Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2018.07.09
Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, July 9, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesc. Draft June 11, 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. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 829 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review (Major Renovation) for first and second story additions to an existing house, Special Permits for an accessory structure with a depth more than 28 feet and located in the rear 40% of the lot, and Conditional Use Permits for a half -bath and glazed opening higher than 10 feet above grade in 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 a. 829 Maple Ave - Staff Report 829 Maple Ave - Attachments 829 Maple Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 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 b. 301 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 2 301 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 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 c. 2720 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report 2720 Trousdale Dr - Attachments 2720 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 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 d. 1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments 1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 e. 834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments 834 Crossway Dr - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 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 f. 1117 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1117 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1117 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 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 g. 310 Lorton Ave - Staff Report 310 Lorton Ave - Attachments 310 Lorton Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards h. DSP Amendments - Staff Report DSP Amendments - Attachments Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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 a. 28 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 28 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 28 Bloomfiled Rd - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 July 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 b. 2516 Valdivia Way - Staff Report 2516 Valdivia Way - Attachments 2516 Valdivia Way - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting July 2, 2018 521 Burlingame Avenue - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. a. 521 Burlingame Ave - Memorandum 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 07.09.18 Attachments: 841 Rollins Road - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. b. 841 Rollins Rd - MemorandumAttachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 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 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 9, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and TerronesPresent5 - Comaroto, and GumAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - a.Draft February 26, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft February 26, 2018 Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 8c (815 Maple Avenue) has been continued to the April 23, 2018 meeting. 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. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1541 Adrian Road and 960 David Road, zoned RR- Application for Conditional Use Permit for a building materials supply store in an existing commercial building, a Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Conditional Use Permit and a Parking Variance to provide required parking off -site in the drainage right-of-way. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Floor and Decor c /o CenterPoint Integrated Solutions LLC, applicant; Frank Edwards Co. Inc, property owners; SRA, architect) (126 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 1540 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Staff Report 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Study Minutes and Response 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Application 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Parking and Trip Gen Study 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Traffic Response 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Staff Comments 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Resolution, Notice and Aerial 1541 Adrian Rd and 960 David Rd - Plans - 03.26.18 Received after - 1541 Adrian Rd 3.23.18- K. Manning Received after - 1541 Adrian Rd - 960 David Rd -4.5.18 Attachments: 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. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Greg Saia, CenterPoint Integrated Solutions, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >None. Public Comments: Juan Vasquez, All Natural Stone: Concern with the parking space, had a prior agreement with the previous tenant on the use of the parking space. Already a conflict in the area with Tez Marble. GoKart utilized parking in back, but overflow was all the way down to the BMW service center. Has there been research into impact on businesses in Burlingame? Concern with businesses with part -time help. Cost of providing full-time employment with benefits is high, employees commute long distances. Big impact for a smaller business. Can only get so much taxes out of tile businesses. Busy at lunch times, lots fill up and overflow onto the street. Ali Cengiz, Tez Marble: Concern with traffic. There are problems when multiple deliveries are made at the same time. Parking is limited, the parking lots are full. Tez is a local company, compared to national company with 86 locations. Expects income losses of $50,000 to $100,000 monthly . Big loss on their side. Will cause traffic problems. Doesn't know how the future effect will be for Tez Marble, bought the building three years ago and made investment for the future. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Good that the bypass lane has been worked out in the pickup area. >Parking variance is for location, not quantity. Parking for employees will be in a satellite location. >Sympathetic to local businesses, but there is a a large vacant building with parking not being utilized . Existing businesses seem to be underparked, but this project has the quantity of parking required. >Use will be synergistic with other uses in the area. >New use will attract additional business from outside the area, which can increase the business of neighboring businesses. Starbucks and Il Piccolo have been able to coexist. >Concern of traffic at David and Adrian Roads is not the responsibility of the owners of this business, as noted in the letter from the City's engineer. >Trip generation will have negligible impact on traffic, per the engineer's letter. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - b.2208 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit and Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permits for height, an attached garage, and basement. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).(Warren Donald, property owner and applicant; Kevin O'Brien, architect) (24 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2208 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2208 Summit Dr - Attachments 2208 Summit Dr - Plans - 04.09.18 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Warren Donald represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there a plan that shows the edge of the existing asphalt drive that goes past the property? Will there need to be bollards to protect the corner of the house? (Donald: The easement line corresponds to the driveway. Houses in Burlingame with garages in the rear are accustomed to driving past their houses on narrow driveways. This is similar, but the driveway is quite a bit wider.) >Was there consideration of lowering the plate on the first floor as well as the upper floors? Still looks really vertical. (Donald: 9' first floor, 8' upper floor, tower reduced.) Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Is imposing on the lot, but that is due to the lot restrictions. It is a narrow lot. >Well articulated, and the detailing that meets the design guidelines. >Four easements and upsloping lot gives it a vertical feeling, but it is within the height requirements . Meets the height requirements even though the top of curb is lower than if it were a flat lot. >Story poles are typically used to determine limits on views. Does not believe that would inform distant views in this construction. >Can support the project but is not a fan of the project, because not a fan of the site. It has been improved by lowering it from the initial design. >Would be a better site for a one-story house, but can't punish for the lot they have to work with. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul4 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - Recused:Terrones1 - c.815 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second 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 15303 (e)(2). (Michael Cafferkey, applicant and designer; Michael and Margaret Cafferkey, property owners) (181 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi (CONTINUED FROM THE APRIL 9, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.) 815 Maple Ave - Staff Report.pdf 815 Maple Ave - Attachments.pdf 815 Maple Ave - Plans - 04.23.18.pdf Attachments: This item was continued to the April 23, 2018 meeting. d.Proposed Acquisition of Property Located at 858-860 Hinckley Road by the San Mateo Union High School District (SMUHSD) for Construction of a New Continuation High School/Alternative High School. (SMUHSD, applicant; Hinckley Properties LLC, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: William Meeker Staff Report SMUHSD Notice of Intent to Acquire Property Public Hearing Notice Inner Bayshore (IB) Zoning Regulations Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent exchanged emails with a neighboring property owner. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >To clarify, this is not a Conditional Use Permit or Special Permit, or anything similar that we'd be acting on? We're just being asked to receive this information, and if so moved make a determination that there is not an objection to the intended purchase of the property? (Kane: The legislature requires a check-in with the Planning Commission about the suitability with the site. The assessment is not constrained, but the district may go ahead regardless of the findings. There would be a delay built in if the commission has a negative finding about the appropriateness. The district is allowed to be exempt from other zoning restrictions by state law, but the check -in is a requirement. Rather than a resolution, the meeting minutes will serve as the findings with a motion with the recommendation.) >If the public has concerns with the proposal, the proper body to voice the concerns would be the school district? (Kane: Correct. The school district is in charge of the development of this site. The scope for the commission is the general planning compatibility of the site with the intended use.) >For the record, because this would be defined as a project under CEQA, the school district would be taking any CEQA action in regards to the project. (Kane: Yes, the district is the lead agency.) >What public transportation is available? (Gardiner: Samtrans Route 292 travels on Bayshore Highway, and there is also the Caltrain shuttle from the Millbrae internodal station. The site is within walking distance of both of these routes. These are the existing facilities that are available now.) >What would the parking requirement be for this type of use? (Gardiner: We have not evaluated the parking for the students themselves. It would be based on square footage, but plans have not yet been developed to that level of detail. At this point the consideration is the suitability of the land use to the property, but not the specific details of the proposal.) Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Elizabeth McManus, San Mateo Union High School District, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >At some point in the future the district will put together plans for the development of the site? The district will also need to take action with regards to CEQA? There will be public hearings like those of any other public entity? Review of the project and action on the project? (McManus: Correct.) >How many students drive right now? (McManus: Less than five. This group is credit deficient, take public transit and leave school around 1:30 because they work in the afternoon to support their families . Will not be driving to school because they do not have a car to drive.) Public Comments: John Lund, 850 Hinkley Road: Has been a tenant at 850 Hinkley for two decades. Clients are radio and television managers and staff, and they visit their offices and their parking lot is full. Curious why this location was chosen? This is an area with all businesses. Has the school been approved yet? 225 students and 30 faculty is 255 people with 32 parking spaces. There is no street parking; between the Coit cleaning vans down the street and the high school administration building across the street, virtually all on-street parking is taken. Concern they will parking in the lot at 850 Hinkley. The buses are infrequent, has had employees come and go. Concern that the City will rent buses to come down the street, but there is no room on either side since parking is full. Nobody lives in the area, and there is no room for a school in the area. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Peninsula High School needs a new home. The existing school is remote to the places where the students live. >The students need some specialized attention with independent education plans to succeed. Knows the district has long been looking for a site for the school. >The school district selected the site, not the City. A project has not been approved; the item regards the intent of the district to purchase the property. >The City does not oversee the school district, they are separate governing bodies. The City does not have jurisdiction to say how a public school property is developed. >Can accept the information as presented so far. Details of how the students get to school will be put forth and vetted before the school district. >Not sure what to comment on without a project. >Would like to hear more from the district why this site was selected. Public hearing re-opened: McManus: Very difficult to find a property that is centrally located within the district. Wanted to be in a commercial area since the school wants to find jobs for these students. Usually in the fall the school starts of with about 120 students, and currently there are about 170 students. 225 is anticipating maximum growth. Looking at this as an opportunity for the most challenged students to see opportunities for careers and get into a direction to find their passion. Public hearing closed. >Had not understood that there would be a further process that would involve community input. Feels more comfortable. >There are challenges with the site. There are real parking issues, but heartened to hear from the district representative that most of these students do not drive. Otherwise that would be a real concern. >While the applicant says no parking will be provided for students, would not use that as a design criteria if there is a chance for more parking including for maintenance vehicles. >In trying to envision a school here, need to recognize it is for this particular type of school . Encourages people to visit Peninsula High School to understand the profile of the students. These are students that need to work to support their family, or have fallen behind and need specific attention . Because of the socioeconomics don't have a lot of access to autos. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, that the Planning Commission acknowledges receipt of the notice, has held a public hearing and taken public testimony, and does not have objection to the intended purchase as set forth in the notice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1432 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope along the left side for a second story addition. (Geurse Conceptual Design, Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Kareem Fahmy, property owner) (124 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 1432 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1432 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 03.26.18 Attachments: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Kareem Fahmy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was the existing family room an addition? (Fahmy: Believe so. It was there when purchased the home in 2012 but doesn't know who built it. Want to make it more consistent architecturally.) >Bulk of the work is on the interior and the back of the house, but the front of the house is unchanged? (Fahmy: Yes.) >Bay window on the second floor in Bedroom #3 turns back with a new wall. Was there consideration of just straightening the wall? (Ms. Fahmy: Did consider it, but that would entail breaking up an existing room. There are two rooms that will remain untouched upstairs. Chose to leave it as is, not include it in the remodel.)(Mr. Fahmy: Wanted to minimize impact to the rooms not being effected.) >Sheet A.5 left elevation should say right side, since A .6 also mentions left side elevation and front . The front is noted as the left side or north, but in fact it is the west elevation. >On Sheet A.6 there are a couple of windows missing on the north elevation, and they are shown as casements when they should be shown as double-hung. >Front porch roofliness don't line up as shown. The front porch roof is lower than the roof of the bedroom over the garage. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Straightforward project, readily supportable. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones4 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.1316 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a second story addition and a new detached garage (Xie Guan , Xie Associate, applicant and architect; Carolyn Bao, property owner) (134 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1316 Laguna Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1316 Laguna Ave - Plans - 03.26.18 Attachments: 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. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Xie Guan represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Windows on the east elevation have been removed, and the proposed elevation shows a blank wall. Is there a reason for removing the windows? (Guan: Existing wall less is than 3 feet from the property line . Cannot meet the fire rating.) >First floor plate height appears to be 10 feet currently. Because the first floor is raised it gives a vertical feeling to the building. (Guan: Plate height is 9 feet.) >There is no driveway space or usable off -street parking available. Parking in the driveway would block the sidewalk. (Guan: Corner lot. Wants to keep yard space. If the garage were pushed back 3 or 4 feet it would reduce the yard.) Could instead have a single -car garage moved further back towards the left property line with a longer driveway. (Guan: Can check with the client, see if the garage could be moved 4 or 5 feet so a car could be parked in the driveway.) >Windows on Bedrooms #1 and #2 look different on the elevations compared to plans. They are very close to the corners on the elevations. Is the intention to have the windows so close to the corners? (Guan: Can shift them over.) >Are the wood details painted, or natural finished wood? (Guan: Natural finished wood.) Should be called out on the drawings consistently. >Is the type of window noted? (Guan: Noted on A3.0 note 5.) >Why metal railing on the balconies? There is a lot of wood trim, and wood railings on the front porch . Could replicate what is on the front, particularly the second floor balcony. (Guan: Yes, that makes sense.) >With double garage could offset the garage doors so there would be room for at least one car in the driveway. (Guan: Can consider.) >Make sure the notes on the plans are consistent and the leaders are accurate. >Needs to note that the exterior material is stucco. Public Comments: Isabelle Spano, 1124 Lincoln Avenue: Box on top of a box home. 1336 Laguna has been added on, with an upstairs smaller than the downstairs so it looks less massive in the neighborhood. Not a single house on Summer is two story. Just a little too big for that lot; if it matched the house at 1336 Laguna it would fit better. Has lived in the house for almost 45 years, supports renovation, but would like to look at a nice home. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Back of house could use more attention to break it up. Since it is a corner lot, sees a lot of the sides of the house. Railing changing to wood, and vertical balisters would help, maybe stepping it in slightly and giving it a roof edge, something to break up the massing. >Garage provides two covered parking spaces. There are other houses nearby that also have garages Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes close to the sidewalk. >Back of the house is a sheer surface and needs more work, but the other sides are well articulated . Otherwise a tidy little project, not an overly large house. The two very exposed faces seem well articulated, with step backs and bays, recesses and new front porch. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - c.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (John Nguyen, Dulon, Inc ., applicant and designer; Diane Mcglown, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 834 Crossway Rd - Study.sr.docAttachments: 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. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. John Nguyen represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Has the material product been selected for the siding and shingles? (Nguyen: No, except for the shake on the roof.) >Why corner boards? (Nguyen: To give it a clean edge.) Traditional homes have mitered corners. >Hard to know where the front is. The two -story elements on the front and side are very vertical, without a lot of definition between the top floor and the bottom. Has there been consideration of additional articulation, perhaps a bay on the top floor projecting out, or some other details such as knee braces or corbels in the corners and ridges? (Nguyen: Looked at some options with stepping the top floor back, but with such a narrow lot, it made it look weird.) Would encourage projecting out a bay on the front of the second floor with some corbels underneath it, knee braces in the corners, to articulate the front elevation and give it more presence. >On the side two-story elevation there is a blank wall below with stairs on the interior. Could break the sill line, get another section of window? Otherwise looks like an infill blank piece, looks plain. >Why so much concrete? (Nguyen: Extra space for parking. Needs 20 feet in front of the garage for the additional space.) Makes a harsh back yard, paves more than what is needed to meet the parking requirement. Could consider breaking it up with pavers to help soften. >Aluminum-clad windows are noted with "grids" - needs clarify they should be simulated true -divided lites. (Nguyen: Correct.) >Site Plan shows a tree in the rear setback of the property as as 4-inch, but on the survey it is indicated as 30-inches. May need permit to remove. >On the front elevation the porch and entry is lost. The flat front and sloping roof on the porch makes it look like an apartment building. Encourages breaking up the front facade. Allowed 200 square feet for a front porch, maybe bring it further up the driveway. Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: Jim Baleix, 831 Edgehill Road, located behind: Agrees with commission comments on lack of exciting character of the home. Current home is very unique and has some character. This looks like it belongs in rural Indiana. The facade is flush, it does not have large overhangs or architectural interest, the windows aren't inset or popped out. Looks very flat. Wants to make sure there is enough vegetation, there is no street tree and there is a lot of concrete, however currently there is a really nice mature water -sensitive front yard. Does not show the levels of investment that neighbors have been putting into their homes. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project looks formulaic. Does a lot of right things but lacks the charm it should have given the amount of articulation. Has some good decisions, but also some that are implemented badly. >Constrained by the lot being very narrow in the back, and the lot being long, so the house takes on that character. The proposal is below maximum floor area so there is some opportunity to add things around that could add to the character of the project. >Should consider reworking the front, not just adding a bay. Could move the front porch forward, create more of a presence on the street and add some articulation. >With other projects there have been privacy concerns with having a side -facing front door, and could potentially be an issue here with the front door being glass. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - d.401 Occidental Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling and Special Permit for a new attached two-car garage (Robert Boles, Beausoleil Architects, applicant and architect; Jeremy and Margret Werner TR, property owners) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 401 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 401 Occidental Ave - Attachments 401 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 401 Occidental Ave - Plans - 03.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Robert Boles, Beausoleil Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >What will serve as powder room for the pool? (Boles: Powder room in the mud room.) >What is purpose for the large doors coming from the back of the garage on the West Elevation? (Boles: Owner is a maker person, has lots of hobbies, wants garage that can be used as a workshop.) >Is the exterior door into the water heater space really going to be as tall as shown? (Boles: Yes, space will have a water heater on the top level and other equipment on the lower level, is a split level mechanical room.) >Landscape plan shows a new 7 foot tall fence along the right hand side of the property, have your clients had a chance to talk to the neighbors about rebuilding that fence? (Boles: Yes, have discussed the fence with them.) >Are people confident they can pull in an out of the garage at an odd angle? Suggest testing it to make sure cars will be able to park in the garage. (Boles: Yes, believe they can. A pull -out area in is provided adjacent to the garage which will help pulling out.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Nice job...will be interesting to build. >Applicant understands the questions that have been raised, none of which seem problematic. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - e.118 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Kevin O'Sullivan, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 118 Loma Vista Drive - Staff Report 118 Loma Vista Drive - Attachments 118 Loma Vista Drive - Plans - 3.26.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones reported that he met Commissioner Sargent on the property but did not discuss the project. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu represented the applicant, with property owner Kevin O' Sullivan. Commission Questions/Comments: >Where did the eyebrow entry archway come from? Seems alien to the rest of the building. (Chu: Can Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes be reconsidered.) >Reason for the blank wall on the right side elevation along the kitchen? Consider adding windows to either side of the cooktop? (O'Sullivan: Wanted room for kitchen cabinet space.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Eyebrow seems alien to the rest of building. Does not seem to fit the style of the rest of the building. >House is nicely articulated. >Rest of house is consistent with itself. >Kitchen is large and long with windows on just one side. Encourages some small windows. Blank wall is not a highly visible part of the facade, but kitchen would be nicer with light on a couple of sides. >Talk to neighbors about new fencing on both sides. >Has the level of complexity that is expected. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - f.1010 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story house and a Conditional Use Permit for a detached new garage with a half bath (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jessica Casey, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 1010 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1010 Cabrillo Ave -Attachments 1010 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 04.09.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant, with property owner Ramon Arce. Commission Questions/Comments: >The staff report says this is new construction, but there will be some walls remaining? (Grange: Started out designing as a remodel. Owners did not just want to wipe the site clean. Keeping the subfloor and the framing, and expanding on that.) >Is the bathroom in the garage for the kids? (Arce: Has a lot of family stuff in the backyard and kitchen, so this is so they do not need to go in and out. Something more than a sink.) Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is handled nicely. >Well articulated. >Great to see a shared hall bath. >If replacing fencing coordinate and cooperate with the adjacent neighbors. >Landscape plan needs to be updated. The side door on the garage is different than what is shown on the floor plan. >Questioning whether the CUP half bath in the garage could be approved here; have they not been approved in other applications? >Full bath has not been allowed on other applications, but there have been various instances where a half bath has been approved. >Fully-developed back yard justifies a CUP for the half bath. It looks like a place where there will be a lot of family activity. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - g.841 Rollins Road, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition and Special Permits for Declining Height Envelope and for an attached garage (Joe Ouyang, designer; Kevin Peng, applicant; Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang, property owners) (125 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 841 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 841 Rollins Rd - Attachments 841 Rollins Rd - plans - 04.09.18 Attachments: 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. Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Kevin Peng represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The east elevation does not properly show the side of the garage. >The declining height envelope is shown on wrong place on one of the elevations. It should not be on the drawing on the right side. (Hurin: Staff can work with the applicant to make sure it is shown correctly.) >Needs a cricket along the garage for the drainage, otherwise there will be water intrusion. It also does Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes not look very good aesthetically. (Peng: Yes, will need a cricket or flashing.) >Window selection would want to match traditional windows styles, either with a wood window or a clad-wood window. Vinyl sliders don't typically match traditional building stock. (Peng: Has selected Milgard Montecito.) >Should bring a sample. Montecito and Tuscany are good windows. >East elevation second floor is catilvered over the deck. That does not show on the south elevation . Could help to break it up, perhaps with a trim board to help set it off. >Could consider extending the far slope of the garage up to the house. Would tie it together and eliminate some of the boxiness. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Would benefit from consultation with a design review consultant. >Loses the charm of the existing house. >Proposal almost blends with the apartment buildings, but those have more detail and articulation. >The size of the house compared to the garage is odd. Doesn't need to increase the size of the garage, but could decrease the size of the house. >A two-story house in the area can look fine, but doesn't need to look like an apartment building. >Declining height envelope encroachment runs the full length of the house. Creates a big tall blank wall. >No articulation in the window detailing. >No hierarchy between the first floor and second floor. >Second floor plate height is taller than the first floor, making the mass and bulk taller. >Garage roof should be reconsided, will need a huge cricket that will change the character. >Cantilever of the second floor along the side needs to get articulated and detailed properly. >Front porch could be added to help bring down the massing. The square footage will be exempt from the FAR. >Garage needs to be revisited; it is a detached garage that happened to bump into house and then became attached. Ordinarily the attached garage is well integrated with the design of the house. Could consider a detached garage with minimal separation. >Could support the special permit for an attached garage if it is well integrated into the massing of the house. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Absent:Comaroto, and Gum2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Terrones reported on his attendance at the Planning Commissioners' academy. It was worthwhile and encourages commissioners to attend in the future. 425 attendees. Two tracks: fundamentals, and emerging issues. Opening general session with speaker Dan Walters, a political columnist from Sacramento, speaking on housing crisis in the state, noting that state needs to be building 180,000 units per year to meet demand. There was a session on modernizing design guidelines, to accommodate contemporary and modern projects. Also infill projects, form -based codes, privacy guidelines, specialized zone districts for historic areas and designated neighborhoods. Case study of Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 April 9, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Calabassas community engagement process for all projects. Discussion of SB 35, public records act, encouragement to use city emails for commission business. Presentation on free tools and resources : city GIS systems, League of California Cities, Western Cities, Institute for Local Government training videos and white papers, historicaerials .com, communitycommons open source website with gis data, USGS with topographical maps, and visualizing density. Will provide a link to the materials. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted that there will be a focus group for the Parks Master Plan on April 18th, and they would like a representative from the Planning Commission to attend. a.305 Burlingame Avenue - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. (CONTINUED FROM 3/26/18 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 305 Burlingame Ave - fyiAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on April 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 April 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 $533, 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 15City of Burlingame Printed on 6/15/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Tuesday, May 29, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse Present 7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Kelly, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion passed by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - a. 25 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a One-Year Permit Extension for a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing split-level house. This project is categorically exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Channing and Carrie Chen, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 25 Arundel Rd - Staff Report 25 Arundel Rd - Attachments 25 Arundel Rd - Notice and Aerial Photo Attachments: Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes b. 1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (James Neubert, applicant and architect; Michael Stein, property owner) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report 1125 Jackling Rd - Attachments 1125 Jackling Rd - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 709 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Jesse Guerse, designer; Luai Kaileh, applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Staff Report 709 Plymouth Way -Attachments 709 Plymouth Way - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: 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. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > None. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Appreciates the revisions. > Has tweaked the size of the decks. Is more comfortable with the revisions. > Appreciates having the sizes of the porches reduced. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - b. 21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit and Tentative Condominium Map for a new 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (167 noticed) Sta ff Contact: Ruben Hurin 21 Park Rd - Staff Report 21 Park Rd - Attachments 21 Park Rd - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto reported ex parte communication with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Brian Yang, Levy Design Partners, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Will the trees be planted on neighbors' property and they would be responsible for upkeep of hedges? (Yang: The neighbors will be responsible for the upkeep. The project is responsible for the installation.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Project has been reviewed several times, in several iterations. > Project has been massaged with additional details that are satisfactory, and addresses the points in the design guidelines. > The detailed revisions are an improvement. > The fencing adds a bit of greenery. > Wood on balconies give more articulation, softens the facade. > Condominium permit is in compliance with the General Plan, is compatible with the neighborhood with six additional units (seven total) in a neighborhood comprised of multiunit housing. > Did a nice job working with neighbors on the evergreens. > Has come a long way since it was first submitted several years ago. > Not trying to force too many units onto a site that is not capable of handling it. It's a good addition to the neighborhood and fits in well. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve Action Item . The motion failed and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - c. 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking (VMK Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) (950 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real - Plans - 05.29.18 556 El Camino Real - 2nd Revised Initial Study May 2018 556 El Camino Real - Revised Initial Study Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation 556 El Camino Real - Revised Initial Study Appendix E Traffic Queuing Analyses 556 El Camino Real - Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis 556 El Camino Real - Appendix B Construction Health Risk Assessment 556 El Camino Real - Appendix C Tree Survey Attachments: 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 traffic study provides analysis of potential operational impacts. Would potential impacts on traffic from construction also be evaluated? (Gardiner: The traffic analysis that has been prepared focuses on the potential queueing that would be associated the parking mechanism. Otherwise the relatively small size of the project would only warrant a simple trip generation estimate, rather than a full traffic impact an alysis. Construction traffic is not typically studied given it is a temporary situation and the project is relatively small.) > Have the vehicle charging stations provided any credits against other project requirements? (Gardiner: No.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jane Knop, Roman Knop, designer Vadim Melik-Karamov, and Mike Brinck of Citylift represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is there a contractor on board? (Jane Knop: We are general contractors. Have worked on projec ts in Belmont and San Carlos with significant excavation within the last 1 /12 years.) > Are the trucks 18 cubic yards or 10 cubic yards? (Roman Knop: 18 cubic yards.) > How long will the excavation take? Caltrans does not allow lane closures before 9 am o r after 3 pm. (Roman Knop: Estimates 15 working days, 6 hours per day.) > Where are the three queuing spaces for the garage located? (Jane Knop: There is space for three cars on the ramp.) > What does the 90-second duration for parking refer to? (Mike Brinck, Citylift: One car pulls into the Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes loading bay and three cars can queue behind it. The loading bay is similar to a residential garage, 24-feet wide by 20-feet deep. The user parks their vehicle, they leave their vehicle and the loading bay, the garage door closes, and the lift takes the car and parks it on one of the three levels. The 90 seconds is an average; there are 11 cars on the first level, which will have faster retrieval times. Assumes time for people to get out of their cars and unload their cars.) > Where could a guest stop to pick someone up? (Jane Knop: There are two spaces next to the driveway designated for short-term parking.) > Is one of those two spaces for charging an electric car? (Jane Knop: The system allows for electrical charging throughout the system. There does not need to be a separate space in front for charging.) > Concern with how people will use the circular drive and possibly block traffic on El Camino Real. (Jane Knop: There are already 14 units on site, and the incremental increase in trips is only 3 trips in the peak hour. The existing building has a similar circular driveway with one lane in and one lane out, and there hav e not been problems.) > The Hexagon peer review suggested switching the direction of the driveway to provide more room for queuing. Has that been considered? (Melik-Karamov: Had this design in the past, only concern from the traffic study was the turning radius being too big to get into the driveway.)(Jane Knop: Also makes it more difficult to access the visitor spaces.) > How were the driveway widths determined? (Melik-Karamov: 10 feet for each car.) Has the Caltrans design manual for driveways on state highways been consulted? Recollection with Caltrans is there are minimum and maximum widths. Concern the maximum is 14 feet, but the proposal shows wider widths. Concerned with how the queuing and ingress/egress to the site would be impacted if Caltrans requires narrower driveways. (Jane Knop: Each driveway is one-way. Has had multiple conversations with Caltrans. Caltrans engineers have reviewed this design and indicated it will be acceptable. However Caltrans will not provide sign-off until the environmental review has been approved.) > Has the basement size been reduced? (Gardiner: The reference in the staff report is that the garage has been shifted away from the property lines, not reduced.)(Melik-Karamov: The garage has been moved 10'-8".) > Groundwater has been encountered at depths of 5 feet. However the Downtown Specific Plan does not allow dewatering. Is the geotechnical engineer confident this can be achieved? (H. Allen Gruen, Geotechnical Engineer: Yes.)(Jane Knop: 30 feet is only in one small portion where the system goes down. Most of the garage is only 20 feet.) > Some of the buildings behind on Almer have subterranean garages only down 10 feet and they constantly pump water. Concern with water in the garage. (Jane Knop: This project is later than those buildings and using different techniques that are capable. This is not the first project in Burlingame that would be doing this.) > How is the water being removed from the garage? (Jane Knop: There is waterproofing for the project. The intent is not to have water going into the garage. For stormwater, there will be underground tanks to retain water to take out to El Camino Real at speeds specified by Caltrans.)(Roman Knop: Has a letter from Caltrans providing approval of the drainage.) Public Comments: John Weiner: Lives behind the building. A lot of people are concerned with the project. Concern with process of building it. Concern with the water table. Does not matter with the technology, there will be entropy and can't guarantee that water will be able to be kept out over the lifespan of the building. Lives in a building where the first level only goes down 10 feet but has water coming in through the walls. Building a 30 -foot swimming pool is a concern. Letter submitted mentions additional new units, but it is 14 rental units being displaced by 21 high value condos. One electric car charging outlet will not be sufficient. Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real: Big decks jutting out 10 feet from the south side of the building. Health risks from toxic pollution and dust, 30 feet down along the property line, 10 feet from the condo building. A hole large enough to put the 3-story condo building in. Experimental project will effect traffic. Needs a permit to park on Floribunda Avenue, nowhere for guests to park. Peak 15 minute period with 6 or 10 cars arriving during peak hour, while other people come home. 12 units at 550 El Camino Real has Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 17 working people come home every day in rush hour traffic. Can't block the sidewalk. Parking system is better suited to a hotel or office building, too ambitious and experimental for El Camino Real. Property manager from building next door at 1545 Floribunda Avenue: 5-foot deep garage floods. Geotechnical report was prepared during the drought. Huge redwood tree 8 feet from the property line, root systems shallow but extend out, doesn't see how the tree would survive if the roots are cut off. There are no buildings higher than 35 feet on the block. Concern with shadow impacts. Solar system on the roof, had expected zoning would protect it from being ruined. Project is too ambitious. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Are the construction impacts on traffic evaluated as part of the environmental review? (Will Burns, David J. Powers and Associates, environmental review consultant for the City: In terms of traffic the assump tion is excavation would avoid peak hours.)(Kane: Caltrans has restrictions on when lanes can be blocked. The Building Division reviews a construction management plan as part of the review of the building permit application.) > Are the construction logistics something the Planning Commission should not be concerned with? (Gardiner: Construction logistics are evaluated as part of the building permit application review.) > Should the environmental review have considered traffic impacts from construction? (Burns: It is considered a temporary impact. The environmental review considers long-term operational issues.) > Can the environmental review be asked to consider construction traffic? (Gardiner: The environmental document has already been revised twice. These issues had not been brought up at the scoping session or in subsequent reviews of the documents.)(Kane: If this is something that needs to be addressed it is a City and Caltrans issue, not a project issue. The environmental review has considered the impac ts on air quality from construction, but when the scope of the study was established there were not instructions to evaluate construction traffic impacts. If the commission deems the environmental review inadequate it can deem it so.) > Project has been coming before the commission for several years. It has made incredible changes since it was first submitted. > Design review has made strides. Condominium permit is acceptable. > Hard to support the Conditional Use Permit in finding the proposed use will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. The additional height allows additional units, which puts pressure on the design to accommodate the units. In particular the parking system, circulation, and queuing will effect the neighborhood. Cannot make the findings for the Conditional Use Permit. > Environmental review is acceptable in the analysis applicable to a CEQA document. Can accept the IS/MND from a technical standpoint. There are not impacts that rise to the level of a significance under CEQA. > The condominium will have 21 individual owners who would expect the vetting for the project was sound. > Intense project with very little room for error. Parking is not allowed on El Camino Real, and there is no backup plan if the cars cannot queue on the ramp and within the property. Cannot make the finding that the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. > Does not think the building is a bad building in terms of design review. Would have liked to see the decks enclosed. > Concern El Camino Real is already congested. > Concerned with the groundwater with the subterranean garage. Concern a subterranean garage with a sloped ramp will not be able to dispel rainwater. > Shadowing does not seem fair to the other buildings in the neighborhood. > Project fits well on El Camino Real in terms of design. > Condominium permit findings refer to "sound community planning." Tenuous in that everything relies on the garage being functional. If the garage goes out, the project is no longer compliant with the parking Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes requirements for the city. Cannot support placing a complex mechanical system in a bathtub, and consider that to be sound community planning. Does not know where the cars would go if the garage fails, sinc e parking is not allowed on the street. > The height is OK. El Camino Real needs some 5-story buildings. > Appreciates the architectural style of the project, but with reservations in relation to the neighboring buildings. There is a taller building down the street on El Camino Real, but it is on the corner, not impacting neighbors as much in the middle of the block. Does not have the trees in front of the building to provide scale. > The issue is not the height, it is the number of units. One less floor is only two less units. The issue is too much of a burden on site, particularly the functionality of the traffic with the potentially risky technology to solve the parking. > Number of units not necessarily the problem. The program is the queuing of the cars, the ingress and egress, and the parking system in a pit. > It is not the height or number of stories that is an absolute. The issue is a building that relies on certain given systems and configurations to function. A 5-story project with a level of parking in the rear with a conventional basement and stackers could be a different issue. > Problem is not the height and design, it is the parking structure. Could consider parking reconfigured with podium parking or parking in the back. > Not opposed to the project in the height and design, but has problem with the parking system. Does not seem like it will work, will put impacts on the residents. > The concerns with the parking system are beyond a few tweaks, hence the motion for Denial With Prejudice. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to deny with the application with prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Nay: Loftis 1 - d. 1818 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for a class use in an existing office building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 Class I. (Carol Chou, Ingenious Learning, applicant; George and Jenny Chang Trust, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 1 1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 2 1818 Gilbreth Rd - Attachments 3 1818 Gilbreth Rd.sr Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: > Can the variance be conditioned to this specific operation for child -age learning classes? (Hurin: Can be conditioned to a specific to a type of use.)(Kane: Should stay within the use category unless there is a particular reason for distinction.) > Premise for this variance is that the students will not be driving, they will be dropped off. (Kane: Can be stated as for school-aged children or other participants who do not drive themselves to the facility.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 7 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Carol Chou, Intelligent Learning School, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > In the summer program that goes from 9-5, do the students go all day or just come for parts of the day? (Chou: Depends. They have the flexibility.) Do they study all day or do the get breaks? (Chou: Yes, but not outside. There will be a field trip once a week outside the building.) > What is average amount of time a typical parent spends waiting to pick up their student? (Chou: Most are quick, just pickup and go. Only stay if there is something to discuss with the teacher. Typically just a couple of minutes, in and out.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Good community resource to have after-school and summer programs. > Likes that the number of students has been decreased. The parking and queueing can work in this area. > Doesn't see an issue with the parking variance. Application is supportable. > Parking study is pragmatic and compelling based on the fact that the stu dents don't drive, are not of driving age. > Doesn't like the trend of businesses asking for forgiveness rather than permission but the application has come to a good common ground. > Has a problem with premise of starting with a building that is substandard with parking now, then further intensifying the use. Could become a problem with a change of mix of tenants in the building. > Symbiotic relationship with the other businesses and does not intensify the site, but specifically and only if it is school-age users who are not driving to the site. This type of use will not further intensify and contribute to additional parking demand provided it is this type of use and class. > In the proposed General Plan Update would this area be rezoned for different uses, and would there be an impact? (Gardiner: The proposed General Plan has this area designated "Innovation Industrial" which would have similar characteristics to existing uses.) Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item with the following conditions: > To be occupied by an educational program for school-aged children or other participants who do not drive themselves to the facility (educational facility). > Change the reference to the business name in the Conditions of Approval to "educational facility." The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Nay: Sargent 1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 2104 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and Page 8 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Tom and Katie Eiseman, property owners) (107 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 05.29.18 Attachments: 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: > Doesn't anything over 70 square feet count as a bedroom? (Gardiner: It is a combination, both of the dimensions as well as the direct access to the garage in this instance would not allow it to be considered a bedroom.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal and Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Page A7 wood brackets under the second floor do not appear on the side elevation. (Deal: Should be shown.) > Square footage is being removed from the front on the second floor. Is there also square footage being removed in the back adjacent to Bedroom #3? (Deal: Yes. The original floor plan is very complex.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Straightforward, no issues with the design. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - b. 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. (Winges Architects, Inc., Jerry Winges, applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners) (133) noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 209 Channing Rd - Staff Report 209 Channing Rd - Attachments 209 Channing Road - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 9 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Was there consideration of reducing the pitch slightly to meet the height limit without needing to request a Special Permit for the 9-inch differential? Most houses in the area are single story with low pitch roofs. (Winges: Had looked at a 7/12 pitch to get below the height limit, but the 8/12 pitch looks better. It seems like a small portion of the roof and should not be a problem for neighbors. Floor to floor heights are at the minimum, at 8'-4" on the lower floor and 8 feet on the upper floor, so feels it is compatible with the design guidelines.) > Is the existing flat roof structure on the back being retained, just with a mansard roof added ? (Winges: Yes. The portion of the house is in good condition. The mansard has been added to tie it in with the rest of the house.) > No access from the second floor to the flat roof in the back from the second floor? (Winges: Just a small window to access the water heater bumpout. It is not a usable deck.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Good project. > Transitioning neighborhood, will probably change over time. > Agrees with the analysis of the special permit. Special permits have been approved in the past to maintain the integrity of the design. The pitch looks good, and it will have a low impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - c. 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (Chu Design and Associates, Inc., James Chu, applicant and designer, Huan Wang, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1697 Broadway - Staff Report 1697 Broadway - Attachments 1697 Broadway - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly was recused, as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Page 10 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Planning Manager Gardiner 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: > Why the curved roof over the entry? (Chu: There is a similar curved entry on a house up the street on Hillside, which the homeowner liked.) It does not seem consistent with the rest of the design. Perhaps there could be other curves elsewhere in the design. > Could provide a photo or the address of the other property with the curved roof element. Has seen other examples where it works. > Likes the curved element, it is something different. > The average setback is approximately 16 feet. Why not place the house closer to the street? Would provide more back yard space, be more consistent with the neighborhood. (Chu: It is a good suggestion. Will consider it.) > Have the arborist assess the 18" pine on the corner. Is does not appear to be in good shape. Since it is being retained, is there anything that can be done to help the tree? (Chu: Yes, will follow up.) Public Comments: Neighbor to the left (1601 Broadway): Likes the design, it looks like a lovely house. Inquiring what the rights of the neighbor is in the process. Best part is the house is the back yard, will be changed with a two -story house and assumes rules have been adhered to. Has a young child, wants to know what provisions there are during demolition for dust and debris. (Kane: Leave contact information with staff for follow-up. Construction-related impacts are handled through the Building Division.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Handsome project. > Curved porch roof is not a problem. Some eyebrow dormers or other curves might integrate it and help tie things in better. > Impacts to neighbor will be modest given house is across the alley, and bulk of massing is shifted to the corner. The larger garage will be replaced with a smaller garage. > Staff can provide neighbor with information on controls available during construction. > Suggest moving the house forward to the block average setback and gain extra yard space. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Recused: Kelly 1 - d. 1104 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling. (Best Construction, applicant; Cornelia Haber, designer; Symagny LLC, propert owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal Page 11 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1104 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report 1104 Clovelly Ln - Attachments 1104 Clovelly Ln - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Cornelia Haber represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is there a strategy for which of the interlocking boxes is wood vs stucco? (Haber: There is not a rule. The idea is to create a play on the two materials, and emphasize the protruding pieces. A small departure on the previous designs which are a little more traditional.) > Sheet A5 has a deck with a tiled parapet cap, with horizontal siding. However on the right side elevation looks like it will be stucco. Should it all be the same material or was the intention to just have the siding on the front side? (Haber: Yes, two different finishes.) > Concern the tile cap will not fit in. Perhaps wood would integrate better. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Looks confused, like it got expanded from inside. > Does not see a rhythm or logic in the materials. > Not sure the pitched roof works. Could either go full modern or go back to more traditional. > Lots of blank spaces, and nooks and crannies where it does not seem natural for them to be there. > Project is trying to do the right things but not doing it quite right. > OK with the subdued contemporary style. Massing is reminiscent of the existing hous e. > Needs better order for how the bump-outs and various pieces have the wood siding applied. Should only change materials at an inside corner so whatever mass feels like a wood piece. > Every other house on the street has an attached garage so not an issue with the special permit. > Heights could be revisited. 9'-6" on first floor, plus the first floor is already 3 feet off grade - adds to the height and massing, makes the proportions difficult. Work with the plate height, also maybe the first floor finished floor height. > Front door looks massive, is maybe taller than 8 feet so makes the first floor proportions look taller. > Should look at window patterns. There are are a lot of designs and styles. > First floor plate height creates a proportion issue with the garage. > Siding should turn corners, not look like wallpaper. > Likes the contrasting materials, but they need to be ordered in a legible way. > Talk to the rear neighbor about planting per the letter received, see what kind of additional planting there could be. Noted that the proposed house is pulling away from the property line further than the existing house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to refer the Page 12 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Discussion Item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS None. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS A special General Plan study session will be held on July 11th or 18th, to be determined by commissioners' availability. The Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will meet on June 7th to discuss the Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 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 May 29, 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 June 8, 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 $533, 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 13 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 11, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the April 23rd and the May 14th minutes, with the following correction to the May 14th minutes: >Page 7, Agenda Item E, Commission Questions/Comments; strike "is" from the end of the first line of the first bullet. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - a.Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The April 9, 2018 minutes were not available for review, but will be available for the next regular meeting. b.Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: c.Draft May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Attorney Kane asked to add one item to the end of the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Brian Benn: spoke regarding the wireless telecommunications ordinance. Called for preparation of a master plan for these installations. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A motion was made by Commissioner Gaul, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, that to approve the Consent Calendar items with the exception of Item 7d (1697 Broadway) which was pulled for a separate vote. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - a.1537 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension for a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1). (Kenny Yip, applicant and designer; Yan Li, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1537 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1537 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1537 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: b.2104 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Tom and Katie Eiseman, property owners) (54 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Attachments 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: c.209 Channing Road, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a 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 15303 (a). (Winges Architects, Inc ., Jerry Winges, applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 209 Channing Rd - Staff Report 209 Channing Rd - Attachments 209 Channing Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 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 Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 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 - e.556 El Camino Real, zoned R -3 - Planning Commission resolutions on application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five -story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking (VMK Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Resolution 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right -of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. These projects are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303. (Abby Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Staff Report ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Attachments ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Plans ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Staff Report ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Attachments ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Sargent noted that he would recuse himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the installation proposed on Hillside Drive; he left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Teddy Rejillas and Talin Aghazarian, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Noted that it is represented that the fiber optic cables already exist near each installation . (Aghazarian: fiber optic already exist at the locations, separate permits will be obtained as necessary for connection to the new antennae.) >Has experience working with fiber optic cable. Noted that the photo provided to the Commission inaccurately shows the size of the cable. Concerned that accurate information is not provided regarding this aspect. No information is provided that shows the details of how the cable will be routed to the installation. (Aghazarian: The details of the fiber optic cable installation are not provided at this point, but are under a separate permit. Rejillas: have shown the details that are required at this point. The excess items on the Winchester pole will be removed prior the the new AT&T installation.) >Can't make an aesthetic decision with the limited detail provided; the scale is too small. (Aghazarian: Could do a close up view of the photo simulations. Rejillas: offered a site visit to an installation that would reflect the installations proposed in Burlingame.) >Was Our Lady of Angels approached regarding integration of the installation on Hillside into the Church structure? (Rejillas: sites like the church steeple are typically reserved for micro -cells. They are not suitable for the limited range with the type of installation proposed. The provider has rights to install on utility-owned poles.) >Is access to poles first come, first serve? (Rejillas: typically first come, first serve. One pole, one carrier.) >On sheet A3.1, will the shorter pole and the stump be removed from the Winchester site? (Aghazarian: the shorter pole will be removed, as will the stump.) Installation will be on the full -height pole? (Aghazarian: yes.) >How do trees affect the service? (Rejillas: they block the signal.) How is the signal distributed? (Rejillas: 360-degree distribution.) >The applicant has submitted seven sites for consideration; Verizon has submitted applications for twelve sites. Should these installations be approved one at a time without consideration for how the City is impacted? (Kane: whether the City prepares a masterplan would require City Council direction; could also require revisions to the ordinance. Must process the applications as submitted within a reasonable period of time. Community feedback has indicated a desire about a broader vision for the installations. Must process applications as they come through. Can't withhold action pending City action to prepare a Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft masterplan.) >Considering that the Commission is asked to review only the aesthetics of the applications; how was the location preference order determined? Have all options been considered? (Aghazarian: obtained information from AT&T regarding a potential service gap. Looked at every pole within a certain radius and evaluate their suitability. Locations have been refused by PG&E as well as extensive vegetation in areas where other poles are located.) >What would be the option if there are no viable poles available? (Rejilla: this is the technology that is evolving; is setting the foundation for 5G service.) >Are these installations being installed elsewhere in neighboring cities? (Rejillas: are working with cities up and down the Peninsula and across the country.) Public Comments: William Sexton: moved to Burlingame in 1949. Citizens of Burlingame rallied together about ten years ago that resulted in an ordinance to regulation these installation. Patricia Gray: concern is about how the poles look. Electromagnetic radiation is dangerous to human bodies. More energy is needed to meet the needs of current technology; will require more installations . Need to be careful and aware of the dangers to humans. Chair Gaul reminded those wishing to speak that the Commission is limited to discussing only the aesthetic aspects of the installations. Stephen Lamont, Adeline Drive: understands the need for more coverage. Understands the limitations on regulating the time, place and manner. Had industry representatives at the table when the wireless ordinance was prepared; was deemed a reasonable set of requests. The submissions received now are as bad as what was submitted prior to adoption of the ordinance. Need to find some mechanism to work with the carriers to ensure that the installations are done in an aesthetic manner. The two sites set a precedent for future applications. There can be improvements on the locations and the designs. A master plan is needed; could assist in pushing back and requiring co-location. Claudia Rizzo, 701 Winchester Drive: referenced her correspondence objecting to the proposal. Will negatively impact aesthetics and property values. Most people do not wish to live near cell towers.Wonders how safe the installations will be when multiple service providers have installations that overlap within the same neighborhood. Brian Chen-Hoon: Resident since 1979, and a homeowner. Recalls the Extenet discussions at the City Council level in 2012. Anyone in the community could have an installation in front of their home. Agreed with prior speakers comments regarding aesthetic impacts and property value impacts. If the requests move forward to the City Council, residents will fight it again. Nothing has changed since 2012. Proposals look the same. Rich Goldman: is a homeowner in the community. Asked whether the shorter pole adjacent to the pole at the Winchester site is needed for stability? Will there be additional measures taken to ensure the stability of the pole on which the antennae are installed. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion. >Are limited to time, place and manner in the placement of the antennas. Has difficulty making the findings required. Has not provided adequate aesthetic details of the installations. Should have the opportunity, and have the obligation, to review the full aesthetic details of the installations. >Still has a hard time with installing a nine -foot section atop an existing pole will not be detrimental to Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft the properties in the vicinity. Cannot make the necessary findings. >Cited the visual impact requirements of the applications as contained with the municipal code. >Need to do a better job of mitigating the visual impacts. >Agrees with other Commissioners. There are better design options for these facilities that need to be explored. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to deny the applications without prejudice. Discussion of Motion: >Requested clarification of "without prejudice". (Kane: the applicant can re-submit the applications immediately without paying additional fees. Permits the opportunity for revision. >How does this form of denial help the process? (Kane: there were a number of outstanding issues that the Commission requested more information about. Revisions/clarifications could be made by the application that could be brought back immediately for reconsideration.) >There may be some other stealth details, technologies that could be used to address the concerns expressed. >Would also like the opportunity to view similar installations within the vicinity. >Would like to see a "good" example. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Sargent1 - b.841 Rollins Road, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition, setback Variances, and a Special Permit for an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines SEciton 15301 (e)(1). (Joe Ouyang, designer; Kevin Peng, applicant; Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit 841 Rollins.sr 841 Rollins Rd - Attachments 841 Rollins Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 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 Gaul opened the public hearing. Kevin Peng represented the applicant. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Commission Questions/Comments: >Are the shutters on the front of the building of wood? (Peng: yes.) >Why are the shutters provided at the limited locations shown? (Peng: was the recommendation of the design reviewer. Most concerned about the front and the side facing the neighbors.) >Were there other windows that were considered? (Peng: no, the one proposed is maintenance -free.) The vinyl window sample provided is a good example of why vinyl windows are not typically not approved . Other than that, the revisions to the project were good. >The changes made are really good; the design is nice. >Encouraged looking at other types of low-maintenance windows. >Sees a need for a vinyl window in this location, given that it is in an R -3 zone; also next to the freeway . Vinyl windows will clean up more easily. Could support the vinyl windows in this instance. >Can support the variance for the attached garage due to the configuration of the lot. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: There was no Commission discussion. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application as submitted. Discussion of Motion: >Concerned with the use of the vinyl window that is proposed. Need more significant muntins. >Felt that the vinyl windows are appropriate in this instance given the proximity to Highway 101 and the fact that the property is zoned R3. >Need to be consistent with the decision regarding windows; have denied this style of window previously. There may be better-detailed vinyl windows that may be considered. >Fiberglas clad windows may be an option. >May find comparably priced windows that meet both the Commission's concerns and the budget limitations of the applicant. Chair Gaul called for a roll-call vote on the motion and the motion failed by the following vote: Aye:3 - Gaul, Kelley, Loftis Nay:3 - Terrones, Sargent, Tse Absent:1 - Comaroto Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the application with the additional condition that an FYI be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit that provides full details of the window selection. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, and Gaul3 - Nay:Sargent, Terrones, and Tse3 - Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Absent:Comaroto1 - c.1812c Magnolia Avenue, zoned C-1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use in an existing commercial building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303- Class 1. (Nicole Byrne Yoga, applicant; Patricia Ann Britton Trust, property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1812 Magnolia - Staff Report 1812 Magnolia - Attachments 1812 Magnolia - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Nicole Byrne represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: There was no Commission discussion. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve Action Item the application. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit studio) business. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property owner ) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Ranier Gadduang represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Are there any plans to add classes to the schedule? (Gadduang: on the weekends. Not adding on weekdays.) >Is there a statistically significant number of clients that take transit, bike or walk to the facility? (Gadduang: a few do, but some carpool.) >Requested clarification of the parking study. >Is the use intended to stay there for another five -years? (Gadduang: the intention is to be there less than five years. The property owner has other plans for the property, so are seeking other locations for the business.) >Cost of bathrooms? (Gadduang: is quite expensive, but other locations are much more costly. Willing to shoulder the expense.) >Is the business available for drop-ins from the hotels? (Gadduang: have drop-ins from time-to-time.) Pubic Comments: There were public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion. >Would it be too burdensome to have the conditional use permit come back for review in five years? (Meeker: is problematic, can get lost in the process.) Encouraged some form of check -in. (Kane: a check-in is acceptable, but shouldn't put a time limit on the conditional use permit.) Doesn't want a termination, but would like a check -in to monitor parking complaints. (Meeker: this can be done. Also, if the use violates the permit, then the matter may be brought back for revocation/modification.) >Good application, has come a long way. Can support due to the cap on the number of users. >The number of cars they will have on site is less than the available parking on site. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with the additional condition that a review of the applicant's compliance with the terms of the conditional use permit, including any Police Department reports regarding the operations and input from the applicant, be provided to the Planning Commission within one-year of the date of approval. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 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 for an accessory structure with a depth more than 28 feet and located in the rear 40% of the lot, and Conditional Use Permits for a half -bath and glazed opening higher than 10 feet above grade in an accessory structure. (Gary Diebel, AIA - Diebel and Company Architects, applicant and architect; Aidani Santos, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 829 Maple Ave - Staff Report 829 Maple Ave - Attachments 829 Maple Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 820 Maple Avenue. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gary Diebel represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Was consideration given to placing the half -bath within the opposite corner of the garage to provide more vehicle clearance? (Diebel: could possibly do so.) >Could window grids be provided to ensure a more Craftsman -style appearance? (Diebel: will look at this.) What type of window cladding is proposed? (Diebel: hasn't determined yet.) >Has a covering over the front porch been considered? (Diebel: wanted to keep it light and airy as it is north facing. >Expressed concern about the massing of the right side elevation. Were any options considered to bring the exterior walls of the dormer inward? (Diebel: did a few studies. The bedroom is fairly large, so could adjust.) >What is the proposed detailing for the cement fiber siding? (Diebel: are considering mitered corners.) >Indicate the size and style of the proposed siding material to be used. Public comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes the findings for the special permits can be made. >Concerned more about the massing of the second-floor addition. >Good project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to the application on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 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. (Catherine Nilmeyer, applicant and architect; Dale and Elaine Chang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 301 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report and Attachments 301 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the subject 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 Gaul opened the public hearing. Dale Chang, Michael Nilmeyer, and Catherine Nilmeyer represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Clarified that the cross-section shows landscape terraces rising up from the patio area adjacent to the basement. (M. Nilmeyer: yes, this is correct.) >Clarified that the bathroom in the basement is only a powder room. (C. Nilmeyer: correct.) >Make sure that the specifications for the windows include the notation for simulated, or true divided lights that are permanently installed. >What is planned for the use of the recreation room? (Chang: just a play room for the children. Wife works from home, so she can work upstairs while the children plan in the basement.) >Will the living room be closer to the sidewalk than the existing garage? How much does the bay window project? (C. Nilmeyer: two feet.) The bay will be roughly 8 1/2 feet from the sidewalk. (C. Nilmeyer: 7 1/2 feet is required.) >How close is the second floor wall to the sidewalk? (C. Nilmeyer: twelve feet from the property line, which is inset from the sidewalk.) >Unclear how the landscaping works with the basement area. Provide more detail on the plan. >Shows a sump pump next to the stairway, sewer or groundwater? (C. Nilmeyer: groundwater pump.) >Where will the AC unit be placed? (Keylon: can be on the property line, outside of front setback, with proper sound attenuation.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Strugglingg with the "extreme farmhouse" style; not sure it fits with the neighborhood. The standing -seam Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft metal roof pushes the design over the top. Worried about this type of roof taking over in Burlingame. Also, the steep pitch of the roof adds to the mass of the house. >Also concerned about the steepness of the roof. Given the corner location, the side of the house reads as the front of the house; its location on the lot is overwhelming at the street level; needs to be either setback more, or broken up more. >Can't support the exterior stair. In this instance the design of the exterior stair adds to the footprint of the living space; the patio with terrace appears much like an amphitheater. >Like the massing of the house; this style can be supported in the neighborhood. Would like a 3-D rendering. >With respect to the exterior stair in this instance, can support the direct access as it is located next to a street and not next to a neighbor where such a design may impact a neighbor. The lot is undersized, the terraced area with stairs makes outdoor are more useable. Could be lushly landscaped and detailed. >Okay with the basement bathroom and the basement ceiling height. >Likes the design. Would like the applicant to look at the gable massing, could be pretty imposing on the Bloomfield side of the property. >Agrees with comments supporting the exterior stairs from the basement. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Terrones, and Tse4 - Nay:Loftis, and Gaul2 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront (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 - 06.11.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the subject property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff.. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ron Stanford represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the sidewalk tables be removable? (Meeker: would need to be removable.) >Feels like a walk-up window is being installed. If the furniture is present with the window open, could be a nice feel. >The awning that is proposed seems to fit with the proposed use, but doesn't want the design to make Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft the space feel like a fast-foot restaurant. (Stanford: could detail the rendering better.) >Asked about the frosted glass on the lower portion of the facade. (Stanford: wanted to maintain an all-glass appearance, but provide frosted glass on the lower portion to maintain privacy.) Perhaps could install Ipe wood as an alternative. (Stanford: could look at this, but cost is a concern.) >Requested information regarding the Ipe materials used on the canopy; not a roof. (Stanford: is provided only for shade, not protection from rain, though this could be a good idea.) >Why is there a screen on the window? (Stanford: thought it is required by the Health Department; if can get away without it, will remove it.) >Having trouble with some of the proportions. Requested clarification of dimensions. Seems like that dimension to the bottom of the window is too short to work with tables. >The front elevation gives the impression that there are three horizontal slats. Gives a false impression. Raising the base may help with the proportions of the windows. >Having difficulty understanding the vertical wood elements on eave. Need to clarify dimensions and provide greater detailing. >Not clear how the proposed canopy relates to the adjacent awning. >Requested clarification regarding how foot is prepared. (Stanford: there is an array of foods that are available, then the customer picks the elements and builds a bowl.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the design; wouldn't want the design to address the canvas awning to the left. Would prefer removal of the screen, if possible. >Seems like there is a lot going on in such a small facade. Need to simplify a bit. >Worried that the thin slats on top of the c -channel will look cheap. the entire assembly of the canopy seems insubstantial, unresolved. Doesn't like the flourish on top of the canopy. >Agrees that there are things to like about the application; the use could be a good use to add to Burlingame Avenue. Detailing needs to be refined. Facade could be detailed better by working the Ipe wood into more of the facade detailing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS The Commission adopted a resolution recognizing Community Development Director Meeker for his service to the City of Burlingame, and wishing him the best in his upcoming retirement. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted that this was his last Commission meeting as he is retiring effective July 7, 2018. Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner is being promoted to the position of Community Development Director effective July 8, 2018. He expressed his gratitude to the Commission for having such a supportive working relationship with staff and wished all the best in the future. He noted that though he is leaving the field of planning for now, he Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft will remain in the Bay Area for the forseeable future. a.723-A Laurel Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 723-A Laurel Ave - Memorandum 723-A Laurel Ave - Attachments 723-A Laurel Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: Direction provided that the item be scheduled for a public hearing as the siding approved for the project was a significant point of discussion when the project was initially considered. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:53 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 June 11, 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 June 21, 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 $533, 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 14City of Burlingame Printed on 6/28/2018 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 residence829 maple streetburlingame, californiadiebel and companyarchitects private residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebeland Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxEXISTING EAST ELEVATION (FRONT)1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.1(E) Top of RidgeEL.= 29.8' (Verify)Average Top of CurbEL.= 11.56' (Verify) Top of Curb at Property LineEL. = 11.45' Top of Curb at Property LineEL. = 11.56'18'-3"EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT)1/4" = 1'-0"2A3.1EXISTING WEST ELEVATION (REAR)1/4" = 1'-0"4A3.1EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT)1/4" = 1'-0"3A3.1A3.11Existing Elevation Keynotes1.2.3.4.(E) Composition roofing(E) Wood siding, vertical(E) Wood siding, horizontal(E) Brick fireplace and chimney234421323413 private residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebeland Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxPROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (FRONT)1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.2Top of SubfloorEL= 14.60'Top of PlateEL= 22.70'Top of SubfloorEL= 23.70'Top of PlateEL= 31.80Top of RoofEL= 38.30'45 .00°8'-1 1/4"1'-0"8'-1 1/4"7'-6"6'-5 3/4"121029715174141312911130' Maximum Height Above Average Top of Curb3'-1 1/4"Average Top of CurbEL= 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= 12.00'8PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (REAR)1/4" = 1'-0"3A3.212101210131216151036119 D.H.E. Point of Departure (left)EL= 11.85'D.E.H. Point of Departure (right)EL= 12.00'8PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT)1/4" = 1'-0"2A3.2Egress Window23"x40" netEgress Window23"x40"net121012131771615812105A3.2Proposed Elevation Keynotes1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.(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 residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebeland Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA3.3PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT)1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.3Egress Window23"x40" netEgress Window23"x40" net24513ABCDEFGHProposed Elevation Keynotes1.2.3.4.5.6.(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/ACalculations based on fire separation distance and degree of opening protection fromCBC 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 sfMAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGSWINDOWSDIMENSIONSAREAALLOWABLEA10.4 sf-B10.4 sf-C4.0 sf-D4.0 sf-E4.0 sf-F4.0 sf-G10.4 sf-H10.4 sf-Total-57.6 sf81.30 sf(10.55%)(15.00%) GARAGE ROOF PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"2A1.26:126:1210103:123:12633D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.private residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebeland Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxGARAGE FLOOR PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"1A1.2BathGarage44'-6 1/2"21'-0"21'-0"41'-1 3/4"1'-0"1'-0"81A1.22A1.251966 MustangGT Fastback1929 FordModel A Roadster1971 FiatSpiderToyota Matrix77PROPOSED GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT)1/4" = 1'-0"3A1.2361413121791413'-9"Maximum above gradePROPOSED GARAGE EAST ELEVATION (FRONT)1/4" = 1'-0"4A1.212621511617161Top of SlabEL= VariesTop of PlateEL= 7'-5 1/4"Top of RoofEL= 13'-5 3/4"7'-5 1/4"6'-0 1/2"1237'-9"Maximum above gradePROPOSED GARAGE WEST ELEVATION (REAR)1/4" = 1'-0"6A1.27PROPOSED GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT)1/4" = 1'-0"5A1.27A1.2Proposed Garage Plan Keynotes1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.Cement fiber 7" exposure, smooth lap siding with mitered corners. Cement fiber shingle siding, straight edge with 7" exposure at the gablesComposition roofingDownspout, typ.Floor drainGutter, Typ.One-hour fire-resistance-rated wall construction Property Line, typ.Stone clad foundationVelux 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 FinishSchedule, 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 FinishSchedule, UNO. private residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA1.3GARAGE BUILDING SECTION1/4" = 1'-0"1A1.3Top of SlabEL= VariesTop of PlateEL= 7'-5 1/4"Top of RoofEL= 13'-5 3/4"7'-5 1/4"6'-0 1/2"3412126123GARAGE BUILDING SECTION1/4" = 1'-0"2A1.3Garage Building Section Keynotes1.2.3.4.Gutter, Typ.Ridge beam, see StructuralVelux 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 residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA1.1PROJECT DATASite Plan Keynotes1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.(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 at2% to street front or provide pump as required. See details, include City standard curb face outlet details.General Notes1.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. Addressnumbers 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.EESS SS MAPLE AVENUE (50')NeighboringHouseNeighboring House7' Wood Fence (neighboring)6' Wood Fence4' Wood FenceFence Change6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood FenceGateGravelConcretePaversChimneyGravelConcrete BasePlanterPlanterRiver RockBrickFence Change6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp 6" Vcp Concrete Curb & Gutter Concrete Curb & Gutter S48°30'00"W119.92'N50°43'42"W 50 .00'S48°30'00"W119.93'S50°43'00"E 50 .00'Lot 19SSCO(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) ROEXISTING SITE PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"1A1.136'-0"Rear 30% of Lot16'-1"First Floor Required Setback20'-0"Second Floor Required Setback15'-0"Rear Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback56'-5"Verify47'-2"Verify16'-4"Verify48'-5"Verify33'-5"Verify38'-1"4'-6"Verify39'-11"Verify4'-11"Verify(E) House(E) Wood Deck(E) Concrete Driveway(E) Concrete Path(E) Concrete Path781325+11.70' T.O.C. +11.45' T.O.C. +11.56' +11.60' +12.10' +12.30' SS SS SS MAPLE AVENUE (50')NeighboringHouseNeighboringHouse7' Wood Fence (neighboring)6' Wood Fence4' Wood FenceFence ChangeGate6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood FenceGravelGravel(E) Planter(E) PlanterFence Change6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp 6" Vcp Concrete Curb & Gutter Concrete Curb & Gutter S48°30'00"W119.92'N50°43'42"W S48°30'00"W119.93'S50°43'00"E 50 .00'ot 19SSCO(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 250 .00'(N) GE(N) ACE 13" ACE 3PROPOSED SITE PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"2A1.1House(N) Detached GaragePorchPorch36'-0" Rear 30% of Lot16'-1"First Floor Required Setback20'-0"Second Floor Required Setback15'-0"Rear Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required SetbackExtent of Second FloorSSSSSSSSSSSSSS624875Synthetic TurfSynthetic TurfLanding44'-6 1/2"74'-3"Verify1'-0"1'-0"10'-6" Min.1'-0"21'-0"27'-4"Verify43'-6"Verify53'-5"Verify23'-2"Verify4'-6"Verify28'-3"Verify16'-7"Verify95'-0"33'-5" (E) HouseVerify15'-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.101010Floor Area CalculationsA1306 sf1st Floor HouseB865 sf2ndFloor HouseC36 sf5' high Attic SpaceD155 sfCovered PorchesE900 sfGarageABEDAVERAGE FRONT SETBACKADDRESSFRONT SETBACKAVERAGE801 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 Notes1.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 constructionhauling.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.DZONINGR1 Single Family ResidenceOCCUPANCY GROUPR3 DwellingU GarageTYPE OF CONSTRUCTIONVB Fire Sprinklers under a separate permitSETBACKSFRONTREARSIDESUpper Floor20'0" 20'0"*Lower Floor**15'0"15'0"4'0"LOT SIZE5,919 sfLOT COVERAGEEXISTINGPROPOSEDALLOWABLEHouse1019 sf1306 sf-Covered Porch85 sf155 sf-Garage239 sf900 sf-Total1343 sf2361 sf2368 sf22.7%39.9%40.0%(Total Additional Site Coverage)1018 sfFLOOR AREA RATIOEXISTINGPROPOSEDALLOWABLEFirst Floor1011 sf1306 sf-Second Floor0 sf 850 sf-5' High Attic Space0 sf 51 sf-Garage239 sf900 sf-***Covered Porch90 sf155 sf-Total1250 sf3153 sf3394 sf21.1%53.3%57.3%(Total Additional FAR)1903 sfHEIGHT RESTRICTIONEXISTINGPROPOSEDALLOWABLE29.8'38.3'41.5'Average top of curb: (11.56’ + 11.45’)/2 = 11.5’PARKING SPACESEXISTINGPROPOSEDREQUIRED232* 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. CC private residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxSS SS SS MAPLE AVENUE (50')NeighboringHouseNeighboringHouse7' Wood Fence (neighboring)Gate6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood FenceGravelGravel(E) Planter(E) Planter6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp 6" Vcp Concrete Curb & Gutter Concrete Curb & Gutter S48°30'00"W119.92'N50°43'42"W 50 .00'S48°30'00"W119.93'S50°43'00"E 50.00'Lot 19SSCO(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 4rr(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) GEPlanting bed(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N) ST(N)STLANDSCAPE PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"1L1.1House(N) Detached GaragePorch(N) Synthetic Turf(N) Synthetic Turf(N) Driveway (pavers)L1.1Planting Notes1.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 Notes1.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.CODEBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMENOTESACE 1Acer palmatum "sango kaku"Japanese mapleACE 2Acer palmatum "ryusen"Japanese mapleACE 3Acer palmatum "shishigashira"Japanese mapleACE 4Acer palmatum "blood good"Japanese mapleACE 5Acer palmatum "autum blaze"Japanese mapleACE 6Acer palmatum "beni kawa"Japanese mapleLOPLoropetalum Chinese fringeChinese fringeGEEuonymus japenicus aureo-marginataGolden euonymusRORosmarinus offi Tuscan blueUpright rosemarySTTrachelospermum jasminoidesStar jasmineEUEuryops - sonnenschein - yellowYellow daisyKOPittosporum tenuifoliumKohuhuGARGardenia jasminoides veitchiiGardeniaTEQCoprosma tequila sunriseTequila sunriseLITLithodora heavenly blueLithodoraSPRPicea pungens pendulaCrroked spruce treePINPinus thunbergiiJapanese black pineNANNandina domesticaNandina bambooACAAcacia cognataCousin ittWCPrunus x snowfozamWeeping cherryGFCitrus x paradisiGrapefruit treeCCPrunus virginiana "Canada cherry"Ornamental cherryPLANTING LEGENDObjectives of the Landscape1.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 residencesantos residence829 maple streetburlingame, ca 94010apn: 029.033.070diebel and companya r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob namejob numberdaterevisionThis project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden.©2018 Diebel and CompanyAll rights reserved.1706227.26.18po box 1044burlingame, california94011-1044t. 650.558.8885e. info@DiebelStudio.comsantos residence7/26/18Santos Residence DD R24.vwxA2.5PROPOSED ROOF PLAN1/4" = 1'-0"1A2.54A3.43A3.41A3.410:12 10:1210:1210:1210:1210:12RidgeRidgeRidgeValleyValleyValleyRidge61'-6"1'-0"1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-6"3'-3"Verify4Property LineD.S.D.S.D.S.D.S. (BELOW)D.S.D.S.D.S.71'-6"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-6"ValleyValleyValleyValleyValleyValleyValleyRidgeRidgeRidgeRidge10:12 10:1210:12 10:1210:12 10:1210:12 10:121:121:121:121:122135Roof Plan Keynotes1.2.3.4.5.6.7.(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 roofingHip belowScupper connected to D.S. Provide overflow drain 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 6/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 7/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 8/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 9/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 10/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 11/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 12/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 13/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 14/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 15/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 16/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 17/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 18/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 8/28/2019 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 19/19 18-529 - 301 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 1 /191 EXISTING EAST ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.0EXISTING EASTPROPOSED EASTEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.1EXISTING SOUTHPROPOSED SOUTHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.2EXISTING WESTPROPOSED WESTEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.3EXISTING NORTHPROPOSED NORTHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 Issues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 940101Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 0.0EXISTING SITE PLANEXISTING ROOF PLANCJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME AVENUE - 70 R/WNOTES Issues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 940101Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 0.1PROPOSED SITE PLANPROPOSED ROOF PLANCJMN25/25/18CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 SCHEMATIC SECTION A - A Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR: ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T 650.347.0650 F Michael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARB michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA catherine@nilmeyer.com Poucher / Chang Elaine Poucher & Dale Chang 301 Bloomfield Road CJMN 1 Poucher Chang.dwg 1709 4/20/2018 As Noted CJMN A 2.4 SCHEMATIC SECTION A-A 4/25/2018 CJMN 2 5/25/2018 CJMN 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 LOCATION PLAN PROJECT TEAM DRAWING INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION SYMBOLSABBREVIATIONS ARCHITECT NILMEYER / NILMEYER ASSOCIATES 128 Pepper Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Catherine JM Nilmeyer AIA (650) 347-0757 OWNER ELAINE POUCHER DALE CHANG 301 BloomfieldRoad Burlingame, CA 94010 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK The existing single story structure of 1,801 sq. ft. will have have 845 sq. ft. demolished with the remainder of 956 sq. ft. of the existing first floor to remain for remodeling and an addition. The site will be excavated for a 587 sq. ft. Basement. The first floor will become a total of 1,549 sq. ft. with the addition. A second floor of 936 sq. ft. will be added. There will be new landscaping at Basement Patio; new side and backyard. The new residence will incorporate new fire sprinklers and a new HVAC system. PROJECT DATA: BUILDING CODE: 2016 CBSC (California Building Standards Code) 2016 CBC (California Building Code) 2016 CFC (California Fire Code) 2016 CEC (California Electrical Code) 2013 CMC (California Mechanical Code) 2013 CPC (California Plumbing Code) 2013 California Energy Code City of Burlingame Municipal Code & Ordinances OCCUPANCY GROUP: R - 1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V - B FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: YES PARCEL NO. : APN #029-173-100 BUILDING AREA: 3,072 SQ. FT. TOTAL (INCL. BASEMENT) LOT SIZE: 4,979 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 1,991.6 SQ. FT PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 1,549 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE F.A.R.: 2,493 SQ. FT. PROPOSED F.A.R.: 2,485 SQ. FT. ARCHITECTURAL: CS 1 CONSULTANTS LOCATION PLAN DRAWING INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION / SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES T - 1 KAVANAUGH SURVEY 2013 A 0.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN EXISTING ROOF PLAN A 0.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN A 1.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A 1.1 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A 2.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- EAST EXISTING / PROPOSED A 2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- SOUTH EXISTING / PROPOSED DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE A 2.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- WEST EXISTING / PROPOSED A 2.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- NORTH EXISTING / PROPOSED A 2.4 SCHEMATIC SECTION A-A PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL REMODEL & ADDITION FOR: Elaine Poucher Dale Chang 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 A/C ACOUS. ACC. AC. T. ADJ. A.F.F. AGG. ALUM. ANOD. A.P. APPROX ARCH. ASPH. BD. BLDG. BLK. BLKG. B.M. BM BOTT. BTW. CAB. C.B. CEM. CER. C.FL. C.FT. CLG. CLR. COL. CONC. CONST. CONT. CONTR. CORR. CPR. CPT. CTSK. C.YD. D.F. DIAM. DIM. DISP. DIV. D.L. DN. DR. D.S. DTL. DWG. DWR. AIR CONDITIONING ACOUSTIC (AL) ACCESS ACOUSTICAL TILE ADJUSTABLE, ADJACENT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AGGREGATE ALUMINUM ANODIZED ACCESS PANEL APPROXIMATELY ARCHITECT (URAL) ASPHALT BOARD BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BENCH MARK BEAM BOTTOM BETWEEN CABINET CATCH BASIN CEMENT CERAMIC COUNTERFLASHING CUBIC FOOT, FEET CEILING CLEAR, CLEARANCE COLUMN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CONTRACT (OR) CORRUGATED COPPER CARPET COUNTERSUNK CUBIC YARD DOUGLAS FIR, DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIAMETER DIMENSION DISPENSER DIVISION DEAD LOAD DOWN DOOR DOWNSPOUT DETAIL DRAWING DRAWER E. (E) EA. ELEV. ENCL. EQ. EQUIP. EXH. EXIST. EXP. EXT. F.B.O. F.D. F.E. F.E.C. F.F.E. F.H.M.S. F.H.W.S. FIN. FLASH. FLR. FLUOR. FND. F.O.C. F.O.F. F.O.G. F.O.M. F.O.S. F.O.W. FT. FTG. FURR. GA. G.C. GD. G.I. GL. GYP. H.B. H.C. HDW. H.M. HORIZ. HR. HT. HTG. HVAC H.W.H. EAST EXISTING EACH ELEVATION, ELEVATOR ENCLOSE (URE) EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EXISTING EXPOSED, EXPANSION EXTERIOR FURNISHED BY OTHERS FLOOR DRAIN FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FINISHED FLOOR ELEV. FLAT HD. MACH. SCREW FLAT HD. WOOD SCREW FINISH FLASHING FLOOR FLUORESCENT FOUNDATION FACE OF COLUMN FACE OF FINISH FACE OF GLASS FACE OF MASONRY FACE OF STUD FACE OF WALL FOOT, FEET FOOTING FURRED, FURRING GAUGE GENERAL CONTRACTOR GRADE, GRADING GALVANIZED IRON GLASS, GLAZING GYPSUM HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HARDWARE HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL HOUR HEIGHT HEATING HEATING/VENTILATING/ AIR CONDITIONING HOT WATER HEATER I.D. INSUL. INT. JAN. JT. L. LAM. LAV. L.L. LT. MAT. MAX. M.B. MECH. MED. MEMB. MET. MFR. MIN. MISC. MLD. MOV. MTL. MULL. N. N.I.C. NO. N.T.S. O.C. O.D. O.F.C.I. OPP. OPNG. PFN. PL. P.LAM. PLAS. P.L.F. PLYWD. PNL. PNT. PR. P.S.I. PT. P.T. PTN. P.V.C. INSIDE DIMENSION INSULATED, INSULATION INTERIOR JANITOR JOINT LENGTH LAMINATE (D) LAVATORY LIVE LOAD LIGHT MATERIAL MAXIMUM MACHINE BOLT MECHANICAL MEDIUM MEMBRANE METAL MANUFACTURE (R) MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MOULDING MOVABLE METAL MULLION NORTH NOT IN CONTRACT NUMBER NOT TO SCALE ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OPPOSITE OPENING PREFINISHED PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLASTIC POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT PLYWOOD PANELING (ING) PAINT (ED) PAIR POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH POINT PAPER TOWEL PARTITION POLYVINYL CHLORINE R. RAD. R.D. RDWD. REF. REFL. REG. REINF. REV. RM. R.W.L. S. S.C. SCHED. SECT. SHT. SIM. S.P. SPEC. SQ. S.S. S.ST. STD. STL. STOR. STRUCT. SUSP. SYM. T. TELE. TEMP. TEXT. T&G T.SL. T.STL. T.O.W. TYP. U.B.C. UNF. U.N.O. V.C.T. VERT. VEST. W. W/ W.C. WD. W.I. W/O W.P. WT. W.W.M. RISER, RADIUS RADIUS ROOF DRAIN REDWOOD REFERENCE REFLECTED REGISTER REINFORCED REVISED, REVISION ROOM RAINWATER LEADER SOUTH SOLID CORE SCHEDULE SECTION SHEET SIMILAR SOUND PROOF SPECIFICATION SQUARE SERVICE SINK STAINLESS STEEL STANDARD STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURE (AL) SUSPENDED SYMMETRY (ICAL) TREAD TELEPHONE TEMPERED TEXTURED TONGUE AND GROOVE TOP OF SLAB TOP OF STEEL TOP OF WALL TYPICAL UNIFORM BUILDING CODE UNFINISHED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VINYL COMPOSITE TILE VERTICAL VESTIBULE WEST WITH WATER CLOSET WOOD WROUGHT IRON WITHOUT WATERPROOF (ING) WEIGHT WELDED WIRE MESH CENTER LINE; FINISH FLOOR LINE BREAK LINE SECTION LINE; REFERENCE(S) ELEVATION KEY DETAIL KEY DIMENSION TO FACE OF WALL; ETC. DIMENSION TO CENTERLINE STAIR DIRECTION; (RISE & TREAD) EQUIPMENT OR FIXTURE NORTH ARROW ELEVATION # DRAWING # DETAIL # DRAWING # FOW C/L UP 16 R @ 7" 15 T @ 11" ROOM NAME 0000 ROOM NAME AND / OR NUMBER CONCRETE; PLASTER; GYP. BD. SHEET METAL GLASS WOOD BRICK MASONRY CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY CERAMIC TILE; QUARRY TILE PLYWOOD WOOD - ROUGH WOOD - FINISHED INSULATION - RIGID GLASS GYPSUM BOARD INSULATION - BATT ACOUSTICAL TILE METAL - LARGE SCALE METAL - SMALL SCALE DRAWING # REFERENCE # PLANS / SECTIONS ELEVATIONS NOTE: ALL BUILDINGS UNDERGOING CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION SHALL COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 87 OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Bloom f ie ld Rd . U.S. 101 Howar d A v e. Conc or d W a y Vern o n W a y Lexin gt o n W a y SITE Burli n g a m e A v e. Plym o ut h W a y Oak Gr o v e Trent o n 325 BLOOMFIELD ROAD321 BLOOMFIELD ROADSUBJECT PROPERTY 301 FROM BLOOMFIELD ROAD SUBJECT PROPERTY 301 FROM BURLINGAME AVE. 704 BURLINGAME AVENUE708 BURLINGAME AVENUE CONSTRUCTION HOURS: No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, after or repair any building or structure other than between the following hours except in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with prior written permission from the Building Official, which approval shall be granted for a period not to exceed three days. Holidays are the first day of January, the third Monday of February, the last Monday of May, the fourth of July, the first Monday of September, the eleventh day of November, the fourth Thursday of November, the fourth Thursday in November and the twenty-fifth of December. If the first day of January, the fourth of July, the eleventh day of November, or the twenty-fifth of December falls upon a Sunday the following Monday is a holiday. The following construction hours per City of Burlingame Municipal Code 18.07.110. Monday through Friday: 8AM to 7PM Saturdays: 9AM to 6PM Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 Construction hours in the City Public right-of way are limited to weekends and non-City Holidays between 8 a.m. and 5p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right-of-way must now be included on the plans NOTE TO ANYONE DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY: Any one doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. NEW BUILDING ACCORDING TO BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE: According to the City of BMC, "when additions, alterations or repairs within a twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2016 CBC for new structures.BMC 18.07.020. Note: that at all the time of the building permit submittal, you will need to submit an erosion control plan and stipulate on the drawing the removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, sewer lateral, and water line to the Public Works Department. Acknowledge that due to the extensive nature of this construction project the CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY will be rescinded once construction begins. A new CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY will be issued after the project has been finalled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new CERTIFICATE OF OOCUPANCY has been issued. Acknowledge that when you submit your plans to the Building Department for plan review provided a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Plan will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR: ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T 650.347.0650 F Michael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARB michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA catherine@nilmeyer.com Poucher / Chang Elaine Poucher & Dale Chang 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 1 CONSULTANTS LOCATION PLAN Poucher Chang.dwg 2017 4/20/2018 As Noted CJMN CS 1 DRAWING INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION SYMBOLS 4/25/2018 CJMN 2 5/25/2018 CJMN ABBREVIATIONS 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2720 Trousdale Drive Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 Request: Application for a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Property Owner: Gautam Dusija APN: 025-011-050 Designer: Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs Lot Area: 14,604 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. May 14, 2018 Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on May 14, 2018, the Commission voted to continue this item and encouraged the applicant to look at other options discussed during the meeting, such as revising the floor plan or shifting the addition away from the neighbor (see attached May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). In their discussion, the Commission noted that the neighbor should also consider suggestions for the project other than a flat roof. The applicant submitted a response letter dated June 26, 2018 and revised plans date stamped June 27, 2018, in response to the Commission’s comments. The applicant revised the floor plan and shifted the addition an additional 8’-4” away from the neighbor (see revised Site Plan and Floor Plan, sheets A1 and A3, respectively. In the previous design, the addition was located behind the attached garage and along the side and rear of the existing family room. The revised floor plan places the addition directly behind the existing family room and extends further into the rear yard. The roof ridge at the proposed addition matches the roof ridge of the existing house (10-6” above finished floor). As requested by the Commission, the applicant also provided an outline of the neighbor’s house on the proposed building elevations and building section (see sheets A4 and A5), as well as a streetscape showing the subject house and adjacent houses (see sheets A6 and A7). Project Description: The subject property slopes downward from left to right and upward from front to rear. The existing house has an attached garage and contains 2,575 SF (0.18 FAR) and contains four bedrooms (existing family room qualifies as a bedroom since it is enclosed and measures 70 SF in area). The applicant is proposing a 251 SF first floor addition at the rear of the house. The application also includes a 230 SF uncovered deck at the rear, center of the house. With the addition the floor area will increase to 2,826 SF (0.19 FAR) where 5,773 SF (0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Section 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing structure shall be constructed within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. The applicant is requesting the following application: Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.61.020). Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Hillside Area Construction Permit 2720 Trousdale Drive -2- The Planning Division processed the Hillside Area Construction Permit per C.S. 25.61.020 and mailed the public notice and reduced plans out for review on March 19, 2018. On March 23 and March 24, 2018 requests for review of this Hillside Area Construction Permit was filed by the uphill neighbors at 2724 and 2728 Trousdale Drive (see attached letters expressing their concerns with the proposed project). Story poles have been installed on the subject property showing the outline of the proposed first floor addition. The applicant provided a story pole plan and a certification of the story pole location dated April 17, 2018 from a licensed land surveyor (see attached). 2720 Trousdale Drive Lot Area: 14,604 SF Plans date stamped: June 27, 2018 EXISTING PREVIOUS PROPOSAL CURRENT PROPOSAL ALLOWED/RE Q'D SETBACKS Front: 19'-9" no change no change 15'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 9'-6" 8'-0" 9’-6” no change 17’-10” no change 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear: 98'-10" 93'-10" 79'-0" 15'-0" Lot Coverage: 2704 SF 18.5% 3189 SF 21.8% 3185 SF 21.8% 5841 SF 40% FAR: 2575 SF 0.18 FAR 2832 SF 0.19 FAR 2826 SF 0.19 FAR 5773 SF ¹ 0.39 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 no change no change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’ W x 22’-10” D) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20’ W x 21’-10” D) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 10'-6" above existing finished floor level 11’-0” above existing finished floor level (12’-3” previously proposed) 10’-6” above existing finished floor level (11’-0” previously proposed) 30’-0” DH Envelope: n/a n/a n/a CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 14,604 SF) + 1100 SF = 5,773 SF (0.39 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on April 23, 2018, the Commission discussed the proposed 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 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). In their discussion, the Commission noted that there appears to be some intrusion into the view and therefore encouraged the applicant to work with the roof structure to attempt to match the existing ridge to minimize view impacts. Hillside Area Construction Permit 2720 Trousdale Drive -3- The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped May 4, 2018, in response to the Commission’s comments. The applicant met with the neighboring property owner and analyzed several roof slopes and ridge heights. The applicant is proposing a ridge height of 11’-0” above the existing finished floor level (1’-3” lower than originally proposed and 0’-3” lower than the ridge height reflected in the story poles at the time of the study meeting). The applicant points out that the roofing manufacturer requires a minimum roof slope of 2:12 to maintain water flow and structural integrity. The proposed roof ridge height has a roof slope of 1.99:12, so reducing the roof ridge height any further would not be in compliance with the roofing manufacturer’s requirements. Staff would note that the story poles have been adjusted to reflect the revised roof ridge height of 11’-0” above the existing finished floor level. Please refer to the applicant’s May 4, 2018 response letter (attached) for a detailed description of their interaction with the neighboring property owner and analysis of the roof structure at the addition. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: That the proposed single story addition at the rear of the house will have a hipped roof design with a roof slope of 2.19:12, which reduces the overall roof ridge height by an additional 1’-9” than what was originally proposed and therefore increases the long distant views from habitable areas of neighboring properties. For these reasons the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 27, 2018, sheets A0 through A8, S1 and T-24, and that any changes to the footprint or envelope of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Planning Division; the roof ridge height shall not exceed 10-6” above the finished floor level; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2720 Trousdale Drive -4- 7. 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer Attachments: May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter and Attachments, dated June 26, 2018 Story Pole Certification, date stamped July 3, 2018 Email Submitted by Richard Reisman, dated June 22, 2018 Email and Attachment Submitted by Richard Reisman, dated June 18, 2018 Photographs Submitted by Property Owner, date stamped May 14, 2018 April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter and Attachments, dated May 4, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Story Pole Certification, dated April 17, 2018 Story Pole Plan Letter and Attachment submitted by Jakie Lim and Daniel Perez, dated May 2, 2018 Letter and Photographs submitted by Jakie Lim, dated April 20, 2018 Letter Submitted by Jane L. Dulay, M.D., dated April 18, 2018 Letter Submitted by Jakie Lim, dated March 26, 2018 Letter Submitted by Jakie Lim, Grace Lim, Cathy Lim, Soon Lim, Carol Lim, Peter Oh, Tom Kim and Christian Kim, dated March 24, 2018 Email Submitted by Roseann Goodwin, dated March 27, 2018 Email Submitted by Roseann Goodwin, dated March 23, 2018 Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 29, 2018 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 14, 2018 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) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had visited the uphill neighbor and viewed the story poles. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gautam Dusija represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Asked if the designer was present. (Dusija: is caught in traffic.) Would like to know if a detailed section through the proposed construction has been done to determine the true height of the ridgeline; it is a matter of inches. >Have any different floor plans been considered? There are other configurations that would provide another ridge location. (Dusija: main consideration was to match the addition to the existing house.) >Were options considered that didn't extend out the garage wall? (Dusija: the plans considered would have extended more into the back yard, impacting more of the neighbor's view.) >Has a flat roof been considered; would reduce impacts? (Dusija: a flat roof would not match the rest of the house. Would be higher toward the neighbor.) >Need a drawing to show the true impacts. Can see several solutions that could reduce impacts upon the neighbor. "Match" could mean several things. (Dusija: the design is the best available option.) Public Comments: Attorney for Jackie Lim, uphill neighbor: asked the client to provide examples of view impacts from interior living space. From the dining room, it is a matter of inches when determining what is an impact. Feels a 10' 5" height would be acceptable. Jackie Lim, uphill neighbor: have lived in the home for 25-years. Provided a summary of the discussion with the applicant. Applicant needs to look at other alternative designs. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: >Appreciates the applicant's efforts. There is a minimal amount of view blockage from the neighbor's home. The hillside area view impact descriptions do not guarantee that there are no view impacts . However, there are still potential solutions that need to be explored. The designer needs to be present to discuss the project. Need more information such as sections, roof plans, etc. There are other solutions available. A match to the existing house isn't of critical importance. >The project application is only for a hillside area construction permit, not design review. The Commission cannot review this from a design review standpoint, limited to considering consistency with the hillside area restrictions. >The applicant's desire for a pitched roof is reasonable, but there are other options for the floor plan that could meet the interests of both parties while reducing the ridge height. There may still be some view impact from the adjacent property. >Consider shifting the addition away from the neighbor; this would effectively lower the ridge height as viewed from the neighbor's property. Need to see design analyses in drawing form of the options. >Consider providing 3-D renditions. >It appears that the finished floor heights of the properties (subject and uphill neighbor) are eight -feet different. Feels that the view impact is minimal. A section should be provided through both houses to show the finished floor elevations and to provide a good basis for comparison. Feels the neighbor would be less pleased with a flat roof. Feels the project could stand as it is now presented. >The ridge height will be roughly one-foot above the existing fence. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item. Discussion of Motion: >Encouraged the applicant to look at other options as indicated. Also suggested that the neighbor consider options other than a flat roof. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, April 23, 2018 a.2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner; Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones noted that he visited the property at 2724 Trousdale Drive to view the story poles on the subject site. Vice-Chair Gaul noted that he had visited the property at 2728 Trousdale Drive to view the story poles on the subject site. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Enrique Eckhaus, Gautam Dusija and Parishna Patia represented the applicant Commission Questions/Comments: >How high will the new roof ridge be when compared to the existing ridge. (Eckhaus: about ten inches higher.) >Are the drawings inaccurate? (Eckhaus: yes, the actual roofline is 3:12, not 4:12. Provided photos showing the story poles.) >The survey shows the height of the ridge above grade as being 11.3-feet above the ground, but the plans show this dimension to be 12.3-feet; which is correct? (Eckhaus: 11.3-feet is the correct measurement.) Public Comments: Joe Bravo, attorney for neighbor at 2724 Trousdale Drive: requested the opportunity to work with the applicant to consider lowering the ridgeline. Jackie Lim, 2724 Trousdale Drive: have lived in their home for over 25-years. Expressed concerns about loss of views from her property and its effect on property value and family's quality of life. Provided photos showing view impacts. Unidentified Neighbor: confirmed that the proposed addition will block a significant portion of the prior speaker's view. Encouraged keeping the roofline lower. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 April 23, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Was able to visit the adjacent property to view the addition. The addition will intrude into the view; not certain of the extent. The photos provided make it look more extreme than what appears to be the reality . The application is fairly de -minimus. Encouraged applicant to work with the roof structure to attempt to match the existing ridge to minimize view impacts. >Typically look at view impacts from interior spaces. Don't look at views from outdoor areas, such as the furthest reaches of an exterior deck or patio. >Was in the back yard of the neighbor at 2728 Trousdale Drive. Had to go to the fence to see the addition. Fortunate that the addition is on the uphill side and is only a single -story. Is not far from being approved, but need to address the ridge height. No action was required on this item. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/5/2018 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling at 2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R-1, Gautam Dusija, property owner, APN: 025-011-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 9, 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 Hillside Area Construction Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such 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 9th day of July, 2018 by the following vote EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Hillside Area Construction Permit. 2720 Trousdale Drive Effective July 19, 2018 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 27, 2018, sheets A0 through A8, S1 and T-24, and that any changes to the footprint or envelope of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Planning Division; the roof ridge height shall not exceed 10-6” above the finished floor level; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. 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. THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 2016CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDSCODE (CGBSC) AND CURRENT EDITIONGREEN BUILDING NOTE:PLAN NOTES:THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH TITLE 24 AND 2016CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC), CALIFORNIA MECHANICALCODE (CMC),CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC),CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), AND CALIFORNIAENERGY CODE (CENC). [§ R106.1 .1 CRC]2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE RESIDENTIAL CHECKLISTNewresidentialbuildingsmustbedesignedto includetheGreenBuilding Mandatory Measuresspecified in this checklist. These Green BuildingMandatory Measuresalsoapplytoadditionsoralterationsofexisting residentialbuildingswhich increase the building’sconditioned area, volume, orsize. These requirementsapplyonlytothe specific areaofadditionoralteration. 2016CGC(301.1.1PermitNumber: ProjectAddress:Specify the page which includes the Measure, and include specific details indicating where the measure is located on the page. Include exact code sections onplans.Green BuildingMeasurePlanSheet/DetailsSITE DEVELOPMENT (2016 CGC (4.106)ProjectsthatdisturblessthanlessthanoneacreshalldevelopandimplementaplantomanagestormwaterdrainageDURINGCONSTRUCTION. ABMPpageissufficient. 2016 CGC$4.106.2Plans shall indicate how Grading and Paving will prevent surface water flows fromenteringbuildings. Exception: Projects that do not alter the drainagepath. 2016 CGC$4.106.3Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging, parking spaces: comply with all relevantsections. CGC$4.106.4ENERGYEFFICIENCY(2016 CGC and the 2016 California Building Energy EfficiencyStandards)2016 Energy Code performance (T-24) compliance documentation must be provided in8-1/2” X 11” format (two sets, file size) and must be replicated on the plans.Walls with 2 X 6 and larger framing require R-19 insulation. 2016 CEC $150.0 (c)2Hot water piping insulation required: piping 3/4 inch or larger. 2016 CEC $150.0 (j) 2 A iiLighting: all luminaires shall be high efficacy. Comply with all parts. 2016 CEC $150.0 (k)Duct insulation: minimum (R-6)required. 2016 CEC $150.0 (m)1Duct leakage testing: 6% with air handler, 4% w/o air handler. 2016 CEC $150.0 (m)11Return duct design/fan power, airflow testing, and grill sizing requirements$150.0(m)13Water heating: 120 volt receptacle < 3 ft., Cat III or IV vent, and gas supply line capacityof at least 200,000 Btu / hour. 2016 CEC $150.0(n)Third-party HERS verification for ventilation and indoor air quality. 2016 CEC $150.0 (o)Maximum U-factor (0.58) for fenestration andskylights. 2016 CEC $150.0(q)Classification of High & Low efficacylightsources. 2016 CEC Table150.0-ARadiant barrier required in Climate Zone 3. (prescriptive) 2016 CEC $150.1 (c)2Refrigerant charge verification not required, Climate Zone 3. 2016 CEC Table150.0-AMaximum SHGC not specified in ClimateZone 3. 2016 CECTable150.0-A Whole house fan is not required, Climate Zone3. 2016 CEC Table150.0-ANot requiredinclimate zone32Green BuildingMeasurePlanSheet/DetailsINDOOR WATER USE (2016 CGC (4.3)Theeffectiveflushvolumeofwaterclosetswillnotexceed1.28gal/ flush. 2016 CGC $4.303.1.1Theeffectiveflushvolumeofurinalswillnotexceed0.125gal/ flush. 2016 CGC $4.303.1.2Maximumflowrateforshowersshallbe2.0GPM, at 80 psi. 2016CGC $4.303.1.3Maximumflowrateforlavatoryfaucetsshallbe1.2GPM,at 60psi. 2016 CGC$4.303.1.4.1OUTDOOR WATER USE (2016 CGC (4.4)New residential developments with an aggregate landscape area of more than 499 square feetshall submit a Residential Outdoor Water Use EfficiencyChecklist. 2016 CGC$4.304.1ENHANCED DURABILITY AND REDUCED MAINTENANCE (2016 CGC (4.406)Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or other openings in sole/bottom platesatexterior walls will be rodent-proofed by closing such openings with cement mortar, concrete masonry, or similar method acceptable to the enforcingagency. 2016 CGC$4.406.1CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT (2016 CGC (4.408)Recycleand/or salvagea minimum65%ofthenon-hazardousconstructionanddemolitionwaste.This is not applicable to soil and land clearing debris. 2016 CGC$4.408BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION (2016 CGC(4.410)An operation and maintenance manual will be provided atfinalinspection. 2016 CGC$4.410.1For buildings with more than 4 multi-family units provide forrecycling. 2016 CGC$4.410.2FIREPLACES (2016 CGC (4.503)Any installed gas fireplaces will be direct-vent,sealed-combustibletype. 2016 CGC$4.503.1Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall comply with U.S. EPA NSPS emissionlimits.POLLUTANT CONTROL (CGC(4.504)Atthe time of rough installation,duringstorageon the constructionsite,and untilfinal startupof the HVAC equipment, all duct and other related air distribution componentsopenings willbe covered with tape, plastic, sheet metals, or other methods acceptable to the enforcing agency to reduce the amount of water, dust, or debris that may enterthesystem. 2016 CGC$4.504.1Adhesives, sealants, and caulks used on the project shall follow local and regional airpollutionor air quality managementdistrict standards. 2016 CGC$4.504.2.1Paints and coatings will comply withVOClimits. 2016 CGC$4.504.2.2AerosolpaintsandcoatingswillmeettheProduct-weightedMIRlimitsforROC,andcomplywithpercent VOC by weight of product limits, Regulation 8, Rule49. 2016 CGC$4.504.2.3Documentation shall verify compliance forVOC finish materials. 2016 CGC$4.504.2.4CarpetsystemswillmeetCALGREENtestingandproductrequirements. 2016 CGC$4.504.3Where resilient flooring is installed, at least 80% of the floor area receiving resilient flooringwillcomply with the California Green BuildingCoderequirements. 2016 CGC$4.504.4Hardwoodplywood,particleboard,andmediumdensityfiberboardcompositewoodproductsshall comply with the low formaldehydeemissionstandards. 2016 CGC$4.504.53Green BuildingMeasurePlanSheet/DetailsINTERIOR MOISTURE CONTROL (2016 CGC (4.505)Acapillarybreakwillbeinstalledifaslabongradefoundationsystemisused. 2016 CGC$4.505.2Buildingmaterialswithvisiblesignsofwaterdamagewillnotbe installed. Wallandfloorframing will not be enclosed when the framing members exceed 19% moisture content. Moisture content will be verified prior to finish material being applied. Replace wet insulation products, or allow to dry beforeenclosure. 2016 CGC$4.505.3INDOOR AIR QUALITY AND EXHAUST (2016 CGC (4.506)Exhaust fans that are ENERGY STAR compliant, ducted and that terminate outside the buildingwill be provided in every bathroom (bathtub, shower, or shower/tub combo).2016 CGC $4.506.1 Unless functioning as a component of a whole-house ventilation system, fans mustbecontrolled by ahumiditycontrol.2016 CGC$4.506.1ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT (CGC(4.507)The heating and air-conditioning system will be sized, designed and have their equipmentselected using the following methods: Heat Loss/Heat Gain values in accordance with ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J-2011 or equal; Duct systems are sized according to ANSI/ACCA 1, Manual D-2014 or equivalent; Select heating and cooling equipment in accordance with ANSI/ACCA 3, Manual S-2014 orequivalent.2016 CGC$4.507INSTALLER SPECIAL INSPECTOR QUALIFICATION (2016 CGC(702)HVAC systeminstallerswillbetrainedandcertifiedintheproper installationofHVACsystems and equipment by a recognized training/certification program. 2016 CGC $702.1VERIFICATION (2016 CGC (703)Uponrequest,verificationofcompliancewiththiscodemayincludeconstructiondocuments,plans,specifications,builderorinstallercertification,inspectionreports,orothermethodsacceptableto theBuildingDivisionthat willshowsubstantialconformancewiththe2016 Code requirements..2016 CGC$703.1Responsible Designer’s DeclarationStatement Contractor’s Declaration StatementI hereby certify that this project has been designedtomeet the requirements of the 2016 Green Building Code.I hereby certify, as the builder or installer, underpermitlisted herein, that this project will be constructed to meet the requirements of the 2016 Green Building Code.Name:Name:Address:Address:City/State/ZipCode City/State/ZipCodeSignature:Signature:Date:Date:P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONSSCOPE OF WORK:REMOVE LIVING ROOM WALLREMOVE 1/2 BATHROOMREMODEL BEDROOM , LAUNDRYAND HALLWAYPROJECT DATA:ZONING_________________________RL.5.5DESCRIPTION OF USE_____________RESIDENTIALOCCUPANCY_____________________R-3NUMBER OF STORIES_____________1TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION__________V-BSPRINKLER SYSTEMS_____________NO<E> RESIDENCE_________ _______2,034 SQ.F.<E> GARAGE___________________541 SQ.F<N> ADDITION __________________251 SF.<N> DECK_____________________228 SF.TO BE REMODEL_______________537 SF.MAX HIGHT____________________14'-0"LOT AREA ____________________14,628 SF.OPEN SPACE___________________3,061 SF.LOT COVERAGE__________________20 % Construction Best Management Practices(BMPs)Construction projects are required to implement the stormwater best management practices (BMP) on this page, as they apply to your project, all year long.Non-Hazardous Materials Berm and cover stockpiles of sand, dirt or other construction material with tarps when rain is forecast or if not actively being used within 14days. Use (but don’t overuse) reclaimed water for dust control.Hazardous Materials Label all hazardous materials and hazardous wastes (such as pesticides, paints, thinners, solvents, fuel, oil, and antifreeze) in accordance with city, county, state and federal regulations. Store hazardous materials and wastes in water tight containers, store in appropriate secondary containment, and cover them at the end of every work day or during wet weather or when rain is forecast. Follow manufacturer’s application instructions for hazardous materials and be careful not to use more than necessary. Do not apply chemicals outdoors when rain is forecast within 24 hours. Arrange for appropriate disposal of all hazardous wastes.Waste Management Cover waste disposal containers securely with tarps at the end of every work day and during wet weather. Check waste disposal containers frequently for leaks and tomake sure they are not overfilled. Never hose down a dumpster on the construction site. Clean or replace portable toilets, and inspect them frequently for leaks andspills. Dispose of all wastes and debris properly. Recycle materials and wastes that can be recycled (such as asphalt, concrete, aggregate base materials, wood, gyp board, pipe, etc.) Dispose of liquid residues from paints, thinners, solvents, glues, and cleaning fluids as hazardous waste.Construction Entrances and Perimeter Establish and maintain effective perimeter controls and stabilize all construction entrances and exits to sufficiently control erosion and sediment discharges from site and tracking off site. Sweep or vacuum any street tracking immediately and secure sediment source to prevent further tracking. Never hose down streets to clean up tracking.Materials & WasteManagementEquipment Management & Spill ControlMaintenance and Parking Designate an area, fitted with appropriate BMPs, for vehicle and equipment parking and storage. Perform major maintenance, repair jobs, and vehicle and equipment washing off site. If refueling or vehicle maintenance must be done onsite, work in a bermed area away from storm drains and over a drip pan or drop cloths big enough to collect fluids. Recycle or dispose of fluids as hazardous waste. If vehicle or equipment cleaning must be done onsite, clean with water only in a bermed area that will not allow rinse water to run into gutters, streets, storm drains, or surface waters. Do not clean vehicle or equipment onsite using soaps, solvents, degreasers, or steam cleaning equipment.Spill Prevention and Control Keep spill cleanup materials (e.g., rags, absorbents and cat litter) available at the construction site at all times. Inspect vehicles and equipment frequently for and repair leaks promptly. Use drip pans to catch leaks until repairs are made. Clean up spills or leaks immediately and dispose of cleanup materials properly. Do not hose down surfaces where fluids have spilled. Use dry cleanup methods (absorbent materials, cat litter, and/or rags). Sweep up spilled dry materials immediately. Do not try to wash them away with water, or bury them. Clean up spills on dirt areas by digging up and properly disposing of contaminated soil. Report significant spills immediately. You arerequired by law to report all significant releases of hazardous materials, including oil. To report a spill: 1) Dial 911 or your local emergency response number, 2) Call the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Warning Center, (800) 852-7550 (24hours).Earthmoving Schedule grading and excavation work during dry weather. Stabilize all denuded areas, install and maintain temporary erosion controls (such as erosion control fabric or bonded fiber matrix) until vegetation is established. Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely necessary, and seed or plant vegetation for erosion control on slopes or where construction is not immediately planned. Prevent sediment from migrating offsite and protect storm drain inlets, gutters, ditches, and drainage courses by installing and maintaining appropriate BMPs, such as fiber rolls, silt fences, sediment basins, gravel bags, berms, etc. Keep excavated soil on site and transfer it to dump trucks on site, not in the streets.Contaminated Soils If any of the following conditions are observed, test for contamination and contact the Regional Water Quality Control Board:- Unusual soil conditions, discoloration, orodor.- Abandoned underground tanks.- Abandoned wells- Buried barrels, debris, or trash. Discharges of groundwater or captured runoff from dewatering operations must be properly managed and disposed. When possible send dewatering discharge to landscaped area or sanitary sewer. If discharging to the sanitary sewer call your local wastewater treatment plant. Divert run-on water from offsite away from all disturbed areas. When dewatering, notify and obtain approval from the local municipality before discharging water to a street gutter or storm drain. Filtration or diversion through a basin, tank, or sediment trap may be required. In areas of known or suspected contamination, call your local agency to determine whether the ground water must be tested. Pumped groundwater may need to be collected and hauled off-site for treatment and proper disposal.Dewatering Avoid paving and seal coating in wet weather or when rain is forecast, to prevent materials that have not cured from contacting stormwater runoff. Cover storm drain inlets and manholes when applying seal coat, tack coat, slurry seal, fog seal, etc. Collect and recycle or appropriately dispose of excess abrasive gravel orsand. Do NOT sweep or wash it into gutters. Do not use water to wash down fresh asphalt concrete pavement.Sawcutting & Asphalt/Concrete Removal Protect nearby storm drain inlets when saw cutting. Use filter fabric, catch basin inlet filters, or gravel bags to keep slurry out of the storm drainsystem. Shovel, abosorb, or vacuum saw-cut slurry and dispose of all waste as soon as you are finished in one location or at the end of each work day (whichever is sooner!). If sawcut slurry enters a catch basin, clean it upimmediately. Store concrete, grout, and mortar away from storm drains or waterways, and on pallets under cover to protect them from rain, runoff, and wind. Wash out concrete equipment/trucks offsite or in a designated washout area, where the water will flow into a temporary waste pit, and in amanner that will prevent leaching into theunderlying soil or onto surrounding areas. Let concrete harden and dispose of as garbage. When washing exposed aggregate, prevent washwater from entering storm drains. Block any inlets and vacuum gutters, hose washwater onto dirt areas, or drain onto a bermed surface to bepumped and disposed of properly.Painting Cleanup and Removal Never clean brushes or rinse paint containers into a street, gutter, storm drain, or stream. For water-based paints, paint out brushes to the extent possible, and rinse into a drain that goes to the sanitary sewer. Never pour paint down a storm drain. For oil-based paints, paint out brushes to the extent possible and clean with thinner or solvent in a proper container. Filter and reuse thinners and solvents. Dispose of excess liquids as hazardous waste. Paint chips and dust from non-hazardous dry stripping and sand blasting may be swept up or collected in plastic drop cloths and disposed of astrash. Chemical paint stripping residue andchips and dust from marine paints or paints containing lead, mercury, or tributyltin must be disposed of as hazardous waste. Lead based paint removal requires a state-certified contractor.Painting & Paint RemovalConcrete, Grout & Mortar Application Protect stockpiled landscaping materials from wind and rain by storing them under tarps all year-round. Stack bagged material on pallets and under cover. Discontinue application of any erodible landscape material within 2 days before a forecast rain event or during wet weather.LandscapingPaving/Asphalt WorkStorm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day!P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS <E> GAS METER.<E> 200 AMP. ELECT. PANELUFER GROUNDING-CONCRETEENCASED ELECTRODE, NEC-250-81 (C). REQ'D.<E> WATER METER.WGE“REPAIR/REPLACE ALL CRACKED AND UPLIFTEDCURB/GUTTER AND SIDEWALK ALONG PROPERTY STREET FRONTAGE TO CITY STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR ISTO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PERMIT CENTER ENGINEERING FOR ANY WORK WITHINTHE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.”ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL REQUIREA SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT.THE FEE IS IN ADDITION TO AND SEPARATE FROM ANY DEVELOPMENTFEES ASSESSED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT.ENCROACHMENT PERMITS MAY BE OBTAINED AT THESAME TIME AND RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BUILDINGPERMIT.<E> 200 AMP .ELECTRICAL PANEL.CONCRETEDOWNSPOUT DETAIL (TYP.) # 1LANDSCAPINGDOWNSPOUTLEGENDDENOTES ROOF DOWNSPOUTWITH CONCRETE SPLASHBLOCKDENOTES EXITING TURF OR NEWLANDSCAPING. LANDSCAPING TO BE ESTABLISHEDAND MAINTAINED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION.SFLDENOTES FLOWLINESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"204.50'PROPERTY LINE160.61'PROPERTY LINE80.00'PROPERTY LINE9 1 .3 3 'P R O P E R T Y L IN E20'-0"42'-7"137'-4"8'-0"49'-6"21'-0"9'-6"19'-9"25'-9"7'-11"18'-2"79'-0"8'-1"41'-6"12'-8"17'-10"TO BE REMODELAPROX. 537 SF.<N> DECK228 SF.APPROACHEFFECTIVE SOIL COVER SHALL BE PROVIDED ON ALL FINISHEDSLOPES, OPEN SPACE, UTILITY BACKFILLAND COMPLETED LOTS THAT ARE NOT SCHEDULED TO BERE - DISTURBED FOR MINIMALLY 14 DAYS.FINISH GRADE AROUND THE ADDITION SHALL SLOPE AWAYFROM THE FOUNDATION A MINIMUM OF 6 INCHES OVER10 FEET. IMPERVIOUS SURFACES WITHIN 10 FEET OF THEBUILDING FOUNDATION SHALL BE SLOPED 2% MINIMUMAWAY FROM THE BUILDING. INCLUDE A NOTE ON THE SITEPLAN [§ R401.3 CRC]DRAINAGE SHALL NOT NEGATIVELYIMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES PROVIDEPOSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS STREET (TYP)PORTA-POTTY ARE TEMPORARY FORCONSTRUCTION PURPOSES AND WILL BEREMOVED UPON COMPLETING OF PROJECTPORTA POTTY W/SECONDARY CONTAINMENTAREA LOCATIONDUMPSTER LOCATIONLOADING MATERILAS AREA LOCATION1BMP1BMPCONCRETE/STUCCOWASHOUT AREA.5BMPACCESS ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED DAILY (IF NECESSARY) AND PRIOR TO ANY RAIN EVENT. <E> PORCH130 SF.SIDEWALK300.00'290.00'280.00'280.00'290.00'300.00'305.00'310.00'315.00'320.00'325.00'330.00'330.00'325.00'320.00'315.00'310.00'305.00'SEDIMENT LOGS.SEDIMENT LOGS.SSSSSSCURBCURBBMP4WEG<E> RESIDENCE2034 SF.<E> GARAGE541 SF.ADJACENT HOUSE19'-10"P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONSLOT COVERAGE CALCULATION:1193.5 SF. (21' X 56'-10") HOUSE1767.2 SF. (41'-6" X 42'-7") HOUSE228 SF. (12' X 19'-0") DECK_______________________________3189 SF.( 21.8 %)<N> ADDITION251 SF.19'-0"12'-0"<E> DRIVEWAY<E> WALKWAY<E> LANDSCAPE<E> LANDSCAPE<E> LANDSCAPEWASHOUT FIRE PLACEFIRE PLACE<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> SLIDING DOOR<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW2.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> SOLID C. DR.3.0/6.8LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"EXISTING CONDITIONSEXISTING CONDITIONSEXISTING CONDITIONSEXISTING CONDITIONSFLOOR PLANSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"EXISTING CONDITIONSP.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS <E> ADJACENT HOUSE <E> ADJACENT HOUSEWD<E> ENTRY<E> FAMILY ROOM<E> DINING ROOM<E> LIVING ROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> KITCHEN<E> 2 CAR GARAGECL CLCLCLCLCLCL<E> LAUNDRY<E> PORCH LEGEND WALLGENERAL NOTES:1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND NOTIFYDESIGNER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES2. WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF 2016 C.R.C.EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICALPLUMBING, ENERGY CODES AND CITY BUILDING ANDPLANNING CODES AND REGULATIONS.3. CONCRETE WORK SHALL DEVELOP A MIN. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTHOF 2,500 PSI AT 28 DAYS.4. REINFORCING STEEL SHALL CONFORM WITHand Grade 60 reinforcing steel for residential structuresassigned to Seismic Design Category D0, D1, or D2.CRC R404.1.2.3.15. LUMBER SHALL BE FOLLOWS (U.O.N.)2X6 JOIST -STUDS-DF #2 OR BETTERBEAMS, POST, HEADERS -DF# 1 OR BETTERSILL PLATE IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE, DF # 1 OR BETTER6. NAILING SHALL BE COMMON WIRE NAILS GALVANIZED WHEN EXPOSEDTO EXTERIOR SIZE SPACING & NUMBERS SHALL BE AS FOLLOW.PLYWOOD________________________SEE PLANS & SECTIONSALL OTHERS ____________________R402.1.1 Fasteners7. JOISTS HANGERS, SHEET METAL CLIPS AND OTHER CONNECTIONS SHALL BEMANUF. BY SIMPSON OR APPROVED EQUAL.8. ALL UNDER-FLOOR CRAWL SPACE VENT THAT ARE BLOCK DURINGCONSTRUCTION SHAL BE RELOCATEDTO EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDINGSEE SHT S1.ELECTRICAL SYMBOLSTO BE HIGH EFFICIENCY PER TILE 24MANDATORY MEASUREMENTSEXHAUST FAN 5 SPEED50 CFM WITH Exhaust fan must be controlled bya humidistat and which shall be readily accessibleand shall be Energy Star compliant and ducted toterminate outside the building.MIRROR LIGHTCEILING LIGHTSPLIT UNIT A/C45 AMP. OUTLET W.PBOUNDARY WALL LIGHTCEILING MOUNTED LIGHTROUND FLUORESCENT LIGHTOUTSIDE WEATHER PROOF LIGHTCEILING FANFAN REGULATORCONTROL PANELB.S.E.D. METERPOWER BREAKERDISTRIBUTION BOARDFLUORESCENT LAMP 1X40WFLUORESCENT LAMP 2X40WWALL BRACKET LIGHTBELL PUSHTELEPHONETELEVISION2-WAY-SWITCHSWITCHPBMPBMALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MAXIMUM FLOWFOR CONSERVING FIXTURES INTHE TABLE BELOW.FOR HOMES BUILT ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1994, ALL NON-COMPLIANTPLUMBING FIXTURES IN THE DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE REPLACED WITHWATER CONSERVING FIXTURES AS LISTED IN THE TABLE BELOW.FIXTUTE TYPE NON-COMPLIANT(FLOW RATE OVER)CONSERVING FIXTURES(MAX FLOW RATE)KITCHEN FAUCET 2.2 GAL/MIN. 1.8 GAL./MIN. @ 60 psiOTHER FAUCETS 2.2 GAL/MIN.SHOWER* 2.5 GAL/MIN.WATER CLOSET 1.6 GAL/FLUSH1.5 GAL./MIN. @ 60 psi2.0 GAL./MIN. @ 60 psi1.28 GAL/FLUSH*FLOW RATES COMBINED FOR ALL SHOWERHEADS AND/OR OTHEROUTLETS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE VALVE.(CAL. STATE LAW SB407)15 AMP. SOCKET OUTLET A.F.C.I20 AMP. SOCKET OUTLET A.F.C.IAND G.F.C.I.FLOOR PLAN NOTES: <N> CARBON MONOXIDE CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN NEW AND EXISTING DWELLING UNITS AND SLEEPING UNITS WHICH HAVE FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES INSTALLED OR HAVE ATTACHED GARAGES: [§ R315.1 CRC] A. WHERE ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, OR ADDITIONS TO EXISTING DWELLINGS OCCUR THAT REQUIRE A PERMIT AND EXCEED $1000, THE INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS LOCATED AS REQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS. [§ R315.2 CRC] B. NOTE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM/DETECTION SYSTEMS AND INSTALLATION ON THE PLANS. SINGLE- AND MULTIPLE-STATION CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL BE LISTED TO COMPLY WITH UL 2034. CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS SHALL BE LISTED TO COMPLY WITH UL 2075. INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 720 AND THE MANUFACTURER’S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. [§ R315.3 CRC] C. IN EXISTING DWELLING UNITS, THE CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS MAY BE SOLELY BATTERY-OPERATED AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE INTERCONNECTED WHERE REPAIRS OR ALTERATIONS DO NOT RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF WALL AND CEILING FINISHES OR THERE IS NO ACCESS BY MEANS OF ATTIC BASEMENT OR CRAWL SPACE, AND WHERE NO PREVIOUS METHOD FOR INTERCONNECTION EXISTED. [§ R315.1.1, 315.1.2 CRC EXCEPTIONS] D. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL BE INSTALLED OUTSIDE OF EACH SEPARATE SLEEPING AREA IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE BEDROOMS, AND ON EVERY LEVEL OF A DWELLING UNIT INCLUDING BASEMENTS. SHOW ALARM LOCATIONS ON THE PLANS. [§ R315.3 CRC] <N> SMOKE ALARMS: A. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE HARD-WIRED AND EQUIPPED WITH A BATTERY BACKUP. IN EXISTING DWELLING UNITS, THE SMOKE ALARMS MAY BE SOLELY BATTERY-OPERATED AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE INTERCONNECTED WHERE REPAIRS OR ALTERATIONS DO NOT RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF INTERIOR WALLS OR CEILING FINISHES EXPOSING THE STRUCTURE UNLESS THERE IS AN ATTIC, CRAWL SPACE, OR BASEMENT WHICH COULD PROVIDE ACCESS FOR BUILDING WIRING WITHOUT REMOVAL OF INTERIOR FINISHES. [§ R314.4 CRC EXCEPTION] B. SMOKE ALARMS SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED. IN EXISTING DWELLING UNITS, THE SMOKE ALARMS MAY BE SOLELY BATTERY-OPERATED AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE INTERCONNECTED WHERE REPAIRS OR ALTERATIONS DO NOT RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF INTERIOR WALLS OR CEILING FINISHES EXPOSING THE STRUCTURE UNLESS THERE IS AN ATTIC, CRAWL SPACE, OR BASEMENT WHICH COULD PROVIDE ACCESS FOR INTERCONNECTION WITHOUT REMOVAL OF INTERIOR FINISHES. [§ R314.5 CRC EXCEPTION] C: ALL SMOKE ALARMS THAT ARE SOLELY BATTERY POWERED SHALL CONTAIN NON-REPLACEABLE, NON-REMOVABLE BATTERIES THAT ARE CAPABLE OF POWERING THE SMOKE ALARMS FOR AT LEAST 10 YEARS WINDOWS WINDOWS TO BE DOUBLE PANE, WITHE VINYL WINDOWS. WINDOW SILL SHALL BE OF MATERIALS NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY MOISTURE. SILL HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 44" ABOVE THE FLR. ALL 2X4 WINDOW SILL WHERE OCCURS 2-2X4 (SILL AT OPENING WIDER THAN 4'-0") AN OPENABLE AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 5.7 SQ. FT. (EXCEPTION: 5 SQ. FT. FOR GRADE-FLOOR OPENINGS), WITH A MINIMUM CLEAR 24” HEIGHT AND 20” WIDTH. 2016 CRC SECTION R310 BATHROOM INSTALL NEW FIBER GLASS TUB & SHOWER TUB UNIT 3-PIECE COMPLETE W/TUB SPOUT DIVERTER VALVE & LOW-FLOW SHOWER HEAD INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE ON THE THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE. AT THE SHOWER. SHOWER FLOORS AND WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A NONABSORBENT SURFACE. SUCH SURFACE SHALL EXTEND UP THE WALLS A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET (72 INCHES). NOTE ON PLANS. [§ R307.2 CRC] NEW FLUOR LIGHT FIXT. AND PROVIDE NEW 50 C.F.M. 5 AIR FAN SWITCHES TO LIGHT @ <N>BATH. BATHROOM FANS ARE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH HUMIDISTATES. WATER CLOSETS WITH A FLOW RATE IN EXCESS OF 1.6 GPF WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH WATER CLOSETS WITH A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.2 GPF. SHOWER HEADS WITH A FLOW RATE GREATER THAN 2.5 GPM WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH A MAXIMUM 2.0 GPM SHOWER HEAD. LAVATORY AND KITCHEN FAUCETS WITH A FLOW RATE GREATER THAN 2.2 GPM WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH A FAUCET WITH MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.2 GPM @ 60 PSI. TUBS SHALL ALSO HAVE THERMOSTATIC CONTROL VALVES. ALTERNATE SHOWER WALLS SHALL HAVE EITHER CEMENT OR FIBERGLASS FACED TILE BACKER BOARD. OPTIONAL BATHTUB WALL COVERING SHALL BE CEMENT PLASTER, TILE OR APPROVED EQUAL TO 72" ABOVE DRAIN AT SHOWERS OR TUBS WITH SHOWERS. MATERIAL OTHER THAN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE MOISTURE RESISTANT. DOORS GLAZING USED IN DOORS AND PANELS OF SHOWER AND TUB ENCLOSURES SHALL BE FULLY TEMPERED GLASS, LAMINATED SAFETY GLASS OR APPROVED PLASTIC OF A SHATTER-RESISTENT. ALL SLIDING DOORS AT SHOWERS OR BATHTUB SHALL BE SAFETY GLAZING IN AZARDOUS LOCATION INDICATED ON PLANS. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL HAVE A 1" MAXIMUM THRESHOLD ABOVE LANDING. SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"5/8" TYPE 'X' ( 1- HR.-RATED ) GYP. BD. ON WALLS ADJOINING HOUSE FROM CONC. SLAB TO UNDER ROOF SHTG. ALSO UNDER THE STAIRS. CRC ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION SHALL EXTEND TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE GARAGE CEILING SEPARATING DWELING UNITS FROM THE GARAGE (ALSO ALONG THE EXISTING GARAGE). DOORS AND THEIR FRAMES OPENINGS INTO A ONE- HOUR CORRIDOR SHALL BE LABELED 20 MINUTE ASSEMBLIES WITH TIGHT FITTING SMOKE AND DRAFT CONTROL ASSEMBLIES WITH SELF AUTOMATIC CLOSURES (GARAGE AND BATHROOM UNDER STAIR). JGround-fault Circuit-interrupter protection required at; bathrooms; Garages and accessory buildings; Outdoors; Crawl spaces; Unfinished basements; Kitchens; Laundry, utility and wet bars where the receptacle is within 6’ of the outside edge of the sink: Boat houses: No exceptions. [210.8] KNEW WALL (2X4 STUDWALL @ 16" O.C.)EXISTING WALLTO BE REMOVEDA. <E> 50 GAL W ATER HEATER B. <E> 36,000 W ALL HEATER FURNACE C. ALL W IRNG SHALL COMPLY W ITH THE NATIONALELECTRICAL CODE. ALL ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS GROUND TO BE PROVIDED PER NEC, ART, ALL HOSE BIBS MUST BE PROTECTED BY AN ANTI-SIPHON DEVICE UPC.603.3.7. ALL 120-VOLT, SINGLE PHASE, 15- AND 20-AMPERE BRANCH CIRCUITS SUPPLYING OUTLETS IN DW ELLING UNIT FAMILY ROOMS, DINING ROOMS, LIVING ROOMS, PARLORS, LIBRARIES, DENS, BEDROOMS, SUNROOMS, RECREATION ROOMS, CLOSETS, HALLW AYS, OR SIMILAR ROOMS OR AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY A LISTED COMBINATION-TYPE AFCI. [ART. 210.12(B) CEC] RECEPTACLES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT NO POINT MEASURED HORIZONTALLY ALONG THE FLOOR LINE IN ANY W ALL SPACE IS MORE THAN 6’ FROM AN OUTLET. CEC SECTION 210.52(A)(1) ALL 125-VOLT, 15 AND 20 AMP OUTLETS SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT AS PER CEC SECTION 210.52. A RECEPTACLE OUTLET SHALL BE INSTALLED AT EACH W ALL COUNTERTOP SPACE 12 INCHES OR W IDER SO THAT NO POINT IS MORE THAN 24 INCHES FROM AN OUTLET. CEC SECTION 210.52(C)(1-5) THE OPENING AROUND GAS VENTS, DUCTS, AND PIPES AT CEILING SHALL HAVE FIREBLOCKINGPER UBC 708.2.1. D. <N> 22"X30" ATTIC ACCESS. TIGHT-FITTING W ETHER STRIP 1-3/8" MIN. E. A FIXTURE THAT IS INSTALLED IN A CLOTHES CLOSET MUST BE A SURFACE-MOUNTED OR RECESSED INCANDESCENT TYPE W ITH ALL LAMP(S) COMPLETELY ENCLOSED, A SURFACE-MOUNTED OR RECESSED FLUORESCENT FIXTURE OR SURFACE MOUNTED FLUORESCENT OR LED LUMINARIES IDENTIFIED AS SUITABLE FOR INSTALLATION W ITHIN THE STORAGE AREA. INCANDESCENT FIXTURES W ITH OPEN (EXPOSED) OR PARTIALLY ENCLOSED LAMPS, AND PENDANT FIXTURES OR LAMPHOLDERS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE INSTALLED IN A CLOTHES CLOSET. FLUORESCENT LIGHTS MUST BE COVERED OR HAVE TUBE GUARDS TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL CONTACT. 2016 CEC Section 410.16 F. AIR EXHAUST AND INTAKE OPENINGS THAT TERMINATE OUTDOORS SHALL BE PROTECTED W ITH CORROSION-RESISTANT SCREENS, LOUVERS, OR GRILLES W ITH 1/4” MINIMUM- AND ½” MAXIMUM-SIZED OPENINGS IN ANY DIMENSION. OPENINGS SHALL BE PROTECTED AGAINST LOCAL W EATHER CONDITIONS. [§ R303.5 CRC] G. ALL OTHER INTERIOR ROOMS (E.G., LIVING ROOM, DINING ROOM, BEDROOMS, HALLW AYS, ETC.), EXCEPT IN DETACHED STORAGE BUILDINGS LESS THAN 1000 SQ. FT., SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY, MANUAL-ON OCCUPANCY SENSOR OR DIMMER. TITLE 24 (PART 6), SECTION 150(K) 11 OUTDOOR LIGHTING ATTACHED TO BUILDINGS SHALL BE HIGH EFFICACY OR CONTROLLED BY MOTION SENSOR AND PHOTOCONTROL NOT HAVING AN OVERRIDE OR BYPASS SW ITCH. TITLE 24, SECTION 150(K) 13. H. ALL “Control valves and showerheads shall be located on the sidewall of shower compartments or otherwise arranged so that the showerhead does not discharge directly at the entrance to the compartment so that the bather can adjust the valves prior to stepping into the shower spray. 2016 CPC Section 408.9 I. “Provide GFCI protection to all 125-volt, 15 and 20 amp receptacles installed outdoors, in bathrooms, basements, kitchen at counter top surfaces, crawl spaces below grade level, with 6’ of laundry, utility and/or wet bar sinks, and garages”. 2013 CEC Section 210.8(A)(1-7). P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS<N> HOLLOW C. DR.2'-10"3'-0"2'-7"1<N> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8FIRE PLACE<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW2.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> SOLID C. DR.3.0/6.811'-3"22'-5"71'-8"<E> WALL TO BE REMOVED<E> WALL TO BE REMOVEDOVENOVEN3.0/6.812'-0"6.0/6.8<N> FRENCH DR.<N> FRENCH DR.8'-9"<E> SOLID C. DR.3.0/3.0CC111111142'-7"<N> VENT DRYER3'-0" MINTO BE ENLARGEABJJKCL2.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.FIRE PLACE<E> SLIDING DOOR12'-8"19'-0"31'-8"1.6/2.0<N> SLIDING WINDOW6.0/6.8<N> FRENCH DR.<N> FRENCH DR.2.8/6.8<N> SLIDING WINDOW <N> SLIDING WINDOW4.0/6.84.0/6.8<N> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8<E> WINDOW<N> SLIDING WINDOW<N> PICTURE WIN<N> PICTURE WIN6.0/6.02.0/6.02.0/6.06'-10"13'-0"5'-5"7'-3"7'-9"10'-5"19'-10"8'-10"6'-0"13'-10"YY'29'-1"<E> ENTRY<N>MASTER BEDROOM<E> DINING ROOM<E> LIVING ROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> KITCHEN<E> 2 CAR GARAGECL CLCLCLCLCL<E> LAUNDRY<E> PORCH<N> DECK<N> DENWDFAUWHWCL AREA TO BE VENTED = 256 SFUNDERFLOOR VENT CALCULATIONS:1.70 SF.=150256BLOCK VENT = 3 SFW/ SCREENED12"6"BLK. VENT SIZE6" X 12" = .5 SF..42 SF. PER BLOCK.14 SF. (3) = .42 SF.2.5"1.70 SF=150256W/ SCREENEDROOF VENT CALCULATIONS:AREA TO BE VENTED = 256 SF.6 PCS BLOCK VENT = 2.7 SFBLK. VENTOpenings to have 1/4" corrosion resistant metal mesh coveringOpenings to have 1/4" corrosion resistant metal mesh covering2X2 PICKETS @5" O.C.LOWER RAIL MUST NOTALLOW 4" DIA. SPHERETO PASS THROUGH.SEE PLAN4X4 RAIL POST42" MIN.8" max10" MIN.38" MIN.STAIR SECTION # 22 X 12 STRINGER6" X 12" X 12" DEEPFTG.P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONSREAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"12'-8"NEW ADDITION8'-1"TOP PLATEFINAL FLOORPROPOSAL A.419'-0"NEW DECK10'-5"122.19<N> SLOPEPLFENCE WALL17'-10"SET BACKBA<N> 7/8" CEMENT PLASTEROVER TWO LEYER OF GRADE"D" PAPER BACKED WIRE.ASPHALT COMPO. SHINGLESOVER 15#ROOFING FELT OVER 5/8" THK.PLY. SHEATING9'-6"SET BACK122.5 <E> SLOPENEW ADDITION39'-0"8'-1"10'-5"FINAL FLOORRIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"BA<N> 7/8" CEMENT PLASTEROVER TWO LEYER OF GRADE"D" PAPER BACKED WIRE.ASPHALT COMPO. SHINGLESOVER 15#ROOFING FELT OVER 5/8" THK.PLY. SHEATING122.19<N> SLOPETOP PLATE122.5 <E> SLOPERIGTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"8'-1"10'-5"TOP PLATEFINAL FLOORBA<N> 7/8" CEMENT PLASTEROVER TWO LEYER OF GRADE"D" PAPER BACKED WIRE.ASPHALT COMPO. SHINGLESOVER 15#ROOFING FELT OVER 5/8" THK.PLY. SHEATING122.19<N> SLOPE122.5 <E> SLOPE <E> ADJACENT HOUSE1.20 '4.00 'WALL COVERING DETAIL.1 <E> ADJACENT HOUSE2724 TROUSDALE DRP.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS12'-8"NEW ADDITION8'-1"TOP PLATEFINAL FLOOR19'-0"NEW DECK10'-5"122.19<N> SLOPEPLFENCE WALL17'-10"SET BACKBA<N> 7/8" CEMENT PLASTEROVER TWO LEYER OF GRADE"D" PAPER BACKED WIRE.ASPHALT COMPO. SHINGLESOVER 15#ROOFING FELT OVER 5/8" THK.PLY. SHEATING9'-6"SET BACK122.5 <E> SLOPEPLEXISTING WINDOW VISUAL LINE3'-9"EXISTING WINDOW VISUAL LINEPLPL <E> ADJACENT HOUSE2716 TROUSDALE DRFENCE WALLREAR ELEVATION NEIGHBORSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"4'-0"FRONT ELEVATION NEIGHBOR P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONSANGLE OF VISION VIEWAREA OF VISION VIEWAREA OF VISION UNOBSTRUCTEDAREA OF VISION PANORAMICAREA OF VISION UNOBSTRUCTED P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS<N> HOLLOW C. DR.1<N> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8FIRE PLACE<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW<E> WINDOW2.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.82.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> SOLID C. DR.3.0/6.8<E> WALL TO BE REMOVED<E> WALL TO BE REMOVEDOVENOVEN3.0/6.86.0/6.8<N> FRENCH DR.<N> FRENCH DR.<E> SOLID C. DR.3.0/3.0CC1111111TO BE ENLARGEABJJKCL2.8/6.8<E> HOLLOW C. DR.<E> HOLLOW C. DR.FIRE PLACE<E> SLIDING DOOR6.0/6.8<N> FRENCH DR.<N> FRENCH DR.2.8/6.8<N> SLIDING WINDOW <N> SLIDING WINDOW4.0/6.84.0/6.8<N> HOLLOW C. DR.2.8/6.8<E> WINDOW6'-10"8'-10"SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"ROOF FRAMING PLAN211<N> 5/8" DF. PLYWD. SHTG. C. D. X. GR.AND A.C.X.@ OVERHANG NAIL WITH8D NAIL @ 6" O.C. EDGES, 12"O.C. FIELDASPHALT COMPO. SHINGLESOVER 15#ROOFING FELT OVER5/8" THK. PLY. SHEATING<N> 2.19 /12 R. PITCH21<N> 4X12 HEADER<N> 4X12 HEADER<N> 2.19 /12 R. PITCH12'-8"19'-0"31'-8"5'-5"7'-3"7'-9"10'-5"19'-10"6'-0"13'-10"29'-1"<E> 2.5/12 R. PITCH<E> 2.5/12 R. PITCH<E> 2.5/12 R. PITCH<E> 2.5/12 R. PITCH<E> 2.5/12 R. PITCH<E> 2.5/12 R. PITCH<E> ENTRY<N>MASTER BEDROOM<E> DINING ROOM<E> LIVING ROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> BEDROOM<E> KITCHEN<E> 2 CAR GARAGECL CLCLCLCLCL<E> LAUNDRY<E> PORCH<N> DECK<N> DENWDFAUWHWCL<E> RIDGE<E> RIDGE<E> RIDGE<E> RIDGE<N> RIDGE 2016 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory MeasuresSummary150.0(k)2J:Interior Switches and Controls. In bathrooms, garages, laundry rooms, and utility rooms, at least one luminaire in each of these spaces must be controlled by a vacancy sensor.150.0(k)2K:Interior Switches and Controls. Dimmers or vacancy sensors must control all luminaires required to have light sources compliant with Reference Joint Appendix JA8, except luminaires in closets less than 70 square feet and luminaires in hallways.*150.0(k)2L:Interior Switches and Controls. Undercabinet lighting must be switched separately from other lighting systems.150.0(k)3A:Residential Outdoor Lighting. For single-family residential buildings, outdoor lighting permanently mounted to a residential building, or to other buildings on the same lot, must meet the requirement in item 150.0(k)3Ai (ON and OFF switch) and the requirements in either item150.0(k)3Aii (photocell and motion sensor) or item 150.0(k)3Aiii (photo control and automatic time switch control, astronomical time clock, or EMCS).150.0(k)3B:Residential Outdoor Lighting. For low-rise multifamily residential buildings, outdoor lighting for private patios, entrances, balconies,and porches; and outdoor lighting for residential parking lots and residential carports with less than eight vehicles per site must comply with either 150.0(k)3A or with the applicable requirements in " 110.9, 130.0, 130.2, 130.4, 140.7 and 141.0.150.0(k)3C:Residential Outdoor Lighting.Forlow-rise residential buildings with four or more dwelling units, outdoor lighting not regulated by150.0(k)3B or 150.0(k)3D must comply with the applicable requirements in " 110.9, 130.0, 130.2, 130.4, 140.7 and 141.0.150.0(k)3D:Residential Outdoor Lighting. Outdoor lighting for residential parking lots and residential carports with a total of eight or more vehicles per site must comply with the applicable requirements in " 110.9, 130.0, 130.2, 130.4, 140.7, and 141.0.150.0(k)4:Internally illuminated address signs. Internally illuminated address signs must comply with 140.8; or must consume no more than 5 watts of power as determined according to 130.0(c).150.0(k)5:Residential Garages for Eight or More Vehicles. Lighting for residential parking garages for eight or more vehicles must comply with the applicable requirements for nonresidential garages in " 110.9, 130.0, 130.1, 130.4, 140.6, and 141.0.150.0(k)6A:Interior Common Areas of Low-rise Multi-Family Residential Buildings.In a low-rise multifamily residential building where the total interiorcommon area ina single building equals 20 percentor less of the floor area, permanently installedlighting for theinterior common areas in thatbuilding must behigh efficacy luminaires and controlled byan occupant sensor.150.0(k)6B:Interior Common Areas of Low-rise Multi-Family Residential Buildings. In a low-rise multifamily residential building where the total interior common area in a single building equals more than 20 percent ofthe floor area, permanently installed lighting inthat building must:i.Comply with the applicable requirements in " 110.9, 130.0, 130.1, 140.6 and 141.0; andii.Lighting installed in corridors and stairwells must be controlled by occupant sensors that reduce the lighting power in each space by at least 50 percent. The occupant sensors must be capable of turning the light fully on and off from all designed paths ofingress and egress.Solar Ready Buildings:110.10(a)1:Single Family Residences. Single family residences located in subdivisions with ten or more single family residences and where the application for a tentative subdivision map for the residences has been deemed complete by the enforcement agency must comply withtherequirements of 110.10(b) through 110.10(e).110.10(a)2:Low-rise Multi-family Buildings. Low-rise multi-family buildings must comply with the requirements of 110.10(b) through 110.10(d).110.10(b)1:Minimum Area. The solar zone must have a minimum total area as described below. The solar zone must comply with access, pathway, smoke ventilation, and spacing requirements as specified in Title 24, Part 9 or other Parts of Title 24 or in any requirements adopted by a local jurisdiction. The solar zone total area must be comprised of areas that have no dimension less than 5 feet and are no less than 80 square feet each for buildings with roof areas less than or equal to 10,000 square feet or no less than 160 square feet each for buildings with roof areas greater than 10,000 square feet.For single family residences the solar zone must be located on the roof or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 250 squarefeet. For low-rise multi-family buildings the solar zonemustbe located on the roof or overhang ofthe building, or on the roof or overhangof another structure located within 250 feet of the building, or on covered parking installed with the building project, and have a total area no less than 15 percent of the total roof area of the building excluding any skylight area.*110.10(b)2:Orientation.Allsections ofthe solar zonelocated on steep-sloped roofsmust be oriented between 110 degrees and 270 degrees oftrue north.110.10(b)3A:Shading. The solar zone must not contain any obstructions, including but not limited to: vents, chimneys, architectural features, and roof mounted equipment.*110.10(b)3B:Shading. Any obstruction located on the roof or any other part of the building that projects above a solar zone must be located at least twice the distance, measured in the horizontal plane, of the height difference between the highest point of the obstruction and the horizontal projection of the nearest point of the solar zone, measured in the vertical plane.*110.10(b)4:Structural Design Loads on Construction Documents. For areas of the roof designated as solar zone, the structural design loads for roof dead load and roof live load must be clearly indicated on the construction documents.110.10(c):Interconnection Pathways. The construction documents must indicate: a location for inverters and metering equipment and a pathway for routing of conduit from the solar zone to the point of interconnection with the electrical service (for single family residences the point of interconnection will be the main service panel); and a pathway for routing of plumbing from the solar zone to the water-heating system.110.10(d):Documentation.A copy ofthe construction documents or a comparable document indicating the information from 110.10(b) through110.10(c) must be provided to the occupant.110.10(e)1:Main Electrical Service Panel. The main electrical service panel must have a minimum busbar rating of 200 amps.110.10(e)2:Main Electrical ServicePanel.The main electrical service panel must have a reserved spaceto allow for the installation of a double pole circuitbreaker for a future solar electric installation. The reserved space must be: positioned at the opposite (load) end fromthe input feeder location ormain circuit location; and permanently marked as “ForFuture Solar Electric”.2016 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory MeasuresSummary\ 150.0(m)13:Duct System Sizing and Air Filter Grille Sizing. Space conditioning systems that use forced air ducts to supply cooling to an occupiable space must have a hole for the placement of a static pressure probe (HSPP), or a permanently installed static pressure probe (PSPP)inthe supply plenum. The space conditioning system must also demonstrate airflow = 350 CFM per ton of nominal cooling capacity through the return grilles, and an air-handling unit fan efficacy = 0.58 W/CFM as confirmed by field verification and diagnostic testing, in accordance with Reference Residential Appendix RA3.3. This applies to both single zone central forced air systems and every zone for zonally controlled central forced airsystems.*150.0(o):Ventilation for Indoor Air Quality. All dwelling units must meet the requirements of ASHRAE Standard 62.2. Neither window operation nor continuous operation of central forced air system air handlers used in central fan integrated ventilation systems are permissible methods of providing whole-building ventilation.150.0(o)1A:Field Verification and Diagnostic Testing. Whole-building ventilation airflow must be confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing, in accordance with Reference Residential Appendix RA3.7.Pool and Spa Systems and Equipment Measures:110.4(a):Certification by Manufacturers. Any pool or spa heating system or equipment must be certified to have all of the following: a thermal efficiency that complies with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations; an on-off switch mounted outside of the heater that allows shutting off the heater without adjusting the thermostat setting; a permanent weatherproof plate or card with operating instructions; and must not use electric resistance heating.*110.4(b)1:Piping. Any pool or spa heating equipment must be installed with at least 36 inches of pipe between the filter and the heater, or dedicated suction and return lines, or built-in or built-up connections to allow for future solar heating.110.4(b)2:Covers. Outdoor pools or spas that have a heat pump or gas heater must have a cover.110.4(b)3:Directional inlets and time switches for pools. Pools must have directional inlets that adequately mix the pool water, and a time switch that will allow all pumps to be set or programmed to run only during off-peak electric demand periods.110.5:Pilot Light. Natural gas pool and spa heaters must not have a continuously burning pilot light.150.0(p):Pool Systems and Equipment Installation. Residential pool systems or equipment must meet the specified requirements for pump sizing, flow rate, piping, filters, and valves.*LightingMeasures:110.9:Lighting Controls and Components. All lighting control devices and systems, ballasts, and luminaires must meet the applicable requirements of 110.9.*110.9(e):JA8 High Efficacy Light Sources. To qualify as a JA8 high efficacy light source for compliance with 150.0(k), a residential light source must be certified to the Energy Commission according to Reference Joint Appendix JA8.150.0(k)1A:Luminaire Efficacy. All installed luminaires must be high efficacy in accordance with TABLE 150.0-A.150.0(k)1B:Blank Electrical Boxes. The number of electrical boxes that are more than 5 feet above the finished floor and do not contain a luminaire or other device must be no greater than the number of bedrooms. These electrical boxes must be served by a dimmer, vacancy sensor control, or fan speed control.150.0(k)1C:Recessed Downlight Luminaires in Ceilings. Luminaires recessed into ceilings must meet all of the requirements for: insulation contact (IC) labeling; air leakage; sealing; maintenance; and socket and light source as described in 150.0(k)1C. A JA8-2016-E light source rated for elevated temperature must be installed by final inspection in all recessed downlight luminaires in ceilings.150.0(k)1D:Electronic Ballasts. Ballasts for fluorescent lamps rated 13 watts or greater must be electronic and must have an output frequency no less than 20kHz.150.0(k)1E:Night Lights. Permanently installed night lights and night lights integral to installed luminaires or exhaust fans must be rated to consume no more than 5 watts of power per luminaire or exhaust fan as determined in accordance with 130.0(c). Night lights do not need to be controlled by vacancy sensors.150.0(k)1F:Lighting Integral to Exhaust Fans. Lighting integral to exhaust fans (except when installed by the manufacturer in kitchen exhaust hoods) must meet the applicable requirements of 150.0(k).*150.0(k)1G:Screw based luminaires. Screw based luminaires must not be recessed downlight luminaires in ceilings and must contain lamps that comply with Reference Joint Appendix JA8. Installed lamps must be marked with “JA8-2016” or “JA8-2016-E” as specified in Reference Joint Appendix JA8.*150.0(k)1H:Enclosed Luminaires. Light sources installed in enclosed luminaires must be JA8 compliant and must be marked with “JA8-2016-E.”150.0(k)2A:InteriorSwitchesand Controls.Allforward phase cut dimmers used with LED light sources must comply with NEMA SSL7A.150.0(k)2B:Interior Switches and Controls. Exhaust fans must be switched separately from lighting systems.*150.0(k)2C:Interior Switches and Controls. Luminaires must be switched with readily accessible controls that permit the luminaires to be manually switched ON andOFF.150.0(k)2D:Interior Switches and Controls. Controls and equipment must be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions.150.0(k)2E:InteriorSwitchesand Controls.Nocontrol must bypass a dimmer or vacancy sensor function ifthe control is installed to comply with150.0(k).150.0(k)2F:Interior Switches and Controls. Lighting controls must comply with the applicable requirements of 110.9.150.0(k)2G:Interior Switches and Controls. An energy management control system (EMCS) may be used to comply with dimmer requirements if it: functions as a dimmer according to 110.9; meets the Installation Certificate requirements of 130.4; meets the EMCS requirements of 130.5(f); and meets all other requirements in 150.0(k)2.150.0(k)2H:Interior Switches and Controls. An EMCS may be used to comply with vacancy sensor requirements in 150.0(k) if it meets all of the following: it functions as a vacancy sensor according to 110.9; the Installation Certificate requirements of 130.4; the EMCS requirements of 130.5(f); and all other requirements in 150.0(k)2.150.0(k)2I:Interior Switches and Controls. A multiscene programmable controller may be used to comply with dimmer requirements in 150.0(k) if it provides the functionality ofa dimmer according to 110.9,and complies withall other applicable requirements in 150.0(k)2.2016 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory MeasuresSummary150.0(h)3A:Clearances. Installed air conditioner and heat pump outdoor condensing units must have a clearance of at least 5 feet from the outlet of any dryervent.150.0(h)3B:Liquid Line Drier. Installed air conditioner and heat pump systems must be equipped with liquid line filter driers if required, as specified by manufacturer’s instructions.150.0(j)1:Storage Tank Insulation. Unfired hot water tanks, such as storage tanks and backup storage tanks for solar water-heating systems, must have R-12 external insulation or R-16 internal insulation wherethe internal insulation R-valueis indicated on the exterior ofthe tank.150.0(j)2A:Water piping and cooling system line insulation. For domestic hot water system piping, whether buried or unburied, all of the following must be insulated according to the requirements of TABLE 120.3-A: the first 5 feet of hot and cold water pipes from the storage tank; all piping with a nominal diameter of 3/4 inch or larger; all piping associated with a domestic hot water recirculation system regardless of the pipe diameter; piping from the heating source to storage tank or between tanks; piping buried below grade; and all hot water pipes from the heating source to kitchenfixtures.*150.0(j)2B:Water piping and cooling system line insulation. All domestic hot water pipes that are buried below grade must be installed in a water proof and non-crushable casing or sleeve.*150.0(j)2C:Water piping and cooling system line insulation. Pipe for cooling system lines must be insulated as specified in 150.0(j)2A. Distribution piping for steam and hydronic heating systems or hot water systems must meet the requirements in TABLE120.3-A.*150.0(j)3:Insulation Protection. Insulation must be protected from damage, including that due to sunlight, moisture, equipment maintenance, and wind.150.0(j)3A:Insulation Protection. Insulation exposed to weather must be installed with a cover suitable for outdoor service. For example, protected by aluminum, sheet metal, painted canvas, or plastic cover. The cover must be water retardant and provide shielding from solar radiation that can cause degradation of the material.150.0(j)3B:Insulation Protection. Insulation covering chilled water piping and refrigerant suction piping located outside the conditioned space must have a Class I or Class II vapor retarder.150.0(n)1:Gas or Propane Systems. Systems using gas or propane water heaters to serve individual dwelling units must include all of the following: a 120V electrical receptacle within 3 feet of the water heater; a Category III or IV vent, or a Type B vent with straight pipe between the outside termination and the space where the water heater is installed; a condensate drain that is no more than 2 inches higher than the base of the water heater, and allows natural draining without pump assistance; and a gas supply line with a capacity ofat least 200,000 Btu/hr.150.0(n)2:Recirculating Loops. Recirculating loops serving multiple dwelling units must meet the requirements of 110.3(c)5.150.0(n)3:Solar Water-heating Systems. Solar water-heating systems and collectors must be certified and rated by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation (SRCC) or by a listing agency that is approved by the ExecutiveDirector.Ducts and Fans Measures:110.8(d)3:Ducts. Insulation installed on an existing space-conditioning duct must comply with 604.0 of the California Mechanical Code (CMC). If a contractor installs the insulation, the contractor must certify to the customer, in writing, that the insulation meets this requirement.150.0(m)1:CMC Compliance.All air-distribution system ducts and plenums mustbe installed, sealed, and insulated to meet the requirements of CMC" 601.0, 602.0, 603.0, 604.0, 605.0 and ANSI/SMACNA-006-2006 HVAC Duct Construction Standards Metal and Flexible 3rd Edition. Portions of supply-air and return-air ducts and plenums must be insulated to a minimum installed level of R-6.0 (or higher if required by CMC 605.0) or a minimum installed level of R-4.2 when entirely in conditioned space as confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing (RA3.1.4.3.8). Connections of metal ducts and inner core of flexible ducts must be mechanically fastened. Openings must be sealed with mastic, tape, or other duct-closure system that meets the applicable requirements of UL 181, UL 181A, or UL 181B or aerosol sealant that meets the requirements of UL 723. If mastic or tape is used to seal openings greater than ¼ inch, the combination of mastic and either mesh or tape must be used. Building cavities, support platforms for air handlers, and plenums designed or constructed with materials other than sealed sheet metal, duct board or flexible duct must not be used for conveying conditioned air. Building cavities and support platforms may contain ducts. Ducts installed in cavitiesand support platforms must not be compressed to cause reductions inthe cross-sectional area of the ducts.*150.0(m)2:Factory-Fabricated Duct Systems. Factory-fabricated duct systems must comply with applicable requirements for duct construction, connections, and closures; joints and seams of duct systems and their components must not be sealed with cloth back rubber adhesive duct tapes unless such tape is used in combination with mastic and draw bands.150.0(m)3:Field-Fabricated Duct Systems. Field-fabricated duct systems must comply with applicable requirements for: pressure-sensitive tapes, mastics, sealants, and other requirements specified for duct construction.150.0(m)7:Backdraft Dampers. All fan systems that exchange air between the conditioned space and the outside of the building must have backdraft or automatic dampers.150.0(m)8:Gravity Ventilation Dampers. Gravity ventilating systems serving conditioned space must have either automatic or readily accessible, manually operated dampers in all openings to the outside, except combustion inlet and outlet air openings and elevator shaft vents.150.0(m)9:Protection of Insulation. Insulation must be protected from damage, including that due to sunlight, moisture, equipment maintenance, and wind. Insulation exposed to weather must be suitable for outdoor service. For example, protected by aluminum, sheet metal, painted canvas, or plastic cover. Cellular foam insulation must be protected as above or painted with a coating that is water retardant and provides shielding from solarradiation.150.0(m)10:PorousInnerCoreFlex Duct.Porous inner core flex duct must have a non-porous layer between the inner core and outer vapor barrier.150.0(m)11:Duct System Sealing and Leakage Test. When space conditioning systems use forced air duct systems to supply conditioned air to an occupiable space, the ducts must be sealed and duct leakage tested, as confirmed through field verification and diagnostic testing, in accordance with 150.0(m)11and Reference Residential Appendix RA3.150.0(m)12:Air Filtration. Mechanical systems that supply air to an occupiable space through ductwork exceeding 10 feet in length and through a thermal conditioning component, except evaporative coolers, must be provided with air filter devices that meet the design, installation, efficiency, pressure drop, and labeling requirements of 150.0(m)12.2016 Low-Rise Residential Mandatory MeasuresSummaryNOTE:Low-rise residential buildings subject to the Energy Standards must comply with all applicable mandatory measures, regardless of the compliance approach used. Review the respective section for more information. *Exceptions may apply.(Original 08/2016)Building EnvelopeMeasures:110.6(a)1:Air Leakage. Manufactured fenestration, exterior doors, and exterior pet doors must limit air leakage to 0.3 cfm/ft² or less when tested per NFRC-400 or ASTM E283 or AAMA/WDMA/CSA101/I.S.2/A440-2011.*110.6(a)5:Labeling. Fenestration products must have a label meeting the requirements of 10-111(a).110.6(b):Field fabricated exterior doors and fenestration products must use U-factors and solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) values from TABLES 110.6-A and 110.6-B for compliance and must be caulked and/or weatherstripped.*110.7:Air Leakage. All joints, penetrations, and other openings in the building envelope that are potential sources of air leakage must be caulked, gasketed, or weather stripped.110.8(a):Insulation Certification by Manufacturers. Insulation specified or installed must meet Standards for Insulating Material.110.8(g):Insulation Requirements for Heated Slab Floors. Heated slab floors must be insulated per the requirements of 110.8(g).110.8(i):Roofing Products Solar Reflectance and Thermal Emittance. The thermal emittance and aged solar reflectance values of the roofing material must meet the requirements of 110.8(i) when the installation of a cool roof is specified on the CF1R.110.8(j):Radiant Barrier. A radiant barrier must have an emittance of 0.05 or less and be certified to the Department of Consumer Affairs.150.0(a):Ceiling and Rafter Roof Insulation. Minimum R-22 insulation in wood-frame ceiling; or the weighted average U-factor must not exceed 0.043. Minimum R-19 or weighted average U-factor of 0.054 or less in a rafter roof alteration. Attic access doors must have permanently attached insulation using adhesive or mechanical fasteners. The attic access must be gasketed to prevent air leakage. Insulation must be installed in direct contact with a continuous roof or ceiling which is sealed to limit infiltration and exfiltration as specified in 110.7, including but not limited to placing insulation either above or below the roof deck or on top of a drywall ceiling.*150.0(b):Loose-fill Insulation. Loose fill insulation must meet the manufacturer’s required density for the labeled R-value.150.0(c):Wall Insulation. Minimum R-13 insulation in 2x4 inch wood framing wall or have a U-factor of 0.102 or less (R-19 in 2x6 or U-factor of 0.074 or less). Opaque non-framed assemblies must have an overall assembly U-factor not exceeding 0.102, equivalent to an installed value of R-13 in awood framed assembly.*150.0(d):Raised-floor Insulation. Minimum R-19 insulation in raised wood framed floor or 0.037 maximum U-factor.*150.0(f):Slab Edge Insulation. Slab edge insulation must meet all of the following: have a water absorption rate, for the insulation material alone without facings, no greater than 0.3%; have a water vapor permeance no greater than 2.0 perm/inch; be protected from physical damage and UV light deterioration; and, when installed as part of a heated slab floor, meet the requirements of 110.8(g).150.0(g)1:Vapor Retarder. In Climate Zones 1-16, the earth floor of unvented crawl space must be covered with a Class I or Class II vapor retarder. This requirement also applies to controlled ventilation crawl space for buildings complying with the exception to 150.0(d).150.0(g)2:Vapor Retarder. In Climate Zones 14 and 16, a Class I or Class II vapor retarder must be installed on the conditioned space side of all insulation in all exterior walls, vented attics, and unvented attics with air-permeable insulation.150.0(q):Fenestration Products. Fenestration, including skylights, separating conditioned space from unconditioned space or outdoors must have a maximum U-factor of 0.58; or the weighted average U-factor of all fenestration must not exceed 0.58.*Fireplaces, Decorative Gas Appliances, and Gas Log Measures:150.0(e)1A:Closable Doors. Masonry or factory-built fireplaces must have a closable metal or glass door covering the entire opening of the firebox.150.0(e)1B:Combustion Intake. Masonry or factory-built fireplaces must have a combustion outside air intake, which is at least six square inches in area and is equipped with a readily accessible, operable, and tight-fitting damper or combustion-air control device.*150.0(e)1C:Flue Damper. Masonry or factory-built fireplaces must have a flue damper with a readily accessible control.*150.0(e)2:Pilot Light. Continuous burning pilot lights and the use of indoor air for cooling a firebox jacket, when that indoor air is vented to the outside of the building, are prohibited.Space Conditioning, Water Heating, and Plumbing System Measures:110.0- 110.3:Certification. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, water heaters, showerheads, faucets, and all other regulated appliances must be certified by the manufacturer to the Energy Commission.*110.2(a):HVAC Efficiency. Equipment must meet the applicable efficiency requirements in TABLE 110.2-A through TABLE 110.2-K.*110.2(b):Controls for Heat Pumps with Supplementary Electric Resistance Heaters. Heat pumps with supplementary electric resistance heaters must have controls that prevent supplementary heater operation when the heating load can be met by the heat pump alone; and in which the cut-on temperature for compression heating is higher than the cut-on temperature for supplementary heating, and the cut-off temperature for compression heating is higher than the cut-off temperature for supplementary heating.*110.2(c):Thermostats. All unitary heating or cooling systems not controlled by a central energy management control system (EMCS) must have a setback thermostat.*110.3(c)5:Water Heating Recirculation Loops Serving Multiple Dwelling Units. Water heating recirculation loops serving multiple dwelling units must meet the air release valve, backflow prevention, pump priming, pump isolation valve, and recirculation loop connection requirements of 110.3(c)5.110.3(c)7:Isolation Valves. Instantaneous water heaters with an input rating greater than 6.8 kBTU/hr (2 kW) must have isolation valves with hose bibbs or other fittings on both cold water and hot water lines of water heating systemsto allow for water tank flushing when the valvesareclosed.110.5:Pilot Lights. Continuously burning pilot lights are prohibited for natural gas: fan-type central furnaces; household cooking appliances (appli-ances without an electrical supply voltage connection withpilot lights that consume less than 150 Btu/hr are exempt);and pool and spa heaters.*150.0(h)1:Building Cooling and Heating Loads. Heating and/or cooling loads are calculated in accordance with ASHRAE Handbook, Equipment Volume, Applications Volume, and Fundamentals Volume; SMACNA Residential Comfort System Installation Standards Manual; or ACCA Manual J using design conditions specified in 150.0(h)2.CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - RESIDENTIALPERFORMANCE COMPLIANCEMETHODCF1R-PRF-01Page 1 of6Project Name:home additionCalculationDescription:Title 24 AnalysisCalculation Date/Time:14:40, Wed, Jan 03, 2018Input File Name:2720 TROUSDALE AVE.ribd16xRegistration Number:Registration Date/Time:HERS Provider:218-P010002693A-000-000-0000000-00002018-01-03 14:49:48CalCERTS inc.CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2016 Residential Compliance Report Version - CF1R-12182017-1016 SP2 Report Generated at: 2018-01-03 14:40:41ENERGY USESUMMARY0405 06 07 08Energy Use (kTDV/ft2-yr)Standard Design Proposed Design Compliance Margin PercentImprovementSpaceHeating0.00 0.50 -0.50 0.0%SpaceCooling40.29 25.15 15.14 37.6%IAQVentilation0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0%WaterHeating107.45 107.45 0.00 0.0%Photovoltaic Offset---- 0.00 0.00 ----Compliance Energy Total 147.74133.1014.649.9%COMPLIANCE RESULTS01 Building Complies with Computer Performance02 This building DOES NOT require HERS Verification03 This building incorporates one or more Special Features shown belowADDITION ALONE PROJECT ANALYSIS PARAMETERS010203 04 05 06Existing Area (excl. new addition) (ft2) Addition Area (excl. existing) (2ft)Total Area Existing Bedrooms Addition Bedrooms Total Bedrooms2034256 2290 3 4 7GENERAL INFORMATION01 ProjectNamehome addition02 CalculationDescriptionTitle 24 Analysis03 ProjectLocation2720 TRUSDALE DR04CityBURLINGAME05 StandardsVersionCompliance 201706Zip Code9401007 Compliance ManagerVersionBEMCmpMgr 2016.3.0 (1016 SP2)08 Climate ZoneCZ309 SoftwareVersionEnergyPro 7.210 Building TypeSingle Family11 Front Orientation(deg/Cardinal)13512 ProjectScopeNewly Constructed (Addition Alone)13 Number of DwellingUnits114Total Cond. Floor Area(ft2)25615 Number ofZones116Slab Area(ft2)017 Number ofStories118Addition Cond. FloorArea(ft2)25619 Natural GasAvailableYes20Addition Slab Area(ft2)021 Glazing Percentage(%)16.8%CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - RESIDENTIALPERFORMANCE COMPLIANCEMETHODCF1R-PRF-01Page 2 of6Project Name:home additionCalculationDescription:Title 24 AnalysisCalculation Date/Time:14:40, Wed, Jan 03, 2018Input File Name:2720 TROUSDALE AVE.ribd16xHeatingSystemsRegistration Number:Registration Date/Time:HERS Provider:218-P010002693A-000-000-0000000-00002018-01-03 14:49:48CalCERTS inc.CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2016 Residential Compliance Report Version - CF1R-12182017-1016 SP2 Report Generated at: 2018-01-03 14:40:41OPAQUE SURFACES0102 03 04 05 06 07 08NameZone Construction Azimuth OrientationGross Area(ft2)Window & Door Area(ft2)Tilt(deg)Left Wall Addition R-13 Wall 225 Left 186 3 90Rear Wall Addition R-13 Wall 315 Back 168 40 90Right Wall Addition R-13 Wall 45 Right 114 0 90Interior Surface Addition R-19 Wall n/a n/a 168 0 n/aRoof Addition R-30 Roof Attic n/a n/a 256 n/a n/aRaised Floor Addition R-19 Floor Crawlspace n/a n/a 256 n/a n/aZONE INFORMATION01 02 03 04 05 06 07Zone Name Zone Type HVAC System NameZone FloorArea(ft2)Avg.CeilingHeightWater Heating System1Water HeatingSystem 2Addition Conditioned HVAC System1 256 8 DHW Sys 1 n/aBUILDING - FEATURES INFORMATION01 02 03 04 05 06 07Project NameConditioned Floor Area(ft2)Number ofDwellingUnitsNumber ofBedroomsNumber of ZonesNumber ofVentilationCoolingSystemsNumber of Waterhome addition 256 1 7 1 0 1HERS FEATURE SUMMARYThe following is a summary of the features that must be field-verified by a certified HERS Rater as a condition for meeting the modeled energy performance for this computer analysis. Additional detail is provided in the building components tables below.Building-level Verifications:• -- None --Cooling System Verifications:HVAC Distribution System Verifications:• -- None --Domestic Hot Water System Verifications:• -- None --REQUIRED SPECIAL FEATURESThe following are features that must be installed as condition for meeting the modeled energy performance for this computer analysis.• Ducts with high level of insulation• Floor has high level of insulationCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - RESIDENTIALPERFORMANCE COMPLIANCEMETHODCF1R-PRF-01Page 3 of6Project Name:home additionCalculationDescription:Title 24 AnalysisCalculation Date/Time:14:40, Wed, Jan 03, 2018Input File Name:2720 TROUSDALE AVE.ribd16xRegistration Number:Registration Date/Time:HERS Provider:218-P010002693A-000-000-0000000-00002018-01-03 14:49:48CalCERTS inc.CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2016 Residential Compliance Report Version - CF1R-12182017-1016 SP2 Report Generated at: 2018-01-03 14:40:41BUILDING ENVELOPE - HERS VERIFICATION01020304Quality Insulation Installation (QII) Quality Installation of Spray FoamInsulationBuilding Envelope Air Leakage CFM50Not RequiredNot RequiredNot Requiredn/aOPAQUE SURFACE CONSTRUCTIONS01 02 03 04 05 06 07Construction Name Surface Type Construction Type FramingTotalCavityR-valueWinterDesignU-factorAssembly LayersAttic RoofAddition Attic Roofs Wood Framed Ceiling2x4 Top Chord of Roof Truss @ 24 in. O.C. none 0.644• Cavity / Frame: no insul. / 2x4 Top Chrd• Roof Deck: Wood Siding/sheathing/decking• Roofing: Light Roof (Asphalt Shingle)R-19 Floor CrawlspaceFloors OverCrawlspaceWood Framed Floor 2x6 @ 16 in. O.C.R 19 in 5-1/2 in. cavity (R-18) 0.050• Floor Surface: Carpeted• Floor Deck: Wood Siding/sheathing/decking• Cavity / Frame: R-19 in 5-1/2 in. (R-18) / 2x6R-13 Wall Exterior Walls Wood Framed Wall 2x4 @ 16 in. O.C. R 13 0.081• Inside Finish: Gypsum Board• Sheathing / Insulation: R1 Sheathing• Cavity / Frame: R-13 / 2x4• Sheathing / Insulation: R1 Sheathing• Exterior Finish: 3 Coat StuccoR-30 Roof AtticCeilings (below attic) Wood Framed Ceiling 2x4 @ 24 in. O.C. R 30 0.032• Inside Finish: Gypsum Board• Cavity / Frame: R-9.1 / 2x4• Over Ceiling Joists: R-20.9 insul.R-19 Wall Interior Walls Wood Framed Wall 2x6 @ 16 in. O.C.R 19 in 5-1/2 in. cavity (R-18) 0.069• Inside Finish: Gypsum Board• Cavity / Frame: R-19 in 5-1/2 in. (R-18) / 2x6• Other Side Finish: Gypsum BoardFENESTRATION / GLAZING01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10NameType Surface (Orientation-Azimuth) Width (ft)Height(ft)MultiplierArea(ft2)U-factorSHGC Exterior ShadingWindow Window Left Wall (Left-225) ---- ---- 1 3.0 0.29 0.29 Insect Screen (default)Sliding Door Window Rear Wall (Back-315) ---- ---- 1 40.00.29 0.29 Insect Screen (default)ATTIC01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08NameConstruction Type Roof Rise Roof Reflectance RoofEmittanceRadiantBarrierCool RoofAttic Addition Attic RoofAddition Ventilated 4 0.1 0.85 No NoCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - RESIDENTIALPERFORMANCE COMPLIANCEMETHODCF1R-PRF-01Page 4 of6Project Name:home additionCalculationDescription:Title 24 AnalysisCalculation Date/Time:14:40, Wed, Jan 03, 2018Input File Name:2720 TROUSDALE AVE.ribd16x1-hers-coolRegistration Number:Registration Date/Time:HERS Provider:218-P010002693A-000-000-0000000-00002018-01-03 14:49:48CalCERTS inc.CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2016 Residential Compliance Report Version - CF1R-12182017-1016 SP2 Report Generated at: 2018-01-03 14:40:41HVAC COOLING - HERS VERIFICATION0102 03 04 05 06NameVerified Airflow Airflow Target Verified EER Verified SEERVerifiedRefrigerantChargeCooling Component 1-hers-cool Not Required n/a Not Required Not Required Not RequiredHVAC - COOLING UNIT TYPES01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08NameSystem Type Number of UnitsEfficiencyEER SEERZonallyControlledCompressor Type HERS VerificationCooling Component 1 SplitAirCond 1 11.7 13 Not Zonal Single SpeedCooling ComponentHVAC - HEATING UNIT TYPES010203 04NameSystemTypeNumber of Units EfficiencyHeating Component 1CntrlFurnace1 91 AFUESPACE CONDITIONING SYSTEMS0102 03 04 05 06SC SysNameSystem Type Heating Unit Name Cooling Unit Name Fan Name Distribution NameHVAC System1Other Heating and CoolingSystemHeating Component 1 Cooling Component 1 HVAC Fan 1 Air Distribution System 1WATER HEATERS01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12NameHeater Element Type Tank TypeNumber ofUnitsTank Volume (gal)Uniform Energy Factor / Energy Factor /EfficiencyInputRating / Pilot / Thermal EfficiencyTank Insulation R-value (Int/Ext)Standby Loss / Recovery EffFirstHour Rating / FlowRateNEEA HeatPump Brand /Model / OtherTankLocation orAmbient ConditionDHW Heater 1 Gas Small Storage 1 50 0.6 EF 40,000 Btu/hr R-0/R-0 n/a n/a n/a n/aWATER HEATING SYSTEMS0102 03 04 05 06NameSystem Type Distribution Type Water Heater Number of Heaters Solar Fraction (%)DHW Sys 1 DHW Standard DHW Heater 1 (1) 1 .0%CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - RESIDENTIALPERFORMANCE COMPLIANCEMETHODCF1R-PRF-01Page 5 of6Project Name:home additionCalculationDescription:Title 24 AnalysisCalculation Date/Time:14:40, Wed, Jan 03, 2018Input File Name:2720 TROUSDALE AVE.ribd16x1-hers-distRegistration Number:Registration Date/Time:HERS Provider:218-P010002693A-000-000-0000000-00002018-01-03 14:49:48CalCERTS inc.CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2016 Residential Compliance Report Version - CF1R-12182017-1016 SP2 Report Generated at: 2018-01-03 14:40:41HVAC FAN SYSTEMS - HERS VERIFICATION010203NameVerified Fan WattDrawRequired Fan Efficiency (Watts/CFM)HVAC Fan 1-hers-fanNot Requiredn/aHVAC - FAN SYSTEMS01020304NameTypeFan Power (Watts/CFM) HERS VerificationHVAC Fan 1 Single Speed PSC Furnace Fan 0.58 HVAC Fan 1-hers-fanHVAC DISTRIBUTION - HERS VERIFICATION01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08NameDuctLeakageVerificationDuctLeakageTarget(%)VerifiedDuctLocationVerifiedDuctDesignBuriedDuctsDeeplyBuriedDuctsLow-leakageAir HandlerAir Distribution System 1-hers-dist Not Required n/a Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required n/aHVAC - DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS01 02 03 04 05 06 07NameType Duct Leakage Insulation R-value Duct Location Bypass Duct HERS VerificationAir Distribution System 1 DuctsAttic Existing (not specified) 8 Attic NoneAir Distribution Systemre:CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE - RESIDENTIALPERFORMANCE COMPLIANCEMETHODCF1R-PRF-01Page 6 of6Project Name:home additionCalculationDescription:Title 24 AnalysisCalculation Date/Time:14:40, Wed, Jan 03, 2018Input File Name:2720 TROUSDALE AVE.ribd16xDigitally signed by CalCERTS. This digital signature is provided in order to secure the contentof this registered document,and in no way implies RegistrationProvider responsibility for the accuracy of the information.Registration Number:Registration Date/Time:HERS Provider:218-P010002693A-000-000-0000000-00002018-01-03 14:49:48CalCERTS inc.CA Building Energy Efficiency Standards - 2016 Residential Compliance Report Version - CF1R-12182017-1016 SP2 Report Generated at: 2018-01-03 14:40:41Easy to Verifyat CalCERTS.comDOCUMENTATION AUTHOR'S DECLARATION STATEMENT1. I certify that this Certificate of Compliance documentation is accurate and complete.Documentation Author Name:ENRIQUE ECKHAUSDocumentation Author Signature:Company:eckhaus designsSignature Date:2018-01-03 14:49:48Address:p.o. box 783CEA/HERS Certification Identification (If applicable):6167City/State/Zip:Salinas, CA 93902Phone:831-794-2461RESPONSIBLE PERSON'S DECLARATION STATEMENTI certify the following under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California:1. I am eligible under Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code to accept responsibility for the building design identified on this Certificate of Compliance.2. I certify that the energy features and performance specifications identified on this Certificate of Compliance conform to the requirements of Title 24, Part 1 and Part 6 of the California Code ofRegulations.3. The building design features or system design features identified on this Certificate of Compliance are consistent with the information provided on other applicable compliance documents, worksheets, calculations, plans and specifications submitted to the enforcement agency for approval with this building permit application.Responsible Designer Name:ENRIQUE ECKHAUSResponsible Designer SignatuCompany:eckhaus designsDate Signed:2018-01-03 14:49:48Address:p.o. box 783License:6167City/State/Zip:Salinas, CA 93902Phone:831-794-2461P.O. BOX 783 - SALINAS,CA 93902FX. (831) 287 - 0121PH. (831) 794 - 2461ENRIQUE ECKHAUS GIL.eeckhaus@pacbell.neteeeckhaus@gmail.comCODES.SHEET.JOBDRAWNDATEE.ECKHAUS/F.BALDERASREVISIONSINDEX PLANS.2018-042JUN-27-2018OWNER.PROJECT.2720TROUSDALE DRBURLINGAME,CA. 94010APN.0250110501The 2016CRC(Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 24)California Administrative CodeTitle 24 Part 1California Building CodeVOL. 1,2Title 24 Part 2California Residential CodeTitle 24 Part 2.5California Electrical CodeTitle 24 Part 3California Mechanical CodeTitle 24 Part 4California Plumbing CodeTitle 24 Part 5California Energy CodeTitle 24 Part 6California Historical Building Code*Title 24 Part 8California Fire CodeTitle 24 Part 9California Existing Building Code*Title 24 Part 10California Green Building StandardsCode (also referred to as CALGreen)Title 24 Part 11California Referenced Standards CodeTitle 24 Part 12GAUTAMDUSIJAMAY-03-18A0 CALGREENBMP NOTES AND SPECS.A1 SITE PLANA2 EXISTING FLOOR PLANA2 EXISTING ELEVATIONSA3 PROPOSE FLOOR PLANA4 PROPOSE ELEVATIONSA5 NEIGHBOR ELEVATIONSA6 RENDERING VIEWSS1 ROOF FRAMING PLANT24 ENERGY CALCULATIONS PROJECT LOCATION 1206 Lincoln Avenue Item No. 8d Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for first and second-story addition to an existing two-story house Applicant and Designer: Jack Backus APN: 026-084-130 Property Owner: Miki and Spencer Behr Lot Area: 6,250 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 . Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached one car garage is located on the second lot from the corner on Lincoln Avenue. The surrounding properties are one and two-story single-family houses. The existing house contains 2,746 square feet (SF) (0.44 Floor Area Ratio, FAR) of Floor Area and has three bedrooms. The house contains a split-level floor plan with one bedroom on the first-floor, one bedroom on the mezzanine floor (located above the garage) and one bedroom on the second-floor. The applicant proposes to expand the kitchen/dining room and a bedroom on the first-floor (252 SF), and add a new bedroom and expand the master bedroom and bath on the second -floor (543 SF). The existing house has a non-conforming side setback (3’-5”) on the left side and the first-floor extension would be pushed back by 0’-7” to meet the required 4’-0” side setback requirement. All other setbacks comply. Two new dormers are added on the front of the house to provide light and air to the second flo or. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 3,069 SF (0.49 FAR) where 3,100 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 31 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and the proposed Lot Coverage of the house is 1,750 SF (28%) where 2,500 SF (40%) is the maximum allowed as per code. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms would increase from three (3) to four (4) bedrooms, (four bedrooms, one living room, and one family room). For four (4) bedrooms, two parking spaces are required on site, one of which must be covered. The existing one-car garage has clear interior dimensions of 11’-9½” x 20’- 1½” and would be retained (9’-0” x 8’-0” is required for existing one car garage). One uncovered space 9’-0”x18’- 9 ¾” is provided in the driveway where 9’-0” x 18’-0” is allowed as per code. 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 for an addition to an existing second story of a single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Item No. 8d Action Item Design Review 1206 Lincoln Avenue 2 1206 Lincoln Avenue Lot Size: 6,250 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 17’-8 ½” No change 15’-0” (or block average) (2nd flr): 22’-1 5/8” 22’-1 5/8” 20'-0" (or block average) Side (left): (right): 3’-5” (non-conforming) 8’-0 ½” 4’-0” 8’-0 ½” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 68’- 1 ½” 75’- 1” 63’- 0 ½” 61’- 7 ½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,498 SF 23.9 % 1,750 SF 28.0 % 2,500 SF1 40% FAR: 2,746 SF 0.43 FAR 3,069 SF 0.49 FAR 3,100 SF 2 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-9 ½ ”X20’-1 ½”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X18’-9 ¾ ”) No change 1 covered (9’x18’ for existing garage) 1 uncovered (9'x18' for existing space) Height: 24’-9 ½” 29’-4 ¼” 30'-0" DH Envelope: Doesn’t comply towards the left complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5000 SF) = 2,500 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5000 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,100 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions. The applicant applied for Tree Removal Permit to remove the two protected redwood trees on March 23, 2018, which was approved by the Parks Dept. on April 10, 2018 (Permit attached for reference). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on February 12, 2018, the Commission raised concerns regarding the scale and massing of the house. Commissioners noted that the second-floor roof seemed massive and the elevations seemed busy. They also stated that the windows of the two new dormers seemed out of scale and should be revisited. Overall, the Commission believed that the project could benefit from the assistance of a design review consultant and voted to bring it back to the Planning Commission for action after having it reviewed by a design review consultant. (See attached February12, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). The design review consultant of the project, Jerry Winges, of Winges Architects provided his feedback of the proposal on May 25, 2018 (attached). The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped June 26, 2018. The plans are revised to change the massing of the elements associated with the second-floor. The new plans show an attic space on the right side (148 SF) and a 5 ½” bump out at the master bath wall (5.40 SF). The applicant also changed the roof style at multiple places and used a combin ation of hip and flat roofs. The dormer windows in the front are revised to be proportionate with the windows on the first-floor. The area of the attic is included in the FAR as it is more than five (5) feet high and is accessible through a door. Other changes to the plan include increasing the maximum height to 29’-4 ¼” from 28’-9 ¼”. The FAR is increased by 154 SF and the lot coverage is revised to exclude the area of the garage (386.9 SF) that was incorrectly added at the last time. There were no other changes to the plans. Design Review 1206 Lincoln Avenue 3 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 component s. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed new house retains the existing character of the neighborhood by maintaining the similar style of the house. The newly added design elements such as dormers add to the character of the home. The appearance of mass on the upper story is reduced by using flat and hip roofs. The existing trellis and planters on the first-floor will be retained which will soften the appearance and add to the aesthetic appeal of the home . The materials that are used in this construction such as painted wood siding, wood clad windows with true divided lights and asphalt shingle roofing are of high quality and detailed. For these reasons, 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 supportin g 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 April 26, 2018, sheets A0.1 through L1.1; 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 the conditions of the Engineering Division's October 27, 2017 memos, the Fire Division’s November 11, 2017 memos, the Building Division's January 2, 2018 and October 30, 2017 memos, the Parks Division's November 2, 2017 memo, and the Stormwater Division's November 7, 2017 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shal l be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. 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 listin g all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Design Review 1206 Lincoln Avenue 4 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; 8. 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; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordi nance 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; 10. 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 NO TED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Div ision before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. 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 profess ional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 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 t he approved Planning and Building plans. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Jack Backus, applicant and designer Miki and Spencer Behr, property owner Attachments: Design Review Study Meeting Minutes, February 12, 2018 Design Review Consultant’s Evaluation, May 25, 2018 Letter from the neighbor, received February 12, 2018 Tree Removal Permit, Issued April 4, 2018 expires October 25, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 12, 2018 b.1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jack Backos Architects, applicant and designer; Miki and Spencer Behr, property owners) (65 noticed) staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1206 Lincoln Ave - Staff Report 1206 Lincoln Ave - Attachments 1206 Lincoln Ave - Plans - 02.12.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the site. Chair Gum spoke to the neighbor on the right. Commissioner Comaroto recused herself from the discussion as she owns property within 500-feet of the property; she left the dais and the chambers. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Are their limitations to the trellis in the rear as far as being close to the property line? (Backos: The trellis is being removed.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jack Backos represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Windows above the garage and dormer windows are odd in scale. >Will rear lawn go fence to fence or will there be planters there? (Backos: No changes are to be made.) >There were a series of additions to the house before? (Backos: Yes.) >The existing east elevation is a simple single plane, the addition builds on that making very large flat plane, suggest more articulation instead of one big mass like a bellyband. (Backos: difficult because bathrooms are on that side but will look into it.) Doesn't need to be windows, can be a trim detail or look at the roof. (Backos: Side that faces neighbor and Redwood trees, it's difficult to see that elevation.) Can be convinced of that - not to do anything. >Slender trim works on a small cottage but does not fit as well as the building grows. Suggests widening the trim to relate to the massing. (Backos: the volumes of the house create interest. Would change the overall aesthetic of the house. Feels it is successful as designed.) >Front elevation - two things that strike me with two dormers windows seem smaller than other windows . Should match sizing and muntin pattern to bring it together more. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 February 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >There are some scale issues going on with the plan. Several very large planes. The roof seems very huge. >The left elevation is confusing where the roof slopes come together. And west elevation proposed needs to be simplified - it's a lot of gables. >Is a difficult project to start from; the existing massing is a bit odd. Is a traditional split -level that wants to appear like a bungalow. Biggest concern is with the east elevation; is there something that can provide relief with this sheer plane. >Will help to have all the windows detailed on the rendering. >Good candidate for a design reviewer. The house looks like it's maxed out but proposed FAR shows that it is not so there should be some ways to move around. > Trellis over front entry, would like it to be addressed. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the project to a Design Reviewer. Discussion of Motion: >Doesn't understand the trellis over the front entry on the three-dimensional drawing; look at this element more closely. >What is proposed serves to make the home look taller. The added roofline and the space above the garage are the most troubling. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly8 - Recused:Comaroto1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/2/2018 Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. From: Rick Caro III 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. 4)Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: January 2, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). 4. The project shall comply with the City’s NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. 5. Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 6. All water lines 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 builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 7. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 8. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 9. 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%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click “construction bmp plan sheet” Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 10/27/17 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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: Scope of addition/renovation exceeds 750 square feet. Per Burlingame Municipal Code - Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence: 1. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. 2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly – A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 4. Fire flow shall meet requirements of California Fire Code Appendix B. Contact Burlingame Engineering Department for fire flow information. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 11/11/17 - 650-558-7617 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division. (558 -7330) Landscape to remain Appropriate amount of trees exist on site. Reviewed By: BD Date: 11.2.17 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-084-130 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story house. 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 further needed 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. 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: November 7, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application 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 proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a for a first and second story addition to a single family at 1206 Lincoln Avenue, zoned R-1, Miki and Spencer Behr, property owners, APN: 026-084-130; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 9, 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 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 is 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 9th day of July 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 1206 Lincoln Avenue Effective July 20, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 26, 2018, sheets A0.1 through L1.1; 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 the conditions of the Engineering Division's October 27, 2017 memos, the Fire Division’s November 11, 2017 memos, the Building Division's January 2, 2018 and October 30, 2017 memos, the Parks Division's November 2, 2017 memo, and the Stormwater Division's November 7, 2017 memo shall be met; 5. 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; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that 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; 8. 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; 9. 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; 10. 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: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting 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 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; 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. 1206 Lincoln Avenue, R-1 PROJECT LOCATION 834 Crossway Road Item No. 8e Regular Action Items Item No. 8e Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 834 Crossway Road Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant and Architect: John Nguyen, Dulon Inc. APN: 029-021-310 Property Owner: Diane McGlown Lot Area: 6,737 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. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot bordering an R-2 zone at the left side and rear of the property. 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 3,603 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,656 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 77 SF covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one 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) and one uncovered parking 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 requesting th e following applications: Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)). 834 Crossway Road Lot Area: 6,737 SF Plans date stamped: June 14 and July 3, 2018 ORIGINAL 03/14/18 Plans REVISED 06/14/18 & 07/03/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-0” 20’-0” 18’-7” (to porch) 20’-1” 18’-7” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setback (left): (right): 4’-9” 9’-6” 4’-0” 9’-6” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 68’-2” 68’-2” 67’-0” 67’-0” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,217 SF 32.9% 2,355 SF 35% 2,695 SF 40% FAR: 3,313 SF 0.49 FAR 3,603 SF 0.53 FAR 3,656 SF 1 0.54 FAR Design Review 834 Crossway Road 2 ORIGINAL 03/14/18 Plans REVISED 06/14/18 & 07/03/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED # of bedrooms: 5 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’ x 20’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 26’-0” no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 6,737) + 1,100 + 400 SF = 3,656 SF (0.54) FAR Accessory Structure ORIGINAL 03/14/18 Plans REVISED 06/14/18 and 07/03/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED Setback: Side: Rear: From house: 1’-2” (right), 14’-6” (left) 23’-11” 27’-4” no change no change 24’-6” C.S. 25.26.073(b)(4) exempts accessory structures located in the rear 30% of a lot Accessory Structure Size: 452 SF no change 600 SF Building Length: 21’-3” no change Special Permit required if structure exceeds 28’-0” in length Plate Height: 8’-0” no change CUP required for plate height greater than 9’-0” above grade Building Height: 14’-2” 15’-0” 15’-0” above grade if plate height does not exceed 9’-0” Windows in Accessory Structure: no windows window above garage door (proposed 10’-6” from property line) windows within 10' of property line or more than 10’ above grade require a Conditional Use Permit2 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. The revised changes on the plans date stamped July 3, 2018 do not impact the building footprint, setbacks, or building envelope; the changes made were only to archi tectural details. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 9, 2018, the Commission had several comments for the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below is a summary of the Commission’s main concerns from the Design Review Study meeting: Front Elevation o Hard to know where the front is; o Re-work the entire elevation and give it more presence in relationship to the street. Design Review 834 Crossway Road 3 Front entry and porch o Not noticeable; consider enlarging and bring forth up the driveway since there is a 200 SF FAR exemption for front porches; o Side facing door may present privacy issue for neighbor, worth revisiting. Right Side Elevation – blank wall (interior stairs on other side) o Consider breaking that sill line to add another window; don’t leave blank. Corner Boards o Proposed corner boards do not match with the traditional styling; consider mitered corners or similar to what is proposed with the garage corners. Landscaping o Too much concrete hardscape surrounding detached garage; break it up with pavers or change of material to soften the hardscaping in that area. Miscellaneous o Add detailing (e.g. knee braces or corbel in the corn ers and at the ridges); o Flat elevations (i.e. define transition between top and bottom floor); o Long and narrow lot presents physical constraints requiring more creativity; o Utilize leftover FAR and FAR exemptions to rework design . The applicant had submitted revised plans date stamped June 14, 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. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated June 8, 2018, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that moving the porch, increasing the roof pitch, and “added featured windows and added design consistency” have improved the project. Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer supports approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Action Hearing: At the first Action Hearing on June 25, 2018, the Planning Commission continued to have some concerns that they wanted to be addressed on the plans . The commission voted to continue the project to allow the items to be addressed (see attached June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below were the Commissions’ main concerns and the applicant’s response s: Front Elevation – consider supporting the awning roof with knee braces instead of being cantilevered o wood corbels have been added to support the awning roof; Windows – drawn differently on front elevation and other elevations o this has been corrected; Note on plans that windows must be simulated true divided lites o this has been noted on the plans; Left Elevation – consider adding window/s for laundry area o a window has been added; Design Review 834 Crossway Road 4 Show wood railing for front and rear steps o railings are now shown on plans; and Siding – clarify type of siding and provide photographs and/or sample o 6” horizontal lap siding is proposed and the applicant has provided example photogr aphs. 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 nei ghborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a combination of hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad windows, and wood trim) is compatible with 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained w ithin 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 pu blic 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 3, 2018, sheets G001, A100 through A203, and L101; 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 sh all 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 approva l is required; the Design Review 834 Crossway Road 5 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 Dem olition 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 PROCES S 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, sh all 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 be en built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. John Nguyen, Dulon Inc., applicant and designer Diane McGlown, property owner Attachments: June 25, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 8, 2018 April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Applicant Letter of Explanation Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 29, 2018 Aerial Photo 1ST FLOOR44' - 6"T.O. GRADE42' - 10 11/16"AVE. T.O. CURB41' - 0 1/16"1ST FL TOP PLATE52' - 6"2ND FLOOR53' - 6"2ND FL TOP PLATE61' - 6"AVE. LEFT+40.99'30' - 0"AVE. RIGHT+39.155PROPERTY LINE @ FRONT8' - 0"5' - 6"8' - 0"PROPERTY LINE12' - 0"30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT12' - 0"45°PROPERTY LINE@ REART.O. ROOF RIDGE67' - 0 3/8"7' - 6"STANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFPAINTED GLV. METALGUTTER, TYP.PAINTED 2x8 WDFASCIA BDPAINTED 3-1/2"WD TRIM, TYP.STAINED 8x8 WD POST6" PAINTED LAP SIDINGPAINTED 9 1/4" WD TRIMALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS W/ SIMULATEDTRUE DIVIDED LITESWHERE INDICATED, TYP.4 5 °DOWN SPOUT26' - 0"36" x 60"DOUBLEHUNGEGRESSWINDOWL36" x 60"DOUBLE HUNGEGRESS WINDOWLLLLL102STANDINGSEAM METALROOFWD. CORBEL @ EA.SIDE, STAIN TO MATCHWD. POST @ PORCHSTANDING SEAMMETAL ROOFSTAINED WD RAILING W/2x2 WD BALUSTERS1ST FLOOR44' - 6"T.O. GRADE42' - 10 11/16"AVE. T.O. CURB41' - 0 1/16"1ST FL TOP PLATE52' - 6"2ND FLOOR53' - 6"2ND FL TOP PLATE61' - 6"30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITT.O. ROOF RIDGE67' - 0 3/8"8' - 0"5' - 6"8' - 0"ALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS W/SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITESWHERE INDICATED, TYP.STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFPAINTED GLV. METAL GUTTER, TYP.DOWNSPOUT26' - 0"CHIMNEY CAP & FLUEEXTENSIONSTONE VENEERAROUND CHIMNEYLLLLTTTMMMLLLLNNSTAINED 8x8 WD. POSTDOWNSPOUTWD. CORBEL @ EA. SIDE, STAIN TOMATCH WD. POST @ PORCH6" PAINTED LAP SIDINGPAINTED 2x8 WD FASCIA BDSTAINED WD RAILING W/ 2x2 WDBALUSTERSOPENING NO.WIDTHHEIGHTQUANTITYOPENINGAREAWALL LEVELTOTALWALL AREAFIRE SEPARATIONDISTANCEDEGREE OFPROTECTIONALLOWABLEWALL OPENINGL115 SFSECOND134 SF≥ 30'PROTECTEDNO LIMITLL1023' - 0"5' - 0"115 SFSECOND131 SF≥ 30'NO LIMIT3' - 0"5' - 0"230 SFFIRST120 SF≥ 30'NO LIMIT3' - 0"5' - 0"121 SFFIRST139 SF≥ 30'NO LIMIT3' - 0"7' - 0"TOTAL FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENING:81 SFTOTAL SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENING:30 SFPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:NO LIMITS (OK)PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:NO LIMITS (OK)FRONT ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGSPROTECTEDPROTECTEDPROTECTEDL230 SFFIRST139 SF≥ 30'NO LIMIT3' - 0"5' - 0"PROTECTEDTOTAL FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENING:135.5 SFTOTAL SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENING:48.75 SFPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:135.5 / 547 = 24.8% (OK)PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:48.75 / 379 = 12.9% (OK)OPENING NO.WIDTHHEIGHTQUANTITYOPENINGAREAWALL LEVELTOTALWALL AREAFIRE SEPARATIONDISTANCEDEGREE OFPROTECTIONALLOWABLEWALL OPENINGL115 SFSECOND155 SF9' - 5"PROTECTED25%LTN3' - 0"5' - 0"115 SFSECOND153 SF25%3' - 0"5' - 0"318.75 SFSECOND71 SF45%2' - 6"2' - 6"28 SFFISRT149 SF25%2' - 0"2' - 0"PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGSPROTECTEDPROTECTEDPROTECTED9' - 4"12' - 1"9' - 11"L33' - 0"5' - 0"45 SFFIRST135 SF9' - 5"PROTECTEDM32' - 6"5' - 0"37.5 SFFIRST130 SF12' - 1"PROTECTEDL33' - 0"5' - 0"45 SFFIRST133 SF9' - 4"PROTECTED25%45%25%PROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGEAs indicated7/2/2018 11:21:09 PM2017.101805/09/2018JNJNA201MCGLOWN RESIDENCE834 CROSSWAY ROADFRONT & RIGHTELEVATIONSSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW 01/10/20182 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 06/13/2018SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION 1ST FLOOR44' - 6"T.O. GRADE42' - 10 11/16"AVE. T.O. CURB41' - 0 1/16"1ST FL TOP PLATE52' - 6"2ND FLOOR53' - 6"2ND FL TOP PLATE61' - 6"T.O. ROOF RIDGE67' - 0 3/8"30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT8' - 0"5' - 6"8' - 0"`DOWNSPOUTPAINTED GLV MTL GUTTER,TYP.DOWN SPOUT26' - 0"ALUMINUM CLAD SLIDING DOORW/ GLAZING & SIMULATED TRUEDIVIDED LITESWOOD DECKSTAINED WD RAILING W/ 2x2WD BALUSTERSTTLL110LVVTTCHIMNEY CAP & FLUEEXTENSIONUUVVWD. CORBEL @ EA. SIDE, STAINTO MATCH WD. POST @ PORCHTSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFALUMINUM CLAD WINDOWS W/SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITESWHERE INDICATED, TYP.STANDING SEAM MTL ROOF6" PAINTED LAP SIDING1ST FLOOR44' - 6"T.O. GRADE42' - 10 11/16"AVE. T.O. CURB41' - 0 1/16"1ST FL TOP PLATE52' - 6"2ND FLOOR53' - 6"2ND FL TOP PLATE61' - 6"30' - 0"PROPERTY LINE @ FRONTPROPERTY LINE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITAVE. LEFT+40.99'45°8' - 0"8' - 0"5' - 6"PROPERTY LINE@ REART.O. ROOF RIDGE67' - 0 3/8"PAINTED 3-1/2" WDTRIM, TYP.6" PAINTED LAPSIDINGSTONE VENEER AT CHIMNEYSTANDING SEAM METAL ROOFPAINTED GLV METAL GUTTER, TYP.DOWNSPOUT26' - 0"36" x 60"DOUBLEHUNGEGRESSWINDOWLLCHIMNEY CAP & FLUE EXTENSIONMIN2' - 0"DDD1089' - 6"AVE. RIGHT+39.414' - 0"4 5 °TOTAL FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENING:30 SFTOTAL SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENING:75 SFPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:NO LIMITS (OK)PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:NO LIMITS (OK)OPENING NO.WIDTHHEIGHTQUANTITYOPENINGAREAWALL LEVELTOTALWALL AREAFIRE SEPARATIONDISTANCEDEGREE OFPROTECTIONALLOWABLEWALL OPENINGL230 SFSECOND155 SF≥ 30'PROTECTEDNO LIMITD1083' - 0"5' - 0"354 SFFIRST99 SF≥ 30'NO LIMIT3' - 0"6' - 0"121 SFFIRST89 SF≥ 30'NO LIMIT3' - 0"7' - 0"REAR ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGSPROTECTEDPROTECTEDTOTAL FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENING:199 SFTOTAL SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENING:70 SFPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:199 / 817 = 24.3% (OK)PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR WALL OPENINGS:70 / 446 =15.7% (OK)OPENING NO.WIDTHHEIGHTQUANTITYOPENINGAREAWALL LEVELTOTALWALL AREAFIRE SEPARATIONDISTANCEDEGREE OFPROTECTIONALLOWABLEWALL OPENINGT225 SFSECOND196 SF8' - 0"PROTECTED25%ULV2' - 6"2' -6"220 SFSECOND126 SF8' - 7"25%2' - 6"4' - 0"345 SFFIRST240 SF4' - 0"15%3' - 0"5' - 0"235 SFFIRST240 SF4' - 0"15%2' - 6"3' - 6"PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENINGSPROTECTEDPROTECTEDPROTECTED101184 SFFIRST162 SF13' - 6"PROTECTED45%12' - 0"7' - 0"V235 SFFIRST175 SF8' - 0"25%2' - 6"3' - 6"PROTECTEDT225 SFSECOND124 SF4' - 0"PROTECTED15%2' - 6"2' -6"PROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGEAs indicated7/2/2018 11:21:10 PM2017.101805/09/2018JNJNA202MCGLOWN RESIDENCE834 CROSSWAY ROADBACK & LEFT ELEVATIONREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW 01/10/20182 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 06/13/2018SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 00 GARAGE39' - 2"00 GARAGE TOP PLATE47' - 2"PROPERTY LINE6" PAINTED LAP SIDINGPAINTED ALUMINUMGARAGE DOORPAINTED 2x8 FASCIA BD.PAINTED GLV MTL GUTTER, TYP.00 GARAGE RIDGE54' - 2 7/32"00 GARAGE39' - 2"00 GARAGE TOP PLATE47' - 2"6" PAINTED LAP SIDINGSOLID CORE WOODDOOR00 GARAGE RIDGE54' - 2 7/32"00 GARAGE39' - 2"00 GARAGE TOP PLATE47' - 2"PROPERTY LINE7' - 0"8' - 0"15' - 0"00 GARAGE RIDGE54' - 2 7/32"00 GARAGE39' - 2"00 GARAGE TOP PLATE47' - 2"15' - 0"7' - 0"8' - 0"00 GARAGE RIDGE54' - 2 7/32"1/2" SHIMWOOD TRIMHEADERPAPER FLASHING - LAP BLDG.PAPER OVERLAP BLDG. PAPER OVER CONT.GALV. MTL. DRIP EDGEGAL. MTL. CASING AND SEALANTSEALANT BTWN WINDOW & TRIMPAPER FLASHING - LAP OVERBLDG. PAPER(2) 2x SILLWOOD TRIM6" PAINTED LAP SIDING OVERBLDG. PAPER OVER 1/2" PLY.WD. OVER 2x6 WOOD STUDS@ 16" O.C. OVER 5/8" GYP.BD. W/ MIN. R-19 BATTINSULATIONROUGH WINDOW OPENING3-1/2" WD. TRIM ALL AROUNDPROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGEAs indicated7/2/2018 11:21:11 PM2017.101805/09/2018JNJNA203MCGLOWN RESIDENCE834 CROSSWAY ROADGARAGE ELEVATIONS &WINDOW DETAILREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW 01/10/20182 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 06/13/2018SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1GARAGE FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4GARAGE LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3GARAGE REAR ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2GARAGE RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"5EXTERIOR WINDOW HEAD / SILL @ WOOD SIDING DN1. THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FEATURES SHOWNHEREIN ARE TAKEN FROM THE BEST AVAILBLE DATA AND SOURCES. HOWEVER THEINFORMATION IS NOT GUARANTEED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM THE ACCURACYTHEREOF.2. PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS & EXISTING BUILDINGS SHOWN ON THIS SITE PLAN AREBASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY OTHERS.3. CONFIRM EXACT LOCATION OF EASEMENTS.4. SITE LAYOUT, DIMENSIONS & UTILITIES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY.5. EXTERIOR LANDINGS SHALL BE 36" MIN. LENGTH WITH MAX CROSS SLOPE OF 2%.(CBC SEC. 1993.3.1)6. FOR ROOF INFORMATION SEE SHEET A1037. ALL EXISTING FENCING TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW WOOD FENCE.8. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, L101, FOR ALL HARDSCAPE INFORMATION, PLANT MATERIALSPECS AND LAYOUT.9. WATER RUN-OFF FROM REMODEL/ADDITION SHALL BE RETAINED ON SITE.10. ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUCH AS PLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN INSTREET, WORK IN SIDEWALK AREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, ISREQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.11. CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.12. THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS TOPREVENT STORM WATER POLLUTION.13. REPLACE DAMAGED AND DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER AND/OR SIDEWALK FRONTINGSITE.14. SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THEINSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO. 1710. THE SEWERBACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDINGPERMIT.15. THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PERORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THEBUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER. A SEWER LATERAL TEST ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISREQUIRED.16. NO EXISTING TREE OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAYBE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE PARKSDIVISION.17. IF PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRES SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT, POLICY FOR EXPANDINGWIDTH OF PLANTER STRIP NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED.18. (N) AC EQUIPMENT TO BE LOCATED ON REAR 75% OF LOT. EQUPMENT SHALL NOTEXCEED MAX OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL OF 60 DBA DAYTIME (7AM TO 10PM) OR 50 DBANIGHTTIME (10PM TO 7AM) AS MEASURED FROM PROPERTY LINE PER BURLINGAMEMUNICIPAL ZONING CODE 25.58.050.19. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHALLBE ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION20. REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, PLUG ALLEXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, ALLWATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TOBE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHERUNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY.SITE PLAN NOTES:ADDRESSSETBACKAVERAGE FRONT SETBACKS834 CROSSWAY ROAD 18.60'830 CROSSWAY ROAD 20.15'826 CROSSWAY ROAD 19.82'822 CROSSWAY ROAD 19.62'AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK: 18.62'814 CROSSWAY ROAD 14.91'A2021C R O S SW A Y R O A D A2012A2011A2022A2031A2034A2033A2032REAR SETBACK15' - 0" MINSETBACK4'-0"SIDE834 CROSSWAY ROADNEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEAPN: 029-021-310LOT AREA: 6,737 SFLEFT SIDE4'-0"PROPOSEDS E T B A C K 4 '-0 " S I D E 1ST AND 2ND FROM FRONT SETBACK20' - 1"1ST AND 2ND FROM REAR SETBACK67' - 0" PROPOSEDOUTLINE OFPROPOSED2ND FLOOR(E) NEIGHBORBUILDING OUTLINE(E) NEIGHBORBUILDING OUTLINE(E) NEIGHBORBUILDING OUTLINE(E) NEIGHBORBUILDING OUTLINE(E) NEIGHBORBUILDING OUTLINE(E) NEIGHBORBUILDING OUTLINE± 3' - 9"± 4' - 0"± 3' - 6"(E ) C O N CR E T E S I DE W A L K NEW DETACHEDGARAGE40.4937.7840.5941.49FF= 45.0041.4941.224 9 .9 9 S 3 9 °2 4 '3 9 "E 164.40S48°48'16"W155.09N54°22'46"E35.92 S 54°51'5 4"E 41.6537.5042.8541.3742.4442.8540.6540.0738.6339.4639.5337.351 ' - 2 "29' - 1"(N) CONCRETEDRIVEWAYCOVEREDPORCH(E) SHED TOBE DEMO'ED(E) 16" PALM TOBE REMOVED(E) 48" TREETO BE REMAIN(E) 4" MAPLETREE TO BEREMOVED(E) 4" TREE TOBE REMOVED(E) 4" TREE TOBE REMOVEDOUTLINE OFPROPOSED1ST FLOORREAR 30% 48' - 11"SEWER LINENEW CLEANOUTWATERPG&EOVERHEADTO PORCH19' - 0"9 ' - 6 ' M I N (N) 9' WIDE x 6' HIGHSWING GATE(N) 6'-0" WOOD FENCEPROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGEAs indicated7/2/2018 11:21:04 PM2017.101805/09/2018PDJNA100MCGLOWN RESIDENCE834 CROSSWAY ROADPROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1(N) SITE PLANREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW 01/10/20182 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 06/13/2018N DNUPDNUPSTAINED FINISH CONCRETELANDSCAPE LEGENDLAWN, ±1020 SF BOLERO BLEND, DELTA BLUEGASS CO.BARK MULCH - BROWN / MOCHATREE, SEE PLANT SCHEDULESHRUBS, SEE PLANT SCHEDULESMALL PLANT, SEE SCHEDULEFLOWERS, SEE SCHEDULE(E ) C O N CR E T E S I D E W A L KT5 T5S6S6S6S6S6S6AT211111S2S2S2T4S4S4S4S4S4S4S4S4S4S4S4T1T3T3T311111111111S4S4S4S4S4S4S5S5S5S5S5S522222222B11T3S4S4S4S4S422222221T3T3T3111111S3S3S3S3S3S3AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBB(E) 16" PALM TOBE REMOVED(E) 4" MAPLETREE TO BEREMOVED(E) 4" TREE TOBE REMOVED(E) 30" TREETO BE REMAIN(E) 48" TREETO BE REMAIN(N) 6'-0" WOOD FENCEB(N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY(N) 9' WIDE x 6' HIGHSWING GATE(N) CONCRETE PATH(N) TWO CARGARAGE(N) RESIDENCE(N) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY APPROACH(N) LAWN(N) LAWN(N) BARK MULCHC R O S S W A Y R O A D S3S3S3S3S3S1S1S1S1S1 S1 S1S2S2S2S2111111BBBBBBBBS2S2S2S2T1S3S2S2BBBBBBBS3S3S3S3S31. PROTECT ALL TREES TO REMAIN.2. NO TREE OVER 48" IN DIAMETER MAY BE REMOVED W/O PERMIT FROMPARKS DIVISION.LANDSCAPE NOTES:IRRIGATED AREAS:TURF IRRIGATED AREA = 1,153 SFNON-TURF IRRIGAGTED AREA = 1,607 SF(N) CONTROL VALVES, TYP.(N) PVC IRRIGATION LINE, TYP.(N) SPRINKLER HEAD, TYP.(N) IRRIGATION DRIP LINE, TYP.(N) TWO CARGARAGE(N) RESIDENCEC R O S SW A Y R O A D PROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGE 1/8" = 1'-0"7/2/2018 11:23:42 PM2017.101805/09/2018JNJNL101MCGLOWN RESIDENCE834 CROSSWAY ROADLANDSCAPE &IRRIGATION PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLANPLANTING SCHEDULENO SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME QUANTITY SIZE DESCRIPTION1 CAREX RADIATA EASTERN STAR SEDGE 37 1 GAL2 LIRIOPE MUSCARI 'VARIEGATA' LILYTURF 15 1 GALA IBERIS SEMPERVIRENS EVERGREEN CANDYTUFT 11 1 GALB AUBRIETA AUBRIETA 28S1 HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS 'ANNABELLE' ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA 7 5 GALS2 HYDRANGEA MACROPHYLLA 'BALIMER' ENDLESS SUMMER HYDRANGEA 13 5 GALS3 PENNISETUM SETACEUM ROSE FOUNTAIN GRASS 17 5 GALS4 PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS 'SCHIPKAENSIS' SCHIPKA CHERRY LAUREL 22 15 GALS5 SPIRAEA X VANHOUTTEI VANHOUTTEI SPIREA 6 15 GALS6 SYRINGA VULGARIS 'SENSATION' SENSATION LILAC 11 15 GALT1 (E) TREE TO REMAIN N/A 2 N/A (E) TREE TO REMAINT2 CORNUS FLORIDA RUBA PINK FLOWERING DOGWOOD 1 15 GALT3 BETULA PENDULA SILVER BIRCH 7 24" BOXT4 MAGNOLIA ACUMINATA YELLOW BIRD MAGNOLIA 1 15 GALT5 GINKO BILOBA MAIDENHAIR TREE 2 24" BOXREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW 01/10/20182 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 06/13/2018SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED IRRIGATION PLAN 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FACE OF WALL U.O.N.2. G.C. TO COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO SELECTION /INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS.3. ROOFING SYSTEM SHALL BEAR U.L. LISTING AS A CLASS "A" SYSTEM. ALLMANUFACTURED MATERIALS USED SHALL BEAR THE APPROPRIATE U.L. LABEL.4. ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE2016 CRC § TABLE R302.1(1) OR 2016 CBC TABLE 705.2GENERAL NOTES:OUTLINE OF 2ND FLOORSTANDING SEAMINGMETAL ROOF, TYP.PAINTED METALGUTTER, TYP.DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"4" / 12"9" / 12"9" / 12"CHIMNEY CAP & FLUEDS9" / 12"DSDS7" / 12"7" / 12"PROJECT NUMBERDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYSCALENOTE -THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAWINGSPROVIDED IS TO SHOW GENERALARRANGEMENT OF REMODELING &ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTINGSTRUCTURE. ASSUMPTIONS HAVEBEEN MADE REGARDING THESTRUCTURAL & ARCHITECTURALCONDITIONS OF EXISTING WALLS,FLOORS & CEILINGS WHICH WILL NEEDTO BE VERIFIED & PERHAPS MODIFIEDAS THESE CONDITIONS ARE REVEALEDDURING CONSTRUCTION. THEDESIGNER DOES NOT ASSUME ANYRESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXISTINGSTRUCTURE.DULON, INC.510.552.2641INFO@DULONDESIGNS.COMBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010DESIGN REVIEW PACKAGEAs indicated7/2/2018 11:21:07 PM2017.101805/09/2018PDJNA103MCGLOWN RESIDENCE834 CROSSWAY ROADROOF PLANSREVISION DESCRIPTION DATE1 PLAN CHECK REVIEW 01/10/20182 DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL 06/13/2018SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1GARAGE ROOF PLANNN PROJECT LOCATION 1117 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 8f Regular Action Item 1 City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Address: 1117 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront. Applicant: Ron Stanford APN: 029-211-260 Architect: Jeffrey J. Burriss Property Owner: Olive Grove Capital LP Lot Area: 15,400 SF General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Zoning: BAC Current Use: Vacant, previously Aida Opera Candy (retail use) Proposed Use: Tuna Kahuna (ready-to-eat food shop, considered a retail use) Allowable Use: Ready-to-eat food shop (considered a retail use) is permitted. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Summary: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing vacant retail space, previously Aida Opera Candy, with a new ready-to-eat food shop, Tuna Kahuna, at 1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC. Tuna Kahuna meets the operating criteria of a ready-to-eat food shop, which is considered to be a general retail use and therefore allowed as a permitted use in the BAC District (no Conditional Use Permit required for this type of food establishment). Operating criteria include 1) sells food that is ready to eat at the time of sale, 2) does not contain a full commercial kitchen, 3) contains no more than 150 SF of seating area, and 4) contains no more than 1,000 SF of gross floor area. This application includes changes to the exterior facade of the commercial storefront along Burlingame Avenue, which measures 14’-1” in width. At the front of the building, the existing recessed angled entry, canvas awning, and frameless glass storefront system will be removed. The existing stucco and horizontal decorative bands will remain. There are no changes proposed at the rear of the building. The proposed front elevation consists of a new aluminum and glass storefront system, including a smaller recessed entry, aluminum and glass entry door, a horizontal bifold window and frosted glass below. Above the new storefront, the applicant is proposing a new wood and steel horizontal awning. Retail uses located on the first floor within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan shall be exempt from providing off-street parking (CS 25.70.090 (a)). With this application, there is no intensification of uses proposed on the ground level. Therefore, no additional off-street parking is required for the proposed retail business. The following application is required: Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront in the BAC Zoning District (CS 25.32.045). Staff comments: None. Item No. 8f Regular Action Item Commercial Design Review 1117 Burlingame Avenue 2 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on June 11, 2018, the Commission discussed the proposed project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all of the required information has been submitted (see the attached June 11, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached applicant’s response letter, dated June 19, 2018, and revised plans, date stamped June 20, 2018, for a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the new aluminum framed storefront window and door system, rectangular recessed entry, stucco siding, and wood and steel horizontal awning is consistent with the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; that the proposed storefront promotes pedestrian activity by allowing views directly into the business; that the proposed storefront improvements are consistent with the architectural style and mass and bulk with other structures by using stucco siding and an aluminum and glass storefront system on the ground floor, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. 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 20, 2018, sheets 0.1, 0.2, A2.1 and A4.1; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; Commercial Design Review 1117 Burlingame Avenue 3 3. 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); 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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; 6. 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8. 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: 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and 10. 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. Ron Stanford, applicant Attachments: June 11, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated June 19, 2018 Email Submitted by Jennifer Pfaff, dated June 9, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 29, 2018 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, June 11, 2018 c.1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront (Ron Stanford, applicant; Jeffrey J. Burris, architect; Olive Group Capital, LP, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the subject property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff.. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ron Stanford represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the sidewalk tables be removable? (Meeker: would need to be removable.) >Feels like a walk-up window is being installed. If the furniture is present with the window open, could be a nice feel. >The awning that is proposed seems to fit with the proposed use, but doesn't want the design to make the space feel like a fast-foot restaurant. (Stanford: could detail the rendering better.) >Asked about the frosted glass on the lower portion of the facade. (Stanford: wanted to maintain an all-glass appearance, but provide frosted glass on the lower portion to maintain privacy.) Perhaps could install Ipe wood as an alternative. (Stanford: could look at this, but cost is a concern.) >Requested information regarding the Ipe materials used on the canopy; not a roof. (Stanford: is provided only for shade, not protection from rain, though this could be a good idea.) >Why is there a screen on the window? (Stanford: thought it is required by the Health Department; if can get away without it, will remove it.) >Having trouble with some of the proportions. Requested clarification of dimensions. Seems like that dimension to the bottom of the window is too short to work with tables. >The front elevation gives the impression that there are three horizontal slats. Gives a false impression. Raising the base may help with the proportions of the windows. >Having difficulty understanding the vertical wood elements on eave. Need to clarify dimensions and provide greater detailing. >Not clear how the proposed canopy relates to the adjacent awning. >Requested clarification regarding how foot is prepared. (Stanford: there is an array of foods that are available, then the customer picks the elements and builds a bowl.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the design; wouldn't want the design to address the canvas awning to the left. Would prefer removal of the screen, if possible. >Seems like there is a lot going on in such a small facade. Need to simplify a bit. >Worried that the thin slats on top of the c -channel will look cheap. the entire assembly of the canopy seems insubstantial, unresolved. Doesn't like the flourish on top of the canopy. >Agrees that there are things to like about the application; the use could be a good use to add to Burlingame Avenue. Detailing needs to be refined. Facade could be detailed better by working the Ipe wood into more of the facade detailing. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2018 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGO RICAL EXEMPTION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an application has been made for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront at 1117 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned BAC, Olive Grove Capital LP, P.O. Box 117309, Burlingame, Ca, 94010-4105, property owner, APN: 029-211-260; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 9, 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 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Commercial Design Review was 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. 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 9th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review 1117 Burlingame Avenue Effective July 19, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 20, 2018, sheets 0.1, 0.2, A2.1 and A4.1; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. 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); 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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; 6. 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8. 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: 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Commercial Design Review 1117 Burlingame Avenue Effective July 19, 2018 Page 2 10. 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. EXTERIORPASSAGESUBJECT UNIT 975 SF,(+57 SF)EXTERIOR PASSAGEADA STANDARDS, ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM DETAILS0.2:PROJECT DATA, RENDERING, VICINITY MAP, NOTES,18 JUNE, 2018 -Plumbing, Electrical and MechanicalUnder Seperate Permit.DESCRIPTION OF WORK:ZONINGLEGAL DESCRIPTION:1117 BURLINGAME AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010TENANT IMPROVEMENT: Change ofUse From: Retail Candy Shop to'Ready to Eat Food Establishment'(N) Storefront Window Wall and EntryDoor, Remove Non-Structural Returnto Expand Entry, (N) Awning, signage,and Exterior Lighting, Non-StructuralPartitions and Counter. (N) Fixturesand Finishes.AREA OF WORK: 810 SF.VALUATION: $60,000ZONING: BAC, (Burlingame Ave.Commercial).Proposed Use: RTEFE, (READY TOEAT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT)OCCUPANCY/EGRESS CALCS,(refer proposed plan at 2.1)Occupant Load: 26 p,'A2' < 75p qualifies for 'B' Occupancy.Load Calc: (Per CBC Table §1004.1(2016):STANDING: 71 +28 SF=99SF @ 5 SF/P=19.8PSEATING: 66 SF @15 SF/P = 4.4KITCHEN: 146 + 115 SF=261 SF @ 200SF/P = 1.3PSTORAGE: 96 SF @ 300 SF/P = .3P1 exit req.: 36" MinimumTENANT IMPROVEMENTSingle Story Wood and Stucco, NoBasement, Not sprinkleredAPN:029-211-260BUILDING OWNER:Triterra Realty Group, Inc.1105 Burlingame Ave.Burlingame, CA 94010AVICINITY MAPD PROJECT DATACONTRACTOR:CONCORE DEVELOPMENT:P.O. BOX 890CONCORD CA. 94522Lic. #868715925.435.5877SATELLITE-PLOT PLANSHEET INDEXATYPE : V-BECONTACTS:PROJECT ADDRESS:CNOTES:GENERAL NOTES:1HEALTH DEPT. NOTESEXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS,0.1:2.1FTENANT:TUNA KAHUNA:1117 BURLINGAME AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010Contact: 615.878.4668DESIGN-DOCUMENT PREPARATIONStep 3 Studio3201 3rd st. San Francisco CA 94124415.519.069820.1REVISIONS:AS NOTED2018-0416 APRIL 2018RSFILE #:JOB #:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:step3studio.com1667JERROLDAVE.SANFRANCISCO,CA94124T415.519.06981117 BURLINGAME AVEPLANNINGREVIEW 03-26-18 d1step.3.studioEXISTING FRONT VIEW CITY NOTESRENDERING OF PROPOSED3EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS4.104-16-18 d405-10-18 D51)"Construction Hours"Weekdays: 8:00 a.m-7:00 pmSundays and Hollidays: No Work AllowedConstruction hours in the City Public right of way are limited to weekdaysand non-city Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.2) "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope ofthe building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvalsincluding review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, projectdesigner, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work notgraphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work.3) Anyone doing business in the City of Burlingame must have a current City of Burlingame business license.4)A set of plans stamped Approved by San Mateo County Environmental HealthDepartment must be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of the building permit.5)A grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works.6)PER SB407: For any property built prior to January 1, 1994: All Non Compliant Plumbing Fixtures to be replaced with Water Conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements.8)No Public Money of any kind will be used to construct this project.7)A Supplemental Building Permit Application shall be submitted at thetime plans are submitted to Building Division.9) Plans submitted to building division shall include a complete underground plumbing plan with details for any required grease traps or city required back flow prevention devices.06-18-18 PR 101E-102E-1037'-6"3'-0"3'-0"6'-8 1/2"3'-0"6'-8 1/2"TAG #DOORREMARKS101TYPEMAT.M.HDWR.FRAMEMATERIALSIZE: W. x H. x TH.METAL W/GLASS PANELAUTOMATICM.36" x 86" x 1 3/4"WOOD, (INT.)LEVERDOOR SCHEDULE36" x 90" x 1 3/4"E-102E-103NO LATCH,TEMPEREDGLASS PER CODE,OPEN IN POWEROFF MODE)M.36" x 86" x 1 3/4"WOOD, (EXT.)LEVER11174'-0"9'-7 1/4"2'-0"Property Line/ Building EnvelopeAwning ProjectionN LIGHTINGSECTION AT RECESS(N) STEEL 'C'SECTION AWNINGFRAME(N) SIDEWALK TABLE:30" Hgt. 24" X 24", (underseparate permit)(N) 2" X 6"WOOD SLATS7'-2"5 5/8"0'10'HORIZONTAL IPESLATS, (SLANTED 1 X 3)OVER CLEAR GLASS(N) ALUMINUMFRAME GARAGESTYLE BIFOLDWINDOW, (To remainfully open, (7'-2" clear)or closed4'-9 3/8"2'-6" 9'-7 1/4"PROPOSED ELEVATION, (closed)0'10'(N) ALUMINUM ANDGLASS STOREFRONTWINDOW WALL &ENTRY DOOR7'-6"(N) PAINT O/ E STUCCOFINISH, (FARROW & BALL#275, 'PURBECK STONE")(N) STEEL 'C' SECTIONAWNING FRAMEAwning Clearance Adjacent Yogurt Shop 13'-4 1/2"(N) LIGHTINGAdjacent Wood & Stucco Building at P.L.3'-6 1/8"11'-2 1/8"7'-8"(increased opening width)(N) 2" X 2" WOOD SLATS(N) 4" X 1" INTERLACEDWOOD SLATS(E) TILE ROOF TOREMAIN(N) ALUMINUMFRAME GARAGESTYLE BIFOLDWINDOWHATCH INDICATESFROSTED GLASS(N) SIDEWALK TABLE 24"X 24", (under separate permit)(N)AUTOMATICDOOROPENER,REFERSTNDRS ATI/02(N) AUTOMATICRECESSEDALUMINUM ANDGLASS ENTRYDOOR, (OPEN INPWR. OFF MODE)(E) BAS RELIEFPATTERN TO REMAINSUPPORT CABLESUPPORTCABLE8'-10"3'-0 5/8"2'-8 3/4" 8'-10 5/8"EXISTING ELEVATIONAwning Clearance ADJACENT TENANT 11'-11 1/4"Adjacent Building at P.L.9'-8 7/8"AIDA OPERA CANDIESGARTAIDA OPERA CANDIESE CANVAS AWNINGE RECESSEDSTOREFRONT,(FRAMELESSGLASS)0'10'9'-7 1/4"PROPOSED ELEVATION, (open)0'10'(N) ALUMINUM ANDGLASS STOREFRONTWINDOW WALL &ENTRY DOOR7'-6"(N) PAINT O/ E STUCCOFINISH, (FARROW & BALL#275, 'PURBECK STONE")(N) STEEL 'C' SECTIONAWNING FRAMEAwning Clearance Adjacent Yogurt Shop 13'-4 1/2"(N) LIGHTINGAdjacent Wood & Stucco Building at P.L.3'-6 1/8"11'-2 1/8"7'-8"(increased opening width)(E) TILE ROOF TOREMAIN(N) ALUMINUM FRAMEGARAGE STYLE BIFOLDWINDOWHORIZONTAL IPESLATS, (SLANTED 1 X 3)OVER CLEAR GLASS(N) SIDEWALK TABLE 24"X 24", (under separate permit)(N)AUTOMATICDOOROPENER,REFERSTNDRS ATI/02(N) AUTOMATICRECESSEDALUMINUMAND GLASSENTRY DOOR,(OPEN IN PWR.OFF MODE)(E) BAS RELIEFPATTERN TO REMAINSUPPORTCABLE8'-10"3'-0 5/8"2'-6"(N) 2" X 6" WOOD SLATSW/ LET IT GLAZINGSUPPORTCABLE(N) UP-DOWN LIGHTING2'-10 1/4"EXTENTS OFAWNINGABOVE14'-1"12'-10"2'-6"UP 11'-6"15' WIDE PAVED WALKproperty line 75.00'50.00'2'-0"(max.)13'-2"1:20 (max)BENCHGARAGESTYLEBI-FOLDWINDOW66 SF. @15SF/P: 4.4PTRASHRECYCLEAREABENEATHCOUNTER60" x 60" FLAT101BAAUTOMATICDOOR OPENER,34" HGT. COUNTERWATERBURLINGAME AVENUE3'-6 1/2"7'-11 1/2"34" HGT. TBL.A4.1REVISIONS:AS NOTED2018-04RSFILE #:JOB #:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:step3studio.com1667JERROLDAVE. SANFRANCISCO,CA 94107T 415.519.06981117 BURLINGAME AVEEXISTINGANDPROPOSEDELEVATIONS03-26-18 d104-16-18 d416 JUNE 201805-22-18 d506-18-18 PR RESTROOM102 51 sf30" x 48" clearspace60" DIAM.A0.24123Wall Mounted S.S. Shelf abv.90" Triple Sink w/ 12" min.backsplash 30" x 48" clear spaceEXISTING-DEMOLITION PLAN(E) WALLS TO REMAIN24 X 72WH60" DIAM.13'-0 1/2"7'-8 1/2"8'-4 1/2"75'-4 1/2"EXTENTS OF (E)AWNINGABOVE4'-0"14'-1" 12'-10" 4'-91 2"FD10.29'-10"STORAGE10496 sfKITCHEN-PREP103121 sfAWNINGPROJECTIONproperty line 75.00'50.00'(918 SF)5 3/4"13'-2" 5'-3 1/2"E ENTRYALCOVE: (68 SF)8'-5 3/4"6'-8 7 /8"2'-2"7'-9"1'-1 3/8"2'-2"2'-1"24 X 72(E) WALLS TO DEMOLISHED, (Non Structural)(E)HARDWOOD FLOORING, (TOBE REMOVED TO (E)PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR)50.00'Adjacent Building at Property Line0'10'scale: 1/4" = 1'46'-3"Adjacent Tenant: Yogurt Shop(E)DEMISING WALLAdjacent Building at Property Lineproperty line(E) FRAMELESSSTOREFRONT GLAZINGAND DOOR TO BEREMOVEDBURLINGAME AVENUE 15' WIDE PAVED WALK WATERRESTROOM102 51 sfPrep Sink(E)Floor SinkCOMMON EXTERIOR PASSAGE TO STREET 34" HGT. P.O.S.PROPOSED PLAN (975 SF)0'10'scale: 1/4" = 1'(N) WALLS, ( NON STRUCTURAL, UNRATED)(E) WALLS24 X 72WH34" HEIGHT WORK SURFACEOVER REFRIGERATION34" HEIGHT COUNTER5'-6"60" DIAM.5'-0"10'-6"13'-0 1/2"75'-4 1/2"2'-0" 2'-6"4'-4 1/2"2'-0"23'-3 1/2"8"EXTENTS OFAWNINGABOVE4'-0"14'-1" 12'-10"2'-6"3'-8"FDUP FRIDGE/FREEZER A0.211'-6"3'-8"28 SF. @ 5 SF/P: 5.6P146 SF (GROSS) @200 SF/P: .73PSTORAGE10497 sfKITCHEN-PREP103115 sfKITCHEN-SERVICE102146 sfAWNINGPROJECTION15' WIDE PAVED WALK property line Adjacent Building at Property LineAdjacent Tenant: Yogurt Shop(E)DEMISING WALL75.00'50.00' property line 50.00'3'-0"2'-0"(max.)13'-2"1:20 (max)BENCH19" (min.)GARAGESTYLEBI-FOLDWINDOW66 SF. @15SF/P: 4.4P42" HEIGHT COUNTER71 SF. @ 5 SF/P:14.2 PP.O.T. 44" min., (to be kept clear)115 SF (GROSS)@ 200 SF/P: .6P97 SF(GROSS) @300 SF/P:.3PTRASHRECYCLEAREABENEATHCOUNTER30" x 48"CLCLCL30" x 48"34" CNTR.1'-10"30'-8"60" x 60" FLAT101BA E-102E-103'ORDER-QUEING AREA'LOCATION OFREQUIREDUNISEX R.R.SIGNAGE,REFER 0.260" x 60" FLAT4'-1"4'-5 1/2"AUTOMATICDOOR OPENER,REFERSTANDARDS ATI/0.2P.O.T.34" HGT. COUNTER(N) ELECTRICALPANEL IN (E)PANELLOCATIONP G & E 30" x 48"7'-8 1/2"8'-4 1/2"WATERAdjacent Building BURLINGAME AVENUE9'-11"7'-2"property lineNO LATCHAT ENTRYDOOR, (openin power offmode)3'-6 1/2"3'-0"28'-1"16'-1"12'-0"7'-11 1/2"34" HGT. TBL.4" DW TO S.S.CLEAN OUT6'-11 1/2"A2.1REVISIONS:AS NOTED2018-0416 APRIL 2018RSFILE #:JOB #:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:step3studio.com1667JERROLDAVE. SANFRANCISCO,CA 94107T 415.519.06981117 BURLINGAME AVEEXISTINGANDPROPOSEDPLANS03-26-18 d104-16-18 d405-22-18 D5 1 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for a Full Service Food Establishment Address: 310 Lorton Avenue Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment in an existing commercial building. Applicant: Jason Cooper, Wine Revelry, LLC APN: 029-153-160 Architect: Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates Lot Area: 13,503 SF Property Owners: Green Banker LLC Zoning: BAC General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Previous Use: Baby Couture, retail clothing business (currently vacant) Proposed Use: Velvet 48, full service food establishment Allowable Use: Full service food establishment with approval of a Conditional Use Permit Summary: The applicant, Jason Cooper, representing Velvet 48, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a full service food establishment at 310 Lorton Avenue, zoned BAC. Planning staff would not that in 2012 the restriction on the number of full service food establishments was removed allowing new full service food establishments in any location within the BAC District upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The subject tenant space is currently vacant, but was most recently occupied by Baby Couture, a retail clothing business. The food establishment will contain customer seating, a kitchen, storage areas and restrooms. The proposed food establishment will have approximately 500 SF of customer seating (331 SF indoor + 169 SF in outdoor patio area on private property at rear of building). The business will also contain a small retail area where customers will be able to purchase wine bottles. The proposed tenant space measures approximately 1,722 SF in area and is accessed through a long hallway with an entry on Lorton Avenue (see Proposed Floor Plan, sheet A1.1). The proposed restaurant will be open for lunch and dinner. In his letters date stamped June 19, 2018, the applicant notes that “Velvet 48 will provide an upscale, comfortable environment for the Burlingame community and friends to get together to share a glass of wine or a beer. Appetizers and small plates will be available for consumption on the premise.” Please refer to the applicant’s letters for a sample list of food items to be served. A full service food establishment is defined as a business which sells food prepared indoors on the premise with a full menu and provides an indoor seating area of at least two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Operating criteria to define a full service food establishment include most or all of the following: served by waiters to seated customers and where payment is made at the end of the meal; presence of a full commercial kitchen and commercial dishwasher; and food is served on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins. Planning staff determined that the proposed food establishment meets most of these operating criteria. In 2006, a similar business (Nectar Wine Lounge at 270 Lorton Avenue, no longer in existence) was approved by the Planning Commission as a full service food establishment. Please refer to the applicant’s letters, date stamped June 19, 2018, for a description of the proposed business operation. Item No. 8g Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit 310 Lorton Avenue 2 The proposed food establishment would be open Monday through Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday through Sunday from 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. When the business opens, there will be three to four full-time employees on weekdays and four to five full-time employees on weekends. In five years, the number of employees is expected to increase to four to five full-time on weekdays and weekends. At opening, the applicant projects up to 69 customers per day on weekdays and 74 customers per day on weekends. The applicant does not expect the number of customers to increase in the future. A maximum of 49 people are expected on site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers. The following application is required: Conditional Use Permit for a new full service food service food establishment in an existing commercial building located within the BAC Zoning District (CS 25.32.070 (b) (2)). With this application, there are no changes proposed to the front façade of the existing building, therefore this project is not subject to Commercial Design Review. Retail, personal service and food establishment uses located on the first floor within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan are exempt from vehicle parking requirements as set forth in code section 25.70.090 (a). The subject property is located within the parking sector; therefore no additional off-street parking is required for the proposed food establishment. 310 Lorton Avenue Lot Area: 13,503 SF Plans date stamped: June 19, 2018 Existing Proposed Allowed/Required Use: retail use (current vacant, formerly Baby Couture) full service food establishment (Velvet 48) Conditional Use Permit required for a food establishment Seating Area: n/a 500 SF (331 SF indoor + 169 SF in outdoor patio) at least 250 SF Off-Street Parking: 0 spaces 0 spaces no additional parking required for food establishment if located on first floor within parking sector Staff Comments: The Planning Division would note that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as a Regular Action Item since there is no restriction on the number of full service food establishments and there no changes proposed to the building façade. However, if the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; Conditional Use Permit 310 Lorton Avenue 3 (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: The proposed full service food establishment use will not be detrimental to the city’s objective of promoting pedestrian oriented retail activity in this commercial area and therefore will be in compliance with the general plan for the area; and since the business shall be required to comply with all the city regulations including providing trash receptacles and litter maintenance in the surrounding area, signage, meeting building code requirements, and adhering to County health requirements, the operation will be compatible with the public’s health and safety as well as with the character of the commercial area. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 19, 2018, sheets CS1.0 and A1.0 through A1.2; 2. that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 500 SF of on-site customer seating area (331 SF indoor + 169 SF in an outdoor patio area on private property at the rear of the building), may not change its food establishment classification; 3. that the 500 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space or covered patio area only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; and Conditional Use Permit 310 Lorton Avenue 4 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2016 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Jason Cooper, Velvet 48, applicant Michael Nilmeyer, Nilmeyer/Nilmeyer Associates, architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letters of Explanation, date stamped June 19, 2018 Conditional Use Permit Application Commercial Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 29, 2018 Area Map Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an application has been made for a Conditional Use Permit for a full service food establishment in an existing commercial building at 310 Lorton Avenue, Zoned BAC, Green Banker LLC, 398 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Ca, 94010, property owner, APN: 029-153-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 9, 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 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit was approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use 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 9th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 310 Lorton Avenue Effective July 19, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 19, 2018, sheets CS1.0 and A1.0 through A1.2; 2. that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 500 SF of on-site customer seating area (331 SF indoor + 169 SF in an outdoor patio area on private property at the rear of the building), may not change its food establishment classification; 3. that the 500 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space or covered patio area only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 4. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 5. that the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 6. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2016 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN (ENLARGED) WALL LEGEND Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T 650.347.0650 F Michael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARB michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA catherine@nilmeyer.com VELVET 48 A Fine Wine Establishment Mr. Jason Revel Cooper 310 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 1 ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN LEGEND 310 Lorton Base Plan 1806 5/28/18 1/8" = 1'-0" MN A 1.2 6/19/18 MN 310 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN LORTON AVENUE WEST ELEVATION LORTON AVENUE 310 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT / FURNITURE PLAN LORTON AVENUE Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T 650.347.0650 F Michael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARB michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA catherine@nilmeyer.com VELVET 48 A Fine Wine Establishment Mr. Jason Revel Cooper 310 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN WEST ELEVATION 310 Lorton Base Plan 1806 5/28/18 1/8" = 1'-0" MN A 1.1 FURNITURE PLAN 5/31/18 MN 2 6/19/18 MN 310 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA EXISTING FLOOR PLAN LORTON AVENUE DEMOLITION PLAN LORTON AVENUE SYMBOLS LEGEND NOTES Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T 650.347.0650 F Michael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARB michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA catherine@nilmeyer.com VELVET 48 A Fine Wine Establishment Mr. Jason Revel Cooper 310 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN DEMOLITION PLAN 310 Lorton Base Plan 1806 5/28/18 1/8" = 1'-0" MN A 1.0 LEGEND 5/31/18 MN 2 6/19/18 MN 310 Lorton Avenue Burlingame, CA Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ACTION ITEM (Public Hearing): Public Hearing to Consider Amendment to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 – Development Standards MEETING DATE: July 9, 2018 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8h ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The minor amendments to the Land-Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, with corresponding amendments to the City’s Municipal Code, do not result in changes in land uses that were not considered as a part of the implementation program contained in the adopted plan. The potential environmental impacts of implementation of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan were reviewed in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-555-P. The document determined that with mitigation, no adverse environmental impacts would result from implementation of the policies and programs outlined in the Plan. On October 4, 2010, by Resolution No. 73-2010, the City Council approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-555-P and adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. BACKGROUND The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in October, 2010. Since that time, the plan has been amended three times: In 2011 the Land Use Chapter was amended to incorporate changes to the Development Standards Table (Table 3-2) in conjunction with amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Downtown Specific Plan and adoption of the 2009-2014 Housing Element. The changes included added setback requirements along El Camino Real, changes to the North California Drive Commercial Area setback and height regulations, and the addition of hotels as a permitted use in the Donnelly Avenue area. In 2014 the Land Use Chapter was amended to allow office uses on the ground floor of commercial areas within the Donnelly Avenue District, change the land use designation of properties at 305-371 Primrose Road and 1401-1403 Chapin Avenue from Burlingame Avenue Commercial to Donnelly Avenue Commercial, and change the land use designation of properties at 401-411 Primrose Road from Burlingame Avenue Commercial to Chapin Avenue Commercial. The changes were reflected in the Planning Area Land Uses Table (Table 3-1) and on the Planning Areas Exhibit (Figure 3-2). In 2016 the Land Use Chapter was amended to incorporate revised side setback requirements for properties in mixed use zones adjacent to existing residential uses. The previous development standards allowed zero side setbacks in the Bayswater Mixed Use, California Drive/Auto Row, Howard Mixed Use, and Myrtle Mixed Use areas; the amendments changed the regulations to require R-3 mutlifamily residential side setback standards for property lines(s) abutting an existing residential use. July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8h Downtown Specific Plan Amendment 2 In recent months staff has been made aware of discrepancies in standards for the California Drive Commercial Area shown in the most recent (2016) version of the Development Standards Table (Table 3-2), compared to earlier versions of the table and to the standards in the applicable zoning regulations. DISCUSSION The 2011 amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan was part of a larger effort that included adoption of zoning regulations to implement the Downtown Specific Plan, as well as implementation of aspects of the 2009-2014 Housing Element (September 8, 2011 City Council staff report and resolution attached). Among the amendments were changes to the North California Drive Commercial Area setback and height regulations, as shown on the Development Standards Table (Table 3-2). The changes included: Front setback of 0 feet (i.e., no setback required), compared to minimum 10 feet previously; Minimum rear setback of 10 feet, compared to minimum 20 feet previously; Maximum building height of 35 feet (55 feet with a Conditional Use Permit), compared to maximum 35 feet (45 feet with a Conditional Use Permit) previously. With the amendments, Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan was revised from the previous version to reflect the changes in North California Drive Commercial Area setback and height regulations. Concurrently, Section 25.31.060 (North California Drive Commercial District) was added to the Burlingame Municipal Code with the same setback and building height standards. Also among the amendments in 2011 were new setback requirements for frontages along El Camino Real that had not been in the original plan when it was adopted in 2010. A new line was added to Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan indicating minimum setbacks of 10 feet in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, Howard Avenue Mixed Use District and Chapin Avenue Area, and minimum setbacks of 20 feet in the R-3 District, R-4 Base District, and Bayswater Mixed Use Area. These standards were reflected in the respective Municipal Code sections for each district. The North California Drive Commercial Area regulations and El Camino Real setbacks as amended in 2011 remained in Table 3-2 in the Downtown Specific Plan up until the more recent amendment in 2016. At that time, unrelated to the mixed use side setback revisions adopted in 2016, there appears to have been a series of errors in the update of Table 3-2 to both the North California Drive Commercial District and El Camino Real standards. The North California Drive Commercial District regulations reverted back to the earlier height and setback regulations that had been in place prior to the 2011 amendment, and the El Camino Real setbacks were replaced with dash marks except for the Bayswater Mixed Use Area (refer to Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 version 2016). Meanwhile, the regulations in the respective zoning chapters remained the same as those adopted in 2011. Given that the 2016 amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan did not involve the North California Drive Commercial District, and given that the 2016 amendments did not propose or consider omitting the required El Camino Real setbacks, staff believes the discrepancies on Table 3-2 were unintentional “scrivener’s” errors. July 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8h Downtown Specific Plan Amendment 3 To correct the error, the Downtown Specific Plan would need to be amended with revisions to Table 3 -2 to reflect the North California Drive Commercial District regulations and El Camino Real setbacks as adopted in 2011, together with the mixed use district side setback requirements adopted in 2016 (Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 corrected). This item is intended only to make corrections to Table 3-2 to properly reflect the North California Drive Commercial District and El Camino Real regulations as adopted in 2011. It is not intended to propose or consider changes to other regulations in the plan or zoning standards. Should there be interest in changes other than those outlined in this report and resolution, those may be proposed as part of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance Updates set forth in “Envision Burlingame.” R-3 and R-4 District Rear Setbacks. Unrelated to the corrections described above, this amendment provides the opportunity to provide further clarification to the R-3 and R-4 District rear setback standards shown in Table 3-2. Since the Downtown Specific Plan was adopted, Table 3-2 has shown a minimum rear setback of 20 feet in the R-3, R-4 Base, and R-4 Incentive Districts. However, the zoning standards in Municipal Code Sections 25.28 (R-3 District Regulations) and 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations) specify minimum rear setbacks of 15 feet for one and two stories, and 20 feet for more than two stories. This standard applies to R-3 and R-4 properties both within and outside of the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. The revised Table 3-2 includes footnoted clarifications to the R-3, R-4 Base, and R-4 Incentive Districts columns so that the rear setback standards in the specific plan are consistent with those in the respective zoning standards. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should review the draft amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should take action on a recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director Exhibits: Exhibit 1: Table 3-2 version 2016 Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 corrected September 8, 2011 City Council Staff Report City Council Resolution 66-2011, dated September 19, 2011 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Published June 28, 2018 TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standard Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Howard Avenue Mixed Use Chapin Avenue Area Donnelly Avenue Area California Drive/ Auto Row North California Drive Commercial District Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area Anita Road Area R-3 District R-4 Base District R-4 Incentive District Bayswater Mixed Use Area Front Setback - Minimum - - - - - 10 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet Front Build-To Line 0 feet 0 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 feet - - - - - - - Side Setback - Minimum - 0 feet3 - - 0 feet3 - 0 feet3 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 0 feet3 Rear Setback - Minimum - - - - - 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet El Camino Real Setback - Minimum - - - - - - - - - - - 20 feet Height Limit - Maximum 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (75 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) Ground Floor Ceiling Height (Floor-to-Ceiling) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet - - - - - - - Lot Coverage - Maximum - - - - - 75% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% Landscape Coverage - Minimum - - - - - 10% of front setback 10% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 10% of front setback Architectural Encroachments Certain encroachments (e.g. architectural features promoting good urban design) that extend beyond setbacks and maximum height limits may be permit ted through a special Planning Commission design review process. Maximum Average Residential Unit Size1 N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A 1,250 sq ft - 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft - = no requirement 1 Average Maximum Unit Size is defined as the maximum value allowed when averaging the square footage areas of all residential units in a project. The intention is to provide a diverse range of unit types and sizes within a project by balancing larger units with smaller units. 2 3 feet for lots 42 feet wide or less; 4 feet for lots wider than 42 feet but less than 51 feet; 5 feet for lots wider than 51 feet but less than 54 feet; 6 feet for lots wider than 54 feet but less than 61 feet; 7 feet for lots 61 feet wide and over. Furthermore for all lots the side setback requirement shall be increased one foot for each floor above the first floor. 3 R-3 District side setback standards shall apply to property lines(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property. Exhibit 1: Table 3-2 version 2016 TABLE 3-2 – DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Development Standard Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Howard Avenue Mixed Use Chapin Avenue Area Donnelly Avenue Area California Drive/ Auto Row North California Drive Commercial District Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area Anita Road Area R-3 District R-4 Base District R-4 Incentive District Bayswater Mixed Use Area Front Setback - Minimum - - - - - 0 feet 10 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet Front Build-To Line 0 feet 0 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 – 10 feet 0 feet - - - - - - - Side Setback - Minimum - 0 feet3 - - 0 feet3 - 0 feet3 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 3-7 feet2 0 feet3 Rear Setback - Minimum - - - - - 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet 15-20 feet4 15-20 feet4 15-20 feet4 20 feet El Camino Real Setback - Minimum 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Height Limit - Maximum 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (45 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) 35 feet (75 feet w/ CUP) 55 feet 35 feet (55 feet w/ CUP) Ground Floor Ceiling Height (Floor-to-Ceiling) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet - - - - - - - Lot Coverage - Maximum - - - - - 75% 75% 50% 50% 50% 50% 75% Landscape Coverage - Minimum - - - - - 10% of front setback 10% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 60% of front setback 10% of front setback Architectural Encroachments Certain encroachments (e.g. architectural features promoting good urban design) that extend beyond setbacks and maximum heigh t limits may be permitted through a special Planning Commission design review process. Maximum Average Residential Unit Size1 N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A N/A 1,250 sq ft N/A 1,250 sq ft - 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft 1,250 sq ft - = no requirement 1 Average Maximum Unit Size is defined as the maximum value allowed when averaging the square footage areas of all residential units in a project. The intention is to provide a diverse range of unit types and sizes within a project by balancing larger units with smaller units. 2 3 feet for lots 42 feet wide or less; 4 feet for lots wider than 42 feet but less than 51 feet; 5 feet for lots wider than 51 feet but less than 54 feet; 6 feet for lots wider than 54 feet but less than 61 feet; 7 feet for lots 61 feet wide and over. Furthermore for all lots the side setback requirement shall be increased one foot for each floor above the first floor. 3 R-3 District side setback standards shall apply to property lines(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property. 4 15 feet for one and two stories, 20 feet for more than two stories . Exhibit 2: Table 3-2 corrected 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3 LAND USE OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, AND FINDING THAT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RELATED TO ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS WERE ASSESSED IN THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND-555-P) APPROVED AT ADOPTION OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, on October 4, 2010, the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan included unintentional scrivener's errors in the North California Drive Commercial District setback and height standards and El Camino Real setback standards; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan included rear setback standards for the R-3, R-4 Base and R-4 Incentive Districts that were not fully consistent with the corresponding standards in Burlingame Municipal Code Sections 25.28 (R-3 District Regulations) and 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations), respectively; and WHEREAS, Table 3-2 of the Downtown Specific Plan has been amended to address the unintentional scrivener's errors in the North California Drive Commercial District setback and height standards and El Camino Real setback standards, and inconsistencies in the R-3, R-4 Base and R-4 Incentive Districts, as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-555-P) was prepared and approved on October 4, 2010 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and it was determined that with the mitigation measures proposed and incorporated into the Standard Conditions of Approval for all projects included in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, there are no potential significant environmental impacts from adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the proposed amendments discussed herein and as shown on the attached Exhibit A are adequately evaluated pursuant to CEQA in Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted for the Plan, and that no further environmental analysis is required in advance of adoption of Title 21 ; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, after proceedings duly and regularly held and noticed as provided by law, did on July 9, 2018, consider the proposed amendments as described herein. NOW , THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt an the amendments to the Chapter 3 - Land Use of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan as described herein, and as shown on the Attached Exhibit A. 2 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 9th day of July, 2018, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” 1 CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU NPEN D A I L Y J O U R N A L C O R P O R A T I O N To the right is a copy of the notice you sent to us for publication in the BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER. Please read this notice carefully and call us with any corrections. The Proof of Publication will be filed with the County Clerk, if required, and mailed to you after the last date below. Publication date(s) for this notice is (are): Mailing Address : 915 E FIRST ST, LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 Telephone (800) 788-7840 / Fax (800) 464-2839 Visit us @ www.LegalAdstore.com PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF BURLINGAME/COMM. DEV. DEPT. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 HRG NOTICE OF HEARING PC 07.09.18 DSP Land Use Ch Table 3-2 Dev Standards 06/28/2018 Publication Total $39.60 $39.60 Notice Type: Ad Description COPY OF NOTICE 3148515 !A000004794500! The charge(s) for this order is as follows. An invoice will be sent after the last date of publication. If you prepaid this order in full, you will not receive an invoice. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLIN- GAME PLANNING COM- MISSION will hold a public hearing to consider amend- ments to the Land Use Chapter of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan to incorporate corrections to Table 3-2 –Development Standards. The Planning Commission will review the proposed amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan,and make a recommendation to the City Council. The hearing will be held on Monday,July 9,2018,at 7:00 p.m.in the City Hall Council Chambers,501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, California. The staff report for this item and copies of the proposed amendments may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Develop- ment Department,Planning Division,Burlingame City Hall,501 Primrose Road, Burlingame;and on the City's website at www.burlingame.org.For additional information please call the Planning Division at (650)558-7250. To be published Thursday, June 28,2018. 6/28/18 NPEN-3148515# EXAMINER -BOUTIQUE & VILLAGER PROJECT LOCATION 28 Bloomfield Road Item No. 9a Design Review Study Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 28 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: July 9, 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 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lo t 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 (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and Special Permit for Construction exceeding the limits of 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% FAR: 4,013 SF 0.51 FAR 4,020 SF 1 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- Design Review and Special Permit 28 Bloomfield Road 2 SETBACKS PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED 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)). Accessory Structure PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Setback: Side: Rear: From house: 1’-0” 1’-0” 42’-0” C.S. 25.26.073(b)(4) exempts accessory structures located in the rear 30% of a lot Accessory Structure Size: 427 SF 600 SF Building Length: 20’-8” Special Permit required if structure exceeds 28’-0” in length Plate Height: 8’-7” CUP required for plate height greater than 9’-0” above grade Building Height: 12’-8” above grade 15’-0” above grade if plate height does not exceed 9’-0” Windows in Accessory Structure: window on left side (proposed 10’-3” from property line) windows within 10' of property line or more than 10’ above grade require a Conditional Use Permit Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Design Review and 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 struc tural 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 an y 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer 28 Bloomfield LLC, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Letter of Explanation dated July 3, 2018 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 29, 2018 Aerial Photo 28 Bloomfield Road, R-1 PROJECT LOCATION 2516 Valdivia Way Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 2516 Valdivia Way Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for extension of an existing second-story deck at 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 Hillside Area Project Description: The existing two-story house with an attached two car garage is located in the Hillside Area Construction Region . It contains 3,789 square feet (SF) (0.32 Floor Area Ratio, FAR) of Floor Area and has four bedrooms. The applicant proposes to add an extension of 174 SF to an existing 253 SF second-story deck located towards the rear of the house. The deck would be 12’-8” high and would add additional 174 SF floor area to the house, where 3,963 SF (0.34 FAR) is the proposed and 4,796 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed floor area as per the code. The house would be 833 SF below the maximum allowed floor area and 1,884 SF below the maximum allowed lot coverage, where 4,620 SF is the maximum allowed lot coverage. All other applicable zoning requirements, such as setbacks comply. With the proposed project, the number of bedrooms would remain at four (4). In accordance with the Zoning Code, the project requires one covered (9’-0” x 18’-0” for existing), and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 10’- 0”). The existing house has a two-car attached garage with clear interior dimensions of 20’-4” x 27’-7”, which would be maintained 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 for an addition to an existing second story of a single-family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Hillside Construction Area Permit to add new floor area (CS 25.26.040) 2516 Valdivia Way Lot Size: 11, 500 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): No construction in front No construction in front 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 0.32FAR 3,963 SF 0.34FAR 4,796 SF 2 0.41 FAR 1 (0.40 X 11,550 SF) = 4620 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 11,550SF) + 1100 SF = 4,769 SF (0.41 FAR) Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 2516 Valdivia Way 2 2516 Valdivia Way Lot Size: 11,500 SF Plans date stamped: June 26, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 4 No change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’-4” X 27’-7”) 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 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions. 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 s tructural components. Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Stan Panko, applicant and designer Tom O’Brien, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 29, 2018 Aerial Photo 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 2516 Valdivia Way, Hillside Area and R-1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 2 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 521 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: 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 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. 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. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the architect, dated June 19, 2018 November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped June 19, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 13, 2017 c.521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property owner; Stewart Associates, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis was not in attendance at the study meeting but watched the video. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. She noted five letters received after the distribution of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. John Stewart, Stewart Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >With the stucco pattern under the eaves, what happens at the corner? (Stewart: It angles out 4-6 inches.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the addition of the porch. Much more inviting. >Nicely crafted project. Changes that were made are very good, especially the front porch. >Fits well into the neighborhood. The mediterranean style is consistent with several homes with the same character. Fits within the declining height envelope and the setbacks, and the plate height has been reduced. Interfaces well and respects its neighbors. >Appreciates that the plate height was reduced on the second floor. While there are some tall homes in the neighborhood, the majority are pretty diminutive and many single story with 8- or 9-foot plate heights . Does not think the higher first floor plate height will fit into the neighborhood. >Believes the reduction of the upper floor and the addition of the arches on the ground floor change the proportions significantly. It looks like a much smaller house than before. The proportions look good. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2018 November 13, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gum, Loftis, and Kelly4 - Nay:Sargent1 - Absent:Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto4 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 7/3/2018 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 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 9, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 9, 2018 FROM: Erika Lewit, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF REVISION REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 841 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED R-3. Summary: An application for Design Review, Setback Variances, and a Special Permit for an attached garage for first and second story additions to an existing single-family dwelling at 841 Rollins Road, zoned R-3, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 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 proposed full vinyl window (Milgard Tuscany series) does not have the detailing or the pronounced profile of windows that are generally approved in Burlingame; other options should be investigated. The applicant has revised the plans to show that there will be fiberglass clad wood windows throughout the proposed project. In a letter to the Planning Commission dated June 21, 2018, the applicant explains that the fiberglass clad windows will lend elegance to the approved design. A building permit has not yet been submitted or approved 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Attachments: Letter from the applicant, dated June 21, 2018 Originally Approved plans, date stamped May 18, 2018 Revised Plan Sheets A3 and A4