOLISHEDNORTHBURLINGAME AVENUE (70' R/W)CLARENDON ROAD (60' R/W)(E) CONC. PAD TOBE DEMOLISHED(E) RESIDENCE TOBE DEMOLISHED± 29.94'(E) TREE TO REMAIN, TYP.(N) CONC. SIDEWALK(N) CONC. SIDEWALK(N) PAVER PATIO(N) PAVER WALKWAY(N) PAVER WALKWAYDN(N) WOOD GATE(E) CONC. WALKWAYTO BE DEMOLISHED18.6117.87TOP OF CURB ELEV.PER SURVEYA/CUNITS(N) GM(N) EMSSCO(N) DRIVEWAYAPRON(N) CONC. GUTTERDEMOLISH (E)WOOD FENCE15' - 10"SEWER LINE, SEESURVEY FORMORE INFO.SSSSSSSSSSSSSS1ST FL SETBACK15' - 0"2ND FL SETBACK20' - 0"SIDE S.B.6' - 0"9.60'1ST FL SETBACK15' - 2"2ND FL SETBACK20' - 0"1ST FL S.B.7' - 6"2ND FL SETBACK12' - 0"14.00'1.02'1.02'4'H STUCCO WALLCOV. PORCH11.50'DN20.00'8.60'024 8SCALE: 1/8"=1'0"DateScaleDrawnJobSheetOfSheets 1/8" = 1'-0"10/31/17ML1731A1521 BURLINGAME AVENUEBURLINGAME, CANEW RESIDENCESITE PLANPLANNING DATALOCATION MAPSITEAVERAGE FRONT SETBACKADDRESS NO.FRONT SETBACK50515'-0"50915'-2"51115'-1"51515'-4"AVERAGE15'-2", INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889.REV DESC. DATE BYGENERAL NOTESBURLINGAME NOTESAS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED AS FOLLOWS:CONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWEDSEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.*COSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00AM AND 5:00PM.NOTE:1.SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SURVEY FOR ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION.2.GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS.SHEET INDEXA1SITE PLANA2FLOOR PLANSA3ROOF PLANA4EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA5EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA6GARAGE PLANS3D3D PERSPECTIVES D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.AA3AA3BA3BA31' - 9"13' - 6"23' - 6"3' - 0"37' - 0"3' - 0"18' - 6"18' - 6"2' - 0"16' - 0"39' - 0"18' - 0"8' - 8"12' - 4"KITCHENNOOKDININGENTRYHALLGUESTBDRM.GUESTBAPDR.LIVINGCOV.PORCHFAU#1P.48"REFD.W.36" RANGESINKGAS F.P.GASF.P.FAMILYPAVER PATIO36"H STONE/TILE COUNTERTOP1' - 6"3' - 6"26' - 0"8' - 0"16' - 0"55' - 0"18"H BENCHUPDNSLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.LINE OF WALL ABOVEDN13' - 0"13' - 0"13' - 6"5' - 0"NICHEA/CA/CGAS BBQ8'0"X9'0" ARCH OP8'0"X9'0" ARCH OPPR 2'8"X8'0" FR DR T.G.10'8"X8'0" 3-FOLD W/ SWING DR T.G.2'6"X8'0"2'6"X6'0"2'6"X8'0"2'8"X8'0"PR 2'4"X8'0"2'6"X8'0"2'8"X8'0"4'0"X8'0" SC DRDBL. SW2' - 0"3' - 6"4' - 0"3' - 6"2' - 0"5' - 0"3' - 6"2' - 0"2'6"x5'6" CSMT2'6"x5'6" CSMT2'6"x5'6" CSMT2'6"x5'6" CSMT2'6"x5'6" CSMT2'6"x5'6" CSMTPR 2'6"X4'6" CSMT2'0"X3'0" CSMTPR 2'6"X5'0" CSMT2'6"X3'6" CSMT6' - 4"6' - 0"5' - 8"2' - 10"7' - 4"2' - 10"7' - 0"6' - 0"3' - 0"3' - 8"5' - 0"2' - 4"13' - 10"4' - 0"3' - 6"6' - 3"6' - 0"6' - 3"7' - 6"6' - 0"75GW/H2' - 4"7' - 10"2' - 2"3' - 8"5' - 6"4' - 4"1' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 8"3' - 0"DECO. 6X BEAM, STAIN TYP.24"H SHELVES111171278109311156SHDN 1.5"DN 1.5"DN 3"2' - 2"3' - 0"44111314159PR 2'6"X4'6" CSMT T.G.PR 2'0"X8'0" ARCH FR DR T.G.PR 2'0"X8'0" ARCH FR DR T.G.5' - 8"3' - 0"DN 12"7'0"X8'0" ARCH FIX1' - 0"1' - 0"5' - 6"2' - 6"5' - 6"2' - 6"5' - 6"1' - 0"993' - 0"3' - 0"8X6 DECO. BEAM, STAIN21' - 0"6"7' - 6"6' - 0"2' - 0"3' - 0"2' - 10"2'6"X7'0"R @7 1/2"186"2' - 8"1' - 4"3' - 0"2'H SEAT WALL2X DECO. BEAM, STAIN3R @ 6"3A89A76A811A7LOUVER DOORDINING6A85A8LINE OF CAB. BELOW111111AREA DRAIN, SEE CIVIL DWG.11112A81REMOVED WINDOWS @REAR OF FAMILY ROOM2AA3AA3BA3BA32' - 0"13' - 6"7' - 0"13' - 6"11' - 6"8' - 0"14' - 6"8' - 0"4' - 6"2' - 6"12' - 0"7' - 6"13' - 6"1' - 6"12' - 0"7' - 6"13' - 6"1' - 6"MASTERBDRM.W.I.C.HALLMASTERBATHLAUN.BDRM. 2BA 2BDRM. 3STACKEDW/D37' - 0"34' - 0"4:124:124:12L.DNSLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.4:12FAU#2 ABV., SEEPR 2'6"X4'6" CSMT T.G.PR 2'6"X3'0" CSMT.PR 2'6"X4'0" CSMTPR 2'6"X3'6" CSMT2'6"X4'6" CSMT2'6"X4'6" CSMT2'6"X4'6" CSMT T.G.2'6"X4'6" CSMT2'6"X4'6" CSMT3'0"X2'0" AWG T.G.2'0"X3'0" CSMTPR 2'6"X4'6" CSMT3' - 10"2' - 4"10' - 4"1' - 10"2' - 4"8' - 6"3' - 6"2' - 4"2' - 10"3' - 6"8' - 8"3' - 4"3' - 4"7' - 0"7' - 6"4' - 0"3' - 6"5' - 4"TUB4411107SH2'6"X7'0"2'6"X7'0"2'8"X7'0"2'8"X7'0"2'8"X7'0"2'8"X7'0"2'8"X7'0" C.O.2'6"X7'0"2'4"X7'0"PR 3'0"X7'0" SLD DRPR 3'0"X7'0" SLD DRPR 3'0"X7'0" SLD DR465652SH132' - 6"1' - 9"1' - 9"7' - 0"4:124:124:124:124:124:127' - 5"3' - 6"2' - 7"3'4"X3'4" FIX QUADRAFOILOPEN END GUTTER439R @7 1/2"182' - 4"2' - 0"3' - 6"SLP.CLG.SLP.CLG.CHASE FOR HOOD VENT, SIZE AS REQ'D V.I.F.8' - 6"3' - 6"2' - 0"3' - 6"5' - 0"3A77A71A82' - 0"11024 8SCALE: 1/4"=1'0"DateScaleDrawnJobSheetOfSheets 1/4" = 1'-0"01/11/18ML1731A2521 BURLINGAME AVENUEBURLINGAME, CANEW RESIDENCEMAIN LEVEL PLANUPPER LEVEL PLANNOTE: SEE SHT. A1.1 FOR TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN NOTES AND CALCULATIONS.WALL LEGENDNEWNEW 2X12REVDESC.DATEBY1PLAN CHECK2/20/18ML2CLIENT REVISION6/19/18JSS PROJECT LOCATION 829 Maple Avenue Item No. 8d Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Address: 829 Maple Avenue Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for first and second story additions (major renovation) to an existing one-story house and Special Permits and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure. Applicant and Architect: Gary Diebel, AIA | Diebel and Company Architects APN: 029-033-070 Property Owner: Aidani Santos Lot Area: 5,919 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: Located on an interior lot, the subject property is an existing one-story house with an attached garage that contains 1,250 SF (0.21 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The proposed project is considered a major renovation since more than 50% of the existing exterior walls are proposed to be demolished. The applicant is proposing additions to the first story, including a front covered porch (122 SF), and to add a new second story (864 SF). Also proposed is removal of the existing attached garage and construction of a new detached garage at the rear 40% of the lot. With the proposed project, the total floor area will increase to 3,083 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,394 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 311 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The new detached garage would provide two covered parking spaces (20’-2” wide x 34’-2” deep clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is also requesting Special Permits and Conditional Use Permits for the proposed accessory structure (detached garage) which are listed below. The proposed project requires the following approvals: Main Dwelling  Design Review for first and second story additions (major renovation) to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). Accessory Structure  Special Permit for detached garage exempt from setbacks located within rear 40% of the lot (C.S. 25.26.035 (d));  Special Permit for accessory structure exceeding 28 feet in depth (44’-6½” proposed) (C.S. 25.26.035 (e));  Conditional Use Permit for accessory structure exceeding 600 SF in size (864 SF proposed) (C.S. 25.60.010 (b));  Conditional Use Permit for a half bathroom in an accessory structure (C.S. 25.60.010 (j));  Conditional Use Permit for glazed openings (left side door 9’-3” from rear property line proposed) within 10-feet of rear property line (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)); and  Conditional Use Permit for glazed openings (clerestory windows 10’-3” above grade and skylights 12’-4” above grade proposed) more than 10-feet above grade (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 829 Maple Avenue 2 829 Maple Avenue Lot Size: 5,919 SF Plans date stamped: July 27, 2018 EXISTING LAST PROPOSAL 06/27/18 Plans REVISED 07/27/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 17’-0” n/a 16’-1” (to porch) 20’-0” no change 16’-1” (block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 4’-6” 4’-11” 4’-6” (to addition) 13’-6” (to addition) no change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 48’-5” n/a 41’-0” (to rear porch) 48’-6” no change 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,343 SF 22.7% 2,340 SF 39.5% no change 2,368 SF 40% FAR: 1,250 SF 0.21 FAR 3,248 SF 0.55 FAR 3,083 SF 0.52 FAR 3,394 SF 1 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: existing attached garage proposed to be demolished 2 covered (20’-2” wide x 34’-2” deep clear interior dimensions)2 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 18’-4” 26’-95/8” no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable complies no change C.S. 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5,919 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,394 SF (0.57 FAR) 2 Clear interior dimension for depth is as measured from the interior garage door to the wall of the proposed half-bath. Accessory Structure PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Setback: Side: Rear: From house: 1’- 0” 1’- 0” 10’-6” Special Permit required for a detached garage located within the rear 40% of the lot to be exempt from setbacks (C.S. 25.26.035 (d)) Use: two-car garage (840 SF) and half- bathroom (24 SF) Conditional Use Permit required for toilet and sink (half- bathroom) (C.S. 25.60.010 (j)) Size: 864 SF Conditional Use Permit required for an accessory structure exceeding 600 SF in size (C.S. 25.60.010 (b)) Length: 44’-6½” Special Permit required if structure exceeds 28’-0” in length (C.S. 25.26.035 (e)) Plate Height: 7’-9” 9’-0” above grade Building Height: 13’-9” above grade 15’-0” above grade if plate height does not exceed 9’-0” Windows:  left side door: 9’3” from rear property line;  garage door: 2’-9” from side property line;  clerestory windows: 10’-3” above grade; and  skylights: 12’-4” above grade windows within 10' of property line or more than 10’ above grade require a Conditional Use Permit (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)) Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 829 Maple Avenue 3 Staff Comments: The proposed project was continued to a date certain by the Planning Commission at its Action hearing on July 9, 2018. Therefore, public noticing for this current action hearing was not required. Design Review Action Hearing: At the first action hearing on July 9, 2018, the Planning Commission continued to express concerns with the second story shed dormer and recommended that the applicant explore an alternative design (see attached July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). They suggested adding a recess or stepping back the dormer by at least 2 to 3 feet. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped July 27, 2018. The revised plans include a significant change to the second story floor plan where the accessible attic space has been eliminated. Smaller dormers have been added in place of the previously proposed shed dormer and on the left side elevation. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 11, 2018, the Commission had suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the suggestions made by the Planning Commission:  Add window grids for a more Craftsman style appearance;  Identify proposed window cladding material;  Revisit the massing of the second story; and  Indicate the size and style of the proposed siding m aterial. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped June 27, 2018. Please refer to the applicant’s response letter (attached) for a full response to the Planning Commission’s suggestions. The applicant has also submitted photos of the owner’s classic cars that would be parked in the proposed detached garage. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring gable roofs and dormers, composition roofing, proportional plate heights, wood corbels and gable brackets, and aluminum clad windows) is compatible with the variety of styles that define the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 829 Maple Avenue 4 are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings: The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for length of the proposed accessory structure and to be exempt from setbacks at the rear 40% of the lot. The proposed materials for this structure are consistent with the main residence on the property and the proposed plate height and ridge height meet the code requirements. The adjacent neighbor, to which the proposed accessory structure abuts, has an existing accessory structure similar in length and size; other neighbors on the same side of the block have a similar pattern of structures extending deep into their respective rear lots, so that the proposed accessory structure blends in with the pattern of the neighborhood. For these reasons the proposed design may be found to be consistent with the City’s Special Permit criteria. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed accessory structure will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will contain a half bathroom, parking for the main residence, and additional parking for the homeowner’s classic vehicles. The proposed uses are consistent with the land use designation in the General Plan. The proposed roof design reduces the appearance of the structures from the street and from the neighboring properties and the overall heights meet code requirements. The accessory structure will be finished with materials to match the existing house. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. A t the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 27, 2018, sheets A0.1 through A3.5, sheets L1.1 and L2.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 829 Maple Avenue 5 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction p lans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Gary Diebel, AIA, applicant and designer Aidani Santos, property owner Attachments: July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter dated July 26, 2018 June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter dated June 27, 2018 Photos of property owner’s classic cars Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation Special Permit Application Conditional Use Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Area Map santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, california diebel and company architects private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxEXISTING EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.1 (E) Top of Ridge EL.= 29.8' (Verify) Average Top of Curb EL.= 11.56' (Verify) Top of Curb at Property Line EL. = 11.45' Top of Curb at Property Line EL. = 11.56'18'-3"EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A3.1 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 A3.1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A3.1 A3.1 1 Existing Elevation Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. (E) Composition roofing (E) Wood siding, vertical (E) Wood siding, horizontal (E) Brick fireplace and chimney 2 3 4 4 2 1 3 2 3 4 1 3 private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxPROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.2 Top of Subfloor EL= 14.60' Top of Plate EL= 22.70' Top of Subfloor EL= 23.70' Top of Plate EL= 31.80 Top of Roof EL= 38.30'45.00°8'-1 1/4"1'-0"8'-1 1/4"7'-6"6'-5 3/4"12 10 2 9 7 15 174 14 13 12 9 11 1 30' Maximum Height Above Average Top of Curb 3'-1 1/4"Average Top of Curb EL= 11.50' EL = 41.50'26'-9 1/2"12'-0"12'-0" D.H.E. Point of Departure (left) EL= 11.85' D.E.H. Point of Departure (right) EL= 12.00' 8 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A3.2 12 10 12 10 13 12 16 15 10 3 6 11 9 D.H.E. Point of Departure (left) EL= 11.85' D.E.H. Point of Departure (right) EL= 12.00' 8 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A3.2 Egress Window 23"x40" net Egress Window 23"x40" net 12 10 1 2 13 17 7 16 15 8 12 10 5 A3.2 Proposed Elevation Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. (N) Composition roofing (N) Fiber-cement 7" exposure, smooth lap siding with mitered corners, typ. (N) Gutters, typ. (N) Illuminated address sign (N) Low slope metal roof at recessed dormers, typ. (N) Marvin aluminum clad doors, or approved equal, typ. (N) Marvin aluminum clad windows, or approved equal, typ. (N) Shingle siding, straight edge with 7" exposure at the gables, typ. (N) Thin stone veneer finish, typ. (N) Wall mount light fixture, typ. (N) Wood columns, typ. (N) Wood corbels, typ. (N) Wood gable brackets, typ. (N) Wood panel entry door and sidelights, typ. (N) Wood pergola, typ. (N) Wood railing at roof edge (N) Wood trim, typ. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA3.3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.3 Egress Window 23"x40" net Egress Window 23"x40" net 2 4 5 1 3 A B C D E F G H Proposed Elevation Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (N) Marvin aluminum clad windows, or approved equal, typ. (N) Composition roofing (N) Downspout, typ. (N) Fiber-cement 7" exposure, smooth lap siding with mitered corners, typ. (N) Gutters, typ. N/A Calculations based on fire separation distance and degree of opening protection from CBC TABLE 705.8. South wall of house (left side) is setback from the property line 4'-6". Unprotected, sprinkler exterior wall is allowed 15% to have openings for walls 3'-5' from property lines. South wall area is 546 sf. 546 x 15% = 81.30 sf MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS WINDOWS DIMENSIONS AREA ALLOWABLE A 10.4 sf - B 10.4 sf - C 4.0 sf - D 4.0 sf - E 4.0 sf - F 4.0 sf - G 10.4 sf - H 10.4 sf - Total -57.6 sf 81.30 sf (10.55%)(15.00%) GARAGE ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A1.2 6:126:1210 10 3:123:126 3 3 D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxGARAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A1.2 Bath Garage 44'-6 1/2"21'-0"21'-0"41'-1 3/4" 1'-0"1'-0"8 1A1.22 A1.2 5 1966 Mustang GT Fastback 1929 Ford Model A Roadster 1971 Fiat Spider Toyota Matrix 7 7 PROPOSED GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A1.2 3 6 14 13 12 17 9 1 4 13'-9"Maximum above gradePROPOSED GARAGE EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 A1.2 12 6 2 15 11 6 17 16 1 Top of Slab EL= Varies Top of Plate EL= 7'-5 1/4" Top of Roof EL= 13'-5 3/4"7'-5 1/4"6'-0 1/2"12 3 7'-9"Maximum above gradePROPOSED GARAGE WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 A1.2 7 PROPOSED GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 A1.2 7 A1.2 Proposed Garage Plan Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Cement fiber 7" exposure, smooth lap siding with mitered corners. Cement fiber shingle siding, straight edge with 7" exposure at the gables Composition roofing Downspout, typ. Floor drain Gutter, Typ. One-hour fire-resistance-rated wall construction Property Line, typ. Stone clad foundation Velux fixed deck mounted skylight, model VSE 606, R.O. approx 45” x 46 1/2” with flashing kit, curb, tempered, or approved equal, typ. ICC approval number WDMA426. Wall mount light fixture, typ. Clerestory, Marvin aluminum clad windows, or approved equal, typ. Marvin aluminum clad door, or approved equal, typ. Marvin aluminum clad windows, or approved equal, typ. Wood corbels, typ. Wood panel overhead door, typ. Wood trim, typ. Wall Type Legend (N) Interior Wall. 2x4 studs at 16" o.c., interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. (N) Interior wall. 2x4 or 2x6 studs at 16" o.c., interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. Provide acoustical insulation full height. (N) Interior Partial Height Wall. 2x4 studs at 16" o.c., interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. (N) Glass Shower Wall. 1" tempered glass. (E) Exterior Wall w/wood siding (E) Interior Wall (E) Wall to be demolished (N) Foundation Wall w/stone veneer (N) Exterior Wall Siding. Fiber cement siding over 3/8" rainscreen, Tyvek, plywood sheathing on 2x4 wood studs @ 16" o.c. (UNO). Provide R-13 batt insulation in cavity. Pressure treated wood sills at the foundation. Interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA1.3 GARAGE BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A1.3 Top of Slab EL= Varies Top of Plate EL= 7'-5 1/4" Top of Roof EL= 13'-5 3/4"7'-5 1/4"6'-0 1/2"3 4 1 2 12 6 12 3 GARAGE BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A1.3 Garage Building Section Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. Gutter, Typ. Ridge beam, see Structural Velux fixed deck mounted skylight, model VSE 606, R.O. approx 45” x 46 1/2” with flashing kit, curb, tempered, or approved equal, typ. ICC approval number WDMA426. Wood clad clerestory, typ. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA1.1 PROJECT DATASite Plan Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. (E) Electric service meter main (E) Fence to remain (E) Gas meter (E) Sanitary sewer lateral, approximate location (E) Water meter vault (N) Driveway (Pavers) Property line, typ. Required zoning setback line, typ. Two manuever garage access (N) French drain. Connect all downspouts to 4” diameter PVC pipe in French drain. (N) 4" dia. perforated PVC drain line, typ. Provide cleanouts. Slope pipe to drain at 2% to street front or provide pump as required. See details, include City standard curb face outlet details. General Notes 1.Approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4" high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2". The address numbers shall be illuminated with dawn to dusk photo sensor. 2.Verify location of underground utilities. 3.Coordinate (N) electrical service drop wire. Provide (N) roof mast. 4.Coordinate (N) electrical service meter. 5.Coordinate (N) gas meter connection. E E ESS SSSSMAPLE AVENUE (50')Neighboring House Neighboring House 7' Wood Fence (neighboring) 6' Wood Fence 4' Wood Fence Fence Change6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence 4.5' Wood Fence Gate Gravel Concrete Pavers Chimney Gravel Concrete Base Planter Planter River Rock Brick Fence Change 6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp6" VcpConcrete Curb & GutterConcrete Curb & GutterS48°30'00"W 119.92'N50°43'42"W50.00'S48°30'00"W 119.93'S50°43'00"E50.00'Lot 19 SSCO (E) 7" CC (E) 3" ACE (E) 6" PIN(E) 4" ACE 4 (E) 2" ACE (E) 2" ACE (Remove) (E) 3" ACE (Remove) (E) 2" ACE (Remove) (E) 2' ACE 5(E) 12" Fruit (Remove)(E) 1" ACE 6 (E) 3" ACE 3 (E) 1" ACE (Remove) (E) 4" ACE (Remove) (E) 2" ACE (remove) (E) RO EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A1.1 36'-0" Rear 30% of Lot 16'-1" First Floor Required Setback 20'-0" Second Floor Required Setback15'-0" Rear Yard Required Setback 4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback56'-5" Verify 47'-2" Verify 16'-4" Verify 48'-5" Verify 33'-5" Verify 38'-1"4'-6"Verify39'-11"Verify4'-11"Verify(E) House (E) Wood Deck (E) Concrete Driveway (E) Concrete Path (E) Concrete Path 7 8 13 2 5 +11.70' T.O.C. +11.45' T.O.C. +11.56' +11.60' +12.10' +12.30' SSSSSSSSSSMAPLE AVENUE (50')Neighboring House Neighboring House 7' Wood Fence (neighboring) 6' Wood Fence 4' Wood Fence Fence Change Gate6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood Fence Gravel Gravel (E) Planter (E) Planter Fence Change 6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp6" VcpConcrete Curb & GutterConcrete Curb & GutterS48°30'00"W 119.92'N50°43'42"WS48°30'00"W 119.93'S50°43'00"E50.00'Lot 19 SSCO (E) 7" CC (E) 3" ACE (E) 6" PIN (E) 2" ACE (E) 1" ACE 6 (E) 4" ACE 4(E) 2' ACE 5 (E) 1" ACE 2 50.00'(N) GE (N) ACE 1 (E) 3" ACE 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A1.1 House (N) Detached Garage Porch Porch 36'-0" Rear 30% of Lot 16'-1" First Floor Required Setback 20'-0" Second Floor Required Setback 15'-0" Rear Yard Required Setback 4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required SetbackExtent of Second Floor SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 6 2 4 8 7 5 Synthetic Turf Synthetic Turf Landing 44'-6 1/2"74'-3" Verify 1'-0"1'-0"10'-6" Min.1'-0"21'-0"27'-4"Verify43'-6" Verify 53'-5" Verify 23'-2" Verify 4'-6"Verify28'-3"Verify16'-7"Verify9 5'-0"33'-5" (E) House Verify 15'-0" +11.70' T.O.C. +11.45' T.O.C. +11.56' +11.60' +12.10' +12.30' D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. 10 10 10 Floor Area Calculations A 1306 sf 1st Floor House B 865 sf 2ndFloor House C 36 sf 5' high Attic Space D 155 sf Covered Porches E 900 sf Garage A B E D AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK ADDRESS FRONT SETBACK AVERAGE 801 12.0' 815 14.5' 817 14.5' 821 14.5' 825 16.6' 829 16.8' 833 14.5' 103.4'14.8' Public Works Notes 1.A Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public works. 2.A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit will be required to: 1. Replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site. 2. Plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral. 3. All water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification. 4. Any other underground utility works within city’s right-of-way. 3.All debris/garbage container locations shall be on the property. In a situation where that is not possible, an encroachment permit is required from Public Works department for placing debris/garbage containers in the public right-of-way. No wet garbage fluid shall enter public right-of-way or the storm drain system. 4.All water line connections to City water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per City standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the City water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2” and over will be installed by the builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Free Service permit for review and approval. 5.Any work in the City right-of-way, such as street, sidewalk, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 6.Based on the scope of work, this is a Type I that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 7.Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays on non-City Holidays between 8:00am and 5:00pm. This includes construction hauling. 8.It is the responsibility of the owner an/or contractor to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 48 hours before the start of any excavation work. 9.No storm waters, underground waters draining from any lot, building, or paved areas shall be allowed to drain to adjacent properties nor shall these waters be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system. These waters shall all drain to either artificial or natural storm drainage facilities by gravity or pumping regardless of the slope of the property. No rain water from roofs or other rain water drainage shall discharge upon a public sidewalk (except in a single family area) per Municipal code section 18.08.090. 10.No structure shall be built into the City’s right-of way. The property line on Maple Avenue is approximately 9’ measured from the face or curb. 11.Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 12.The project shall comply with the City’s NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. D ZONING R1 Single Family Residence OCCUPANCY GROUP R3 Dwelling U Garage TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VB Fire Sprinklers under a separate permit SETBACKS FRONT REAR SIDES Upper Floor 20'0"20'0"* Lower Floor **15'0"15'0"4'0" LOT SIZE 5,919 sf LOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE House 1019 sf 1306 sf - Covered Porch 85 sf 155 sf - Garage 239 sf 900 sf - Total 1343 sf 2361 sf 2368 sf 22.7%39.9%40.0% (Total Additional Site Coverage)1018 sf FLOOR AREA RATIO EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE First Floor 1011 sf 1306 sf - Second Floor 0 sf 850 sf - 5' High Attic Space 0 sf 51 sf - Garage 239 sf 900 sf - ***Covered Porch 90 sf 155 sf - Total 1250 sf 3153 sf 3394 sf 21.1%53.3%57.3% (Total Additional FAR)1903 sf HEIGHT RESTRICTION EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE 29.8'38.3'41.5' Average top of curb: (11.56’ + 11.45’)/2 = 11.5’ PARKING SPACES EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 2 3 2 * The block average front setback is 16'-1" which was determined by two recent Design Review projects on the same block at 815 and 821 Maple Avenue. ** Declining Height Envelope *** Front porch excempt from FAR. C C private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxSSSSSSSSMAPLE AVENUE (50')Neighboring House Neighboring House 7' Wood Fence (neighboring) Gate6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood Fence Gravel Gravel (E) Planter (E) Planter 6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp6" VcpConcrete Curb & GutterConcrete Curb & GutterS48°30'00"W 119.92'N50°43'42"W50.00'S48°30'00"W 119.93'S50°43'00"E50.00'Lot 19 SSCO (E) 7" CC (E) 3" ACE (E) 6" PIN (E) 2" ACE (E) 1" ACE 6 (E) 3" ACE 3 (E) RO (E) 4" ACE 4 (N) ACE 1 (E) 2' ACE 5 (N) ST (N) ST (N) LOP (N) LOP (N) GE (N) GE (N) EU (N) RO (N) LIT (N) LIT (N) RO (N) EU (N) RO (N) SPR (N) SPR (N) ACA (N) LOP (N) NAN (N) LOP (N) NAN(N) WC (N) GE (N) PIN (N) TEQ (N) GE Planting bed (N) ST(N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST LANDSCAPE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 L1.1 House (N) Detached Garage Porch (N) Synthetic Turf (N) Synthetic Turf (N) Driveway (pavers) L1.1 Planting Notes 1.Contractor shall contact Underground Services Administration prior to excavation and grading. 2.All planting areas shall be cleared of weeds and other debris. The Contractor shall verify with the Owner which existing plants are to remain. Existing plants to be removed shall be verified with Owner prior to removal. All ivy in project area shall be removed; ivy shall be sprayed with herbicide two weeks prior to removal. 3.Soil testing shall be undertaken by the Contractor, and performed by a certified laboratory. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Owner and Landscape Architect. Recommendations for amendments and fertilization shall reflect the nutrient requirements of specified plant species. 4.Soil amendments shall be free of debris such as litter, broken clay pots, and other foreign material. Rocks larger than one inch diameter will not be permitted. Soil amendments shall have the following content: redwood nitrified compost 40%, course sand 30%, black topsoil 30%. 5.Plant holes shall be double the size of the container (generally). The walls and bases of plant holes shall be scarified. Holls shall be backfilled with the following mixture: 80% to 20% imported soil to existing soil. 6.Soil Berms shall be formed around all plants 1 gallon size and larger. Basins shall be mulched with a 3" layer of bark chips, minimum of 1" in size. Planting areas shall be covered with a three inch layer of bark chips. 7.All plants shall be fertilized. Fertilizer shall be commercially available type, Agriform or equivalent. Application shall be according to manufacturer's instructions. Residual weed ppre-emergent shall be applied by the Contractor. Application shall be accoording to manufacturer's instructions. 8.Trees shall be staked with two pressure treated 2" diameter poles. Tree trunk shall be secured with two rubber ties or straps forming a figure-eight between trunk and stake. Tree Notes 1.Existing city street trees may not be cut, trimmed, or removed without a permit from the Park's Department. 2.If construction is within drip line of existing trees, a tree protection plan must be in place to protect trees during all phases of construction. 3.New landscape trees must be single stem, 24” box size trees. 4.No existing trees over 48" in circumference at 54" from base of tree may be removed without a protected tree removal permit from the Park's Department. CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME NOTES ACE 1 Acer palmatum "sango kaku"Japanese maple ACE 2 Acer palmatum "ryusen"Japanese maple ACE 3 Acer palmatum "shishigashira"Japanese maple ACE 4 Acer palmatum "blood good"Japanese maple ACE 5 Acer palmatum "autum blaze"Japanese maple ACE 6 Acer palmatum "beni kawa"Japanese maple LOP Loropetalum Chinese fringe Chinese fringe GE Euonymus japenicus aureo-marginata Golden euonymus RO Rosmarinus offi Tuscan blue Upright rosemary ST Trachelospermum jasminoides Star jasmine EU Euryops - sonnenschein - yellow Yellow daisy KO Pittosporum tenuifolium Kohuhu GAR Gardenia jasminoides veitchii Gardenia TEQ Coprosma tequila sunrise Tequila sunrise LIT Lithodora heavenly blue Lithodora SPR Picea pungens pendula Crroked spruce tree PIN Pinus thunbergii Japanese black pine NAN Nandina domestica Nandina bamboo ACA Acacia cognata Cousin itt WC Prunus x snowfozam Weeping cherry GF Citrus x paradisi Grapefruit tree CC Prunus virginiana "Canada cherry"Ornamental cherry PLANTING LEGEND Objectives of the Landscape 1.To SAVE the PRE-EXISTING, drought tolerant TREES and SHRUBS from being wasted and eliminated. 2.To promote Water Conservation by using the minimal amount of water usage. 3.To add Aesthetic Street Value that will enhance Beautification of the Maple Street in Burlingame City. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 7.26.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA2.5 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A2.5 4A3.43A3.41 A3.4 10:12 10:12 10:1210:1210:1210:12Ridge Ridge RidgeValleyValleyValleyRidge 6 1'-6"1'-0"1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-6" 1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-6"3'-3"Verify4 Property Line D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. (BELOW) D.S.D.S. D.S. 7 1'-6"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-6"ValleyValleyValleyValleyValleyValleyValleyRidgeRidgeRidgeRidge10:12 10:12 10:12 10:12 10:12 10:1210:12 10:121:121:121:121:12213 5 Roof Plan Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. (N) Composition roofing (N) Gutter, typ. (N) Low slope metal roof at recessed dormers, typ. (N) Roof overhangs to not be within 2' of property line. (N) TPO roofing Hip below Scupper connected to D.S. Provide overflow drain PROJECT LOCATION 1660 Westmoor Road Item No. 8e Regular Action Items Item No. 8e Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1660 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions APN: 025-232-740 Property Owner: Amauri Campos Melo Lot Area: 5,414 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot that has frontages on both Westmoor Road and Dufferin Avenue. For corner lots, the code defines the front of the property as the side with the shortest linear frontage (C.S. 25.08.435). For this property, the front of the lot is the frontage facing Dufferin Avenue even though the street address and front entrance of the house is on Westmoor Road. The existing one-story house with an attached garage contains 1,555 SF (0.29 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to remodel the first floor, expand the existing front covered porch, and add a new second story (1,157 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to the maximum allowed of 2,633 SF (0.49 FAR) which includes a 199 SF covered porch exemption. The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The remodeled attached garage provides two covered parking spaces (19’-5” wide x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) and 1 uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 1660 Westmoor Road Lot Area: 5,414 SF Plans date stamped: July 18, 2018 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/ REQUIRED Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-3½” n/a no change 23’-2½” 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” Side (interior): (exterior): 9’-5” 9’-4½” 11’-4½” (to addition) 8’-2½” (to porch) 6'-0" 7’-6” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-8” n/a no change 24’-7” 15'-0" 20'-0" Design Review 1660 Westmoor Road 2 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/ REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 1,682 SF 31.1% 1,745 SF 32.2% 2,166 SF 40% FAR: 1,555 SF 0.29 FAR 2,633 SF 0.49 FAR 2,633 SF 1 0.49 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19’-5” x 23’-2½” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 2 covered (19’-5” x 20’-0” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 18’-10” 27’-9½” 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5,414 SF) + 900 SF = 2,633 SF (0.49) FAR Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 25, 2018, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below were the Commission’s comments and recommendations:  Windows o Overall arrangement needs to be revisited - look at the placement, size, and treatment of the windows; o Consider adding muntins or window grids to break up the size of the windows to add scale and detail; o Current proposed windows are large and apartment -like, heavy; o Double hung windows would look nice but may affect egress, maybe look at casement windows;  Rear elevation o No windows on the second floor, looks blank; o Break up massing on the tall gable with windows; o Consider another window in the open space where the laundry area is;  Right side elevation o Blank high forehead; o Add detail to the gable end such as a vent or another detail;  Plate height – reduce 9 foot plate height on second floor to 8 feet;  Chimney – appears massive, consider separating , gas fireplaces does not need a chimney; Design Review 1660 Westmoor Road 3  Overall Design – most compelling design is front porch or garage door (Craftsman), everything else feels ranch style; no charm to building except porch. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped July 18, 2018 to address the Planning Commission’s comments. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant went through a few rounds of review with the project designer and homeowner to address the Planning Commission's main concerns with the project. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated July 18, 2018, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that the revisions reflect the recommendations made by the Planning Commission and that they “provide a well massed and nicely d etailed structure.” Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed project (featuring hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, stucco siding) is compatible with the variety of styles that define the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the propose d structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and shou ld be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submi tted to the Planning Division date stamped July 18, 2018, sheets A-0 through A-11; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; Design Review 1660 Westmoor Road 4 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall rem ain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduct ion plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framin g, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspec t and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions, applicant and designer Amauri Campos Melo, property owner Design Review 1660 Westmoor Road 5 Attachments: June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated July 18, 2018 Letter from Neighbor, received June 25, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map PROJECT LOCATION 1615 Ralston Avenue Item No. 8f Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1615 Ralston Avenue Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders APN: 028-314-030 Property Owners: Henry and Jaclyn Eng Lot Area: 7,025 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (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. Regular Action Meeting (June 25, 2018): At the Planning Commission action meeting on June 25, 2018, the Commission noted that the changes that have been made to the project are good and that the house is much improved. However, the Commission asked the applicant to consider making several changes/corrections that would help the design and voted to continue the item until revised plans have been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns and suggestions expressed by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped July 31, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s concerns and suggestions. Please refer to the letter and revised plans for a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the previous action meeting. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 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, Inc., dated February 14, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1615 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Therefore, the proposed project may be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act 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, are exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The existing single family dwelling and detached two-car garage contains 2,972 SF (0.42 FAR) of floor area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing attached carport and bedroom and bathroom above it at the rear of the house and replace it with a new second story addition over the center of the house. There are no changes proposed to the existing detached garage, which would remain to provide the required off-street parking. The existing slab under the carport would remain and be used as a patio. This project would increase the total floor area to 3,500 SF (0.50 FAR), where 3,748 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 248 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. Item No. 8f Regular Action Item Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue 2 With this application, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from four to six. A minimum of three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a six-bedroom house. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (19'-6" wide x 19'-5” deep clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 1615 Ralston Avenue Lot Area: 7,025 SF Plans Date Stamped: July 31, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18'-3" n/a no change 40’-5” 15'-0" or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 2'-0" ¹ 8'-4” 8'-0" to 2nd story addn 10'-11” to 2nd story addn 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 46'-2" 46’-2” 58’-0” 58’-0” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2751 SF 39.1% 2489 SF 35.4% 2810 SF 40% FAR: 2972 SF 0.42 FAR 3500 SF 0.50 FAR 3748 SF 0.53 FAR ² # of bedrooms: 4 6 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19'-6”W x 19'-5”D) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 19’-8” 26’-2” (28’-9” previously proposed) 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ Existing nonconforming left side setback. ² (0.32 x 7,025 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,748 SF (0.53 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on July 24 2017, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped June 19, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue 3 Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project architect and property owners over several meetings to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated June 18, 2018, for a detailed list of the changes made to the project and an analysis of how the revisions are consistent with the design guidelines. The design reviewer notes that with the revisions made to the project, it is her opinion that “the new design meets the requirements of the design guidelines.” Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring gable roofs, a dormer element incorporated into a large sloping roof at the front of the house, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, stucco siding, wood eave brackets at the gable ends, and fiberglass clad wood windows with wood trim) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 31, 2018, sheets A1 through A9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue 4 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager c. Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, applicant and designer Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue 5 Attachments: June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated July 31, 2018 July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 18, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 14, 2017 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018 d.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) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Thomas A. Saviano represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The west elevation finishes abruptly on the back side. Was there consideration to adding a roof over the rear door? (Saviano: It is one of the few remaining aspects of the house. It is only visible from the rear of the house. A trellis has been added to the rear.) Would provide some protection to the doors and windows. >The rear elevation has an element with a shed roof and a blank wall on the side of a bedroom. There is a window on the side of the bedroom; was there consideration to adding windows to that back wall? (Saviano: It is part of the existing structure, and was not looking to modify it more than necessary. There is foliage already screening it, and the trellis is intended to mitigate the abrupt nature of the blank wall.) It would help the bedroom programmatically to have windows on two sides, though it's not a deal -breaker. (Saviano: Has been trying to be cost-conscious. Emphasis has been on the aesthetics.) >Was there consideration on the west elevation do something with the large window to the left of the door? It's existing but seems a bit out of place. (Saviano: Has considered an apron or flower bed off the window to improve the aesthetics.) >Is there confidence that the interior flow works the way it should and that the windows will not need to move around? (100% of the interior layout is by the owners desire.) If windows move, will need to come back. (Saviano: Yes, the interior layout has been determined by the homeowner. Has ensured that what is proposed can be accommodated by solid engineering.) >All of the windows have a prairie -style grid pattern except for the two rear bedrooms on the left. Was there thought to changing those windows? (Saviano: Thinks there will be an effort to change all the existing windows to something that will accommodate the aesthetics. Needs to review with the client. They are covered with foliage so not visible, but client is interested in continuity. They are already old windows .) They would look good from the inside of the house as well. Could also look at the fenestration, so the sizes could match those around the rest of the house. >Gable vent on front could be more decorative. (Saviano: Will review with client. It is one of several nuances that could be accommodated to make the house more attractive.) >The double-hung windows on the front are not shown correctly; the upper sashes are smaller than the Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/1/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bottom, not equal. Not sure how that would look if the windows on the second floor are true split double-hung and have the prairie muntins. (Saviano: They are on different planes. The upper windows are set further back.) >On the east elevation there appears to be a drafting error, that the existing window is not centered on the gable as shown on the plans, and that the existing gable wall is wider than shown. (Saviano: It is not intended to be a modification so is probably an error.) >Corbel gable brackets are shown as 4 x 4s, but they should be 4 x 6s since they are wider than they are tall. >Is this the project that is intended to be built? Seems like there are still a number of things that might change. (Saviano: Yes, needs to get it approved so it can be built, but is malleable. If there are suggestions that the approval will hinge on, will be accommodating.) Public Comments: John and Kathleen Weatherwax, 1611 Ralston next door on the east side: Loves the idea of upgrading the house, but concerned the new upstairs might impact the light on the property, especially in the the front . How far from the front of the house will the new addition be? (Gaul: Suggests meet on site with the applicant so they can show where the addition will be .)(Tse: Looks like the second floor would be around 19 or 20 feet from the front.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >East elevation is far enough off, not comfortable with that not yet being resolved. >The proportion of the double -hung windows needs to be corrected so it will be able to see how they will look with the new windows. >The corrections can be made with a continuance. >Should double check the space planning on the interior. Doesn't look like it will be a comfortable house. Concerned the first floor powder room with 2-foot hallway will be unusable, but could be relatively easy to fix. The upstairs hallway is so narrow, it will make the whole floor feel claustrophobic. The interior layout is not the purview of the Planning Commission but it's a concern. >The changes that have been made are good and the house is much improved. The only concern was whether there are still changes anticipated. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/1/2018 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1615 Ralston Avenue, Zoned R-1, Henry and Jaclyn Eng, 1615 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, Ca, 94010, property owners, APN: 028-314-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 13, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review was approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue Effective August 23, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 31, 2018, sheets A1 through A9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue Effective August 23, 2018 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 3'-6"First Floor RidgeFirst Floor First Floor CeilingFirst Floor FloorSecond Floor 7' 6" AFF. 2ND FLOORƒ3'-6"9'3'-7"8'First Floor Ceiling26'-2"First Floor Second Floor Ceiling9'3'26'-2"3'-7"8'Second Floor FloorSecond Floor CeilingSecond Floor RidgeGrade lavelT.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"Point of Departure + 57'-0"Highest Ridge Point +82'-3"T.O. Second Floor Subfloor +70'-8"1'-2"3'-4"T.O. Existing Ridge Height +74' - 0"Note:A.F.F Above Finished FloorPoint of Departure + 57'-0"T.O. New Highest Point Ridge +82'-3"T.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"12'T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' -6"3'-6"25'-3"9'-9"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"7' 6" AFF. 2ND FLOOREast Property Line West Property Line 12'8'-11"6'2X8 Fascia BoardWindow(Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window(Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window(Existing/Wood/Fixed)Door(Existing/Wood/Single Panel)Window (Existing/Wood/Fixed)Window (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window(Existing/Wood/Fixed)6x4 Gable BracketWindow(New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Casment)Window(New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window(New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)4x4 Gable Bracket2X8 Fascia BoardNew Stucco Finishto Match ExistingNew Stucco Finishto Match Existing9" Wide ClearRedwood Belly BandNew WallPainted Metal Gutter3'-6"EGRESS2'-9"Existing MetalRailingƒ1212123 3/412Black Composite Roofingto match existing3 3/43 3/43 3/4E. 18" X 12" Gable Ventwith Metal ScreenBlack Composite Roofingto match existingEGRESS3'-4"2'-6"Stucco Finished FireplaceNew TrellisNote:All windows to be fiberglass clad woodwith simulated true divided litesNew 14" X 20"Planter BoxBOTTOM SASHWOOD TRIMTO MATCH EXISTINGSASH TOPRAILBLIND STOPJAMBPARTINGBEADCASINGCASINGGLASSTOP SASHAPRONAPRONSILLSASH BOTTOMRAILMEETINGRAILPUTTY BEVELSTOP2" X 4" EXISTINGSTUD WALL2" X 7 " REDWOODBELLY BAND2" x 3" REDWOODSLOPED AT TOP1/2 " PLYSHEETING7/8 " STUCCOTO MATCH EXISTINGTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'7/31/18A7PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Proposed Side Elevations Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:NORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONWINDOW TYPICAL DETAILBELLY BAND DETAIL 3'-6"9'8'3'-7"26'-2"First Floor First Floor CeilingSecond Floor CeilingSecond Floor 3'9'3'8'3'-7"26'-2"First Floor First Floor RidgeSecond Floor FloorFirst Floor CeilingSecond Floor CeilingSecond Floor RidgeFirst Floor FloorGrade LavelSecond Floor 3'-4" 4'-8" 3'-8" 2'-2" 2'-4" A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F Highest Ridge Point +82'-3"T.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"Point of Departure + 57'-0"T.O. Second Floor Subfloor +70'-8"Note:A.F.F Above Finished FloorNote:A.F.F Above Finished Floor1'-2"1'-10"T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' - 6"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"Point of Departure +57' -0"3'-6"T.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"Point of Departure + 57'-0"12'T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' -6"T.O. New Highest Point Ridge +82'-3"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"9'-9"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"6"x4" Gable BracketWindow (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window (Existing/Wood/Fixed)Exterior Paint Grade (New/Wood/Double Panel)Window (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)New Stucco Finishto Match Existing6"x4" Gable Bracket2"X8" Fascia BoardPainted Metal GutterNew Wall2' Extension at rearRear Gable Roof3 3/43 3/43 3/43'-6"Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)EXISTING SLIDING WINDOWWindow (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Fixed)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Metal DownspoutBlack Composite Roofingto match existingRoof Eave of the Front SlopeNew Stucco Finishto Match Existing2'2"X8" Fascia BoardE. 18" X 12" Ventwith Metal ScreenBlack Composite Roofingto match existingExisting MetalRailingGas Fireplace Insertto Replace Masonry Fireplace1212123 3/412EGRESS9" Wide ClearRedwood Belly Band2'-9"New Redwood TrellisDoor (Existing/Wood/Single Panel)New TrellisWindow (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)New Planter BoxTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'7/31/18A8PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Proposed Second Floor Elevations Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:EAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATION W11 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)3'-4" 4'-8" 3'-8"W8 (Existing/Wood/Slider)W9 (Existing/Wood/Slider)W6 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W13 (Existing/Wood/Casement)2'-2" A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F 122 1/4122 1/4Crawl Space VentW10 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Existing Exterior Door (Rear Side)/WoodExisting Black Iron Pipe RailingA.F.F Existing Gable Ventwith Metal Screen (18" X 12")W14 (Existing/Wood/Casement)2'-2" 4'-6" 2'-2"W12 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W2 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W3 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)W5 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)W4 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W3 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)W15 (Existing/Wood/Casement)Existing Black Iron Pipe RailingD1 ( Existing Front Door/Wood)A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F Crawl Space VentExisting Gable Vent122 1/4122 1/4Note:A.F.F Above Finished FloorNote:A.F.F Above Finished Floor123 3/4123 3/46 X 4 Existing Gable BracketExisting Stucco Fireplace6 X 4 Existing Gable BracketTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'7/31/18A6PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Existing Elevations Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:E. WEST ELEVATIONE. NORTH ELEVATIONE. SOUTH ELEVATIONE. EAST ELEVATION 3 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4: 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 122 1/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 122 1/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 12RIDGERIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPHIPRIDGERIDGE RIDGE 3 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 12RIDGE RIDGEExterior Wall Line2'Metal Gutter2'Exterior Wall LineMetal Gutter2'2'2'2'2'2'1'RIDGE RIDGE TITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'7/31/18A9PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Roof Plan Henry Residence 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:EXISTING FIRST FLOOR ROOF PLANPROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ROOF PLAN UPUP10'-11"2'-4"2'21'-10"GARAGE (EXISTING)AREA : 410 Sft.CONCRETE PAD UNDERNEATH OFCARPORT REMAIN AS IT ISAREA : 365 SftEXIXTING BUILDINGAREA : 2011 Sft.CONCRETE BLOCKPAVINGCONCRETE BLOCKPAVING5'-8"3'8'-4"16'-9"23'-7"(E) 24" D. TREE( TRIDIENT MAPLE)LAND SCAPINGDRIVE WAYRALSTON AVESIDE WALK137'-6" PROPERTY LINE6' HIGH WOOD FENCE143'-6" PROPERTY LINE6' HIGH WOOD FENCE 50'-0" PROPERTY LINE6' HIGH WOOD FENCE20'-3"20'-3"24'-4"8'ADDITIONAL SECOND FLOORAREA : 1078.00 Sft.RIGHT OF WAY 23'-6"22'-7"24'-2"29'-10"46'-2"ELECTRICITY METERFRONT PORCH4'-11"5'8'-4"2'1'-4"CURB AND GUTTER143'-6"50'51'-2"58'19'-6"19'-5"E. TREE(AUSTRALIAN WILLOW)+56' 0"+56' 1 1/2"+57' 10"+57' 11"+56' 2"E. SEWERE. WATER METERE. BIKE ROUTE SIGNE. POWER LINEE. CABLE LINE(E) 9" D. TREE( BIRCH)INSTALL TREE PROTECTIONINSTALL NEW 1" WATER LINEFIRE SPRINKLERWATER SUPPLYPOTABLEWATER SUPPLYFIRE SPRINKLERMETER OR VALVE7'-1"E. FIREPLACE40'-5"PLANTING AREAFOR VINESTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/8"=1'7/31/18A1PROPOSED SITE PLANPROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Project Information Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:Project InformationAddition of Second Floor1615 Ralston Ave.Burlingame, CA 94010APN: 028314030Lot Area: 7025 sftZonning: R1Type of Construction: V- BProject InformationLot Coverage( E ) 2751 SFT( N ) 2489 SFTLot CoverageFloor Area( E ) House & Garage 1st Floor 1928.4 sft 2nd Floor 0 sft Garage 410 sftToral Existing 2338.4 sft( N ) House & Garage 1st Floor 1928.4 sft 2nd Floor 1146.6 sft Garage 410 sftTotal New 3485 sftRequired SetbackApplicable Codes2016 California Residential Code (2009 IRC)2016 California Building Standards Administrative Code ( Title 24, Part 1 )2016 California Building Code ( Title 24, Part 2)2016 California Electrical Code ( Title 24, Part 3)2016 California Mechanical Code ( Title 24, Part 4)2016 California Plumbing Code ( Title 24, Part 5)2016 California Green Building Code ( Title 24, Part 6)2016 California Fire Code ( Title 24, Part 9)2016 California Existing Building Code ( Title 24, Part 10)2016 Referenced Standards Code ( Title 24, Part 12)2016 Green Residential Building Code(A1) Project Information(A2) First Floor Plan (Existing/New)(A3) Second Floor Plan (Proposed)(A4) Windows Schedule Plan (Proposed)(A5) Electrical Plan (Proposed)(A6 ) Existing Elevations(A7) Proposed Elevations (Front/West)(A8) Proposed Elevations (Rear/East)(A9) Roof Plan (Existing/Proposed)IndexNEWSLEGEND:Existing Foundation LineProperty LineExisting BuildingAdditional Second FloorExisting TreeFLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR):For interior lot with detached garage:.32 X lot area + 1100 SF + 400 Sf (for detached garage).32 X 7025 + 1100 + 400 = 3748 SFMsximum allowable floor area based on FAR 3748 SFFirst Floor Total Area (Existing + New) = 2489 - 130.6 - 20 = 2338.4 SFSecond Floor Total Area (Proposed) = 1146.6 SFProposed + Existing Total Area = 2338.4 +1146.6 = 3485 SF < 3748 SF ( Maximum Allowed)ExistingAllowed/RequiredProposedFront (1st Floor) ( 2nd Floor)21' - 10" n/ano change40' - 5"15' - 0" or block avg.20' - 0" or block avg.2' - 0"8' - 4"8' - 0" to 2nd story10' - 11" to 2nd story4' - 0"4' - 0"46' - 2"48' - 2"58' - 0"58' - 0"15' - 0"20' - 0"Side ( Left ) ( Right )Rear (1st Floor) ( 2nd Floor)General Notes:Landscape Notes:1. Landscape will remain the same.2. Installed Tree Protection Plan must be included on plans andbe in place before construction begins to protect all trees onproperty.3. Rehabilitated landscape must comply with the WaterConservation in LandscapeStormwater Notes:1. All construction project in the City, regardless of size, shallcomply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to preventconstruction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponentsshall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate andeffective Best Management Practices ( BMPs) during all phaseof construction, including demolition.Building Division Notes:Fire Department Notes:1. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valveassembly - A scjematic of water.2. Fire sprinkler shall be installed under a separate deferredfire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior toinstallation.1. "Construction Hours"Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. - 7.00 p.m.Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.Sundays and Holidays: No Worked AllowedConstruction hours in the City Public right of way are limited toweekdays and Non City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m.2. "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performedbeyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plansmay require further City approvals including review by thePlanning Commission." The building owner, project designer,and /or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for anywork not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plansprior to performing the work.3. No grading is required.4. Existing fireplace is wood burning and will be upgraded asper U.S.EPA phase 2 certified wood Burning Device.Building To Be DemolishedSide WalkGrass Area City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2516 Valdivia Way Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit to enlarge an existing second- story deck on a single-family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Stan Panko, Panko Architects APN: 025-171-040 Property Owner: Tom O’Brien Lot Area: 11, 550 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not resu lt in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached two-car garage is located in the Hillside Area. The existing house and garage contains 3,789 SF (0.32 FAR) and has four bedrooms. The house contains an existing 253 SF uncovered second-story deck at the rear. The applicant proposes an extension that would add 174 SF to the deck. The deck would be 12’-8” high (including a guardrail) and increase its width by 6’-0” and length by 18’-2”. With the deck extension, the floor area of the house would increase to 3,963 SF (0.34 FAR) where 4,796 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The house would be 833 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms would remain at four. One covered (9’-0” x 18’-0” for existing) and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) is required for a four-bedroom house. The existing house has a two-car attached garage with clear interior dimensions of 20’-4” x 27’-7” and therefore the project complies with the off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requests the following:  Design Review to enlarge an existing second-story deck (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)); and  Hillside Construction Area Permit for a deck addition (CS 25.61.020) 2516 Valdivia Way Lot Size: 11, 500 SF Plans date stamped: July 17, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): No change No change 15’-0” (or block average) (2nd flr): 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): (right): 34’-6” 26’-8” 34’-6” 21’-0” 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (2nd flr): 62’-2” 57’-8” 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,562 SF 22.2 % 2,736 SF 23.7 % 4620 SF1 40% FAR: 3,789 SF 0.32 FAR 3,963 SF 0.34 FAR 4,796 SF 2 0.41 FAR Item No. 8g Regular Action Item Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2516 Valdivia Way 2 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 4 No change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’-4” X 27’-7”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) No Change 1 covered (9’x18’ for existing garage) 1 uncovered (9'x20') Height: 22-8” (house) 12’-8” (existing deck) 22’-8” (house) 12’-8” (proposed deck) 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 11,550 SF) = 4620 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 11,550SF) + 1100 SF = 4,769 SF (0.41 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on July 9, 2018, the Commission requested to see the railing design of the deck. One of the Commissioners noted that he had met with the neighbor and appears there were no privacy issues. Overall, the Commission was satisfied with the project and stated that the project would not require a story pole plan due to the scope of the construction . They voted to bring this back as a regular action after having it reviewed by the staff (see attached July 9, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped July 17, 2018. The elevations show that the railing design is revised from redwood railing to 1/8th-inch diameter stainless steel cable railing. There are no other changes to the plans. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The material and design of the deck is of high quality and would not increase the overall bulk of the house. The extension is done at the rear of the house and would have minimum impact on the neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2516 Valdivia Way 3 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduc t a public hearing on the application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 17, 2018, sheets A1.0 through A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2516 Valdivia Way 4 framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Stan Panko, applicant and designer Tom O’Brien, property owner Attachments: July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 9, 2018 b.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. (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 - 07.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul met with the property owner and was able to access the back yard. Commissioner Terrones met with the property owner and had a brief conversation about the application, was able to access the back yard, and also visited with the neighbors at 2720 Valdivia Way. Planning Manager Hurin 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. Commission Questions/Comments: >Owner has been considering a cable rail system. Neighbors seemed encouraged by that, and did not see a view intrusion if it were a cable rail. (Panko: The current design is based on the existing, but a cable rail can work as well.) Public Comments: Neighbor, 2512 Valdivia Way: Intends to extend out in the future, wants to make sure extension will not be blocking neighbor's view. (Gaul: Recommends to talk with Planning staff.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Visited the applicant's property and the uphill neighbor. Neighbors appreciative that they were able to review the plans, and grateful that the application had put up a simulation indicating the extent of the addition. Does not see an issue with the view ordinance. >Does not need story poles since it is a deck railing; in this instance the simulation is adequate, assuming it is accurate. >Should have clarification of the design of railings when it comes back. >Should get verification from the architect on the accuracy of the simulation. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing: >Has the simulation been verified for accuracy? (Panko: Has not verified the simulation. The extension would go out 4 feet towards the rear, which is the about the width of the existing stairs.) >When item comes back, should verify that it is an accurate representation. There should also be representation of the height, given that currently it is a 36-inch rail at the most but it will need to be increased to at least 42 inches. Should have something string between to indicate location of railing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar with direction that the applicant and architect work together on an accurate simulation of the deck rail, and that the design of the railing is confirmed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 Project Address: 2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-040 Description: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second floor deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. No comments at this time. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 5-17-18 650-558-7617 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-040 Description: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second floor deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: BD Date: 5.10.18 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-040 Description: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second floor deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling. From: Rick Caro Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: May 2, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-040 Description: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second floor deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing needed at this time for stormwater. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city’s stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2’x 3’ or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: May 3, 2018 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, APN: 025-171-040 Description: Request for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second floor deck addition to an existing single-family dwelling. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a “Type I” project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 3. Insert the ‘Best Management Practices’, updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Program%20BMP%20Plan%20Sh eet-June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click “construction bmp plan sheet” Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 5/3/18 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for an extension of an existing second- story deck at 2516 Valdivia Way, zoned R-1, Tom O’ Brien, property owner, APN: 025-171-040; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 13, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of August 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2516 Valdivia Way Effective August 23, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 17, 2018, sheets A1.0 through A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 11. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. City of Burlingame Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit Address: 717 Neuchatel Avenue Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: 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 and new attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture APN: 029-051-160 Property Owners: Lamar Zhao and Jennifer Guan Lot Area: 3,499 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached one-car garage contains 1,157 SF (0.33 FAR) of floor area. The proposed project includes additions on the first floor, a new second story, and a new attached one-car garage along the left side of the house. The proposed project would increase the total floor area to 2,164 SF (0.62 FAR), where 2,220 SF (0.63 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 56 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. The existing house has two bedrooms and with the addition, the number of bedrooms will increase to four. Staff notes that the study room on the first floor qualifies as a bedroom since it is enclosed and measures at least 70 SF in area. The proposal includes demolishing the existing detached garage and replacing it with a new, attached one-car garage (10’-2” x 20’-2” clear interior dimensions). The attached garage is setback 25’-9½” from the front property line where 25’-0” is the minimum required for a one-car garage. One uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. There is an existing uncovered landing at the front entry of the house. The landing does not extend more than 30 inches above grade, therefore it does not affect setback or lot coverage requirements. The applicant is proposing to replace the existing landing with a new front covered porch with approximately the same footprint, which requires a request for a Front Setback Variance (15’-5” proposed where 19’-6” is required based on the average of the block). The proposed front porch does not extend further than the existing landing. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and a new attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2) and (6));  Front Setback Variance for a new front covered porch (15’-5” proposed where 19’-6” is required based on the average of the block) (C.S. 25.26.072 (b) (1)); and  Special Permit for an attached one-car garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review, Front Setback Variance and Special Permit 717 Neuchatel Avenue 2 717 Neuchatel Avenue Lot Area: 3,499 SF Plans date stamped: June 21, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): Attached Garage: 20'-11" to house n/a n/a 15’-5” to new porch ¹ 28'-2" 25’-9½” 19'-6" (block average) 20'-0" 25’-0” Side (left): (right): 7'-11" 3'-5½" 3’-6” 3'-5½" 3'-0" 3'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 33'-9½" n/a 23'-1½" 27'-1½" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1164 SF 33.2% 1399 SF 39.9% 1400 SF 40% FAR: 1157 SF 0.33 FAR 2164 SF 0.62 FAR 2220 SF ² 0.63 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10'-2" x 20'-2”) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 19'-2½" 27'-10" 30’-0” DH Envelope: complies complies using window enclosure exception on right side and gable exception on left side C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ Front Setback Variance required for new front porch (15’-5” proposed where 19’-6” is required based on the block average). ³ (0.32 x 3499 SF) + 1100 SF = 2220 SF (0.63 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Jeanne Davis, Davis Architecture, applicant and architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Variance Application Special Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map EL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT EL. = +21.14' AVE. E GRADE 2ND FLOOR B.O. CEILING 45°12'-0"8'-3"30'-0"MAXIMUM BUILDABLE ENVELOPE 27'-10"PROPOSED RIDGEB.O. CEILING (BEDROOMS)8'-3"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE12 10 12 10 12 4 7'-1 1/2"6'-8 1/2" 7 1 7 EL. = +47.77' EL. = +20.70' AVE. W GRADE 27'-10"PROPOSED RIDGEEL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C.12'-0"EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"B.O. CEILING 8'-3"MAXIMUM BUILDABLE ENVELOPE 8'-3"B.O. CEILING (BEDROOMS)PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE12 10 12 10 12 4 6'-8 1/2"7'-1 1/2" EL. = +47.77' EL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT EL. = +21.14' AVE. E GRADE B.O. CEILING 45°12'-0"8'-3"30'-0"MAXIMUM BUILDABLE ENVELOPE 19'-2 1/2"EXISTING RIDGEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEL. = +39.15' EL. = +20.70' AVE. W GRADE EL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 2ND FLOOR B.O. CEILING 12'-0"8'-3"30'-0"19'-2 1/2"EXISTING RIDGEMAXIMUM BUILDABLE ENVELOPE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEEL. = +39.15' SCALE 91/4" = 1'-0" SCALE 21/4" = 1'-0"FRONT ELEVATION (PROPOSED)REAR ELEVATION (PROPOSED) SCALE 31/4" = 1'-0" SCALE 81/4" = 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION (EXISTING)REAR ELEVATION (EXISTING) FIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD INSULATED WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES (TYPICAL U.O.N.) WOOD GABLE VENT, PAINTED (TYP. AS SHOWN) EGRESS OPENING 2'-4" W X 4'-0" H = 6.96 SF CLR. WALL SCONCE, 40 WATT. MAX. (TYP. AS SHOWN) DOWNSPOUTS AND GUTTERS, PAINT TO MATCH TRIM (TYP.) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING (TYP.) 5 INCH HIGH BRASS BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED BY WALL-MOUNTED SCONCE CONTROLLED BY TIMER WOOD GARAGE DOOR WITH GLASS LITES, PAINTED WOOD DOOR WITH GLASS LITES AND GROOVED PANEL, PAINTED ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD INSULATED GLASS DOORS WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES WOOD FRONT DOOR WITH LITES AND GROOVED PANEL, PAINTED 2X8 WOOD FASICA WITH 1X3 SHADOW BOARD AT GABLE ENDS, PAINTED (TYP.) 2X8 WOOD FASICA WITH 1X3 SHADOW BOARD AT GABLE ENDS, PAINTED (TYP.) WOOD GABLE VENT, PAINTED (TYP. AS SHOWN) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) WOOD SHAKE ROOFING (TYP.) WOOD WINDOWS, TRIM AND PLANTER BOXES, PAINTED (TYP. U.O.N.) WOOD SHAKE ROOFING (TYP.) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) BUILT-IN BRICK BBQ WOOD DOORS WITH GLASS LITES, PAINTED (TYP. U.O.N.) WOOD FRONT DOOR, PAINTED (TYP. U.O.N.)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.1 JOB# 1802 PLANNING SETBurlingame, CA 94010717 Neuchatel AvenueZhao Residence17 MAY 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 Davis Architecture21 JUN 20181 1 OPEN 12 10 12 10 SCALE 21/4" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION (PROPOSED) SCALE 31/4" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION (EXISTING) EL. = +20.70' AVE. W GRADE EL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"B.O. CEILING 8'-3"B.O. CEILING (BEDROOMS)PROPERTY LINEEL. = +20.70' AVE. W GRADE EL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT 30'-0"B.O. CEILING 8'-3"PROPERTY LINE27'-10"PROPOSED RIDGEPROPERTY LINE19'-2 1/2"EXISTING RIDGEPROPERTY LINEFIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD INSULATED WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES (TYPICAL U.O.N.) DOWNSPOUTS AND GUTTERS, PAINT TO MATCH TRIM (TYP.) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING (TYP.) 24" HIGH DECORATIVE METAL RAILING, BRONZE8'-3"EGRESS OPENING 2'-4" W X 4'-6" H = 7.94 SF CLR. EGRESS OPENING 2'-4" W X 3'-6" H = 5.98 SF CLR. WOOD DECK VELUX GLASS SKYLIGHT, OR EQUAL 8'-0"SHED PLATE HEIGHT8'-7"SHED PLATE HEIGHT2X8 WOOD FASICA WITH 1X3 SHADOW BOARD AT GABLE ENDS, PAINTED (TYP.) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) WOOD SHAKE ROOFING (TYP.) WOOD BRACKETS, PAINTED WOOD WINDOWS AND TRIM, PAINTED (TYP. U.O.N.) BUILT-IN BRICK BBQ EL. = +47.77' EL. = +39.15' 34" HIGH HANDRAIL, BRONZE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.2 JOB# 1802 PLANNING SETBurlingame, CA 94010717 Neuchatel AvenueZhao Residence17 MAY 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 Davis Architecture21 JUN 20181 1 OPEN 12 10 12 10 SCALE 21/4" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION (PROPOSED) SCALE 31/4" = 1'-0"EAST ELEVATION (EXISTING) EL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT EL. = +21.14' AVE. E GRADE 2ND FLOOR B.O. CEILING B.O. CEILING (BEDROOMS)PROPERTY LINEEL. = +19.94' AVE. T.O.C. EL. = +23.00' 1ST FLOOR EL. = +49.94' 30' HEIGHT LIMIT EL. = +21.14' AVE. E GRADE B.O. CEILING PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEFIBERGLASS CLAD WOOD INSULATED WINDOWS WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES (TYP. U.O.N.) DOWNSPOUTS AND GUTTERS, PAINT TO MATCH TRIM (TYP.) ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING (TYP.) WOOD DECK BEYOND RANGE HOOD SIDE VENT - VERIFY 4 FOOT MIN. CLEARANCE TO WINDOWS 24" HIGH DECORATIVE METAL RAILING, BRONZE EGRESS OPENING 2'-4" W X 4'-6" H = 7.94 SF CLR. WOOD GABLE VENT, PAINTED (TYP.) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) 2X8 WOOD FASICA WITH 1X3 SHADOW BOARD AT GABLE ENDS, PAINTED (TYP.) STUCCO, PAINTED (TYP.) WOOD SHAKE ROOFING (TYP.) VINYL SLIDERS WITH WOOD TRIM, PAINTED WOOD DOORS WITH GLASS LITES, PAINTED (TYP. U.O.N.) VINYL SLIDERS WITH WOOD TRIM, PAINTED BUILT-IN BRICK BBQ WOOD BRACKETS, PAINTED EL. = +47.77' EL. = +39.15'8'-3"30'-0"8'-3"8'-3"30'-0"27'-10"PROPOSED RIDGE19'-2 1/2"EXISTING RIDGE34" HIGH HANDRAIL, BRONZE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.3 JOB# 1802 PLANNING SETBurlingame, CA 94010717 Neuchatel AvenueZhao Residence17 MAY 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 Davis Architecture21 JUN 20181 1 FBBQ S E G W S OE STONE WALL MASONRY WALL GRAVEL CONCRETE WALL FENCE PROPERTY LINE EASEMENT G HB GAS BIB HOSE BIB G E GAS METER WATER METER AIR CONDITIONING COMPRESSOR ELECTRIC METER W AC SEWER CLEANOUTS OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LINEUE OE WATER SERVICE WITH FIRE SYSTEMF SEWER LINE GAS LINE WATER LINE SCALE 3N/ASITE KEYSCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"6 SCALE 2N/A N DEMO SITE PLAN WATER SVC. WITH FIRE SYST. SCALE 1N/AFIRE DEPT. NOTES 1. FIRE SPRINKLERS SHALL BE SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT THROUGH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. MINIMUM 1" WATER METER REQUIRED. 3. FIRE FLOW SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE APPENDIX B. FIRE FLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS LESS THEN 3,600 SQ.FT. SHALL BE PROVIDED AT 1,000 GPM UNLESS PROTECTED BY AN AUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, THEN IT MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%. CONTACT BURLINGAME ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. ALL BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLIES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA (USC) AND TESTED BY A SAN MATEO COUNTY CERTIFIED TESTER BEFORE APPROVAL OF THE WATER SYSTEM. SEE THE SAN MATEO COUNTY WEB SITE FOR APPROVED LIST OF CERTIFIED TESTERS. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON USC APPROVED DEVICES PLEASE CALL THE WATER DIVISION AT (650) 558-7670. PLEASE COMPLETE THE "WATER DEMAND WORKSHEET" FOR DETERMINING THE WATER SERVICE AND METER SIZE. THE WORKSHEET IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR ON THE CITY OF BURLINGAME WEB SITE. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 1" WATER METER. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE 2" COPPER L SERVICE TO BUILDING HOSE BIB WITH VACUUM BREAKER PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE (IF NEEDED) HOUSE VALVE BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLY BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLY SEE NOTE TO IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO DOMESTIC METER WATER MAIN NOTE: 1. REMOVE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE HANDLES AND STORE IN SPARE HEAD BOX. EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE SIDEWALK NEUCHATEL AVENUE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 3'-0" SIDE YARD EL. = +21.68'EL. = +21.24' EL. = +20.59'EL. = +20.16'93.33'N 28°36'45" EFIRE SPRINKLER ALARM BELL BOX WITHIN FIRST FIVE FEET OF HOUSE. SEE DETAIL 2/A1.1 FOR SCHEMATIC OF WATER LINE DIAGRAM.25'-0"GARAGE SETBACKEL. = +23.00' FIN. FL.15'-0"REAR YARD19'-6"FRONT YARD37.50' N 61°23'15" W 93.33'N 28°36'45" E37.50' N 61°23'15" W EL. = +19.89' T.O.C. EL. = +19.99' T.O.C. SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN (PROPOSED)SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0"9 EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 3'-0" SIDE YARD 20'-11"1'-6 1/2"3'-6"23'-1 1/2"3'-5 1/2"7'-11" 717711 721 EL. = +20.96' EL. = +22.87' EL. = +20.31' EL. = +22.75' EL. = +20.70' EL. = +21.07' EL. = +20.82' N S E G W S OE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE SIDEWALK NEUCHATEL AVENUE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 3'-0" SIDE YARD EL. = +21.68'EL. = +21.24' EL. = +20.59'EL. = +20.16'93.33'N 28°36'45" E25'-0"GARAGE SETBACKEL. = +23.00' FIN. FL.15'-0"REAR YARD19'-6"FRONT YARD37.50' N 61°23'15" W 93.33'N 28°36'45" E37.50' N 61°23'15" W EL. = +19.89' T.O.C. EL. = +19.99' T.O.C. EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 3'-0" SIDE YARD 20'-11"1'-6 1/2"8'-4 1/2"33'-9 1/2"3'-5 1/2"7'-11" 717711 721 DEMO EXISTING 1-CAR GARAGE 11'-2 1/2"17'-9 1/2"(N) DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT DEMO DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT PRIVACY HEDGE (TYP. AS SHOWN) LAWN (N) 6' HIGH WOOD GATE TRASH AND RECYCLING PLANTING AREA (TYP. AS SHOWN) (E) CYPRESS TO REMAIN AREA OF 1ST FLOOR PROPOSED ADDITION SHOWN SHADED (TYP.) PERVIOUS PAVER DRIVEWAY (N) 24-INCH BOX ORNAMENTAL TREE (E) MULTI-TRUNK TREE TO REMAIN (E) CYPRESS TO REMAIN (E) MULTI-TRUNK TREE TO REMAIN (E) STREET TREE TO REMAIN (E) STREET TREE TO REMAIN PERVIOUS PAVER WALKWAYS AND PATIO (TYP. AS SHOWN) DEMO (E) PATIO, STEPS AND BUILT-IN BBQ 10'-7" DEMO WALKWAY DN DN DN DN DN DN 25'-9 1/2"15'-5"BASED ON THE SCOPE OF WORK, A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED TO: 1. REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE; 2. PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL. 3. ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS; AND 4. ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. MULCH IN SIDE YARD PLANTING AREA WITH DROUGHT-TOLERANT GROUNDCOVER IRREGULAR BLUESTONE FLAGSTONE AT WALKWAY 15'-5"JOB# 1802 PLANNING SETBurlingame, CA 94010717 Neuchatel AvenueZhao Residence17 MAY 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 Davis Architecture21 JUN 20181SITE PLANSA1.1 1 1 1 1 MASONRY CONCRETE EXISTING STRUCTURE 2X4 WOOD FRAMING FIRE SEPARATION WALL WITH 2X4 WOOD FRAMING MIN. 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD ON GARAGE SIDE OF WALL AND CEILING 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STRUCTURE (F.O.S.), UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL DOORS AND WINDOWS DIMENSIONED TO CENTERLINE OF CLEAR OPENING. ALL CASEWORK DIMENSIONED TO EDGE OF COUNTERTOP. 2. DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWINGS. 3. ANY INCONSISTENCIES OR UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 4. WATER HEATERS SHALL BE ANCHORED OR STRAPPED TO RESIST HORIZONTAL DISPLACEMENT DUE TO EARTHQUAKE MOTION. STRAPPING SHALL BE AT POINTS WITHIN THE UPPER ONE THIRD AND LOWER ONE THIRD OF ITS VERTICAL DIMENSIONS. AT THE LOWER POINT, A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF FOUR INCHES SHALL BE MAINTAINED ABOVE THE CONTROLS WITH THE STRAPPING. CPC 507.2 7. PROVIDE WATER HAMMER ARRESTORS AT ALL APPLIANCES THAT HAVE QUICK-ACTING VALVES, I.E. DISHWASHER HOT WATER AND CLOTHES WASHER HOT-COLD WATER LINES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CPC 609.10 8. PROVIDE KITCHEN ISLAND SINK VENTING AS REQUIRED PER CPC 909.0 9. APPLIANCES IN ATTIC SPACES SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE THROUGH AN OPENING AND PASSAGEWAY AT LEAST AS LARGE AS THE LARGEST COMPONENT OF THE APPLIANCE AND NOT LESS THAN 22 INCHES BY 30 INCHES. CPC 508.4 10. A SOLID FLOOR PASSAGEWAY OF NOT LESS THAN 24 INCHES AND A WORK PLATFORM OF NOT LESS THAN 30 INCHES BY 30 INCHES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF THE APPLIANCE. INCLUDE THE REQUIRED OUTLET AND LIGHT PER CPC 508.4. 11. AN ACCESSIBLE SHUTOFF VALVE SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FUEL-SUPPLY PIPING OUTSIDE OF EACH APPLIANCE AND AHEAD OF THE UNION CONNECTION THERETO. APPLIANCE FUEL CONNECTORS SHALL NOT BE CONCEALED WITHIN OR EXTEND THROUGH A WALL, FLOOR, OR PARTITION AND SHALL NOT EXTEND THROUGH THE APPLIANCE HOUSING OR CASING. CMC 1312.3 12. AN APPROVED SEISMIC SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE ON THE DOWN STREAM SIDE OF THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE FUEL GAS PIPING. 13. PROVIDE R-12 EXTERIOR BLANKET FOR HOT WATER HEATER. R-3 INSULATION SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE FIRST FIVE FEET OF THE WATER HEATER OUTLET PIPE. ALL WATER HEATING AND SPACE CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT, SHOWER HEADS AND FAUCETS SHALL BE C.E.C. CERTIFIED. ALL STEAM AND STEAM CONDENSATE RETURN PIPING AND ALL CONTINUOUSLY RECIRCULATING DOMESTIC HEATING OR HOT WATER PIPING SHALL BE INSULATED PER PLUMBING DIVISION. 14. ALL INSULATION MATERIALS SHALL BE CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER AS COMPLYING WITH THE CALIFORNIA QUALITY STANDARDS FOR INSULATION MATERIAL. DOORS AND WINDOWS BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED SPACE SHALL BE FULLY WEATHER-STRIPPED. 15. PROVIDE 15 INCH MINIMUM CLEARANCE FROM CENTER LINE OF WATER CLOSET TO SIDE WALL OR OBSTRUCTION AND NOT LESS THAN 30 INCHES CENTER TO CENTER TO A SIMILAR FIXTURE. THE CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF A WATER CLOSET, LAVATORY, OR BIDET SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 24 INCHES. CPC 402.5 16. CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN ON SITE FOR FIELD INSPECTION THE RADIANT FLOOR HEATING SYSTEM MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION SPECIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. 17. THERE SHALL BE A LANDING OR FLOOR ON EACH SIDE OF EACH EXTERIOR DOOR. THE WIDTH OF EACH LANDING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN THE DOOR SERVED. EVERY LANDING SHALL HAVE A DIMENSION OF NOT LESS THAN 36 INCHES MEASURED IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL. THE SLOPE AT EXTERIOR LANDINGS SHALL NOTE EXCEED 1/4 UNIT VERTICAL IN 12 UNITS HORIZONTAL (2 PERCENT). CRC R311.3 18. LANDINGS OR FINISHED FLOORS AT THE REQUIRED EGRESS DOOR SHALL BE NOT MORE THAN 1-1/2 INCHES LOWER THAN THE TOP OF THE THRESHOLD. THE LANDING OR FLOOR ON THE EXTERIOR SIDE SHALL BE NOT MORE THAN 7-3/4 INCHES BELOW THE TOP OF THE THRESHOLD PROVIDED THE DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER THE LANDING OR FLOOR. CRC R311.3.1 19. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION. IN SPRINKLED BUILDINGS, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE IS REDUCED TO THREE FEET. 20. ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. 21. ALL OPENINGS IN EXTERIOR WALLS, BOTH PROTECTED AND UNPROTECTED, WILL COMPLY WITH 2016 CBC TABLE 705.8 AND CRC TABLE R302.1(2) BELOW. SCALE 31/4" = 1'-0"ROOF PLAN (PROPOSED) 10:1210:12 4:126:1210:12 10:1210:1210:12 10:1210:1210:1210:12 10:12 10:12 PLAN KEY SCALE 21/4" = 1'-0"PLAN NOTES SCALE 61/4" = 1'-0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINELEFT SIDE SETBACK(2ND FLOOR)RIGHT SIDE SETBACK(2ND FLOOR)PROPERTY LINEFRONT SETBACK (2ND FLOOR) REAR SETBACK (2ND FLOOR) 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 8 A3.1 30" X 42" APPROX. VELUX GLASS SKYLIGHT, OR EQUAL, SEE 11/A9.1 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT (TYP. AS SHOWN) CLASS 'A' COMP. SHINGLE ROOF OVER 30 LB FELT OVER 1/2" OSB THERMOSTATIC RADIANT BARRIER SHEATHING - CERTAINTEED LANDMARK PREMIUM, OR EQUAL (TYP.)37'-11 1/2"2'-0"18'-8 1/2" 13'-5"9'-0"5'-1 1/2"1'-2 1/2"1'-0"8'-0"5'-1 1/2"16'-6"2'-0"1'-8 1/2" A9.1 7 EAVE TYP. A9.1 8 GABLE TYP. A9.1 10 RIDGE TYP.FLOOR PLANSA2.3 JOB# 1802 PLANNING SETBurlingame, CA 94010717 Neuchatel AvenueZhao Residence17 MAY 2018 COPYRIGHT © 2018 Davis Architecture21 JUN 20181 1 LVEITSOLT AANEESITAE Y S FOREREN.______FCNESNLICRADECHITS.LC T No. C20065E3/2019A5 REVISIONS DATE JUNE 20, 2018 SCALE NOTED DRAWN SSL JOB 2018-212JASON & ANYA SOLEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR :212 HOWARD AVE.STEVEN LESLEY ARCHITECT588 MASTICK AVE.SAN BRUNO, CA 94066PHONE: 650-269-0711sslesley@gmail.comlesleyarchitect.comSHEET7'11 1/2"8'-1"22'-5"3'8'-6"FINISH GRADE GARAGE SLAB TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM STUCCO 1/4" = 1'-0" EX IST ING F R O NT ELEV A TION E1 12 7 3'8'-6"TOP PLATE FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES 1/4" = 1'-0" EX IST ING R E A R ELEV A T ION E3 12 7 7 3/16"7'11 1/2"8'-1"3'-1 7/16"8'-6"1'9'7'-6"30'27'-5"8'AVE. FINISH GRADE GARAGE SLAB TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE AVE. FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR EXIST. STUCCO NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXIST. NEW VINYL WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM TO MATCH EXIST. NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXIST. STUCCO FINISH 1/4" = 1'-0" N E W F R O NT ELEV A TION N1 12 7 EXIST. STUCCO PROPERTY LINETO 12' ABOVE AVE. GRADE45º 45º DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE PROPERTY LINETO 12' ABOVE AVE. GRADE30' HEIGHT LIMIT EXIST. VINYL WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM FINISH 2ND FLOOR BEYOND AVERAGE TOP OF CURB - 100.40 EL. 103.91 100.79 100.31 FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE HDR HT DECLINING HEIGHT INTERSECT POINT EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 3'-7 3/16"8'-6"1'9'7'-6"27'-5"8'12 7 FINISH 1ST FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0" N E W R E A R ELEV A TION N3 TOP PLATE TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXIST. NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXIST. STUCCO FINISH EXIST. STUCCO DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AVE. FINISH GRADE AVE. FINISH GRADEPROPERTY LINETO 12' ABOVE AVE. GRADE45º 30' HEIGHT LIMIT AVERAGE TOP OF CURB - 100.40 100.79 100.31 PROPERTY LINETO 12' ABOVE AVE. GRADE45º EL. 103.91 HDR HT DECLINING HEIGHT INTERSECT POINT EXIST. WOOD DECK W/ WOOD & WIRE RAILING EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF LVEITSOLT AANEESITAE Y S FOREREN.______FCNESNLICRADECHITS.LC T No. C20065E3/2019A6 REVISIONS DATE JUNE 20, 2018 SCALE NOTED DRAWN SSL JOB 2018-212JASON & ANYA SOLEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR :212 HOWARD AVE.STEVEN LESLEY ARCHITECT588 MASTICK AVE.SAN BRUNO, CA 94066PHONE: 650-269-0711sslesley@gmail.comlesleyarchitect.comSHEET3'8'-6"7'11 1/2"8'-1"FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR STUCCO ASPHALT SHINGLES STUCCO 1/4" = 1'-0" EX IST ING L EF T ELEV A T ION E2 12 7 12 7 WOOD DECK W/ WOOD & WIRE RAILING 3'-2 7/16"8'-6"1'9'7'-2"11 1/2"8'-1"27'-5"8'EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 12 7 FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR N E W L EFT ELEV A TION N2 12 7 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXIST. NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXIST. STUCCO FINISH EXIST. STUCCO EXIST. STUCCO NEW VINYL WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM TO MATCH EXIST. TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR AVE. FINISH GRADE EL. 103.91 100.79 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB - 100.40 HDR HT EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF LVEITSOLT AANEESITAE Y S FOREREN.______FCNESNLICRADECHITS.LC T No. C20065E3/2019A7 REVISIONS DATE JUNE 20, 2018 SCALE NOTED DRAWN SSL JOB 2018-212JASON & ANYA SOLEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR :212 HOWARD AVE.STEVEN LESLEY ARCHITECT588 MASTICK AVE.SAN BRUNO, CA 94066PHONE: 650-269-0711sslesley@gmail.comlesleyarchitect.comSHEET7'11 1/2"8'-1"3'8'-6"FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR ASPHALT SHINGLES STUCCO 1/4" = 1'-0" EX IST ING R IG HT ELEV A T ION E4 GARAGE SLAB 12 7 12 7 7'11 1/2"8'-1"3'-7 3/16"8'-6"1'9'8'TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR FINISH GRADE TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR EXIST. STUCCO 1/4" = 1'-0" N E W R IGHT ELEV A T ION N4 GARAGE SLAB 12 7 12 7 TOP PLATE TOP PLATE FINISH 2ND FLOOR EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF NEW ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF TO MATCH EXIST. NEW STUCCO TO MATCH EXIST. STUCCO FINISH EXIST. STUCCO AVE. FINISH GRADE 100.31 EL. 103.91 HDR HT EXIST. ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF LVEITSOLT AANEESITAE Y S FOREREN.______FCNESNLICRADECHITS.LC T No. C20065E3/2019A1 REVISIONS DATE JUNE 20, 2018 SCALE NOTED DRAWN SSL JOB 2018-212JASON & ANYA SOLEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR :212 HOWARD AVE.STEVEN LESLEY ARCHITECT588 MASTICK AVE.SAN BRUNO, CA 94066PHONE: 650-269-0711sslesley@gmail.comlesleyarchitect.comSHEET PLAN NOTES: 1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PER: 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS AND ALL OTHER STATE, MUNICIPAL AND LOCAL ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS. 2. SEE CALGREEN NOTES IN THIS PLAN SET. 3. SHOWERS & TUB/ SHOWER COMBINATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED W/ INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF THE THERMOSTATIC MIXING OR PRESSURE BALANCE TYPE PER UPC SEC. 420.0. HOT WATER PIPING 3/4" & GREATER SHALL BE INSULATED W/ 1" INSULATION FROM THE WATER HEATER TO THE KITCHEN. 4. HOT WATER HEATERS SHALL HAVE AN ENERGY FACTOR GREATER THAN 0.58 OR BE WRAPPED WITH A MIN. OF R-12 INSULATION. 5. SHOWER & TUB/ SHOWER GLASS ENCLOSURE SHALL HAVE TEMPERED GLASS. SHOWER DOOR THRESHOLDS SHALL HAVE A 22" MIN. UNOBSTRUCTED OPENING WIDTH FOR EGRESS PER CPC 408.5 6. WATER HAMMERS SHALL BE INSTALLED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO VALVES PER CRC 307.2 7. SHOWER STALL FLOOR & WALLS UP TO 72" MIN. FROM DRAIN INLET SHALL BE OF NON- ABSORBENT MATERIAL PER UBC 807.1.3 8. WALLS SURROUNDING TUB & SHOWER SHALL BE WATERPROOFED W/ CEMENT, FIBER-CEMENT OR GLASS MAT GYPSUM BACKERS FOR ALL TILES PER CBC 2509.2 9. SHOWER & SHOWER/TUB COMBINATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED W/ INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE, THERMOSTATIC, OR COMBINATION PRESSURE BALANCE/THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE THAT PROVIDES SCALD & THERMAL PROTECTION W/ MAX. MIXING TEMPERATURE OF 120 DEGREES PER CPC 418. 10. GLASS DOORS SHALL HAVE TEMPERED GLASS. PROVIDE SAFETY GLASS AT ALL WINDOWS LESS THAN 18" FROM FINISH FLOOR & W/IN 24" ARC OF EITHER VERTICAL EDGE DOORS & 60" FROM FINISH AT SHOWERS & TUBS & STAIR LANDING PER CRC R308.4.2. 11. ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE DUAL GLAZED. WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY W/ U-FACTOR & SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENTS AS SHOWN ON SHEET T-24 ON FORM CF-1R. REPLACEMENT OR NEW WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM "U" FACTOR PER THE TITLE 24 REPORT. 12. THE NEW ADDITION SHALL BE HEATED BY AS DESIGNED & INSTALLED BY THE HVAC CONTRACTOR. HVAC CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT DRAWINGS & SPECIFICATIONS TO CITY FOR APPROVAL & MECHANICAL PERMITS. FURNACE SHALL PROVIDE 70 DEGREES AT 3 FEET FROM FINISH FLOOR CONDITIONED SPACE PER CBC 310.11. DUCT WORK SHALL BE INSULATED MIN. R-6. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXTEND DUCT WORK TO NEW AREAS AS REQ'D. 13. ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS THAT SUPPLY 120-VOLT, SINGLE PHASE, 15 & 20 AMP OUTLETS INSTALLED IN DWELLING UNIT FAMILY ROOMS, DINING ROOMS, LIVING ROOMS, KITCHENS, BEDROOMS, CLOSETS, HALLWAYS, OR SIMILAR ROOMS OR AREAS SHALL BE ARC-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER (AFCI) PROTECTED PER CEC 210.12(B). 14. PROVIDE A DEDICATED 20 AMP BRANCH CIRCUIT FOR BATHROOM OUTLETS PER CEC SECT 210-11(c) & 210-52. 15. ALL RECEPTACLE OUTLETS SHALL BE LISTED TAMPER-RESISTANT (TR) RECEPTACLES PER CEC 406.11, CEC 210.52, CEC 210.8(b). 16. MAIN ELECTRICAL PANEL SHALL BE MIN. 100 AMPS, 3 WIRE. ELECTRICAL SUBPANELS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF IGNITABLE MATERIALS SUCH AS CLOTHES CLOSETS OR LOCATED IN BATHROOMS PER CEC ART 240-24(d) & (e). 17. SURFACE MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURES IN CLOTHES CLOSETS SHALL BE MIN. 18" FROM STORAGE AREAS. FLUSH OR RECESSED FIXTURES SHALL BE MIN. 6" AWAY PER CEC ART. 410-8 18. SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CITY ORDINANCE. 19. PROVIDE GUTTER & DOWNSPOUT SYSTEM AT ALL ROOF EAVES. 20. ALL WOOD FRAMING SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR NO. 2 OR BETTER, HEADERS AND BEAMS SHALL DOUGLAS FIR NO. 1 OR BETTER. 21. ALL BEDROOM WINDOWS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE WINDOW THAT MEETS EMERGENCY EGRESS REQUIREMENTS PER CBC SECT. 1026. WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENABLE AREA OF 5.7 S.F., EXCEPT GRADE FLOOR OPENINGS MAY BE 5.0 SF; MINIMUM NET CLEAR HEIGHT OF 24"; MINIMUM NET CLEAR WIDTH OF 20"; & A MAXIMUM 44" SILL HEIGHT FROM FINISH FLOOR. 22. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER NFPA 13D SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT PER CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES. PROVIDE PERMANENT DRAIN TO SANITARY SEWER FOR ALL SPRINKLER DISCHARGE.23'5'5'2'13'-9"54'-1 3/4"35'-1 1/4"35'-3 3/4"32'-7"35'-1 1/4"13'24'-4"8'-8" 6'-1/2"35'-4 1/2"4'-7" C.L. HOWARD AVE. EXIST. CONC. SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE 46.00'PROPERTY LINE 103.00'EXISTING 2 STORY RESIDENCE EXIST. CONC. CURB PROPOSED ADDITION TO 2ND STORY NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0" SIT E P L A N EXIST. CONC. DRIVEWAY PORCH 200A ELECT PANEL GAS METER 6' HIGH WOOD FENCE EXIST. PARKWAY PROPERTY LINE 46.00'PROPERTY LINE 103.00'WOOD DECK WOOD DECK EXIST. CONC. WALK EXIST. LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN 22" TREE 12" TREE 12" TREE 8" TREE 14" TREE 8' X 8' SHED 15' REAR SETBACK 4' SIDE SETBACK4' SIDE SETBACK15' FRONT SETBACK 34" ABV. F.G. 34" ABV. F.G. PROJECT INFO: LOT SIZE MAX ALLOWABLE FAR MAX ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE EXIST. 1ST FLOOR AREA EXIST. 2ND FLOOR AREA EXIST. 1ST & 2ND FLOOR AREA EXIST. DECKS O/ 30" HIGH PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR ADDITION AREA PROPOSED TOTAL 2ND FLOOR AREA PROPOSED TOTAL 1ST & 2ND FLOOR AREA EXIST. LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED FAR 4,738 SF 2,616 SF 1,895 SF 1,526 SF 518 SF 2,044 SF 366 SF 572 SF 1,090 SF 2,616 SF 1,892 SF 2,616 SF F.G. = 101.11 F.G. = 100.47 F.G. = 101.46 F.G. = 100.15 F.F. = 103.91 T.O.C. = 100.10T.O.C. = 100.70 EXIST. LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN EXIST. LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN EXIST. LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN SCOPE OF WORK: 1. NEW 2ND STORY ADDITION TO EXISTING 2 STORY HOUSE W/ NEW BEDROOM & BATHROOM 2. REMODEL 2ND STORY BEDROOM 2 & BATHROOM 2 OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B ZONING: R1 SHEET INDEX : ARCHITECTURAL A1 - SITE PLAN, GENERAL NOTES A2 - EX ISTING FLOOR PLAN A3 - NEW 2ND FLOOR PLAN A4 - ROOF PLAN A5 - ELEVATIONS 1 & 3 A6 - ELEVATION 2 A7 - ELEVATION 4 A8 - SECTION 5, ELEVATION SURVEY A9 - GREEN BUILDING CHECK LIST - PAGE 1 A 10 - GREEN BUILDING CHECK LIST - PAGE 2 P R O P O S E D F R O NT LEFT PER SPECT IV E P R O P O S E D R EA R LEFT PER SPECT IV E P R O P O S E D R EA R R IGHT PER SPEC T IV E LVEITSOLT AANEESITAE Y S FOREREN.______FCNESNLICRADECHITS.LC T No. C20065E3/2019A4 REVISIONS DATE JUNE 20, 2018 SCALE NOTED DRAWN SSL JOB 2018-212JASON & ANYA SOLEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR :212 HOWARD AVE.STEVEN LESLEY ARCHITECT588 MASTICK AVE.SAN BRUNO, CA 94066PHONE: 650-269-0711sslesley@gmail.comlesleyarchitect.comSHEET7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 9:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 9:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12 RIDGE HIPVALLEYRIDGERIDGEHIPVALLEYHIPHIPVALLEYV A L L E Y RHIPVALLEY HIPHIPHIPRIDGEVALLEYRIDGERIDGE HIPHIPHIPHIPVALLEY1/4" = 1'-0" EX IST ING R O O F P L A N (E) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES(E) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLESASPHALTSHINGLES(E) 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 9:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 9:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES(N) 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (N) 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES(E) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES7:12 (E) RIDGE (E) HIP(E) VALLEY(E) RIDGE(E) RIDGE(E) HIP(E) VALLEY(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) VALLEY( E ) V A L L E Y (E) R(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) HIP(E) RIDGE(N) RIDGE 1/4" = 1'-0" N E W R O O F PLA N ASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 7:12 (N) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES(N) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLESASPHALT SHINGLES (N)7:12 (N) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLESASPHALT SHINGLES (N) 7:12 ASPHALT SHINGLES (N) 7:12 (N) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLES(E) 7:12ASPHALTSHINGLESASPHALT SHINGLES (E) 7:12 (E) 7:12(N) RIDGE(N) RIDGE(N)RCRICKET CRICKET(E)(E) HIP(N)(N)(N) HIP(N) HIP(N) HIP(N) HIP(N) HIP(N) VALLEY(N) VALLEY(N) HIP(N) HIP(N) HIP(N) VALLEY(N) HIP(N) HIP(E) HIP(E) HIP(N) 7:12 LVEITSOLT AANEESITAE Y S FOREREN.______FCNESNLICRADECHITS.LC T No. C20065E3/2019A8 REVISIONS DATE JUNE 20, 2018 SCALE NOTED DRAWN SSL JOB 2018-212JASON & ANYA SOLEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION FOR :212 HOWARD AVE.STEVEN LESLEY ARCHITECT588 MASTICK AVE.SAN BRUNO, CA 94066PHONE: 650-269-0711sslesley@gmail.comlesleyarchitect.comSHEET3'8'-6"1'9'N E W S E C T IO N N5 1/2" = 1'-0" TOP PLATE FINISH 1ST FLOOR FINISH GRADE NEW 1/2" CDX PLYWD. O/ 2 X RAFTERS @ 16" O.C. NEW 3/4" AC PLYWD. O/ 2 X FLOOR JST. @ 16" O.C. FLUSH W/ EXIST. FLOOR LEVEL W/ R-19 INSULATION NEW 2 X CEILING JSTS. W/ R-38 INSULATION 1/2" GYP. BD. NEW 1/2" CDX PLYWD. O/ 2 X STUDS @ 16" O.C. W/ R-13 INSULATION EXIST. CONC. FOOTING 18" MIN.12 7 FINISH 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE WALK-IN CLOSET BEDROOM 3 KITCHEN CLOSET PROJECT LOCATION 1433 Floribunda Avenue Item No. 9d Design Review Study Item No. 9d Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit Address: 1433 Floribunda Avenue Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 Request: Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new four-story, 8-unit residential condominium with at-grade parking. Applicant: Melinda Kao APN: 029-112-050 Property Owner: Accelerate Holdings LLC Lot Area: 9,320 SF Architect: Levy Design Partners General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (R-3 Base District) Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential Current Use: Vacant (site previously contained five residential units in two separate buildings). Proposed Use: 8-unit residential condominium building. Allowable Use: Multifamily, duplex, and single-family dwellings. History: An application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Parking Variance and Tentative Condominium Map for construction of a new four-story, 10-unit residential condominium at 1433 Floribunda Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on February 24, 2014 (see attached February 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). An application for Design Review Amendment for approval of a variety of exterior changes to the building, as well as changes to the landscaping along the right side property line, was approved on May 11, 2015 (see attached May 11, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in May 2016. Shortly after the existing buildings and vegetation were removed, the property was sold to a new owner. The new owner would like to build a project which includes a different design, contains two fewer units (reducing from 10 to 8) and a parking garage that is located at grade rather than below grade. Since the previously approved project will not be built and the proposed project is different in design and configuration, it is considered to be a new application. Plans for the previously approved 10-unit project have been provided as a reference. Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new, four-story, 8-unit residential condominium building with at-grade parking at 1433 Floribunda Avenue, zoned R-3. The project site is currently vacant, but previously contained five residential units in two detached buildings. The existing buildings were not identified on the Draft Inventory of Historic Resources of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The site is bordered by a two-story multifamily building to the west and three-story multifamily buildings to the north, south and east. The proposed building would contain eight residential units in four floors and an at-grade parking garage. Each of the eight condominium units will contain an entry, living and dining areas, kitchen, two bedrooms, an open den, two bathrooms and a space for a washer/dryer. One unit is proposed at grade behind the garage, while the remaining units will be located on the upper three floors. The average unit size proposed is 1,152 SF (1,250 SF average maximum unit size permitted). An enclosed room for trash receptacles is provided at the front of the building. The following applications are required for the proposed project:  Design Review for the proposed design of the new residential condominium (C.S. 25.28.045 and 25.57.010, and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);  Condominium Permit for a new, four-story, 8-unit residential condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020); and  Conditional Use Permit for building height (46’-0” proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building exceed 35’-0”; 55’-0” maximum building height allowed) (C.S. 25.28.060). Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit 1433 Floribunda Avenue 2 Design Review: The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines specifically for residential areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential areas. The relevant pages of the plan have been included as an attachment for convenience of commissioners. Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include stucco, composite wood and cement panel siding, solid and perforated metal panels, and aluminum projections. Aluminum clad wood windows and doors would be used throughout the building. The overall height of the building is proposed at 46'-0" above average top of curb level where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed. However, an application for a Conditional Use Permit is required if the building exceeds 35’-0” in height and is being requested by the applicant. On sheet A3.3, two visual simulations are provided looking north-east and south-west along Floribunda Avenue. Off-Street Parking: The code requires 12 parking spaces for the residents of the units (1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit) and an area for a service/delivery vehicle. There is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan. The at-grade garage provides a total of 13 parking spaces (12 resident spaces and one service/delivery vehicle space). Eleven of the required parking spaces would be provided by way of a puzzle car stacker system. Access to the garage would be from Floribunda Avenue by way of a driveway at the east end of the property. The property is an existing lot with a public street frontage of 49.63’ where 55’ is required, and the property narrows to 44.83’ at the rear of the lot. Given the narrow width of the lot, accommodating all of the required parking spaces, service vehicle space and backup areas is challenging, even with the reduced parking requirements of the Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed project includes a puzzle car stacker system to provide 11 of the required parking spaces. The car stacker system provides room to accommodate a service vehicle space on the site and also eliminates the need to dig underground to provide parking (with the exception of the pit for the car stacker system). The applicant is proposing to use a puzzle car stacker system by CityLift (see attached specifications) and is able to accommodate passenger cars and medium size SUVs. The proposed system can accommodate vehicles up to 6’-6¾” wide x 19’-0¾” long. Building Sections 1 and 2 on sheet A4.1 show that the proposed floor-to-ceiling garage height in the area where the parking lifts are located is 15’-0”. This height would be sufficient to accommodate the car stacker system, which requires a clearance of 11’-11¾”). 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. For the previously approved project, a parking variance was required for the mechanical lifts (the parking lifts were considered a mitigation measure for the requested parking variance). However, because as a policy the Downtown Specific Plan encourages “creative approaches” to providing on-site parking, and the car stackers have been considered “creative approaches” to providing the required on-site parking and therefore consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, staff has since determined that parking variances are not required to accommodate automated parking systems. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with parking lift systems. Common and Private Open Space: There is a total of 1,067 SF (133 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the condominium project where 800 SF (100 SF/unit) is the minimum required. Of the required common open space, a minimum of 50% must be in soft landscaping (400 SF); 594 SF of the provided common open space is proposed to be landscaped and therefore is in compliance. There is 100 SF to 220 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies and at grade. The applicant is proposing 50.4% (405 SF) landscaping in the front yard where 50% (401 SF) is the minimum required. The project meets all other zoning code and condominium permit requirements. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit 1433 Floribunda Avenue 3 Landscaping: The site has been fully developed and used for residential uses since at least 1907. The project site was previously covered by several buildings, paving and landscape areas prior to their demolition in 2016. A number of large trees on or adjacent to the property, including two oak trees (9-inch and 11-inch diameter) along the left side property line, two oak trees (32-inch and 34-inch in diameter) along the right side property line and a palm tree (29-inch diameter) in the front yard were removed with approval of a Tree Removal Permit issued by the Parks Division. Proposed landscaping and fencing throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (see sheets L1.1, L2.1, and L3.1). The applicant is proposing 50.4% (405 SF) landscaping in the front yard where 50% (401 SF) is the minimum required. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size non-fruit tree for every 2,000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a minimum of two landscape trees are required on site. The proposed landscape plan for the project complies with the on-site reforestation requirements by providing one 24-inch box Crape Myrtle tree (Lagerstroemia indica “Natchez”) in the front yard, two 24-inch box Fern Pine trees (Podocarpus gracilior) along the right side property line, four 24-inch box Hop Bush trees (Dodonaea viscosa) along the left side property line, and three 24-inch box Crape Myrtle trees in the rear yard. A total of 10 new trees are proposed on site, where a minimum of two landscape trees are required. Two new Red Maple street trees (Acer Rubrum ‘October Glory’), will be planted as part of the project. Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The previously approved project was subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which required that one affordable unit be provided as part of the project. 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. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit 1433 Floribunda Avenue 4 1433 Floribunda Avenue Lot Area: 9,320 SF Plans date stamped: June 4, 2018 Proposed Allowed/Required Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 19'-0” 19'-0” 24'-6” 26'-6½” 16'-4” (block average) Left Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 7'-3" 7'-3" 7'-3" 8’-6” 5'-0" 6'-0" 7'-0" 8’-0” Right Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 5'-0" 7'-2½" 7'-2½" 8’-2½” 5'-0" 6'-0" 7'-0" 8’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): 24'-6½” 23'-3½” 23'-3½” 24'-6½” 20’-0” 20'-0" 20'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 4,630 SF 49.6% 4,660 SF 50% Building Height: 46'-0” ¹ 55'-0" maximum allowed; CUP required to exceed 35’-0” Off-Street Parking: 12 spaces for residents (11 spaces provided in car stacker system) 1 service/delivery vehicle space No guest parking provided Total: 13 total spaces 100% covered 12 spaces (8, 2 bdrm units x 1.5) 1 service/delivery vehicle space required No guest parking required Total: 13 total spaces 80% must be covered ¹ Conditional Use Permit for building height (46’-0” proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is required for any building exceed 35’-0”; 55’-0” maximum building height allowed). Development table continued on next page. Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit 1433 Floribunda Avenue 5 1433 Floribunda Avenue Lot Area: 9,320 SF Plans date stamped: June 4, 2018 Proposed Allowed/Required Front Setback Landscaping: 50.4% (405 SF) 50% (401 SF) Private Open Space: 100 SF – 220 SF/unit 75 SF per unit Common Open Space: SF Landscaped: 1,067 SF 594 SF (55.6% of required) 800 SF 400 SF (50% of required) Staff Comments: None. Environmental Review Status: The proposed 8-unit residential condominium project falls within the scope of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration for the previously approved 10-unit residential condominium (ND-569-P). The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum to reflect the project changes will be included for the action meeting. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for conditional use permits in Title 25 of this code. No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and Design Review, Condominium Permit and Conditional Use Permit 1433 Floribunda Avenue 6 (c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (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. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager Attachments: May 11, 2015 and February 24, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, date stamped October 19, 2017 Conditional Use Permit Application CityLift Product Data Sheets Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed August 3, 2018 Area Map 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.3 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS Residential buildings in Downtown Burlingame offer higher density development than elsewhere in the City, providing a lifestyle for those who want to live within walking distance of the Downtown commercial areas and transit opportunities. New buildings will mediate this density with thoughtful design and details that create attractive, livable residential environments. Buildings should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas. Below are recommendations for the architectural treatment and organization of buildings and open space, and the suggested criteria for reviewing projects during the design review process. 5.3.1 ARCHITECTURAl DIVERSITy Residential projects should respect the diversity of building types and styles in the residential areas Downtown and seek to support it by applying the following principles: • Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the neighborhood. • Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles. • Maintains the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used. • Create buildings with quality materials and thoughtful design to last into the future. 5.3.2 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER 5.3.2.1 Entrances Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from the sidewalk along the public street. Entries should be clearly defined features of front façades. Common entrances for multiple units are FIGURE 5-27: Buildings should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas. 35MAYFIELD PRECISE PLAN 4USFFU&MFWBUJPOB 'BDBEFTTIPVMEJODMVEFQPSDIFT QSPKFDUJOHFBWFTBOEPWFSIBOHT BOEPUIFSUSBEJUJPOBMBSDIJUFDUVSBMFMFNFOUTUIBUQSPWJEFSFTJEFOUJBMTDBMFBOEIFMQCSFBLVQCVJMEJOHNBTT#VJMEJOH&OUSBODFTTIPVMECFFBTZUPJEFOUJGZBOEEJTUJOHVJTIFEGSPNUIFSFTUPGUIFCVJMEJOHɨFZTIPVMECFQBSUPGBDMFBSFOUSZTFRVFODF FYUFOEJOHGSPNUIFQVCMJDTJEFXBMLUPUIFQSJWBUFGSPOUEPPS&OUSBODFTGSPNQBTFPTNBZCFBMMPXFEPOBMJNJUFECBTJTɨFGPMMPXJOHFOUSBODFFMFNFOUTBSFSFDPNNFOEFEB 4UPPQTBOEPS0QFO1PSDIFTTIPVME GBDFUIFTUSFFUBUSFHVMBSJOUFSWBMT XIJDIDPSSFTQPOEUPUIFWFSUJDBM NPEVMFTPGCVJMEJOHVOJUTɨFTUPPQT TIPVMECFXJEFFOPVHIGPSQFPQMFUP TJUPOBOEUPNBLFFOUSJFTJOWJUJOH 0QFOQPSDIFTTIPVMEIBWFBUUSBDUJWF CBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHTBOEBSPPGUIBU DPNQMFNFOUTUIFQJUDIBOENBUFSJBMPG UIFNBJOSPPG C 4UBJSTTIPVMECFCPYFEBOEGSBNFE CZBUUSBDUJWFTUFQQFECVMLIFBET XBMMT  PSCBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHT#VMMOPTFUSFBET BSFSFDPNNFOEFE0QFOPSinPBUJOHw FYUFSJPSTUBJSTTIPVMEOPUCFVTFE D -PX)FEHFT 'FODFTBOEPS&OUSZ (BUFTTIPVMECFVTFEUPEFmOFUIF FEHFCFUXFFOUIFQVCMJDTUSFFUBOE QSJWBUFQSPQFSUZ E 0SOBNFOUBM-JHIUJOHPGQPSDIFTBOE XBMLTUPIJHIMJHIUFOUSBODFTBOEBEE TFDVSJUZ F -BOETDBQF&MFNFOUTTVDIBTUSFMMJTFT  BSCPST BOETQFDJBMMBOETDBQFNBUFSJBMT Low Hedges, Fences and/or entr gates should be used to define the edge between public and private property. Facades should include prches, projecting eaves and overhangs, and other traditional architectural elements to provide a residential scale. FIGURE 5-28: Entries should be clearly defined features of front façades, and are encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces that invite informal social interaction with neighbors. 5.0 Design & Character 5- encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces at or adjacent to entrances that invite informal social interaction with neighbors. 5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5 feet above sidewalk level to provide more interior privacy for residents. Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to minimize any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and clear orientation to the street. 5.3.2.3 Site Access Curb cuts should be minimized to promote traffic and pedestrian safety and create cohesive landscaping and building façades. A maximum of two curb cuts should be provided for projects requiring 30 parking spaces or more; for projects with less than 30 spaces, only one curb cut should be provided. One-way driveways should have curb cuts with a fully depressed width no greater than 12 feet; two-way curb cuts should be no greater than 22 feet. On-site bicycle parking for residents is encouraged. 5.3.3 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy 5.3.3.1 Development Massing The residential areas within Downtown Burlingame have a range of building heights, and so particular attention must be paid to the massing of new buildings to ensure an appropriate transition with surrounding development. Massing and street façades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Burlingame neighborhoods. FIGURE 5-29: The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and strong orientation to the street. FIGURE 5-30: Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. Orient doorways and windows to create a strong relationship with the street. Clearly defined entries that are proportional to size of building and use. Stoops provide transition to street, gathering place, define private space. 5.0 Design & Character 5- Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. 5.3.3.2 on-Site Structured Parking Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures, underground, or in “semi-depressed” garages that are partially underground and partially above ground. Parking should not be allowed to dominate the character of the project. Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible. If it is not possible to fully wrap the parking, it should be incorporated into the design of the facade. Semi-depressed parking (partly below ground and partly exposed above ground) should be screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony overhangs. 5.3.3.3 Roof Treatment Interesting and varied roof forms are encouraged. Rooflines should emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed from view and/or integrated within the architecture of the building. 5.3.4 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy 5.3.4.1 Facade Design Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways and windows). FIGURE 5-31: Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or wrapped with uses that can be occupied such as lobbies and living space when possible. Palo Alto:PTOD Overlay Zone -California Avenue Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design d.L andscaping such as trees,shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorpo- rated into surface parking lots; e.Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance tra c calm- ing on the street . a.Parking is located behind buildings,below grade or,where those options are not feasible,screened by landscaping,low walls,etc.; b.Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; c.Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops,balcony overhangs,and /or ar t ; 6. Parking DesignParkingneedsshall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to over whelm the character of theprojectordetractfromthepedestrianenvironment,such that : Landscaping should be incorporated into any surface parking lots. Parking should be wrapped by habitable uses when possible. Semi-depressed parking can be used to raise residential uses to provide privacy and op- por tunities for stoops and porches. Occupied space such as a lobby screens parking from sidewalk. Occupied space screens parking from sidewalk. FIGURE 5-32: Semi-depressed parking should be screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony overhangs. Stoop Ventilation with decorative grillwork 5.0 Design & Character 5-0 Elements such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies should be visible to people on the street. Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate features such as corner entrances, bay windows, and corner roof features, but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. 5.3.4.2 Windows Building walls should be accented by well-proportioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. The use of high-quality window products that contribute to the richness, detail, and depth of the façade is encouraged. Windows with mullions should have individual window lights, rather than applied "snap-in" mullions that lack depth and are not integral to the window structure. Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed with regard to any open spaces or windows on neighboring buildings so as to protect the privacy of residents. 5.3.4.3 Materials Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture present in the neighborhood is encouraged. Metal siding and large expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents, etc. should also offer color variation. Residential building materials should include quality details such as wrought iron, wood-framed windows, wood brackets and tile roofs. 5.3.5 SITE AMENITIES 5.3.5.1 Setbacks Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such as setbacks and height. Building setbacks are intended to create FIGURE 5-34: Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. FIGURE 5-33: Residential facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. 5.0 Design & Character 5- a transition between the hardscape, urban environment of the commercial areas and the suburban setting in the surrounding neighborhoods. Setbacks have multiple purposes, including providing sunlight, places for landscaping, and areas for activity and recreation. Building setbacks should be appropriately landscaped to provide screening and introduce trees and plantings in this area. Landscaped setback areas should be integrated with buildings by providing openings in the building walls that connect the perimeter landscaping with interior courtyards and landscape pathways. Landscaping should be planned in relation to surrounding vegetative types with special consideration being given to native species where possible. Pathways and courtyards should be made of pervious materials to allow groundwater absorption. 5.3.5.2 Open Space Private on-site open space within the Downtown area is not intended to provide recreational space or large landscaped areas, since this is a more urban environment. However, open space is an important element for residential buildings and should be used to effectively articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential development, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards, outdoor seating options and perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged. Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, medium-sized trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces. Planters may be designed to not only accommodate colorful ornamental landscaping, but could also accommodate garden plots for "urban agriculture." Trees should be selected from the City's tree list. FIGURE 5-35: Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and urban agriculture. 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. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-44: Downtown’s late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix of buildings. 5.4.5 PRESERVATIoN oF HISToRIC BUIlDINGS Downtown Burlingame is the symbolic and historic center of the City. The vision for Downtown is to preserve the mix of buildings, the pedestrian-scaled environment and the carefully designed public spaces that contribute to its special community character. Downtown’s flex- ible and timeless late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix of buildings. New buildings should be sensitive to the historic scale and architecture of Downtown. Historic preservation and adaptive re-use is encouraged both to main- tain the unique ambience of Downtown Burlingame but also for eco- logical benefits. Preservation maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, reduces waste, and preserves historic character. Historic buildings were often traditionally designed with many sustain- able features that responded to climate and site, and when effectively restored and reused, these features can bring about substantial energy savings. The guidelines in this chapter, together with the Commercial Design Guidebook for commercial and mixed use developments and the Inventory of Historic Resources are intended to ensure that both new development and improvements to existing properties are compatible with the historical character of Downtown and will be the basis of design review. Where a building is described in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the inventory should be consulted as part of the design review. Building characteristics described in the inventory should be a consideration in project design and review, together with other design considerations described in this chapter and in the Commercial Design Guidebook. TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDEXTERIORRENDERINGS CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-2017BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018 TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDELEVATIONS:EXTERIOR CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-2017BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018 TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDELEVATIONS:EXTERIOR CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-2017BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018 TOBY LEVYAS NOTEDSECTIONS:BUILDING CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-2017BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018 FLORIBUNDA AVENUETOBY LEVYAS NOTEDSITE PLAN:NEW CONTACT:SCALE:(415) 777-0561 P(415) 777-5117 F1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEAPN: 029 112 050BURLINGAME, CAPROJECT NO. 2017-01DATESET ISSUEPLANNING COMMISSION10-16-2017BURLINGAME, CA NOTICE:These drawings and specificationsare the property and copyright ofLevy Design Partners Inc. and shallnot be used except by writtenagreement with Levy Design PartnersPLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205-04-2018 ADASTANDARDFLORIBUNDA AVENUE17'-1"± (4'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM FINISH GRADE) 187'-11"± (6'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM LOWEST ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ON EIT H E R P R O P E R T Y U N L E S S O T H E R W I S E N O T E D ) 16'-5"± (4'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM FINISH GRADE)175'-1"± (6'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM LOWEST ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ON EITHER PROPERTY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)44'-10" (6'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM LOWEST ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ON EITHER PROPERTY)10 9 12 1 3 1 4 4 2 12 56 7 14 11 D A A C B 7 8 D D 7 D 10'-0"11'-6"7 D 6 C 12 11 E TW 27.11 E E E11 13 E12 E F G E EE 8 D 6 C 20'-9"21'-3" 13 E1110'-0"15 LAYOUT LEGEND 1 EXISTING SIDEWALK: SAVE & PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 2 PROPOSED SIDEWALK, AS PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD. SEE CIVIL ENGINEER'S DRAWGINS. 3 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY APRON, AS PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD. SEE CIVIL ENG DRAWINGS. 4 PROPOSED 2" LAYER OF CRUSHED GRANITE PEBBLES IN TREE WELL. 5 PROPOSED AUTO-LOAD DRIVEWAY. 6 PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVERS. 7 PROPOSED INTEGRAL-COLORED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. 8 PROPOSED INTERGRAL-COLORED CONCRETE PLANTER WALL. 9 PROPOSED FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK, 4' TALL, ON-GRADE. 10 PROPOSED FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK, 4' TALL, ON-WALL. 11 PROPOSED FENCE, 6'± TALL, ON-GRADE. 12 PROPOSED FENCE, 6'± TALL, ON-WALL. 13 PROPOSED GATE, 6' TALL, TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCE. 14 PROPOSED GAS GRILL & COUNTER TOP. 15 PROPOSED FIRE RISER/STANDPIPE. SEE ARCH DWGS. A CRUSHED GRANITE PEBBLES: COLOR TO BE DETERMINED. B AUTO-LOAD DRIVEWAY: STAMPED CONCRETE WITH INTEGRAL COLOR. PATTERN & COLOR TO BE DETERMINED. C PERMEABLE PAVERS: AS MANUFACTURED BY BELGARD (www.belgardcommercial.com), "MODULINE WITH HYDRO-FLO". COLOR: TO BE DETERMINED. D INTEGRAL-COLOR & FINISH OF CONCRETE RETAINING WALL, PLANTER WALL, BARBECUE ISLAND: COLOR AS MANUFACTURED BY DAVIS COLORS (www.daviscolors.com), "DARK GRAY 8084). FINISH: SMOOTH FINISH. E FENCES & GATES: POSTS: HOLLOW STRUCTURAL STEEL, PAINTED BLACK. LUMBER: IPE. F GRILL: AS MFRD BY LYNX, MOD NO L36PSR-2; WITH GRILL COVER, MOD NO CC36. ACCESS DOOR: AS MFRD BY LYNX, MOD NO LDR18R-4. G KITCHEN ISLAND COUNTER TOP AND FIRE TABLE TOP, BOTH WITH BEVELED EDGES: AS MFRD BY DEKTON, MOD NO "KERANIUM". WALL LIGHT WITH LED LAMP PATH LIGHT WITH LED LAMP STRING LIGHTS WITH DOWNWARD DIRECTING LAMP SHADES MATERIALS & FINISH SCHEDULE CONTACT: SCALE: 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE APN: 029 112 050 BURLINGAME, CA PROJECT NO. 2017-01 DATE SET ISSUE PLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEBURLINGAME, CAR 57C 5INR A EP D L NA HCNSET ASCLIE Signature Date 12.31.2019 Renewal Date C T E OF ILA F O ER RIT OS HP 3R OF D SD AC AETTCHI CHRIS FORD CFLA CRLA # 3557 NORTHNORT H PROJECTTRUE Email: Chris@CFLA.biz Telephone: (510) 601.8022 PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018 74 Dudley Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205.04-2018 LANDSCAPE L1.1 1/8"=1'-0" PLAN 0 4'8'16' 2 2 2 ADASTANDARDLOBBY UNIT 1 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE(2) ACE RUB AS PER CITY PLANTING & IRRIGATION DETAILS. (10) CAR CAL (4) DOD VIS (19) CAR DIV (18) TRA JAS (24) CAR TES(32) SEN MAN (1) LAG NAT (3) AGA BLU (44) CAR TES (8) CAR TES (1) AGA BLU (21) CAR TES (2) AGA BLU (17) FES ELI (16) CAR CAL (54) CAR TES (3) LAG NAT (9) OLE LIT (15) STI TEN (11) OLE LIT (20) CAR CAL (19) STI TEN (14) STI TEN (13) CAR CAL (11) TRA JAS(27) STI TEN (11) CAR TES (2) POD GRA PLANT LIST TREES SYMBOL BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE QUANTITY FORM ACE RUB ACER RUBRUM RED MAPLE 24" BOX 2 TREE FORM DOD VIS DODONAEA VISCOSA HOP BUSH 24" BOX 4 TREE FORM LAG NAT LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA 'NATCHEZ'WHITE-FLOWERING CRAPE MYRTLE 24" BOX 4 MULTI-TRUNK POD GRA PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE (TREE FORM)24" BOX 2 TREE FORM SHRUBS / PERENNIALS SYMBOL BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE QUANTITY AGA BLU AGAVE 'BLUE FLAME'BLUE FLAME CENTURY PLANT 5 GAL 6 CAR CAL CARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA BUSH ANEMONE 5 GAL 59 OLE LIT OLEA 'LITTLE OLLIE'LITTLE OLIVE OLIVE 5 GAL 20 GRASSES & GRASS-LIKE PLANTS SYMBOL BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE QUANTITY CAR DIV CAREX DIVULSA (TUMULICOLA)BERKELEY SEDGE 1 GAL 62 CAR TES CAREX TESTA CEA ORANGE SEDGE 1 GAL 162 FES ELI FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE'ELIJAH BLUE FESCUE 1 GAL 17 STI TEN STIPA TENUISSIMA MEXICAN FEATHER GRASS 1 GAL 75 GROUND COVERS SYMBOL BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE QUANTITY SEN MAN SENECIO MANDRALISCAE BLUE CHALK STICKS 1 GAL 32 VINES SYMBOL BOTANICAL COMMON SIZE QUANTITY TRA JAS TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES STAR JASMINE 1 GAL 29 1 INCORPORATE COMPOST AT A RATE OF AT LEAST FOUR (4) CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQ. FT. TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES INTO PLANTING AREA. COMPOST SHALL BE "CLODBREAKER", AS AVAILABLE AT AMERICAN SOIL & STONE, RICHMOND, CA. 2 PROVIDE AND INSTALL A 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS. MULCH SHALL BE "FOREST FLOOR", AS AVAILABLE AT AMERICAN SOIL & STONE, RICHMOND, CA. PLANT NOTES CONTACT: SCALE: 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE APN: 029 112 050 BURLINGAME, CA PROJECT NO. 2017-01 DATE SET ISSUE PLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEBURLINGAME, CAR 57C 5INR A EP D L NA HCNSET ASCLIE Signature Date 12.31.2019 Renewal Date C T E OF ILA F O ER RIT OS HP 3R OF D SD AC AETTCHI CHRIS FORD CFLA CRLA # 3557 NORTHNORT H PROJECTTRUE Email: Chris@CFLA.biz Telephone: (510) 601.8022 PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018 74 Dudley Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205.04-2018 PLANTING L2.1 PLAN 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4'8'16' ADASTANDARDLOBBY UNIT 1 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE17'-1"± (4'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM FINISH GRADE) 187'-11"± (6'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM LOWEST ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ON EIT H E R P R O P E R T Y U N L E S S O T H E R W I S E N O T E D ) 16'-5"± (4'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM FINISH GRADE) FFE 25.55 FS MATCH (26.09±) 175'-1"± (6'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM LOWEST ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ON EITHER PROPERTY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED)44'-10" (6'-0" MAX TALL FENCE MEASURED FROM LOWEST ADJACENT FINISH GRADE ON EITHER PROPERTY)10 9 12 1 3 1 4 4 2 12 56 7 14 11 D A A C B 7 8 D D 7 D 10'-0"11'-6"7 D 6 C 12 11 E 4'-8"5'-5"4'-0"E E E11 13 E12 E F G E EE 8 D 6 C 20'-9"21'-3" 13 E1110'-0"15 1 EAST PROPERTY LINE (REAR). 2 FINISH GRADE OR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY (NORTH PROPERTY) SHOWN DASHED. 3 FINISH GRADE (FG) OF PLANTING AREA. 4 FINISH SURFACE (FS) OF PATIO. 5 INTEGRAL-COLORED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. 6 4" SQUARE HOLLOW-STRUCTURAL-STEEL FENCE POST. SEE ITEM E ON SHEET L1.1. 7 1x6 IPE FENCE BOARDS, WITH 1-1/2" VERTICAL SPACE BETWEEN EACH BOARD. 8 FENCE IN-GRADE, ITEM 7 SIMILAR.5'-8"4'-8"2 5 6 7 8 3 5 3'-0"1 4 LAYOUT LEGEND 1 EXISTING SIDEWALK: SAVE & PROTECT FROM DAMAGE. 2 PROPOSED SIDEWALK, AS PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD. SEE CIVIL ENGINEER'S DRAWGINS. 3 PROPOSED DRIVEWAY APRON, AS PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD. SEE CIVIL ENG DRAWINGS. 4 PROPOSED 2" LAYER OF CRUSHED GRANITE PEBBLES IN TREE WELL. 5 PROPOSED AUTO-LOAD DRIVEWAY. 6 PROPOSED PERMEABLE PAVERS. 7 PROPOSED INTEGRAL-COLORED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. 8 PROPOSED INTERGRAL-COLORED CONCRETE PLANTER WALL. 9 PROPOSED FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK, 4' TALL, ON-GRADE. 10 PROPOSED FENCE IN FRONT SETBACK, 4' TALL, ON-WALL. 11 PROPOSED FENCE, 6'± TALL, ON-GRADE. 12 PROPOSED FENCE, 6'± TALL, ON-WALL. 13 PROPOSED GATE, 6' TALL, TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCE. 14 PROPOSED GAS GRILL & COUNTER TOP. 15 PROPOSED FIRE RISER/STANDPIPE. SEE ARCH DWGS. 1 WEST PROPERTY LINE (FRONT). 2 SIDEWALK IN CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. SEE CIVIL ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS. 3 FINISH GRADE OR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY (NORTH PROPERTY) SHOWN DASHED. 4 FINISH GRADE (FG) OF PLANTING AREA AT BOTTOM OF WALL (BW). 5 FINISH SURFACE (FS) OF DRIVEWAY. 6 INTEGRAL-COLORED CONCRETE RETAINING WALL. 7 4" SQUARE HOLLOW-STRUCTURAL-STEEL FENCE POST. SEE ITEM E ON SHEET L1.1. 8 1x6 IPE FENCE BOARDS, WITH 1-1/2" VERTICAL SPACE BETWEEN EACH BOARD. 4 17'-1"4'-0"32 5 6 7 1 8 CONTACT: SCALE: 1433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE APN: 029 112 050 BURLINGAME, CA PROJECT NO. 2017-01 DATE SET ISSUE PLANNING COMMISSION10-16-20171433 FLORIBUNDA AVENUEBURLINGAME, CAR 57C 5INR A EP D L NA HCNSET ASCLIE Signature Date 12.31.2019 Renewal Date C T E OF ILA F O ER RIT OS HP 3R OF D SD AC AETTCHI CHRIS FORD CFLA CRLA # 3557 NORTHNORT H PROJECTTRUE Email: Chris@CFLA.biz Telephone: (510) 601.8022 PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0103-02-2018 74 Dudley Avenue Piedmont, CA 94611 PLANNING COMMISSION REV 0205.04-2018 FENCE L3.1 PLAN 1/8"=1'-0" 0 4'8'16' FENCE ELEVATION AT NORTH PROPERTY LINE1 0 4'8'16' FENCE ELEVATION AT NORTH PROPERTY LINE3 0 1'2'4'FENCE ELEVATION AT NORTH PROPERTY LINE2 0 1'2'4' 2 L3.1 3 L3.1 12' 3'3' CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 7, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 FROM: ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Associate Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 834 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning C+ion on July 9, 2018 (see attached July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following revisions being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item, prior to the issuance of a building permit:  that it is noted on the plans that the proposed siding will have mitered corners; and  that it is noted on the plans that the metal roof color will be pewter gray. The applicant added the notes above on sheets A103 and A201 on the plans date stamped July 3 and July 13, 2018. A building permit has not yet been issued for the project. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a public hearing with direction to the applicant. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner Attachments: July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Approved plans with FYI revisions, date stamped July 3 and July 13, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 9, 2018 e.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review 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. (John Nguyen, Dulon Inc ., applicant and designer; Diane Mcglown, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 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. John Nguyen, Dulon Inc., represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Why the metal roof? (Nguyen: Wanted to add a more modern feel to the overall design of the house, something a little bit more contemporary.) To make a traditional home more contemporary? (Nguyen: A blend.) >Is the plan to have mitered corners on the siding? (Nguyen: Mitered corners. Does not want corner trims.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Metal roofs seems akin to the consensus to not allow vinyl windows. Does not believe metal roofs fit in Burlingame. This one feels gratuitous. >The steeper the roof, the more prominent the metal roof becomes. >The commission has been open to approving metal roofs in the past. Does not seem out of place in this project. >Project has come a long way, and is approvable provided there is a condition that the corners of the siding be mitered. >Metal roofs are reviewed on a case by case basis. >Seems too tall for the neighborhood. >Can't deny a metal roof if there aren't rules to that effect. >Would like to receive an FYI to show a color consistent with the reference images provided. Neutral, gray tone comparable to an asphalt composition shingle. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing notes on the plans that the proposed siding will have mitered corners and that the proposed metal roof color will be a neutral gray tone; The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Tse4 - Nay:Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul3 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/7/2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 27, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 FROM: Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 825 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-2. Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to convert a single family dwelling to a duplex at 825 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2, was approved by the Planning Commission on May 14, 2018. At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following revision being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item, prior to the issuance of a building permit: • The applicant shall submit an FYI for Planning Commission review of revisions to the plans clarifying how the post at the front entry to the rear unit appears on the front elevation and how it interfaces with the roof above. The applicant has revised the plans to show the post at the entry to the rear unit entrance on both the front and the left side elevations on sheet 4, date stamped July 9, 2018 as requested by the Planning Commission. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the duplex. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner Attachments: Letter from the applicant, dated July 9, 2018 Revised Plans with changes highlighted on Sheet 4, date stamped July 9, 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 7, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1500 CYPRESS AVENUE & 101-105 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. Summary: An application for Design Review and Condominium Permit for construction of a new three-story, four-unit multi-family residential condominium building at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, 2018 (see attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following revisions being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item (condition of approval #2):  that the project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items prior to building permit issuance: a. both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to add articulation; b. the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon); c. the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material; d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation and/or openings; e. consider reducing the size of the roof decks. Please refer to the attached letter submitted by the project architect, dated August 66666, 2018, for a detailed list of changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s direction. Plans showing the originally approved and proposed site plan, landscape plan, floor plans, and building elevations, date stamped July 18, 2018, were submitted to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Ruben Hurin Planning Manager Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the architect, dated August 6, 2018 June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped July 18, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 25, 2018 f.1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination for a new three -story, four-unit residential condominium. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (b). (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Attachments 1500 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 105 El Camino Real - Historic Resource Evaluation 1500 Cypress 101-105 El Camino Real - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >The neighbor is asking for an 8-foot fence. Is that in the purview of the commission to allow? (Gardiner: Would require application for a fence height exception .)(Kane: Would need to meet the findings required for a fence height exception to be approved.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architects, Inc., represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the applicant seen the letter submitted from the neighbor? (Gee: Property owner can address.) >Could the center portion of the side elevation be bumped out to provide deeper articulation? (Gee: Yes, or alternatively could be recessed in 6 inches.) >South elevation second floor balcony rails are shown as cement plaster on the elevations, but they look different on the renderings. Would they be painted differently? (Gee: Was one of the considerations; could paint it off-white to set it off a bit, but intention is to have a solid rail for privacy. The balconies are shallow, not for parties or sitting.) >Cypress elevation has a wall along the parking area. Could it be broken up with some openings, or wrought iron? (Gee: Could integrate four along the top to create a rhythm, about 8 inches down. Simple detail.) Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Could the Pittosporum along the side be larger than the 5-gallon plants specified on the plans? (Gee: Would need to check with the landscape architect. 15-gallon could be considered. Pittosporum is a fast-growing hedge.) Public Comments: Peter Comaroto, 1576 Cypress Avenue: Good changes to the project. Busy traffic location, requests a traffic study. Side elevation facing Cypress Avenue looks like a great wall that divides neighborhoods, is very stark. The front of the building looks great. Concern roof decks will create noise and privacy issues for neighbors. Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Nice changes to the building, but the changes have more windows and balconies facing, so less privacy than the previous version, and building is closer. Rooftop patios as well as well as balconies. Sight line is misleading, trees are not all 22-feet tall and garage is only one story. Privacy is a big concern. Concern with the noise of garage doors, and wants a solid wall to reduce noise rather then a fence. Calvin Paes and Stephen Wolf, 107 El Camino Real: Concerns with the distance between the two buildings and the height. Property now is 10 feet from fence, project would be 4 1/2 feet from the fence and straight up. Concern with appearance of the wall and sunlight. Requests distance of the new building be the same as existing. Has a patio adjacent. Also lives in a three -story building, would want the same side setback. 107 El Camino Real does not have roof decks. William Steul: Lives next to 1508 Cypress. Shares concerns with sight lines and noise levels. East side of building facing Cypress needs more work. Looks very blank, will not show well in the neighborhood. Kirby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Plans are much nicer than previous version. Does commission have purview to require maintenance of the cypress tree? Concern with entrance on Cypress, intersection is dangerous and sight line could be blocked by parked cars. Cypress elevation is too austere, stark . Should be more consideration for the current neighbors' privacy, responsibility of the applicant rather than the existing owners. El Camino addresses should not be eligible for street parking permits, parking should be provided on site. Wayne Hu, project applicant: Believes has addressed most of the privacy issues in the neighbor's letter . Has prepared site line drawings. Rear setback is 20 feet, and neighboring house has a 12-foot driveway for a total of about 32 feet between buildings. Living areas of the adjacent house are on other side of the house. Garage of adjacent house is 15 feet tall. Roof decks are set back so view into adjacent property is obscured. Agreeable with request for garage door openers. Questions to applicant: >Does the entrance to the driveway have a door? (Gee: No. It is open so there would not be queueing up.) >How are the roof decks expected to be used? (Gee: Used as open space for the unit. Could restrict types of activities if needed. Not large gathering spaces. Have been moved closer to the El Camino side.) >(Gee: Interior side setback is 7'-2" on the ground floor, and 9'-2 1/2" on the second and third floors . Has exceeded the required setbacks.) >Could the fence along the south side be changed from redwood to a solid 6-foot wall? (Gee: Would be amendable to it.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The fenceline along Cypress should be addressed. Right now it's a long, flat wall, could use some deviations. The wrought iron sounds like a good idea. >The height of the building is consistent with the pattern along El Camino Real. >Privacy issues are noted; the last iteration was better in terms of the neighbor's privacy. >East wall should jut out more to increase the depth. >Would like some detail on the solid wall on the Cypress side, rather than a solid block wall. At least the portion viewable from the street. >A lot has been done to the rooftop decks to address privacy. Decks and noise could be addressed in CC&Rs, but they're not large enough for a big party that would create impacts for neighbors. >Has not maximized the building envelope. >Approach from El Camino heading north is an important viewpoint. On Cypress elevation would like to see more articulation or integration of materials to enhance the Spanish Revival style. >Could add additional fenestration on blank part of wall on east elevation. (Gee: Originally had more windows on that side, but in the revision a closet was positioned against the wall. Could put a window in the closet.) >Painted railings on the juliet balconies look a bit commercial. (Gee: Has designed similar type of balcony at 824 Linden in Burlingame - can be viewed at 824linden.com.) >Revisions to the project are significant and to the better. Four units are replacing two, so while it is an intensification it is not a huge revision. The height is less than allowed, and it meets the setbacks. >Landscaping has been broken down so the residences have a presence on street. Not insular like the previous version; laudable that it addresses El Camino in a manner that most projects do not. >Concern with roof decks, despite ambient noise from El Camino. Could be reduced in size, currently 15' x 15'. Not clear what people will do on the roof decks, but does not think noise will be an issues. >Sight line studies are not particularly helpful, but does not believe people will be standing on the edge of decks, particularly the lower-floor decks. However it is important to have more robust pittosporum. >Does not think there will be noise issue with El Camino, but could reduce the size. Does not expect they will be used that much given the attractions of Downtown Burlingame. Appreciates the positioning of the decks, mitigates the sight lines well. >Simple straightforward solution with good architecture, not trying to have too many units on the site . Just needs work on the Cypress side. >Would want a bit of outdoor amenity for residents, and that is provided by the roof decks. The small outdoor seating area is useful but not as significant, and would not necessarily want more activity on the ground level since it would be adjacent to the fence. The roof decks provide the amenity; maybe they can be reduced in size but they are nicely placed. The project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items prior to building permit issuance: a.both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to add articulation; b.the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon); c.the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material; d.the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation and /or openings; e.consider reducing the size of the roof decks. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the following condition: The project shall go before the Planning Commission for review of an FYI for the following items prior to building permit issuance: a.both the Cypress Avenue (exterior - east) and the interior (west) elevations shall be revised to Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes add articulation; b.the size of the proposed pittosporum shall be revised with the consultation of a landscape architect (current size proposed at 5-gallon); c.the south side (rear) fence shall be revised from redwood to a solid material; d. the Cypress Avenue (east) wall along the parking area shall be revised to add articulation and/or openings; e.consider reducing the size of the roof decks. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse7 - Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/8/2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 23, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 FROM: Sonal Aggarwal, Contract Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AT 1697 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage at 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2018 (see attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit application has not yet been submitted. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of the following changes:  At gable roof, wood scallop siding is replaced with 8-inch board and batten siding with attached corbels (see sheets A.5, A.6 and A.7).  At the second floor, horizontal siding is replaced with wood shingle siding (see sheets A.5 and A.6).  At the first floor, the 4-inch horizontal wood siding is replaced with 6-inch siding (see sheets A.5, A.6 and A.7).  At the fireplace chimney, the 4-inch horizontal wood siding is replaced with a stone finish (see sheets A.5 and A.6).  Material of the driveway is changed from unit pavers to a unit paver border and filled in concrete (see sheets A.2 and L.1). Please refer to the attached letter from the applicant, dated July 16, 2018 for a detailed explanation of the changes proposed. The applicant also submitted the originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped July 16, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner Community Development Department Memorandum July 23, 2018 Page 2 Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated July 16, 2018 June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved plans, date stamped June 4, 2018 Proposed plans, date stamped July 16, 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 23, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 FROM: Sonal Aggarwal, Contract Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION AT 1697 BROADWAY, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage at 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2018 (see attached June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit application has not yet been submitted. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of the following changes:  At gable roof, wood scallop siding is replaced with 8-inch board and batten siding with attached corbels (see sheets A.5, A.6 and A.7).  At the second floor, horizontal siding is replaced with wood shingle siding (see sheets A.5 and A.6).  At the first floor, the 4-inch horizontal wood siding is replaced with 6-inch siding (see sheets A.5, A.6 and A.7).  At the fireplace chimney, the 4-inch horizontal wood siding is replaced with a stone finish (see sheets A.5 and A.6).  Material of the driveway is changed from unit pavers to a unit paver border and filled in concrete (see sheets A.2 and L.1). Please refer to the attached letter from the applicant, dated July 16, 2018 for a detailed explanation of the changes proposed. The applicant also submitted the originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped July 16, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner Community Development Department Memorandum July 23, 2018 Page 2 Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated July 16, 2018 June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved plans, date stamped June 4, 2018 Proposed plans, date stamped July 16, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 11, 2018 d.1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design and Associates, Inc ., James Chu, applicant and designer, Huan Wang, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1697 Broadway - Staff Report 1697 Broadway - Attachments 1697 Broadway - Plans- 6.11.18 Attachments: Commission Kelly indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on this item as he resides within 500-feet of the property. A motion was made by Commissioner Gaul, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Kelly1 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/23/2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 1, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: August 13, 2018 FROM: Sonal Aggarwal, Contract Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 772 W ALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Variance for first and second-story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 772 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2018 (see attached March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes), A building permit was issued in June 2018. With this application, the applicant is requesting the following changes:  The existing roof over the proposed pantry and stair landing, between the Living Room and Mud Room, is raised from 7’-0” to 9’-0”. The existing roof does not meet current building code requirements; the applicant is requesting to revise this roof so that it complies with the current building code requirements.  The room behind the garage, Bedroom 5, will be rebuilt with a new footprint and with new exterior openings. The applicant requests this change to bring the building up to the current building code requirements. Please refer to the attached letter from the applicant, dated August 1, 2018 for a detailed explanation of the changes proposed. The applicant also submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped August 1, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant’s letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated August 1, 2018 March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved plans, date stamped August 1, 2018 Proposed plans, date stamped August 1, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 12, 2018 a.772 Walnut Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and Variance for a new front porch. The project is categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jessica Sin, JSD Architecture, applicant and designer; Vivek and Pooja Shah, property owners) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 772 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 772 Walnut Ave - Attachments 772 Walnut Ave - Plans - 3.12.18 Attachments: Commissioner Gaul recused himself from the discussion of this item. He left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Vivek and Pooja Shah, and Jessica Sin represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What is intended for window treatments on the large window in the master bath? (P. Shah: likes the idea of having a bathtub at that location that allows views of the yard. V. Shah: there are tall trees that surround the house, so it will not intrude on the neighbors.) >Will there be a post at the corner of the window? (Sin: are attempting to have a true corner window.) >Is there a selected window manufacturer? Must use true divided lights, or simulated true divided lights. >Suggested adding a corbel or other feature for the porch roof to land upon. >Are the windows casements? (P. Shah: yes.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/23/2018 March 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Feels that the large window at the master bath is out of scale and not a good idea. >Not supportive of the large window on the east elevation. >Likes the board and batten gable. >Agrees with the comments regarding the windows, but is not a deal breaker. Likes the changes that have been made. The variance is supportable; recreating the existing condition in a different location. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - Recused:Gaul, and Gaul2 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/23/2018