Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.06.25Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, June 25, 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: 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 Consideration of amendments to Chapter 25.70 (Off-Street Parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code to amend motel and hotel parking requirements. a. Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Staff Report Code Amendment to Chapter 25.70.034 - Attachments Attachments: 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/22/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2117 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variances for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1). (Lin and Sharon Li, applicants and property owners; Javier Medina, Mark Davis Design, architect) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 2117 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2117 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2117 Carmelita Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and Tentative Map for Lot Split for construction of a new, two -story duplex on each proposed new lot. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b). (1448 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; TRG Architects, architect) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Staff Report 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Attachments 715-717 & 719-721 Linden Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 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 a. 834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 834 Crossway Rd - Attachments 834 Crossway Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 705 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached garage . The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (705 Walnut Burlingame LLC, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 705 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 705 Walnut Ave - Attachments 705 Walnut Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/22/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1250 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Fence Exception to increase fence height limit to 8'-0" for a fence along the side and rear property line of an existing residential property at 1250 Jackling Drive. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e). (Greg and Lisa Ott, applicant and property owners; Alejandro Maldonado, designer ) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 1250 Jackling Dr - Staff Report 1250 Jackling Dr - Attachments 1250 Jackling Dr - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 1615 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, applicant and designer; Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin d. 1615 Ralston Ave - Staff Report 1615 Ralston Ave - Attachments 1615 Ralston Ave - Historic Resource Evalution 1615 Ralston Ave - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Robert and Germaine Alfaro Tr, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin e. 723-A Laurel Ave - Staff Report 723-A Laurel Ave - Attachments 723-A Laurel Ave - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination for a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (b). (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin f. 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Attachments 1500 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 105 El Camino Real - Historic Resource Evaluation 1500 Cypress 101-105 El Camino Real - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/22/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Proposed amendments to Chapter 25.59 (Accessory Dwelling Units ), Chapter 25.08 (Definitions), Chapter 25.26 (R-1 district regulations), Chapter 25.60 (Accessory Structures in R-1 and R-2 districts) and Chapter 25.70 (Off-street parking) of the Burlingame Municipal Code related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. g. ADU Staff Report - 6.25.18 ADU ord change 6.25.18- PC minutes 5.14 and Resolution ADU ord change REDLINES 6.25.18 ADU ord change CLEAN 6.25.18 ADU ord change Attachments 6.25.18 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1660 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. (Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions, applicant and designer; Amauri Campos Melo, property owner) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 1660 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 434 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. (J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Parshadi & Kaushal Shah, property owners) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 434 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 434 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 434 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting June 16, 2018 119 Loma Vista Drive - FYI for as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. a. 119 Loma Vista Dr - Memorandum 119 Loma Vista Dr - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/22/2018 June 25, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2721 Easton Drive - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. b. 2721 Easton Dr - Memorandum 2721 Easton Dr - plans - 06.25.18 Attachments: 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on June 25, 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 6, 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 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/22/2018 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 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT STUDY (Public Hearing): Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapter 25.70.034 to amend hotel and motel parking regulations. MEETING DATE: June 25, 2018 AGENDA ITEM: 6a ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission shall review the proposal for the amendment to the zoning code, consider all public testimony (both oral and written) and, following conclusion of the public hearing, provide comments. Any comments will be incorporated and the proposal will be brought to the Planning Commission for action in a public hearing. The action of the Planning Commission will be a recommendation to the City Council or alternatively, provide direction to staff regarding modifications to the ordinance prior to formulation of a recommendation to the City Council: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, AMENDING TITLE 25 – CHAPTER 25.70.034 TO AMEND HOTEL AND MOTEL PARKING REGULATIONS BACKGROUND In June 2017, the City Council’s Economic Development Subcommittee conducted a periodic check-in with the local hotel general managers. As part of the discussion, the managers encouraged the City to conduct a review of the parking requirements for hotels due to underutilization of t heir existing parking facilities. Data provided at that time, showed that some of the hotels had as much as 20% of on-site parking being unused on a regular basis and that in some instances, the percentage of unused parking spaces was greater. Managers cited three influencing factors: the popularity of ride-share services such as Lyft and Uber, the high use of hotel shuttles by guests, and the use of hotels in Burlingame as lodging for flight crews. Ride- share services and the availability of hotel shuttles are affordable alternatives to renting a car and given the close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and flight crews use hotel shuttles for transport to and from the hotels. On July 3, 2017, the City Council unanimously voted to direct staff and the Planning Commission proceed with a review and potential modification of parking requirements for hotel uses. Current zoning code regulation (Chapter 25.70.034) requires hotels and motels to provide one parking space for every one room. A survey of all the local hotels and motels (12 hotels/motels in total) was conducted in May 2018 to evaluate parking utilization for each respective hotel/motel. A copy of the survey is included in the attachments. The following section is an analysis and discussion of the survey findings. DISCUSSION Survey Findings: In May 2018, Planning staff conducted an online survey to gather hotel and motel information for parking and room occupancy. Of the twelve hotels and motels in Burlinga me, eight general managers responded to the survey (7 online, 1 by phone). The table below summarizes data collected from the survey. Some hotels provided the specific number of cars parked on a monthly and annual basis. For the remaining hotels, the daily average of unused spaces was calculated taking the Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations June 25, 2018 2 total annual parking revenue for 2017 and dividing it by the daily parking rate. The weekly average of hotel occupancy was directly provided by survey respondents. Table 1. Summary of Burlingame Hotel and Motel Parking and Occupancy in 2017 Hotel/Motel Operator Total Rooms Total Spaces Daily Average of Unused Spaces** Weekly Average of Hotel Occupancy Paid Parking Fees Park & Fly Bay Landing* 130 - - - - - Crowne Plaza 309 317 54% 80-90% Self-parking: $24/daily Valet: $26/daily Yes Doubletree 395 250 81% 91% Self-parking: $26/daily No valet Yes Embassy Suites 340 325 94% 90% Free to the public; Self-parking: $29/daily No Hampton Inn & Suites* 77 - - - - - Hilton Garden Inn 132 139 Does not track 80-85% Free Parking No Hilton SFO 400 400 Not provided on survey 92% Self-parking: $20/ daily Valet: $26/daily Yes Holiday Inn Express* 146 - - - - - Hyatt Regency 789 798 75% 83.8% - 85.6% Self-parking: $25/daily Yes Marriott 688 630 79-80% 87.4% Self-parking: $30/daily Valet: $35/daily No Red Roof Plus+* 213 - - - - - Vagabond Inn 90 78 Did not track in 2017 88.5% Free Parking with exception of park- and-fly Yes * These hotels did not participate in the survey. ** These figures represent hotel occupancy only; park-and-fly utilization is not included in these figures. Based on the data collected, there is a high underutilization of parking facilities at the respective hotels – ranging from 54% to 94% parking vacancy on a daily average. Findings from the survey also included the following:  100% of the hotels and motels surveyed provide complimentary airport shuttle service; and  the average hotel stay for flight crews is one to three days. Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations June 25, 2018 3 Comparison to Similar Cities: All the Burlingame hotels and motels are located at the Bayfront and are in close proximity to the San Francisco International Airport. The farthest distance between the airport and a hotel/motel in Burlingame is three miles and the closest distance is less than one mile. Ride-share and airport shuttle services as alternative transportation options to hotel and motel guests, in addition to flight crew occupancy (for one of the hotels surveyed, flight crews make up 25% of their overall hotel occupancy), are bolstered due to this unique circumstance. These factors in turn, reduce parking demand at hotels and motels. Table 2 summarizes the hotel and motel parking requirements for cities near the three major airports in the Bay Area: San Francisco International (SFO), Oakland International (OAK), and San José International (SJC). Table 2. Hotel and Motel Parking Requirements in Cities near Major Airports in the Bay Area Near San Francisco International Airport Burlingame 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room San Bruno 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for resident manager San Mateo 2 spaces for every 5 hotel/motel rooms South San Francisco 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 2 spaces adjacent to registration office; Specific parking requirements for airport hotels and motels (see attachments) Near Oakland International Airport Oakland Based on zoning area ranging from the following parking requirements:  no parking required;  1 space for 1 motel room, 1 space for each 2 hotel rooms; or  1 space for 1 motel room, 3 spaces for every 4 hotel rooms. Alameda 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for resident manager Hayward 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for each 2 employees San Leandro 1.1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space for every 50 SF of banquet seating area Near San José International Airport San Jose 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space per employee Cupertino 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 1 space per employee Milpitas 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room + 2 spaces per manager’s unit Santa Clara 1 space for every 1 hotel/motel room Amendments to Title 25 – Updates to Hotel and Motel Parking Regulations June 25, 2018 4 Potential Alternatives: Based on the information in this report and additional research into the basis for the development of parking regulations, the Commission may utilize one or more of the following to define an alternative to the current hotel and motel parking requirement in Burlingame:  Propose a decreased parking ratio that aligns with the data provided in this report;  Allow a Conditional Use Permit (as opposed to a Variance) to reduce the number of parking required for a particular hotel;  Impose no parking requirement, and instead allow hotels and motels to determine how much parking to provide to meet anticipated demand; or  Maintain the existing hotel and motel parking requirement. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission should review the summary in this report and the attachments, conduct a public hearing, and consider public input. At the end of the meeting, the Planning Commission should provide direction to staff on preferred approach to addressing hotel and motel parking requirements. Staff will return with proposed amendments, as directed, to be considered by the Planning Commission as a recommendation to the City Council. Prepared by: ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner Attachments:  Chapter 25.70.034  Ordinance 1586 § 49, (1998)  Ordinance 1863 § 12, (2011)  Survey Questions  Newspaper Notice  City of South San Francisco Airport-Oriented Hotels and Motels Parking Regulation Thank you for participating in our survey. Your feedback is important as it will provide the information needed for evaluation and potential modification of parking standards for hotel uses. For questions about the survey, please contact Associate Planner, 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi at ameliak@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7216. Welcome Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey General Information Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey Main Contact Person Hotel Name Address Email Address Phone Number 1. Hotel Contact Information* 2. Total number of hotel employees:* 3. Total number of hotel rooms:* 4. Total number of parking spaces on-site:* 1 Other (please specify) 5. Please select the alternate transportation options available at your hotel. Check all that apply.* Airport shuttle Shuttle service around town Rideshare (e.g. Uber, Lyft) Bikeshare (e.g. LimeBike) Carpool/Vanpool None of the above These questions relate to the types of parking and parking program/s available on-site at your hotel. Parking Types and Programs Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey 6. Total number of parking spaces designated for employees only:* 7. Total number of free parking spaces:* 8. Total number of paid parking spaces:* 9. Does your hotel offer valet parking?* Yes No 10. How many parking spaces are designated for valet parking? Skip this question if not applicable. 11. Does your hotel have a Park and Fly Program?* Yes No, but we are interested in having one. No, we are not interested in having one. 2 12. How many parking spaces are designated for Park and Fly? Skip this question if not applicable. It is important that we have supporting data to evaluate existing hotel parking trends. This data should include parking vacancy and parking occupancy for all parking types (employee parking, free parking, paid parking, valet parking, Park & Fly). If you are unable to provide this data or if the file size is too big to upload, please contact ameliak@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7216. Parking Trends Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey No file chosen 13. Please upload here parking data for the year 2017.* Choose File No file chosen 14. If available, please upload here parking data for 2016. Choose File Answers to these questions help to evaluate hotel parking trend/s in correlation to trends in hotel occupancy. Hotel Occupancy Burlingame Hotel Parking Survey 15. What was the weekly (weekday and weekend) hotel occupancy rate for the year of 2017?* 16. What was the weekly (weekday and weekend) hotel occupancy rate for the year 2016? No file chosen 17. Please upload here any available hotel occupancy data for the year 2017. Choose File No file chosen 18. Please upload here any available hotel occupancy data for the year 2016. Choose File 3 19. Does your hotel provide any special promotions for flight crews?* Yes No Other (please specify) 20. What is the average length of stay for flight crews?* 1-3 days 4-7 days 8-14 days more than 14 days 4 City of Burlingame One Year Extension Address: 2117 Carmelita Avenue Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variances for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicants and Property Owners: Lin and Sharon Li APN: 027-362-140 Designer: Javier Medina, Mark Davis Design Lot Area: 4,259 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. Summary of Request: The applicant is applying for a one year extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and Rear Setback Variances for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The application was originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2016 (see attached July 11, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes). An application for a one year extension was approved last year on June 26, 2017. This is the applicant’s second request for a one year extension. There is not a limit on the number of one-year extensions that can be provided. The previous Planning Commission approval of the one year extension allowed the applicant until July 21, 2018 to obtain a building permit. However, as noted in the applicant’s letter dated June 12, 2018, due to family health issues and recent unemployment, the applicant hasn’t been able to focus on securing a contractor to build the project. As a result, the applicant is requesting additional time to find a contractor and obtain a building permit. A one year extension may be considered by the Planning Commission. If the extension is not granted, the property owner must reapply with a new application. There have been no changes to the approved plans since the July 11, 2016 Planning Commission approval. Project Description of Previously Approved Project: The existing single story house and garage contains 1,603 SF (0.37 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. On the first floor, a covered porch element was added at the front of the house and an uncovered deck was added at the rear of the house. A Rear Setback Variance was approved for the deck/stairs at the rear of the house (7’-0” proposed where 15’-0” is the minimum required). This application includes construction of a new 780 SF second floor. Because of the angled rear property line, the rear setback to the second floor varies from 21’-5½” to 8’-8½” at the closest point. A Rear Setback Variance was granted for the proposed second floor addition (8’-8½” rear setback at closest point proposed where 20’-0” is the minimum required). With the proposed addition, the floor area increased from 1,603 SF (0.37 FAR) to 2,329 SF (0.54 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 2,863 SF (0.67 FAR). The proposed project is 534 SF below the maximum allowed FAR. With the addition, the number of potential bedrooms increased from two to three. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing garage provides two covered parking spaces (21’-8” wide x 19’-2” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 18’-6) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Item No. 7a Consent Calendar One Year Extension 2117 Carmelita Avenue -2- The following applications were approved for this project:  Design Review for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2));  Rear Setback Variance to the deck/stairs on the first floor (7’-0” proposed where 15’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (d) (1); and  Rear Setback Variance to the second floor (8’-8½” proposed where 20’-0” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (d) (2). 2117 Carmelita Avenue Lot Area: 4,259 SF EXISTING APPROVED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-5½” n/a 16’-5½” to porch 20’-0” 15'-6" (block average) 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 6'-0" 3'-6" 7’-10½” to 2nd floor no change 7'-0" 7'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 6’-10½” n/a 7’-0” to stairs > 30” ¹ 8’-8½” ² 15’-0” 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1609 SF 33.7% 1643 SF 38.5% 1704 SF 40% FAR: 1603 SF 0.37 FAR 2329 SF 0.54 FAR 2863 SF ³ 0.67 FAR Bedrooms: 2 3 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (21'-8” wide x 19’-2” deep) 1 uncovered (9'-0” x 18’-0”) no change 1 covered (9'-0” x 18’-0”) 1 uncovered (9'-0” x 20’-0”) Height: 20’-9” 24’-0” 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ Rear Setback Variance to the deck/stairs on the first floor (7’-0” proposed where 15’-0” is the minimum required). ² Rear Setback Variance to the second floor (8’-8½” proposed where 20’-0” is the minimum required). ³ (0.32 x 4259 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 2863 SF (0.67 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Suggested Findings for a One Year Extension of a Previously Approved Design Review and Rear Setback Variances: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's July 11, 2016 Regular Action Meeting and that there are no changes proposed to the previously approved applications for a first and second story addition, the project is found to be compatible with the criteria for the Design Review and Rear Setback Variances. One Year Extension 2117 Carmelita Avenue -3- Planning Commission Action to Extend Permit to July 22, 2019: 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 8, 2017, sheets A0.00 through A3.20; 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 the conditions of the Building Division’s November 30, 2015 and October 23, 2015 memos, the Parks Division’s October 29, 2015 memo, the Engineering Division’s October 30, 2015 memo, the Fire Division’s October 27, 2015 memo and the Stormwater Division’s November 30, 2015 and October 29, 2015 memos 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 One Year Extension 2117 Carmelita Avenue -4- built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Lin and Sharon Li, applicants and property owners Attachments: One Year Extension Request Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated June 12, 2018 July 11, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo Burlingame Planning Commission Hearing July 11, 2016 2117 Carmelita Avenue Burlingame Planning Commission Hearing July 11, 2016 2117 Carmelita Avenue Burlingame Planning Commission Hearing July 11, 2016 2117 Carmelita Avenue 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A3.10 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLi Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A3.1012'-0"DHE HEIGHT7'-6"DHE HEIGHT2'-2 1/2"T.O. DECKTO GRADE9'-3"9'-3 1/2"4'-8"30'-0"9 1/2"(N) PAINTED HORIZONTAL 1X8 SHIPLAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. (N) STAINED WOOD WINDOWS W/ STAINED TRIM, TYP. (N) ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. (N) VERTICAL STAINED WOOD FENCE (N) STAINED VERTICAL 1X6 STAINED WOOD SIDING (E) GRADE TO REMAIN, TYP (N) SIDING TO MATCH HOUSE (N) PAINTED PLASTER CHIMNEY EXTENSION (N) STAINED 1X1 VERTICAL WOOD RAINSCREEN LINE OF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE PER 25.26.075 SKIN (E) GARAGE DOOR WITH STAINED WOOD PANELS TO MATCH HOUSE ADD ROW OF WINDOWS (N) PAINTED RAFTER TAILS, TYP.MITER (N) SIDING AT OUTSIDE CORNERS, TYP. (N) 2X4 PAINTED WOOD FASCIA BOARD, TYP. 2117 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(N) LIGHT FIXTURE (N) LIGHT FIXTURE (N) LIGHT FIXTURE ROOF RIDGE EL+ 100'-9 1/2" AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" SECOND FLOOR EL+ 86'-10" GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" DHE POINT OF DEPARTURE EL+ 74.48' 12 9 12 9 TOP PLATE EL+ 96'-1 1/2" (E) COVERED WALKWAY TO BE REMOVED (E) PAINTED PLASTER FINISH TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) VINYL DOUBLE-HUNG WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) GRADE TO REMAIN, TYP (E) PLASTER FINISH AND APPLIED HALF-TIMBER DETAILS TO BE REMOVED (E) PAINTED PLASTER CHIMNEY TO BE PARTIALLY REMOVED (E) SHALLOW GABLE TO BE REMOVED (E) PAINTED PLASTER ENTRY ADD-ON TO BE REMOVED PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E) ROOF RIDGE EL+ 97'-6 1/4" AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" (E) ROOF EL+ 86'-10" (E) GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" 12 9 12 9 (E) DIAGONAL CORNERS TO BE REMOVED (E) GARAGE DOOR TO BE REMOVED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A3.11 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLi Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A3.11(E) GARAGE BEYOND (E) METAL BALUSTER TO BE REMOVED (E) BRICK LANDING TO BE REMOVEDPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E) ROOF RIDGE EL+ 97'-6 1/4" AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" (E) ROOF EL+ 86'-10" (E) GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" 12 9 12 9 9'-3"9'-3 1/2"4'-8"30'-0"9 1/2"(N) PAINTED HORIZONTAL 1X8 SHIPLAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. (N) STAINED WOOD WINDOWS W/ STAINED TRIM, TYP. (E) PAINTED PLASTER CHIMNEY BASE (E) GRADE TO REMAIN, TYP (E) FENCE TO REMAIN, TYP. MITER (N) SIDING AT OUTSIDE CORNERS, TYP. 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E)(E) AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" SECOND FLOOR EL+ 86'-10" GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" ROOF RIDGE EL+ 100'-9 1/2"12 5 123 12 5 12 3 12 3 TOP PLATE EL+ 96'-1 1/2" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A3.12 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLi Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A3.125'-3 1/2"T.O. DECKTO GRADE9'-3"9'-3 1/2"4'-8"30'-0"9 1/2"12'-0"DHE HEIGHT7'-6"DHE HEIGHT(N) STAINED 1X1 VERTICAL WOOD RAINSCREEN BEYOND (N) PAINTED HORIZONTAL 1X8 SHIPLAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. (N) STAINED WOOD WINDOWS W/ STAINED TRIM, TYP. (N) ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF, TYP. (N) VERTICAL STAINED WOOD FENCE BEYOND (N) PAINTED WOOD STAIRS WITH PAINTED STEEL RAILING (E) GRADE TO REMAIN, TYP (E) TWO-CAR GARAGE TO REMAIN (N) PAINTED PLASTER CHIMNEY EXTENSION (N) STAINED VERT. 1X6 WD SIDING IN NICHE WALLS (E) CONCRETE STAIRS TO REMAIN LINE OF DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE PER 25.26.075 (N) PAINTED STEEL GUARDRAILS & PAINTED WOOD BALCONY (N) LIGHT FIXTURES MITER (N) SIDING AT OUTSIDE CORNERS, TYP. (N) 2X4 PAINTED WOOD FASCIA BOARD, TYP. EGRESS WIN 30" CLR. WIDTH 60" CLR, HEIGHT - SILL +44" MAX A.F.F. EGRESS WIN 30" CLR. WIDTH 60" CLR HEIGHT - SILL +44" MAX A.F.F.PROPERTY LINE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT PROPERTY LINE(E) AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" SECOND FLOOR EL+ 86'-10" GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" ROOF RIDGE EL+ 100'-9 1/2" DHE POINT OF DEPARTURE EL+ 74.48' DHE POINT OF DEPARTURE EL+ 74.48' 12 9 12 9 TOP PLATE EL+ 96'-1 1/2" (E) COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOF TO BE REMOVED (N) PAINTED PLASTER TO BE REMOVED (E) VINYL WINDOWS W/ PAINTED TRIM TO BE REMOVED (E) PAINTED WOOD FENCE (E) ACCESS HATCH TO CRAWLSPACE TO REMAIN (E) TWO-CAR GARAGE TO REMAIN (E) COVERED WALKWAY TO BE REMOVED (E) PAINTED PLASTER CHIMNEYPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E) ROOF RIDGE EL+ 97'-6 1/4" AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" (E) ROOF EL+ 86'-10" (E) GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" 12 9 12 9 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A3.13 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLi Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A3.13(N) PAINTED PLASTER TO BE REMOVED (E) VINYL WINDOWS W/ PAINTED TRIM TO BE REMOVED (E) ROOF TO BE REMOVED, TYP PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E) ROOF RIDGE EL+ 97'-6 1/4" AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" (E) ROOF EL+ 86'-10" (E) GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" 12 9 12 9 12 2 9'-3"9'-3 1/2"4'-8"30'-0"9 1/2"(N) SHIELDED LIGHT FIXTURE BELOW SOFFIT (N) STAINED 1X1 VERTICAL WOOD RAINSCREEN (E) GRADE TO REMAIN, TYP (N) PAINTED HORIZONTAL 1X8 SHIPLAP WOOD SIDING, TYP. (N) STAINED WOOD WINDOWS W/ STAINED TRIM, TYP. MITER (N) SIDING AT OUTSIDE CORNERS, TYP. (N) 2X4 PAINTED WOOD FASCIA BOARD, TYP. EGRESS WINDOW 30" CLR. WIDTH 60" CLR HEIGHT - SILL +44" MAX A.F.F. 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEAVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" SECOND FLOOR EL+ 86'-10" GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" 12 5 12 3 12 5 12 3 ROOF RIDGE EL+ 100'-9 1/2" TOP PLATE EL+ 96'-1 1/2" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A3.20 BUILDING SECTIONSLi Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A3.208'-3 1/2"8'-4"9'-3"9'-3 1/2"4'-8"(N) ENTRY (N) CLOSET (N) HALL (N) ATTIC (E) CRAWLSPACE (UNCONDITIONED) (N) CLOSET AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" TOP PLATE EL+ 96'-1 1/2" SECOND FLOOR EL+ 86'-10" GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" ROOF RIDGE EL+ 100'-9 1/2"9'-3"9'-3 1/2"4'-8"8'-3 1/2"8'-4"(E) BEDROOM (N) LIVING ROOM (N) MASTER BEDROOM (N) BEDROOM(N) HALL (N) ATTIC (UNCONDITIONED) (E) CRAWLSPACE (UNCONDITIONED) (N) ATTIC (UNCONDITIONED) AVERAGE T.O. CURB EL+ 76'-9 3/4" SECOND FLOOR EL+ 86'-10" GROUND FLOOR EL+ 77'-7" ROOF RIDGE EL+ 100'-9 1/2" TOP PLATE EL+ 96'-1 1/2" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 LATITUDINAL BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LONGITUDINAL BUILDING SECTION 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A1.00 PROPOSED SITE PLANLi Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A1.00N 04'8'16' SLOPE 2:125'-0"+/- 6'-3"3'-0"2'-0"16'-4 7/8"6'-0"36'-2"9'-11 5/8"22'-6"3'-6"15'-0"REAR SETBACK15'-0"FRONT SETBACKEL +77.51'EL +75.97' AVERAGE TOP OF CURB EL +76.81' TOP OF CURB EL +75.93' TOP OF CURB EL +77.69' EL +75.43' EL +73.04' EL +76.34' EL +76.12'38.18' PROPERTY LINE80.0' PROPERTY LINE 68.30' PROPERTY LINE20'-0" FRONT SETBACK 85.48' PROPERTY LINE 20'-0" FRONT SETBACK 20'-0" REAR SETBACK (E) CURB CUT (E) SIDEWALK (E) CURB (E) SLOPE 4:12 (E) SLOPE 4:12 SLOPE 6:12SLOPE 6:12SLOPE 2:12EL +75.31' AT GRADE EL +76.66' AT GRADE EL +72.99' EL +75.57' EL +72.99' AT GRADE EL +74.19' AT GRADE 2117 CARMELITA AVE 2 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2115 CARMELITA AVE 2 STORY RESIDENTIAL2135 CARMELITA AVE 1 1/2 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2109 CARMELITA AVE 1 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2132 CARMELITA AVE 1 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2120 CARMELITA AVE 1 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2116 CARMELITA AVE 1 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2112 CARMELITA AVE 1 STORY RESIDENTIAL 2108 CARMELITA AVE 2 STORY RESIDENTIAL CARMELITA AVENUE DETACHED GARAGE SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR HARDSCAPE INFORMATION, PLANT MATERIAL SPECS AND LAYOUT. 2. SPOT ELEVATIONS ARE PROVIDED BY KAVANAGH ENGINEERING, LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEERS. 3. EXISTING FRONT SETBACKS ON THIS SIDE OF BLOCK: 2103 CARMELITA AVE 15.0 FT 2105 CARMELITA AVE 13.1 FT 2109 CARMELITA AVE 15.8 FT 2115 CARMELITA AVE 15.8 FT 2117 CARMELITA AVE 16.5 FT 2135 CARMELITA AVE 27.0 FT (HILLSBOROUGH) ALL MEASUREMENTS TO PROPERTY LINE. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1418P R O J E C T N O. C O P Y R I G HT © 2013 by Mar k Davis Design DATE:ISSUED FOR:REV. 10-15-2015DESIGN REVIEW PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 12-01-2015 DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 06-17-2016 Mark Davis Design 2088 Union Street # 3 San Francisco CA 94123 415.990.8491 www.markddesign.com md D A1.01 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN Li Residence2117 Carmelita AvenueBurlingame, USA 94010APN 027-362-140Mark Davis Design • Li Residence • 1418 • 24"x36" SHEET SIZE • A1.01(E) TREE 9'-6" DIA CANOPY (N) TREE (E) NEIGHBOR'S TREE (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (E) (N) TREE (E) (E) (E) (E) NEIGHBOR'S TREE (E) NEIGHBOR'S TREE 7 5 6 3 4 1 1 36 4 5 2 2 DOWN123456REFRANGE N 02'4'8' WD (N) BOARD-FORMED CONCRETE WALL (N) CONCRETE ENTRY LANDING (N) RED LEAF MAPLE (ACER JAPONICUS "ATROPORPUREUM") 24" BOX / QTY 1 (N) LAVENDER (LAVANDULA INTERMEDIA "GROSSO") 1 GAL / QTY 18 (N) AGAVE (AGAVE BRACTEOSA) 1 GAL / QTY 6 (N) PERUVIAN FEATHERGRASS (STIPA ICHU) 1 GAL / QTY 8 N) PERUVIAN FEATHERGRASS (STIPA ICHU) 1 GAL / QTY 6 (E) IRRIGATION CONTROLS TO REMAIN (E) BUSHES ALONG FENCE TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) PERMEABLE CRUSHED STONE SURFACE TO REMAIN (E) CONCRETE PATIO TO REMAIN (N) FOREST PANSY (CERCIS CANADENSIS "FOREST REDBUD") 24" BOX / QTY 1 (E) BUSHES TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) LAWN AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO REMAIN(E) LAWN AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO REMAIN (E) PERIMETER FENCE TO REMAIN, TYP. (E) PERMEABLE CRUSHED STONE SURFACE TO REMAIN (N) CONCRETE SLABS (E) PERMEABLE CRUSHED STONE SURFACE TO REMAIN (E) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN (E) TO REMAIN (E) TO REMAIN (E) TO REMAIN 1 DN DN DN UP LANDSCAPE GENERAL NOTES: 1. NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED. TWO (2) TREES ARE TO BE ADDED THOUGH ONLY ONE IS NECESSARY TO MEET 1 LANDSCAPE TREE FOR EVERY 1,000 SF LIVING SPACE REQUIREMENT. 2. EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO REMAIN. NEW ADDITIONS ARE WITHIN PERIMETER OF (E) HOUSE, AND DO NOT CHANGE CURRENT IRRIGATION LAYOUT. NO IRRIGATION PLAN OR CALCULATIONS ARE PROVIDED . SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN City of Burlingame One Year Extension Address: 715-717 Linden Avenue and 719-721 Linden Avenue Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and Recommendation of approval of a Tentative Map for Lot Split for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each proposed new lot. Applicant and Property Owner: 1448 Laguna LLC APN: 029-055-090 Architect: TRG Architects Lot Area: 7,405 SF (715-717 Linden Avenue) 7,405 SF (719-721 Linden Avenue) General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 Adjacent Development: Duplex and single-family dwellings. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Summary of Request: The applicant is applying for a one year extension of a previously approved application for Design Review and recommendation of approval of a Tentative Map for Lot Split for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each proposed new lot. The application was approved by the Planning Commission on July 10, 2017 (see attached July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The Planning Commission approval of this application became effective on July 20, 2017. This approval is valid for a period of one year during which time a building permit must be issued. The applicant has not yet applied for a building permit. However, as noted in the applicant’s letter date stamped June 13, 2018, the applicant is requesting additional time to complete the financing arrangements necessary to build the project. An additional one year extension may be considered by the Planning Commission. If the extension is not granted, the property owner must reapply with a new application. There have been no changes to the approved plans since the July 1 0, 2017 Planning Commission approval. Project Description of Previously Approved Project: The existing property is comprised of one lot, measures 14,810 SF and has two frontages; 107.08 feet along Linden Avenue and 107.08 feet along Carolan Avenue. The site currently contains a two-story duplex building located in the middle of the lot and two small sheds along the northwest property line. A detached garage once existed on the property, but was removed at an unknown date. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing duplex building, subdivide the existing lot into two lots, and construct one, two-story duplex building on each newly created lot. Each building is similar in layout and building envelope, however will have a different exterior design style, roof forms, and architectural features. Each unit would provide a living and dining room, kitchen, guest/study room, and attached two-car garage on the ground floor and either three or four bedrooms on the second floor. There is no floor area ratio regulation for the R-2 zone. The lot split includes subdividing the existing 14,810 SF lot into two lots, each measuring 7,405 SF in area. The existing lot would be divided in half to create two equal 50 foot wide lots, Parcel 3A and Parcel 3B. The middle property line, which splits the lot into two lots, would be slightly angled at both ends to comply with the minimum required 55 foot street frontage (provided on Linden Avenue for Parcel 3A and on Carolan Avenue for Parcel 3B). The minimum required lot size is 5,000 SF in this area (7,405 SF proposed for each lot). Item No. 7b Consent Calendar One Year Extension 715-717 & 717-721 Linden Avenue -2- The code requires 2.5 off-street parking spaces for each four or five-bedroom unit, or a total of five parking spaces on each lot for the proposed duplexes. Planning staff would note that the study and guest rooms provided on the ground floor of each unit qualify as bedrooms since they measure at least 70 SF in area and contain a door and a window. The front units contain five bedrooms (715 and 719 Linden Avenue) and the rear units contain four bedrooms (717 and 721 Linden Avenue). Each unit contains a two-car garage (four covered parking spaces on each lot) and one uncovered parking space is provided in tandem with the garage; therefore the project is in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. Vehicular ingress and egress to the garages will be by way of a driveway located along the left side property line on each new lot. The existing site contains a total of 16 trees, 9 of which are protected size. Some of the trees are multi-trunk. The applicant is proposing to remove a total of 8 trees as part of the project. Of these trees, two are protected size including a 16.3-inch diameter Myoporum along the southeast property line and a 35.6-inch diameter Monterey pine at the rear of the lot. An arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated July 28, 2014, recommends removing the existing Monterey pine as it has pine pitch canker and is in decline. Regarding the Myoporum, the reports notes that is has poor-fair vigor, fair form and thrips (insects). Kielty’s report also includes a Tree Protection Plan for the proposed project. The City Arborist notes that a Tree Removal Permit will be required from the City of Burlingame to remove the protected size trees. Remaining trees which are not protected size may be removed without a Tree Removal Permit. Proposed landscaping and hardscaping throughout both sites is shown on sheets L-1 and L-2. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a duplex dwelling is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2000 SF of habitable space. Based on the proposed project, a total of three landscape trees are required on each lot. Based on the Landscape Plan, there will be a total of four trees on the site at 715-717 Linden Avenue (three existing trees and one new 24-inch box size tree) and a total of six trees on the site at 719-721 Linden Avenue (five existing trees and one new 24-inch box size tree). The proposed landscaping for the project complies with the on-site reforestation requirements. Two new street trees will be planted in the planter strip right-of-way as required by the Parks Division. The following applications were approved for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each proposed new lot (CS 25.27.045); and  Recommended approval of a Tentative Map for Lot split of Portion of Lot 3 (14,810 SF) into two equal lots (Parcels 3A and 3B, each lot measuring 7,405 SF in area). This space intentionally left blank. One Year Extension 715-717 & 717-721 Linden Avenue -3- 715-717 Linden Avenue Lot Area: 7,405 SF PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (Carolan Ave)* (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15'-1” 15'-1” 15'-0” 15’-0” Side (left): (right): 4'-6" 4’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (Linden Ave) (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19'-0” 22'-3” 15’-0” 15'-0" Lot Co 2962 SF 40% 2962 SF 40% Building Height: 26'-3” 30'-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies CS 25.27.075 Off-Street Parking: 5 total spaces 4 covered (10’-0” x 20'-0” each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 5 total spaces 4 covered (10'-0” x 20'-0” each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') * For setback purposes, the front of the lot for 715-717 Linden Avenue is considered to be along Carolan Avenue since it is the narrow portion of the lot (52.08 feet along Carolan Avenue and 55 feet along Linden Avenue). 719-721 Linden Avenue Lot Area: 7,405 SF PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (Linden Ave) (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19'-0” 21'-10” 18'-10” (block average) 18’-10” (block average) Side (left): (right): 4'-0" 4’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear (Carolan Ave) (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15'-1” 15'-1” 15’-0” 15'-0" Lot Co 2962 SF 40% 2962 SF 40% Building Height: 26'-6” 30'-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies CS 25.27.075 Off-Street Parking: 5 total spaces 4 covered (10’-0” x 20'-0” each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 5 total spaces 4 covered (10'-0” x 20'-0” each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') One Year Extension 715-717 & 717-721 Linden Avenue -4- Staff Comments: None. Suggested Findings for a One Year Extension of a Previously Approved Design Review and Recommendation of Approval of a Tentative Map for Lot Split: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's July 10, 2017 Regular Action Meeting and that there are no changes proposed to the previously approved applications for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each proposed new lot, the project may be found to be compatible with the criteria for the Design Review. Planning Commission Action to Extend Permit to July 22, 2019: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 30, 2017, sheets A0.1 through A4.1, TM-1, TM-2, and L-1 through L-3; 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 the conditions of the Building Division’s April 26, 2017 and February 22, 2017 memos, the Parks Division’s June 28, 2017, May 24, 2017, and March 3, 2017 memos, the Engineering Division’s June 20, 2017, May 31, 2017, and February 23, 2017 memos, the Fire Division’s March 28, 2017 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s May 1, 2017 and March 6, 2017 memos 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 for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 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, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; One Year Extension 715-717 & 717-721 Linden Avenue -5- 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 foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Samaneh Nili, TRG Architects, applicant James Evans, property owner Attachments: One Year Extension Request Letter Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped June 13, 2018 July 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo Sheet No. Scale Sheet Scale L-1 3 of Sheet TitleProject TitleHardscape PlanTree Removal PlanFront & Rear Landscaping715, 717, 719, 721 Linden Ave.Burlingame, CAConsultantDesign FirmGomery DesignSkyline design studioP.O. Box 3759Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3759skylinedesignstudio.netDesigned ByDrawn ByChecked ByReviewed BySubmitted ByProject ManagerDateRevisionProject IDDrawing CodeCAD File NamePlot DateDEHDEHJCGRevisionDrawing Code00/00/00No.DateIssue NotesIssue for Planning Dept. reviewA4/17/17No.DateRevision NotesAdd new trees and existing trees to be removed. Add tree protection note.16/1/17Appr Zone Revision per Planning Commission comments of 6/26/17 re: driveway material, new fences.26/27/17 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 A A B B C C D D E E #14 (E) 2-trunk Almond 6" ea. #6 (E) 30" Cedar #9 (E) 2-trunk RDW 14" ea. #15 (E) 36" multi trunk Camphor #8 (E) 30" Redwood Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch Interlocking Paver Driveway Rear Patio Concrete Rear Patio Concrete 1'-9" x 4'-0" concrete 6'-5"2'-4"10'-0"6'-0"5'-0"3'-0" 3'-0" 3'-6" 4'-0"15'-7"8'-0"3'-6"3'-6"8'-9" 9'-0"6'-6"2'-3"10'-0"10'-0" 7'-0"4'-0"3'-6"8'-0 "5'-6 "3'-6"14'-8"16' -8 "16'-8"+/-(E) S idewa lk (E) S idewa lk17'-0"5'-3"7'-0" 3'-9"4'-0"#1 (E) 24" Magnolia #3 (E) 36" Palm Lawn Linden Ave .13'-0"Align corner of lawn with corner of porch 30" RDW // // // // // E/O WM WM WM WM C ssco C ssco PP 3/8" Lodi pebbles in planting strip. 3/8" Lodi pebbles in planting strip.7'-6 " Maintain utility line clearance for street tree 9'-0 " 3' - 0 " New concrete curb on property line; refer to Civil Plans. 715 Linden717 Linden 719 Linden721 Linden 2'x2' pavers @ 6" apart 4'-6"6'-4" 1'-8" 1'-8" New gates to each unit.13'-6 " Remove (e) fence and replace w/ new wood fence, design as directed by Owner. Existing gate to remain. #2 (E) 28" Palm 10'-0"3'-4"Planting pocket for vine on trellis. 2'-0"2'-0"Planting pocket for vine on trellis. 2'-0"2'-0"CL#13 18" multi-trunk Birch #12 10" Birch #11 11" Plum #7 36" Pine #5 24" Juniper #16 2-trunk Privet #4 14" Myoporum New Chinese Pistache tree New Chinese Pistache tree New Cercis tree New Cercis tree Remove (e) fence and replace w/ new wood fence, design as directed by Owner. Remove (e) fence and replace w/ new wood fence, design as directed by Owner. Interlocking Paver Driveway New water meters, refer to Civil plans. New water meters New sanitary sewer cleanout New sanitary sewer cleanout New catch basin; refer to Civil plans. Hardscape Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 As Noted 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 Graphic scale WM C PP Drainage catch basin; refer to Grading & Drainage Plan Water meter Sanitary sewer cleanout Power pole ssco 3/8" lodi pebble mulch New concrete hardscapes Hydrozone Legend Symbol Legend Exist. tree to be removed New interlocking paver driveway Location Map2 Project Data Project Address: 715-721 Linden Ave. Owner:1448 Laguna LLC Parcel Number:029-055-090 Lot Size: Parcel 3A 7,405 sf Parcel 3B 7,405 sf Total combined lot area: 14,810 sf Proposed Parcel Lot Coverage: Parcel 3A Lot Coverage:2,961.5 sf Parcel 3B Lot Coverage:2,961.5 sf Total Building Lot Coverage:5,923 sf Total Hardscape:3,899 sf Total Impermeable Area:9,822 sf 1 Notes: 1. Trees to be removed are not bubbled on the plan for clarity. 2. Tree Protection is required on all remaining trees during all phases of construction. 2 2 2 2 2 2 #14 (E) 2-trunk Almond 6" ea. Myoporum groundcover Cercis Prunus Caroliniana Berberis repens Berberis repens Berberis repens Lantana Lantana Lantana Phormium rubrum Phormium rubrum Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Correa pulchella Correa pulchella Correa pulchella Correa pulchella Correa pulchella Phormium rubrum Rhamnus Rhamnus Rhamnus Rhamnus Prunus Caroliniana Phormium rubrum #6 (E) 30" Cedar #9 (E) 2-trunk RDW 14" ea. #15 (E) 36" multi trunk Camphor Lantana Correa pulchella Lantana #8 (E) 30" Redwood Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch Interlocking Paver Driveway Rear Patio Concrete Rear Patio Concrete (E) S idewa lk (E) S idewa lk Align corner of lawn with corner of porch #1 (E) 24" Magnolia #3 (E) 36" Palm Cercis Lantana Lawn Linden Ave . Pistache Tree Pistache Tree 30" RDW // // // // // E/O Space 5'-6" o.c. Space 7' o.c. Space 7' o.c. Space 5' o.c. 715 Linden717 Linden 719 Linden721 Linden Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Red Phormium in 2'x2' planter, typ. for 2. #2 (E) 28" Palm Lonicera periclymenum Campsis radicans Interlocking Paver Driveway Additional landscaping will be provided at adjacent property 711 Linden for screening of driveway entrance. Planting Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 Sheet No. Scale Sheet Scale L-2 3 of Sheet TitleProject TitlePlanting PlanPlant ListFront & Rear Landscaping715, 717, 719, 721 Linden Ave.Burlingame, CAConsultantDesign FirmGomery DesignSkyline design studioP.O. Box 3759Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3759skylinedesignstudio.netDesigned ByDrawn ByChecked ByReviewed BySubmitted ByProject ManagerDateRevisionProject IDDrawing CodeCAD File NamePlot DateDEHDEHJCGRevisionDrawing Code00/00/00No.DateIssue NotesIssue for Planning Dept. reviewA4/17/17No.DateRevision NotesAdd new trees and exist. trees to be removed to L-1.16/1/17Appr Zone Add landscape screening to property next door #711.26/27/17 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 A A B B C C D D E E As Noted Type Genus Species Variety Common Name Size Qty.WUCOLS S Arctostaphylos densiflora "Howard McMinn"Manzanita 5 gal.10 L S Berberis aquifolium var. repens creeping grape holly 1 gal.25 L S Ceanothus thyrsiflorus griseus “Diamond Heights”Calif. Lilac 1 gal.32 L S Correa pulchella Australian Fuscia 1 gal.28 L S Myoporum parvifolium 5 gal.12 L S Prunus caroliniana Carolina laurel 5 gal.27 L S Rhamnus californica “Eve Case”Coffeeberry 1 gal.15 L T Cercis occidentalis western Redbud 24" box 2 VL T Pistacia chinensis Chinese Pistache tree 15 gal.2 L P Lantana Yellow – preferred other colors OK 1 gal.24 L P Phormium rubra Red flax 1 gal.13 L V Campsis radican orange trumpet creeper 5 gal.1 L V Lonicera periclymenum honeysuckle 5 gal.1 L Arctostaphylos "Howard McMinn" Berberis repens Ceanothus "Diamond Heights" Correa pulchella Myoporum Prunus caroliniana Rhamnus "Eve Case" Cercis occidentalis Pistachia chinensis Lantana Phormuim rubrum Plant Symbol Legend Lonicera periclymenum Campsis radicans 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 Graphic scale Landscape Tree Requirements Total Living Area = 9,011 SF Number of Trees Required = 9 trees total 7 Existing Trees to Remain = #1, #2, #3, #6, #8, #9, and #15 (refer to Civil Plans Sheet TM-1 and TM-2) 2 New Trees Proposed = 2 Western Redbud Trees - 24" box size Total 9 Trees Note: Two street trees included - Chinese Pistache - 15 gallon size 2 Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch Front Porch Interlocking Paver Driveway Rear Patio Concrete Rear Patio Concrete (E) S idewa lk (E) S idewa lk Lawn Linden Ave . 30" RDW // // // // // E/O WM WM WM WM C ssco C ssco PP Hydrozone 1 253 s.f. Hydrozone 2 Hydrozone 2 4,661 s.f. Hydrozone 2 Hydrozone 2 Hydrozone 2 Hydrozone 2 715 Linden717 Linden 719 Linden721 Linden Interlocking Paver Driveway Hydrozone Plan Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 Hydrozone 1: 253 s.f. Hydrozone 2: 4,735 s.f. Hydrozone Legend Exist. tree to be removed Sheet No. Scale Sheet Scale L-3 3 of Sheet TitleProject TitleHydrozone PlanFront & Rear Landscaping715, 717, 719, 721 Linden Ave.Burlingame, CAConsultantDesign FirmGomery DesignSkyline design studioP.O. Box 3759Half Moon Bay, CA 94019-3759skylinedesignstudio.netDesigned ByDrawn ByChecked ByReviewed BySubmitted ByProject ManagerDateRevisionProject IDDrawing CodeCAD File NamePlot DateDEHDEHJCGRevisionDrawing Code00/00/00No.DateIssue NotesIssue for Planning Dept. reviewA3/28/17No.DateRevision NotesAdd new trees and exist. trees to be removed to L-1.16/1/17Appr Zone No changes to this sheet.26/27/17 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 A A B B C C D D E E 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 Graphic scale Sheet1 Page 1 Area Calculations Building Area 5923 Hardscape - patios & paths 825 Hardscape – driveways 3074 Total Lot Coverage 9822 Site Area 14810 Minus Lot Coverage -9822 Planting/Permeable Surface Area 4988 Planting Area 4988 Hydrozone 1 (lawn)253 Hydrozone 2 (drip)4735 Lawn is 5% of planted area As Noted WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET This worksheet is filled out by the project applicant and it is a required element of the Landscape Documentation Package. The California Department of Water Resources Water Budget Worksheet Calculator was used to determine the MAWA and ETWU. Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) _42.8 Redwood City___________ Hydrozone # /Planting Descriptiona Plant Factor (PF) Irrigation Methodb Irrigation Efficiency (IE)c ETAF (PF/IE) Landscape Area (sq, ft,) ETAF x Area Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU)e Regular Landscape Areas Low plant 0.2 Drip 0.81 .25 4735 1184 947 Turf 0.4 Spray 0.71 .56 253 142 101 Totals 4988 (A)1326 (B)1048 Special Landscape Areas 1 1 1 Totals (C)(D) ETWU Total 35,187 Maximum Allowed Water Allowance (MAWA)e 92,667 ETAF Calculations Regular Landscape Areas Total ETAF x Area (B) Total Area (A) Average ETAF .40 B ÷ A All Landscape Areas Total ETAF x Area (B+D) Total Area (A+C) Sitewide ETAF (B+D) ÷ (A+C) PROJECT LOCATION 834 Crossway Road Item No. 8a Regular Action Items Item No. 8a Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 834 Crossway Road Meeting Date: June 25, 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, 2018 ORIGINAL 03/14/18 Plans REVISED 06/14/18 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 # of bedrooms: 5 4 --- Design Review 834 Crossway Road 2 ORIGINAL 03/14/18 Plans REVISED 06/14/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED 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 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. 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.  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. Design Review 834 Crossway Road 3  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 corners 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 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 Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring a 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 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: Design Review 834 Crossway Road 4 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 14, 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 env elope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site wor k shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recyclin g 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 architec tural 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 Design Review 834 Crossway Road 5 details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to t he approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. John Nguyen, Dulon Inc., applicant and designer Diane McGlown, property owner Attachments: 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 15, 2018 Aerial Photo 8/28/2019 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/1 834 Crossway Rd - Plans - 06.25.pdf City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 705 Walnut Avenue Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for a previously approved application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: 705 Walnut Burlingame LLC APN: 028-142-100 Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates Lot Area: 8,776 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 dwellin g unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 705 Walnut Avenue was approved by the Planning Commission on January 22, 2018 (see attached January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). An FYI for revisions requested by the Planning Commission was approved on February 8, 2018 (see attached). The applicant was issued a building permit on April 18, 2018. Following the approval of the design review application and issuance of the building permit the property owners decided to make some modifications to their plans and are requesting an amendment to their approval. The following changes have been made: First floor plan  Bay window has been added to the front bedroom on the right side. Second floor plan  Bedroom at the front right side is set back 10 inches to align with the first floor wall that the new bay window juts out from. Front Elevation  Material changes: o stone wall to stucco; o horizontal wood siding for the new bay window on first floor; o stucco to horizontal wood siding for the second floor bay window on the left side. Left Elevation  Material changes: o stone wall to stucco (except chimneys); o stucco to horizontal wood siding for the second floor bay window.  Removal of stairway windows on the first floor and extending length of s tairway windows on the top floor. Rear Elevation  Stone wall on the first floor changed to stucco. Right Elevation  Second floor cantilevered area material changing from stucco to horizontal wood siding. Item No. 8b Regular Action Items Design Review Amendment 705 Walnut Avenue 2 The applicant has provided a letter of explanation , date stamped June 7, 2018, providing an overview of all of the proposed changes. Plans have also been submitted showing the originally approved and proposed floor plans and elevations, date stamped June 7, 2018. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot at the border of the Burlingame and Hillsborough city limits. A portion of Terrace Creek runs through the left side of the property. An existing wood retaining wall along the creek separates it from the rest of the property; no work is proposed for this retaining wall. The applicant proposed to demolish an existing one-story house with attached garage and build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 4,295 SF (0.49 FAR) where 4,308 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 157 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. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant requested the following application:  Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). 705 Walnut Avenue Lot Area: 8,776 SF Plans date stamped: June 7, 2018 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 01/29/18 Plans AMENDED 06/07/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 27’-0½” 29’-0½” no change no change 27’-0” (block average) 27’-0” (block average) Side Setback (left): (right): 17’-0” 13’-9½” no change no change 7'-0" 7’-0” Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-7½” 25’-11½” no change no change 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,745 SF 31.3% 2,751 SF 31.3% 3,510 SF 40% FAR: 4,302 SF 0.49 FAR 4,295 SF 0.49 FAR 4,308 SF 1 0.49 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change --- 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: 29’-9” no change 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies no change CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 8,776) + 1,100 + 400 SF = 4,308 SF (0.49) FAR Staff Comments: None. Design Review Amendment 705 Walnut 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 e xisting 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 roof and dormers, proportional plate heights, stucco and wood siding, and aluminum clad windows with wood trim) 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. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped June 7, 2018, sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, and sheet L1.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for cons truction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building pe rmit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which Design Review Amendment 705 Walnut Avenue 4 requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; an y 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 Buil ding 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 reside ntial designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Buildi ng Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans . ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. 705 Walnut Burlingame LLC, property owner Attachments: January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant Letter of Explanation FYI Memo – dated February 8, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo City of Burlingame Fence Exception Address: 1250 Jackling Drive Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Fence Exception to increase fence height limit to 8’-0” for a fence along the side and rear property line of an existing residential property. Applicants and Property Owners: Lisa and Greg Ott APN: 027-332-040 General Plan: Low Density residential Lot Area: 6,970 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Article 19, Section: 15303 – new construction or conversion of small structures - (e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot with an existing single-story house with attached garage that has frontages on both Jackling Drive and Vancouver Avenue. For corner lots, the zoning code defines the front lot line for the property as the side with the shortest linear frontage. For this property, the front of the lot is Jackling Drive and the exterior side is along Vancouver Avenue. Due to neighbor complaint, Code Enforcement staff became aware of a fence height violation on the subject property. The R-1 District fence regulations state that the maximum overall height of a fence at the side and rear property line is 7'-0", provided that the last foot in height is of an open material (C.S. 25.78.020 (b)). Municipal Code Section 25.55.010 (a)(2) allows a maximum 20% increase in height limit in fence requirements (except in the front setback) with a Minor Modification. The existing wood fence stands 7’-0” (closed horizontal boards) above grade and topped by 1’-0” of open horizontal slats, for an overall height of 8’-0”. The portion of the existing fence along Vancouver Avenue is currently located within the public right-of-way. The applicants submitted a Minor Modification application on April 10, 2018 for increased fence height to allow their existing fence to remain along the exterior side property line on Vancouver Avenue and along the rear property line adjacent to another residential property. The request also noted that the portion of the fence encroaching into the public right-of-way will be moved back 2’-1” from the inner edge of the sidewalk so that it is located entirely on private property. Public notice for their Minor Modification request was mailed to property owners within 100 feet of the subject property, on May 25, 2018. From this date, there was a seven day appeal period ending on June 1, 2018. A written request from one of the property owners noticed was received by the Community Development Director on June 1, 2018 appealing the project (see attachments). Minor Modification requests that are appealed, trigger review by the Planning Commission. No trees have been removed or are proposed to be removed for this fence. A fence is not required to be erected or maintained on any R-1 property. A building permit is required for the fence because it is located on a corner lot and exceeds 3'-0" in height (Code Section 25.78.035). The applicant is requesting the following application:  Fence Exception for height for an 8’-0” tall fence at the side and rear property line where 7'-0" is the maximum height allowed (CS 25.78.020 (b)). 1250 Jackling Drive Lot Area: 6,970 SF Plan date stamped: May 24, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED ALLOWED WITH MINOR MODIFICATION Fence Height Side and Rear property line: 8’-0” 7'-0" (C.S. 25.78.020 (b)) 8’-5” (C.S. 25.55.010 (a)(2)) Item No. 8c Regular Action Fence Exception 1250 Jackling Drive -2- Staff Comments: 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. See attached memos from the Chief Building Official, Engineering Division, Parks Division, Fire Division, and Stormwater Division. Required Findings for a Fence Exception: In order to grant a Fence Exception, the Planning Commission must find the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.78.050 (a-d)): (a) that there are exceptional circumstances; (b) that there is no public hazard; (c) that neighboring properties will not be materially damaged; and (d) that the regulations cause unnecessary hardship upon the petitioner. 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 Department on May 24, 2018, with a fence having a 7’-0” solid wood base and a 1'-0" open material at the top and that the fence will be located 2’-1” from the inner edge of the sidewalk; 2. that the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the fence; 3. that if the fence is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the fence exception, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; and 4. 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Lisa and Greg Ott, applicants and property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Fence Exception Application Owner Letter of Explanation Minor Modification Notice, mailed May 25, 2018 Minor Modification Appeal Letter from Property Owner Noticed, received June 1, 2018 Email regarding Engineering Comments, sent May 29, 2018 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo NEW FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE HOUSE DRIVEWAY 89'-6" N 55'04'W 123'-7 7/8" 7 9 ' - 1 7 / 8 "66'-7 5/8"VANCOUVER DR. JACK L ING DR .6'-0"29'-6"93'-4" NEW FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE [Drawing Title] Scale: 1" = 20 ft1 [Drawing Title] Scale: 1" = 20 ft2 EXISTING SITE PLAN 1250 JACKLING DR., BURLINGAME APRIL 6, 2018 SCALE - AS SHOWN MOVE EXISTING FENCE TO 2'1" FROM SIDEWALK EXISTING SITE 1250 JACKLING DR. MAY 23, 2018 TOTAL HEIGHT. 8' 7' H HORIZONTAL 4" BOARDS 1' H OPEN 2" SLATS PROJECT LOCATION 1615 Ralston Avenue Item No. 8d Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1615 Ralston Avenue Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders APN: 028-314-030 Property Owners: Henry and Jaclyn Eng Lot Area: 7,025 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 14, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1615 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Therefore, the proposed project may be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, are exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The existing single family dwelling and detached two-car garage contains 2,972 SF (0.42 FAR) of floor area. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing attached carport and bedroom and bathroom above it at the rear of the house and replace it with a new second story addition over the center of the house. There are no changes proposed to the existing detached garage, which would remain to provide the required off-street parking. The existing slab under the carport would remain and be used as a patio. This project would increase the total floor area to 3,500 SF (0.50 FAR), where 3,748 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 248 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. With this application, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from four to six. A minimum of three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a six-bedroom house. The existing detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (19'-6" wide x 19'-5” deep clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue 2 1615 Ralston Avenue Lot Area: 7,025 SF Plans Date Stamped: June 20, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18'-3" n/a no change 40’-5” 15'-0" or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 2'-0" ¹ 8'-4” 8'-0" to 2nd story addn 10'-11” to 2nd story addn 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 46'-2" 46’-2” 58’-0” 58’-0” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2751 SF 39.1% 2489 SF 35.4% 2810 SF 40% FAR: 2972 SF 0.42 FAR 3500 SF 0.50 FAR 3748 SF 0.53 FAR ² # of bedrooms: 4 6 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19'-6”W x 19'-5”D) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 19’-8” 26’-2” (28’-9” previously proposed) 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ Existing nonconforming left side setback. ² (0.32 x 7,025 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,748 SF (0.53 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on July 24 2017, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped June 19, 2018, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. A discussion of the analysis of the revised project and recommendation by the design review consultant is provided in the next section. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project architect and property owners over several meetings to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated June 18, 2018, for a detailed list of the changes made to the project and an analysis of how the revisions are consistent with the design guidelines. The design reviewer notes that with the revisions made to the project, it is her opinion that “the new design meets the requirements of the design guidelines.” Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as proposed. Design Review 1615 Ralston 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 components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring gable roofs, a dormer element incorporated into a large sloping roof at the front of the house, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, stucco siding, wood eave brackets at the gable ends, and fiberglass clad wood windows with wood trim) is compatible with the existing house and character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 19, 2018, sheets A1 through A9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue 4 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders, applicant and designer Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners Attachments: July 24, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, dated June 18, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – mailed June 15, 2018 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated February 14, 2017 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1615 Ralston Avenue, Zoned R-1, Henry and Jaclyn Eng, 1615 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, Ca, 94010, property owners, APN: 028-314-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 25, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review was approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue Effective July 5, 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 A1 through A9; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Design Review 1615 Ralston Avenue Effective July 5, 2018 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __6Z________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page 1 of 13 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 1615 Ralston Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-314-030 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1615 Ralston Avenue is a one-story residence located on the south side of Ralston Avenue between Chapin Avenue and Occidental Avenue in the Burlingame Park neighborhood (Figure 1). The residence was constructed in 1922 by builder J.W. Rutherdale. The original owner was Almer Langton. The 7,000 square-foot subject lot is rectangular in shape. The residence is rectilinear in plan, with a large stucco-clad addition (partially elevated on piers) located at the rear of the building. The wood frame, stucco-clad building sits on a poured concrete foundation. The building is capped with a hipped roof that has a cross-gable towards the front of the building. A concrete slab porch capped with a front gable roof provides access to the elevated primary entrance. Windows are primarily wood sash within wood frames. A wood-clad detached garage is located at the southwest corner of the property. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull on February 14, 2017, unless otherwise noted. (See continuation sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary façade, February 14, 2017. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: historic 1922 (original building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: Henry Eng, 1615 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010. *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: 2/14/2017 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 1. Current aerial photograph of 1615 Ralston Avenue (outlined in orange). Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. *P3a. Description: (continued) The primary façade of 1615 Ralston Avenue faces north toward Ralston Avenue (Figures 2 – 7). The east (left) portion of the façade features three single-hung wood-sash windows with a wood frame. The upper sashes feature Craftsman-style wood muntins. The central portion of the primary façade features a projecting, gable-roofed porch with wood soffits and exposed purlins and rafter tails. The concrete slab porch is supported by two piers and two pilasters. The porch provides access to the recessed primary entrance, consisting of a fully paneled wood door flanked by two sidelights. West (right) of the entrance is one horizontally oriented fixed window with Craftsman-style wood muntins. The west (right) portion of the façade features three single-hung wood- sash windows with a wood frame. The upper sashes feature Craftsman-style wood muntins. Figure 2. Left (east) portion of primary façade. Figure 3. Porch and recessed entrance. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 4. Porch access. Figure 5. Primary entrance. Figure 6. Fixed window within porch. Figure 7. Right (west) portion of primary façade. The west façade of the subject building contains a projecting bay at the far north (left) side (Figures 8 – 9). The bay contains a slightly projecting outline of a chimney, flanked by two fixed wood -sash windows within wood frames. Near the ground, the bay contains two wood and mesh vents and one small metal chimney vent. The central portion of the west façade features a pair of single-hung, wood-sash windows with Craftsman-style muntins within a wood frame. The far south (right) side of the façade features a large fixed 16-lite wood-sash window. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 8. West façade (left bay in foreground). Figure 9. West façade (central and right portions in foreground). The rear (south) façade features a single-hung, vinyl-sash window and a fixed, wood-sash window within a wood frame (Figures 10 – 15). A rear landing accessed via six wood steps contains two identical paneled wood doors with six-lite glazed panels. The second door faces west and is located within a recessed entrance vestibule separating the main building and the rear addition. The entrance vestibule contains a half-ledge, one fixed window next to the door and one vinyl-sash, south-facing sliding window. The vestibule is sheltered by a shed roof with two skylights. Located at the east (right) section of the rear façade, the rear split level addition is partially supported by two piers and is elevated above a concrete-slab patio. It is topped with a shallow gable roof with overhanging eaves. The west façade of the addition faces the driveway and features one single-hung, vinyl-sash window at the ground level, and one vinyl-frame casement window at the second story. The south façade faces the backyard and features two composite doors (with glazed upper portions) at the ground level, and two pairs of vinyl-sash casement windows at the second story. The east façade of the addition features one vinyl -sash fixed window at the second story. Figure 10. South façade, looking north (rear addition at right). Figure 11. South façade, entrance vestibule, and rear addition. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 12. Entrance vestibule. Figure 13. Pier, concrete slab, and two entrances to rear addition. Figure 14. South façade of rear addition. Figure 15. Second-story east façade of rear addition. The east façade of the main residence (Figures 16-17) faces a narrow passageway that leads from the front to the rear yard. The central portion of the east façade contains two pairs of aluminum-sash windows within wood frames. The far north (right) section of the façade features a slightly projecting bay. Capped with a front-gabled roof, the bay contains one fixed window beneath the gable peak and two single-hung wood-sash windows in wood frames. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 6 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 16. Central portion of east façade. Figure 17. East façade (rear addition visible at far left). The subject lot features mature trees and plantings, a backyard patio area, a driveway, and a detached garage (Figures 18– 20). A dense hedgerow borders the north property line along Ralston Avenue, while a tall wood fence borders much of the west, south, and east property lines. The driveway runs along the west façade of the building; a metal gate limits access to the rear yard an d detached garage. Figure 18. Front yard, looking west. Figure 19. Driveway, looking south. Figure 20. Rear yard, looking south. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L The wood-clad detached garage features a gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed purlins and rafter tails (Figures 21 – 23). The garage sits on a concrete foundation. The north façade features a roll -up vehicular door made of recycled steel with six four-lite windows along the top. The eaves feature exposed rafter tails. The east façade features one vinyl -sash fixed window in a wood frame and one fully paneled wood door in a wood frame. The south façade does not contain any openings. Figure 21. North façade of detached garage. Figure 22. East façade of detached garage. Figure 23. South façade of detached garage. The surrounding neighborhood is strictly residential, with mostly one and two-story homes. The property immediately east and west of 1615 Ralston Avenue (1611 Ralston Avenue and 1617 Ralston Avenue, respectively), are one-and-one-half and two-story homes. (Figure 24 – 25). Figure 24. 1611 Ralston Avenue. Figure 25. 1617 Ralston Avenue. DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 8 of 13 *NRHP Status Code__6Z__________________ *Resource Name or # 1615 Ralston Avenue B1. Historic name: 1615 Ralston Avenue B2. Common name: 1615 Ralston Avenue B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Based on an original building permit, city directory data, and water tap records, 1615 Ralston Avenue was constructed in 1922. The original building permit credits J.W. Rutherdale as the builder; no architect is specified. The earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map that shows the subject building is from 1949 and reflects the same building footprint that exists today with the exception of the large rear addition. The detached garage is depicted on the 1949 map. Based on building permit history, the rear addition was likely constructed in 1954. Additionally, the windows of the master bedroom were removed and replaced (likely the aluminum-sash windows at the east façade). A window at the south façade also appears to have been replaced with a vinyl -sash window. The following building permits are on file at the Burlingame Building Department: Permit # Date Description 439 1/19/1922 Original building permit. Cost of $5,000. Builder: J.W. Rutherdale I-83 7/9/1954 Alteration and addition, at a cost of $4,850. Builder: R.A. White Inspection 3/11/1968 Found termite damage T456 8/2/1971 Roofing work by Kemp Roofing Service X-869 9/20/1977 Termite control and rot repairs Y192 1/25/1978 Roofing work 3096 5/22/1981 Install furnace 8539 8/15/1984 Tear off garage roof, rebuild roof, tar and gravel 1707 10/10/1986 Plumbing, replace water heater 9300525 3/19/1993 Kitchen remodeling by Hargens Inc. 9302184 12/15/1993 Reroofing 9900904 6/22/1999 Electrical work 2021188 8/22/2002 Roofing work 2022482 4/24/2003 New decks. Bed and bath remodel 2025981 11/29/2004 Mechanical work only Plans only 4/10/2005 Demolition for new master bed and bath. Remove all windows and patch exterior finish as required. Electrical and plumbing work. KU13.0049 8/14/2013 Kitchen remodel (See Continuation Sheets) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:_ ____________________________ *B8. Related Features: No B9a. Architect: Architect unknown b. Builder: J.W. Rutherdale *B10. Significance: Theme_N/A Area Burlingame Park___________________________ Period of Significance _N/A Property Type_Single Family Residential___________Applicable Criteria_N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) (See Continuation Sheets) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See Page 14 B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Katherine Wallace, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: February 14, 2017 (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small vi llage of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. Howev er, the 1906 Earthquake and Fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of the San Mateo Rancho. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the property following Burlingame’s death, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall’s early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall’s cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan “centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents.”1 The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.2 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was subdivided in 1905, through the early-twentieth-century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are variations of the Craftsman style or of different revival styles (often altered). 1 Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. 2 Diane Condon-Wirgler, “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park,” (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2017. Burlingame Park. Property outlined in orange. Modified by Page & Turnbull. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 13 Resource Name or # 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): 1615 Ralston Avenue An original building permit confirms that 1615 Ralston Avenue was constructed in 1922 by builder J. W. Rutherdale. The building was connected to the municipal water system in 1922 (Figure 26). City directory data indicates the building was occupied in 1922 by Oliver Langton. The earliest Sanborn map of the property dates from 1949 and reflects the building footprint as it is today, with the exception of the large rear addition (Figure 27). The 1949 map also depicts the detached garage at the southwest corner of the property. The rear addition was likely constructed in 1954. The earliest historic photograph dates from January 4, 1968 (Figure 28). The property is shown with mature trees, bushes and hedges that partially obscure the primary façade. No other historic photographs were found of other façades. Figure 26. Water record card. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Figure 27. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (March 1921 – November 1949). Property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): Figure 28. 1615 Ralston Avenue, primary façade. Real estate listing (January 4, 1968). Source: Burlingame Historic Society. Owner and Occupant History Research has identified Oliver Langton as the original owner of the subject property. Oliver was married to Bertha Langton and worked as a marine engineer. The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 1615 Ralston Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and other available resources.3 Year(s) of Ownership Name(s) of Owners (known owners in bold) and Tenants Occupation 1922-1941 Oliver Langton (Bertha) Marine Engineer 1942-1947 Harold A Sampson (Agnes T.) Golf Pro 1947- 1948 Gretta Adams and Nelle Gafney 1948-1970 Jack D. Marpole (Alma) National Screen Service Corp.; Theatre Transit Co. 1971-72 David R. Breuer (Elizabeth L.) Office Manager 1973-74 Marvin D. Ellis (DeLores) Terminal Manager for All Trans Exp. 1975 No Return 1976 Joseph J. Maloney 1977-80 Edward Breuer Pet Store Operator 1995-2007 Mario and Sally J. Amoroso 2007-2014 Paul D. and Corinne Lusk 2014-present Henry and Jaclyn Eng Evaluation (Significance): The property at 1615 Ralston Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file with the Northwest Information Center, affiliated with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan area, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 3 Known owners are those who were specified either in city directories, permits or assessor records as homeowners. City directories did not consistently specify who was a homeowner vs. a resident or renter , so it is possible that all names listed in the table above were homeowners. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 13 Resource Name or # 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): 1615 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house was constructed in 1922, during a major wave of development of the Burlingame Park subdivision. However, the property does not retain strong significance as it was not one of the first or last homes to be constructed, nor is it notable amongst the majority constructed in the 1920s. The property does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for National Register Criterion A/California Register Criterion 1. Therefore, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 1615 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register Criterion B/California Register Criterion 2 (Persons). The original owner, Oliver Langton, lived at the property for approximately twenty years. Subsequent owners and occupants lived at the property for as little as one year and as much as 22 years. Research does not indicate that any former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 1615 Ralston Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The main portion of the house is original from 1922, though windows along the south and east façades appear to have been replaced. One large, elevated rear addition was constructed in 1954. The builder listed on the original building permit was J.W. Rutherdale. Because little is known about the building and no architect is known to have been involved, the building cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. Despite retaining original features such as Craftsman-style window muntins, overhanging eaves with exposed purlins and rafter tails, and the entrance porch, the building is not a particularly strong representation of the Craftsman style such that it would rise to the level of individual significance. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register Criterion D/California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1615 Ralston Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 is beyond the scope of this report. Conclusion The residence at 1615 Ralston Avenue was constructed in 1922 within the Burlingame Park neighborhood. The hip-roofed residence features a cross-gable and a gable-roofed entrance porch. The building is rectilinear in plan and features a large rear addition. Windows at the south and east façades of the main building have been removed and replaced. The detached garage (featured on the 1949 Sanborn map) was constructed at an unknown date. No significant events are associated with the property, nor do any owners or occupants appear to have contributed to history in a significant way. The building does not embody the work of a master, exemplify an architectural style or building type, or possess high artistic style to a degree that it would be individually eligible. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the building, meaning that it was “Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation.”4 This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early-twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park and surroundings neighborhoods as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. 4 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 13 of 13 Resource Name or # 1615 Ralston Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 14, 2017  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. Ancestry.com. Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 1615 Ralston Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. “Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” February 19, 2008 . Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003 “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” July 26, 1982 San Mateo County Assessor Grantor-Grantee Index. Water Tap Record. 1615 Ralston Avenue, Lot 3, Block 9. April 10, 1922. 3'-6"First Floor First Floor RidgeFirst Floor CeilingFirst Floor FloorSecond Floor 7' 6" AFF. 2ND FLOORƒ3'-6"9'3'-7"8'First Floor Ceiling26'-2"First Floor Second Floor Ceiling9'3'26'-2"3'-7"8'Second Floor FloorSecond Floor CeilingSecond Floor RidgeGrade lavelT.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"Point of Departure + 57'-0"Highest Ridge Point +82'-3"T.O. Second Floor Subfloor +70'-8"1'-2"1'-10"T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' - 6"Note:A.F.F Above Finished FloorPoint of Departure + 57'-0"T.O. New Highest Point Ridge +82'-3"T.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"12'T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' -6"3'-6"25'-3"9'-9"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"7' 6" AFF. 2ND FLOOREast Property Line West Property Line 12'8'-11"6'2X8 Fascia BoardWindow(Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window(Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window(Existing/Wood/Fixed)Door(Existing/Wood/Single Panel)Window (Existing/Wood/Fixed)Window (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window(Existing/Wood/Fixed)4x4 Gable BracketWindow(New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Casment)Window(New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window(New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)4x4 Gable Bracket2X8 Fascia BoardNew Stucco Finishto Match ExistingNew Stucco Finishto Match Existing9" Wide ClearRedwood Belly BandNew WallPainted Metal Gutter3'-6"EGRESS2'-3"Existing MetalRailingƒ1212123 3/412Black Composite Roofingto match existing3 3/43 3/43 3/4E. 18" X 12" Gable Ventwith Metal ScreenBlack Composite Roofingto match existingEGRESS3'-4"2'-6"Stucco Finished FireplaceNew TrellisNote:All windows to be fiberglass clad woodwith simulated true divided litesBOTTOM SASHWOOD TRIMTO MATCH EXISTINGSASH TOPRAILBLIND STOPJAMBPARTINGBEADCASINGCASINGGLASSTOP SASHAPRONAPRONSILLSASH BOTTOMRAILMEETINGRAILPUTTY BEVELSTOP2" X 4" EXISTINGSTUD WALL2" X 7 " REDWOODBELLY BAND2" x 3" REDWOODSLOPED AT TOP1/2 " PLYSHEETING7/8 " STUCCOTO MATCH EXISTINGTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'6/18/18A7PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Proposed Side Elevations Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:NORTH ELEVATIONWEST ELEVATIONWINDOW TYPICAL DETAILBELLY BAND DETAIL 3'-6"9'8'3'-7"26'-2"First Floor First Floor CeilingSecond Floor CeilingSecond Floor 3'9'3'8'3'-7"26'-2"First Floor First Floor RidgeSecond Floor FloorFirst Floor CeilingSecond Floor CeilingSecond Floor RidgeFirst Floor FloorGrade LavelSecond Floor 3'-4" 4'-8" 3'-8" 2'-2" 2'-4" A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F Highest Ridge Point +82'-3"T.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"Point of Departure + 57'-0"T.O. Second Floor Subfloor +70'-8"Note:A.F.F Above Finished FloorNote:A.F.F Above Finished Floor1'-2"1'-10"T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' - 6"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"Point of Departure +57' -0"3'-6"T.O. First Floor Subfloor +60'-6"Point of Departure + 57'-0"12'T.O. Existing Ridge Height +72' -6"T.O. New Highest Point Ridge +82'-3"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"9'-9"Avg. T.O. Curb + 56'-1"Window (Existing/Wood/Fixed)Exterior Paint Grade (New/Wood/Double Panel)Window (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Window (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)4"x4" Gable Bracket4"x4" Gable Bracket2"X8" Fascia BoardNew Stucco Finishto Match ExistingPainted Metal Gutter2' Extension at rearNew WallRear Gable RoofWindow (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Fixed)Window (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)EXISTING SLIDING WINDOWWindow (New/Fiberglass Clad Wood/Double Hung)Black Composite Roofingto match existingMetal DownspoutNew Stucco Finishto Match ExistingRoof Eave of the Front Slope2"X8" Fascia Board2'Black Composite Roofingto match existingE. 18" X 12" Ventwith Metal ScreenGas Fireplace Insertto Replace Masonry FireplaceExisting MetalRailing1212124123 3/43 3/43'-6"3 3/4EGRESS9" Wide ClearRedwood Belly Band2'-3"New Redwood TrellisDoor (Existing/Wood/Single Panel)New TrellisTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'6/18 /18A8PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Proposed Second Floor Elevations Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:EAST ELEVATIONSOUTH ELEVATION W11 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)3'-4" 4'-8" 3'-8"W8 (Existing/Wood/Slider)W9 (Existing/Wood/Slider)W6 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W13 (Existing/Wood/Casement)2'-2" A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F 122 1/4122 1/4Crawl Space VentW10 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)Existing Exterior Door (Rear Side)/WoodExisting Black Iron Pipe RailingA.F.F Existing Gable Ventwith Metal Screen (18" X 12")W14 (Existing/Wood/Casement)2'-2" 4'-6" 2'-2"W12 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W2 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W3 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)W5 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)W4 (Existing/Wood/Double Hung)W3 (Existing/Wood/Fixed)W15 (Existing/Wood/Casement)Existing Black Iron Pipe RailingD1 ( Existing Front Door/Wood)A.F.F A.F.F A.F.F Crawl Space VentExisting Gable Vent122 1/4122 1/4Note:A.F.F Above Finished FloorNote:A.F.F Above Finished Floor123 3/4123 3/4TITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'6/18/18A6PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Existing Elevations Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:E. WEST ELEVATIONE. NORTH ELEVATIONE. SOUTH ELEVATIONE. EAST ELEVATION UPUP10'-11"2'-4"2'21'-10"GARAGE (EXISTING)AREA : 410 Sft.CONCRETE PAD UNDERNEATH OFCARPORT REMAIN AS IT ISAREA : 365 SftEXIXTING BUILDINGAREA : 2011 Sft.CONCRETE BLOCKPAVINGCONCRETE BLOCKPAVING5'-8"3'8'-4"16'-9"23'-7"(E) 24" D. TREE( TRIDIENT MAPLE)LAND SCAPINGDRIVE WAYRALSTON AVESIDE WALK137'-6" PROPERTY LINE6' HIGH WOOD FENCE143'-6" PROPERTY LINE6' HIGH WOOD FENCE 50'-0" PROPERTY LINE6' HIGH WOOD FENCE20'-3"20'-3"24'-4"8'ADDITIONAL SECOND FLOORAREA : 1078.00 Sft.RIGHT OF WAY 27'-7"18'-6"24'-2"29'-10"46'-2"ELECTRICITY METERFRONT PORCH4'-11"5'8'-4"2'1'-4"CURB AND GUTTER143'-6"50'51'-2"58'19'-6"19'-5"E. TREE(AUSTRALIAN WILLOW)+56' 0"+56' 1 1/2"+57' 10"+57' 11"+56' 2"E. SEWERE. WATER METERE. BIKE ROUTE SIGNE. POWER LINEE. CABLE LINE(E) 9" D. TREE( BIRCH)INSTALL TREE PROTECTIONINSTALL NEW 1" WATER LINEFIRE SPRINKLERWATER SUPPLYPOTABLEWATER SUPPLYFIRE SPRINKLERMETER OR VALVE7'-1"E. FIREPLACE40'-5"PLANTING AREAFOR VINESTITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/8"=1'6/18/18A1PROPOSED SITE PLANPROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Project Information Eng Henry 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:Project InformationAddition of Second Floor1615 Ralston Ave.Burlingame, CA 94010APN: 028314030Lot Area: 7025 sftZonning: R1Type of Construction: V- BProject InformationLot Coverage( E ) 2751 SFT( N ) 2489 SFTLot CoverageFloor Area( E ) House & Garage 1st Floor 1928.4 sft 2nd Floor 0 sft Garage 410 sftToral Existing 2338.4 sft( N ) House & Garage 1st Floor 1928.4 sft 2nd Floor 1146.6 sft Garage 410 sftTotal New 3485 sftRequired SetbackApplicable Codes2016 California Residential Code (2009 IRC)2016 California Building Standards Administrative Code ( Title 24, Part 1 )2016 California Building Code ( Title 24, Part 2)2016 California Electrical Code ( Title 24, Part 3)2016 California Mechanical Code ( Title 24, Part 4)2016 California Plumbing Code ( Title 24, Part 5)2016 California Green Building Code ( Title 24, Part 6)2016 California Fire Code ( Title 24, Part 9)2016 California Existing Building Code ( Title 24, Part 10)2016 Referenced Standards Code ( Title 24, Part 12)2016 Green Residential Building Code(A1) Project Information(A2) First Floor Plan (Existing/New)(A3) Second Floor Plan (Proposed)(A4) Windows Schedule Plan (Proposed)(A5) Electrical Plan (Proposed)(A6 ) Existing Elevations(A7) Proposed Elevations (Front/West)(A8) Proposed Elevations (Rear/East)(A9) Roof Plan (Existing/Proposed)IndexNEWSLEGEND:Existing Foundation LineProperty LineExisting BuildingAdditional Second FloorExisting TreeFLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR):For interior lot with detached garage:.32 X lot area + 1100 SF + 400 Sf (for detached garage).32 X 7025 + 1100 + 400 = 3748 SFMsximum allowable floor area based on FAR 3748 SFFirst Floor Total Area (Existing + New) = 2489 - 130.6 - 20 = 2338.4 SFSecond Floor Total Area (Proposed) = 1146.6 SFProposed + Existing Total Area = 2338.4 +1146.6 = 3485 SF < 3748 SF ( Maximum Allowed)ExistingAllowed/RequiredProposedFront (1st Floor) ( 2nd Floor)21' - 10" n/ano change40' - 5"15' - 0" or block avg.20' - 0" or block avg.2' - 0"8' - 4"8' - 0" to 2nd story10' - 11" to 2nd story4' - 0"4' - 0"46' - 2"48' - 2"58' - 0"58' - 0"15' - 0"20' - 0"Side ( Left ) ( Right )Rear (1st Floor) ( 2nd Floor)General Notes:Landscape Notes:1. Landscape will remain the same.2. Installed Tree Protection Plan must be included on plans andbe in place before construction begins to protect all trees onproperty.3. Rehabilitated landscape must comply with the WaterConservation in LandscapeStormwater Notes:1. All construction project in the City, regardless of size, shallcomply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to preventconstruction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponentsshall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate andeffective Best Management Practices ( BMPs) during all phaseof construction, including demolition.Building Division Notes:Fire Department Notes:1. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valveassembly - A scjematic of water.2. Fire sprinkler shall be installed under a separate deferredfire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior toinstallation.1. "Construction Hours"Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. - 7.00 p.m.Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.Sundays and Holidays: No Worked AllowedConstruction hours in the City Public right of way are limited toweekdays and Non City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00p.m.2. "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performedbeyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plansmay require further City approvals including review by thePlanning Commission." The building owner, project designer,and /or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for anywork not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plansprior to performing the work.3. No grading is required.4. Existing fireplace is wood burning and will be upgraded asper U.S.EPA phase 2 certified wood Burning Device.Building To Be DemolishedSide WalkGrass Area 3 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4: 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 122 1/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 122 1/4 : 123 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 12RIDGERIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYVALLEYHIPHIPHIPHIPRIDGERIDGE RIDGE 3 3/4 : 123 3/4 : 12RIDGE RIDGEExterior Wall Line2'Metal Gutter2'Exterior Wall LineMetal Gutter2'2'2'2'2'2'1'RIDGE RIDGE TITLE SHEET Date:Scale:1/4"=1'6/18/18A9PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDRAWING PROVIDED BY: NO.DESCRIPTION BY DATE 1201 Old County Road # 1 Belmont, CA 94002 (650) 483-4914 Saviano Builders Roof Plan Henry Residence 1615 Ralston Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010Sheet No:EXISTING FIRST FLOOR ROOF PLANPROPOSED SECOND FLOOR ROOF PLAN City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 723-A Laurel Avenue Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling. Ap plicant and Designer: J. Deal Associates APN: 029-061-130 Property Owners: Robert and Germaine Alfaro Lot Area: 10,900 SF General Plan: Medium Density Residential Zoning: R-2 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. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling at 723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R-2, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2017 (see attached January 9, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in January 2018 and construction is underway. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval to change the exterior siding on the upper level of the addition from wood beveled horizontal siding to HardiPlank 5¼” horizontal lap siding. The applicant notes that the existing detached residence at the rear of the site (723-B Laurel Avenue) contains HardiPlank 5¼” horizontal lap siding (see attached photographs and sheet 4, plans dated stamped May 22, 2018). The applicant would like to match the existing siding at 723-B Laurel Avenue. Furthermore, the applicant notes that within approximately two years, the property owner plans to renovate the front portion of the residence at 723-A Laurel Avenue and would also like to use the same HardiPlank siding so that both buildings on the property match. Please refer to the attached explanation letter, dated May 21, 2018 for a detailed explanation of the proposed changes. The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped May 22, 2018, to show the changes to the previously approved design review project. The Planning Commission reviewed these changes as an FYI item on the June 11, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, but did not accept them, noting there was a discussion about the two different types of siding during the action meeting for the project, so it should be discussed now since the applicant is proposing to make a change to the siding. Project Description: The subject property contains a one-story dwelling unit with a detached garage at the front of the lot (723-A Laurel Avenue) and a two-story dwelling unit with an attached garage at the rear of the lot (723-B Laurel Avenue). The project included replacing the existing detached two-car garage with a new attached three-car garage and addition above the garage at the rear of the front building. There were no improvements proposed to the rear building. There is no FAR requirement for the R-2 zone, so the FAR was not calculated for the property. With this application, the number of bedrooms increased from two to three in the front building. The existing dwelling unit in the rear building contains four bedrooms. Based on the proposed bedroom count, a total of five parking spaces are required on-site. The code requires that 80% of the required parking spaces, or in this case four spaces, must be covered. Four covered parking spaces are provided in the existing and proposed garages; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided behind the new attached garage. All other Zoning Code requirements were met. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on Item No. 8e Regular Action Item Design Review Amendment 723-A Laurel Avenue 2 January 9, 2017:  Design Review for a first and second story addition at the rear of an existing duplex dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). 723-A Laurel Avenue Lot Area: 10,900 SF Plans date stamped: May 22, 2018 EXISTING PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21'-10" n/a no change 87'-0" 15'-0" or block average 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 8'-6" 15'-0" 4’-0” (1st flr)/5’-6” (2nd flr) 22’-0” (1st flr)/22’-0” (2nd flr) 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 120'-6" n/a 86’-6” 86'-6" 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 4008 SF 36.7% 4313 SF 39.6% 4360 SF 40% # of bedrooms: 723-A: 2 723-B: 4 723-A: 3 723-B: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 3 covered (10’ x 20' each space) 2 uncovered (9' x 20') 4 covered (10’ x 20' each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 4 covered (10' x 20' each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 24'-4" 27'-0" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.27.075 Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the addition (featuring hip roofs, composition shingle roofing, proportional plate heights, horizontal siding, and aluminum clad wood windows with wood trim) is compatible with the existing structure and character of the neighborhood, that the attached garage at the rear of the structure will not be visible from the street and is consistent with the garage pattern on the lot and in 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, Design Review Amendment 723-A Laurel Avenue 3 therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 22, 2016, sheets A-1 through A-8, L-1, and GBM; 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 Building Division’s June 29, 2016 memo, the Parks Division’s November 9, 2016 and September 21, 2016 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 23, 2016 memo, the Fire Division’s September 27, 2016 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s September 27, 2016 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; Design Review Amendment 723-A Laurel Avenue 4 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer Robert and Germaine Alfaro, property owners Attachments: Explanation Letter and Photographs Submitted by the Applicant, dated May 21, 2018 Application to the Planning Commission December 12, 2016 and January 9, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 12, 2016 a.723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Robert and Germaine Alfaro Tr, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Gum recused himself from participating in the discussion - he left the Council Chambers. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal and Robert and Germaine Alfaro represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >At the site today, there was a vehicle parked in front of the house on the walkway - is this a place where people regularly park? (G. Alfaro - her son parks in that space. Its not a real parking space.) >On the south elevation, the existing door with the roof over it - any thought to including a roof element over the new door? (Deal - could place an eyebrow over the door.) >Any thoughts of providing additional screening on the south side to break up some of the mass? (Deal - the owner is a landscaper; can add more landscaping within the four foot space behind the garage; perhaps a hedge.) When the project comes back provide specifics regarding the landscaping. >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (G. Alfaro - haven't done so yet.) Please share the plans before it comes back for action. >(Deal - the owners would like to change the siding to a material that emulates the siding below the water table on both the existing house and the new addition.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes it is a nice project. What would be expected in the R 2 district. The height is mitigated by the existing house that is high off of the ground. >Initially thought the design was pretty massive, though there is no maximum FAR in the R 2 zone. Consistent with the neighborhood. >Wants to see how the siding is to be changed when the item comes back for action. >Believes that the differing siding types add something to the scale of the house; adds a "base" to the Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes house. Would lose some of this scale with consistent siding throughout. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 9, 2017 b.723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Robert and Germaine Alfaro Tr, property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Gum was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Can the entire front yard be paved? (Senior Planner Keylon: Yes, but it cannot be used for parking.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal represented the applicant, with property owner Germaine Alfaro. Commission Comments/Questions: >Concern with the Jeep being parked in the front. (Deal: The son parks there, but can park elsewhere.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >It's a good looking project. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Bandrapalli, Sargent, Gaul, and Gaul6 - Absent:Terrones1 - Recused:Gum1 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGO RICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an application has been made for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling at 723-A Laurel Avenue, Zoned R-2, Pierre Robert Alfaro TR and Germaine Alfaro TR, 723 Laurel Avenue #B, Burlingame, Ca, 94010, property owners, APN: 029-061-130; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 25, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment was approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Design Review Amendment 723-A Laurel Avenue Effective July 5, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 22, 2016, sheets A-1 through A-8, L-1, and GBM; 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 Building Division’s June 29, 2016 memo, the Parks Division’s November 9, 2016 and September 21, 2016 memos, the Engineering Division’s September 23, 2016 memo, the Fire Division’s September 27, 2016 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s September 27, 2016 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Design Review Amendment 723-A Laurel Avenue Effective July 5, 2018 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 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. PROJECT LOCATION 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Item No. 8f Regular Action Item Item No. 8f Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination Address: 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination for a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium. Applicant: Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu APN: 028-294-050 and 028-294-060 Property Owner: Opal Investments LLC Lot Area: 10,042 SF (combined) General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Adjacent Development: Multi-family and single-family dwellings and offices Current Use: Single family dwelling and detached garage at 1500 Cypress Avenue Single family dwelling and shed at 105 El Camino Real Proposed Use: Four-unit residential condominium building Allowable Use: Multi-family residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Heights subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Historic Resource Evaluations were prepared for both 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 28, 2014. The results of the evaluation concluded that neither property appears to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. December 11, 2017 Design Review Study Meeting: At the December 11, 2017, Planning Commission design review study meeting, the Commission had several questions and suggestions regarding this project (see attached December 11, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the meeting minutes for a detailed list of concerns expressed by the Commission. The architect submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped June 15, 2018 to address the Commission’s comments. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 2 Since the December 11, 2017 study meeting, several changes have been made to the project, some of which address the concerns and comments expressed by the Planning Commission. The following is a summary of the significant changes made to the project: 1. The previously requested Parking Variance for providing required parking spaces in tandem configuration has been eliminated. The project has been revised so that the required parking spaces are provided side-by-side in enclosed garages and at the rear of the site along the south property line (see revised First Floor Plan, sheet A2.1. 2. The previously requested Parking Variance for not providing a required guest parking spaces has been eliminated. The project has been revised so that one guest parking spaces is provided at the rear of the site along the south property line (see revised First Floor Plan, sheet A2.1). 3. The common open space, previously provided at the front corner of the site, has been relocated to the rear corner of the site (see revised Site Plan, Schematic Landscape Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A1.4, L0.1 and L1, respectively). This new common open space contains landscaping, a patio, and seating area. 4. Roof decks have been shifted closer to the north end of the building (towards El Camino Real). Previously, the roof decks were located 32 to 40 feet away from the rear property line. With the current proposal, the roof decks are located 45’-8¾” from the rear property line (see revised Roof Plan, sheet A2.4). The applicant also submitted a Sightline Diagram, date stamped June 19, 2018, to show the relationship between the proposed roof decks and adjacent neighbor to the south. 5. Revisions to all four building facades were made to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Additional articulation and details have been added throughout the exterior facades (see revised building elevations, sheets A3.1 through A3.4). In addition to the building elevations, the applicant provided several renderings from viewpoints along El Camino Real and Cypress Avenue (see sheets A0.1, R1, R2 and R3). 6. The previously proposed 2-bedroom unit has been changed to a 4-bedroom unit. Therefore, the project now proposes a total of 4, 4-bedroom units (see revised Floor Plans). 7. The family rooms previously proposed on the second floor at the rear of the building have been replaced with bedrooms which were previously proposed on the ground floor (see revised Second Floor Plan, sheet A2.3). 8. The previously proposed storage basements (one for each unit) have been eliminated. 9. The design of the planters along the front of the building along El Camino Real have been redesigned so that they don’t create a barrier between the building and the street. Individual walkways are now provided from the entries directly to the sidewalk (see revised Site Plan, Schematic Landscape Plan and Landscape Plan, sheets A1.4, L0.1 and L1, respectively). Project Summary: The applicant is proposing construction of a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium building with covered and uncovered at-grade parking at 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3. Two existing lots, with addresses of 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real would be combined for the proposed project. Multifamily residential uses are permitted in the R-3 District. The project site is located at the corner of Cypress Avenue and El Camino Real and currently contains a one- story single family dwelling and detached garage (with living space above the garage) at 1500 Cypress Avenue and a one-story single family dwelling and shed at 105 El Camino Real. All of the existing structures on the Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 3 subject property would be demolished to build the proposed four-unit residential condominium building. The site is bordered by a one-story office building across El Camino Real to the north, a single family dwelling to the south, a three-story multifamily residential building to the east and three-story multifamily buildings to the west. It is a corner lot with frontages on both Cypress Avenue and El Camino Real. For the proposed project, the El Camino Real frontage is considered the front of the lot. The subject property is zoned R-3 and has a General Plan land use designation of Medium-High Density residential with 21-50 dwelling units per acre, which allows up to 11 units. The application is for four units which is a density of 17 dwelling units per acre. The property is not designated as a Housing Opportunity Site in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The proposed building would contain four residential units in three floors, with enclosed at-grade parking garages for each unit located at the rear of the building. An additional six uncovered parking spaces are provided along the south property line. The project includes four, four-bedroom units. The ground floor for each unit will contain an entry foyer and garage, which also provides space for bicycle storage and garbage/recycling containers. The second floor for all four units will contain living/dining areas, kitchen, bathroom, laundry, one bedroom and an open den (does not qualify as a bedroom since it is open to the hallway). The third floor will contain three bedrooms and two bathrooms. Access to the private roof decks is provided within each unit from the third floor. The following applications are required for this project:  Design Review for the proposed construction of a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium building (C.S. 25.28.045 and 25.57.010 (b));  Condominium Permit for construction of a new residential condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020);  Tentative Condominium Map; and  Tentative Map for Lot Combination to combine existing parcels with addresses of 1500 Cypress Avenue and 105 El Camino Real. Design Review: Materials proposed for the exterior of the building include cement plaster siding, ‘S’ curve roof tiles, painted wood entry and garage doors, metal clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood window trim and painted metal railings at balconies. Decorative elements include accent tiles and plaster rosettes, arches and corbels. The windows are proposed to be recessed three inches from the wall. The overall height of the building, as measured to the top of the highest roof ridge, is proposed at 34'-7" above average top of curb level where 55’-0” is the maximum allowed (Conditional Use Permit required if building height exceeds 35’-0”). The height to the top of the primary parapet of the building is 32’-8”. As proposed, the project is compliant with building height regulations. Off-Street Parking: The code requires off-street parking based on number of bedrooms per unit. Two and one-half parking spaces are required for four-bedroom units. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit, the proposed project requires a total of 10 parking spaces, 80% of which must be covered. The proposed project provides eight covered parking spaces in enclosed garages and four uncovered parking spaces at the rear of the lot, for a total of 12 parking spaces. Vehicular access to the garages would be from Cypress Avenue; there would be no vehicle access from El Camino Real (the existing curb cut and driveway apron along El Camino Real will be eliminated and replaced with a standard sideway, curb and gutter). Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 4 For projects with two to four units, the code requires that one guest parking space be provided on-site. One guest parking space is provided at the rear of the lot along the south property line. Lastly, the code requires that the condominium development provide an area for deliveries. The code does not specify that it be a dedicated parking space, only that it be “an area for on-site deliveries.” The project proposes a service/delivery parking space at the rear of the lot along the south property line. Common and Private Open Space: There is a total of 526 SF (131.5 SF/unit) of common open space proposed for the condominium project where 400 SF (100 SF/unit) is required. The common open space is provided at the rear corner of the lot. Of the minimum required common open space, a minimum of 50% must be in soft landscaping (200 SF); 290 SF of the provided common open space is proposed to be landscaped and therefore is in compliance. There is 194 SF to 279 SF in private open space per unit (75 SF/unit is the minimum required) provided in balconies located on the second and third floors and on decks located on the roof top. The uncovered roof decks are located toward the front half of the building, 45’-8¾” from the rear property line (see Roof Plan on sheet A2.4). Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plan (sheets L1 and L2). The applicant is proposing 63.2% (1,267 SF) landscaping within the required front setback where 50% (1,002 SF) is the minimum required. The project meets all other zoning code and condominium permit requirements. There are three existing trees on the subject property including a 36-inch diameter Cypress tree located at the front corner of the lot, a multi-trunk Palm tree along Cypress Avenue and a 14-inch diameter Red Spire tree in between the two lots to be merged. The existing protected-size Cypress tree will remain and will be required to be protected during construction; the remaining non-protected size trees will be removed. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box-size minimum non-fruit trees for every 2000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of three landscape trees are required on site. The Landscape Plan notes that in addition to retaining the existing Cypress tree, there will be four 36-inch box Japanese maple trees and six 15-gallon Maple trees planted in the front setback along El Camino Real, three 24-inch box Variegated Box- Leaf Azara trees planted along Cypress Avenue, and 5-gallon Pittosporum planted along the rear property line. Two existing street trees along Cypress Avenue, which are small and in poor condition, will be removed and replaced with three 24-inch box Ginko biloba trees as required by the City Arborist. The City Arborist is also requiring that two, 24-inch box Eucalyptus ‘citriadora’ trees be planted in the right-of-way along El Camino Real. Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units: The City’s previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development standard incentives offered by the ordinance. The applicant has not chosen to apply any of the development standard incentives offered by the Density Bonus Ordinance and therefore is not providing any affordable units as part of the project. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 5 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Lot Area: 10,042 SF Plans date stamped: June 15, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (El Camino Real) (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (roof deck): 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 23’-8⅞” 20'-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” Exterior Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (roof deck): 7’-8" 9’-8" 9’-8" 12’-10½” 7’-6" 7’-6" 8’-6" 9’-6” Interior Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (roof deck): 7'-2½" 9'-2½" 9'-2½" 12’-11⅞” 7'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (roof deck): 20’-0” 20’-0” 20’-0” 45’-8¾” 20’-0” 20'-0" 20'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 5,073 SF 50.5% 6,025 SF 60% Building Height: 34'-7” to top of highest roof ridge 33’-8” to main parapet 55’-0" maximum/ CUP required to exceed 35’-0” Front Setback Landscaping: 63.2% 1,267 SF 50% 1,002 SF Private Open Space: 194 SF – 279 SF/unit 75 SF per unit Common Open Space: SF Landscaped: 526 SF 290 SF (72.5% of required) 400 SF 200 SF (50% of required) Off-Street Parking: 12 spaces 1 guest spaces 1 service/delivery space 80% covered 4, 4 bdrm units x 2.5 = 10 spaces 1 guest space Area for on-site deliveries required 80% must be covered Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 6 Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on September 27, 2017, which at that time included a proposal for a modern, contemporary building design (see attached notice, rendering and plans mailed to the surrounding neighborhood). Letters expressing concern with the design were submitted by several neighbors (attached). Since meeting with the neighbors, the applicant has revised the project to address the neighbors’ concerns and is now proposing a design that is consistent with Spanish architecture. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fee is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Based on a 4-unit residential condominium project and providing a credit for the two existing single family dwellings, the estimated Public Impact Fee for this development project is $11,074.00. The Public Impact Fees payment will be required at time of building permit issuance. One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Planning staff would note the additional fees that apply to the project that will be required at the time of building permit issuance include sewer connection fees (determined by Public Works) as well as school fees (elementary and high school fees). Design Review: Design review is required for new construction of multi-family residential developments in the R-3 and R-4 Districts. The following considerations shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission (Code Section 25.57.010(b): (1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles; (3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used; and (4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the proposed condominium building will be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood with the use of a variety of quality materials including cement plaster siding, ‘S’ curve roof tiles, painted wood entry and garage doors, metal clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood window trim and painted metal railings at balconies and the use of decorative elements such as accent tiles, plaster rosettes, arches and corbels. The new three-story building respects the mass and scale of this portion of El Camino Real which has a mix of two and three-story multifamily residential buildings with a variety of architectural styles. The building includes articulated façades that provide visual interest throughout the building. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's four design review criteria. Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 7 Criteria for Permitting a Residential Condominium: The following condominium standards shall apply to all land and structures proposed as a part of a condominium project and shall be evaluated and processed pursuant to the procedural requirements set forth for Conditional Use Permits in title 25 of this code. No condominium project or portion thereof shall be approved or conditionally approved in whole or in part unless the planning commission, or city council upon appeal or review, has reviewed the following on the basis of their effect on: (a) Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare; (b) The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources; and (c) Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations. Suggested Findings for Condominium Permit:  Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare in that the four-unit residential condominium project is scaled to be compatible with existing multifamily buildings along El Camino Real and features ample landscaping with usable common open space;  The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that because the project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public services, and that the existing single family dwellings and detached garage will be replaced with a three-story building containing four residential units on the same lot, the proposed project can be adequately served by required utility and public services since the proposed project is only contributing two net new units on the site and the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and  Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides two additional residential units (four total) consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. 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. Affirmative action on the following items should be taken separately by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. Design Review and Condominium Permit. 2. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination (recommendation for approval by City Council). 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 15, 2018, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1, L2 and Boundary and Topographic Map; Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 8 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 3. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 5. that the applicant shall apply for a Tentative and Final Condominium Map and Tentative Map for lot combination with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 6. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 7. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.75' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.21') for a maximum height of 34’-7", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 101.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 110.67’; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 120.67’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 9. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 10. that the service/delivery vehicle parking stall shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; 11. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle stall shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 13. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 9 14. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 15. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 16. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 17. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 18. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 19. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 20. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 21. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 23. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 24. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 25. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 10 26. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 27. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 28. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 29. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 30. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; 31. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 32. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 33. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 34. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 36. 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 37. 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. Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect Design Review, Condominium Permit, 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative Map for Lot Combination 11 Attachments: December 11, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped June 15, 2018 Sightline Diagram Submitted by the Applicant, date stamped June 19, 2018 Letter Submitted by V. Winnie Tungpagasit, Esq., representing Freddy Bush, dated June 20, 2018 Letter Submitted by V. Winnie Tungpagasit, Esq., representing Freddy Bush, dated December 7, 2017 Letter Submitted by Peter Comaroto, dated December 11, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Neighborhood Meeting Notice (September 27, 2017) Letters of Concern Submitted by Neighbors for Initial Project Design Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluations prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 28, 2014 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 11, 2017 d.1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Parking Variances and Lot Combination for a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that one of the letters sent to the Planning Commission was from her husband Peter Comaroto who talked about the project. He speaks for himself only, and Commissioner Comaroto's view will be unbiased. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architects, represented the applicant, with Wayne Hu. Commission Questions/Comments: >South elevation has a portion of blank wall right in the center. It stands out because everything else is so detailed and complex. Suggests using 6-inch tiles like in the front. (Gee: Could embellish it to make it integrated.) >How are the roof decks accessed? (Gee: The skylight over the staircase slides open. There is no stair penthouse. Has used them in other jurisdictions. Can also consider a hinged option.) >The turning radius from El Camino Real onto Cypress is a sharp right turn. Are any issues anticipated with cars parking at the corner? (Gee: There are two or three cars parked there already typically. Has not discussed restricted curb parking with staff, but it could be discussed.) >What is water table? Concern with basement water. (Hu: Has discussed this with a civil engineer and does not anticipate a problem since there is not a driveway going down into an underground garage. Has designed the front of building with a low landscape wall.) >Will there be drainage problems on the Cypress side? (Gee: Cypress is downhill. The driveway is at the highest point and it slopes down towards El Camino. There are two catch basins, one on the corner at El Camino.) Even the higher elevation properties experience issues with ground water. >Will the deep-set windows be only on El Camino Rea? (Gee: No, on all sides.) >What is the exceptional circumstance justifying the variance? (Gee: Does not have access for vehicles on El Camino Real, and does not want the driveway on Cypress close to the intersection. Tried to provide as much covered parking as possible, but could not provide the guest parking.) >How is the common open space at the corner used? (Gee: Landscaping with rocks, planting and seating. It is a passive seating area and is gated. The tree line extends over the open space.) Suggests a vegetable garden or bocce court - any way to activate it, or relocate it to to make it more active. (Gee: Anyone walking to their units needs to walk past the open space, which will activate it. Ties it closer to the Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/19/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes residents. Could sit and watch children at play because it is enclosed. Can look at other possibilities.) >Average unit sizes? (Gee: 2511, 2611 and 1785 square feet.) >How would the style be described? (Gee: Spanish Hacienda or Revival like courtyard housing in Pasadena and Boyle Heights in Los Angeles.) >It is a difficult style unless willing to commit to the details that are necessary for the style. (Gee: The juliet balcony would be expressed correctly, maybe raising it so the floor of the balcony matches the floor of the window rather than the floor of the sill. Can provide more details in the next pass.) >How tall is the planter wall that screens El Camino? (Gee: It is approximately four feet. The shrubbery is meant to create a screen or visual filter between the inner walkway and the roadway. Storm water runoff from the roof will be fed into the planter as well, so the planter needs to be a certain height to provide storm water filtration.) >How tall is the curved wall? (Gee: The outer part is just a wall; the other part is a planer. About 30 inches high. The rendering shows an earlier design and needs to be updated.) >Which will be higher, the wall along El Camino Real or the curved wall? (Gee: The wall along El Camino Real.) >Have there been studies of sight lines for the roof decks? Should be included with the next submittal . (Gee: Yes, they were requested by the neighbor at 1508 Cypress. Did not include them in the submittal.) >Is there a guard rail around to the deck? (Gee: It is a clear 42-inch laminated glass rail with a dark bronze/brown cap fastened to the side of the deck. It will prevent people from using the rest of the roof.) >If guests park along the 1508 Cypress fence side will there be enough turning radius for cars coming in and out of their driveways? (Hu: The driveway width is 24 feet. Tested to see if a vehicle could be moved in three maneuvers, and it fits. It would be temporary parking, and could work out among neighbors for guests and the service parking.) >Would spaces along the back wall be marked? (Hu: No, they would not be designated.) Public Comments: Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Concerns with privacy, noise, and parking. Windows facing will look into living spaces of home. Three levels looking into the home. Driveway of project will be next to neighboring driveway, so will be facing parking garages with people coming in and out. Very little parking on Cypress Avenue, needs to be sure there is parking in front of her house for van with grandson in wheelchair. Winnie Tungpagasit, counsel for Fredy Bush. Has submitted letter with requests. Opposed parking variance, there are no extraordinary circumstances. Huge family room windows facing into client's bedroom, requests minimize the size, location height of the windows. Letter suggests a sound barrier wall with landscaping and trees of sufficient height to provide privacy on both sides. Concern about garage door openers; can be minimized with the type of opener. Requests site evaluation from the balconies and windows, suggests move decks closer to El Camino Real for more privacy. Request solid /opaque rails on south side of roofdecks. Concern with construction noise, requests construction fence with sound barrier . Would like weekends and holidays excluded from construction. William Stoyle, 1510 Cypress Avenue: Does not believe can turn a car within the amount of space. Cars will end up parking on Cypress Avenue. Busy intersection, a lot of parking demand on intersection . Two-hour parking on Cypress Avenue helps but still gets shoppers parking there. Commission should account for overall parking situation in the neighborhood when considering the project. Kirby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Appreciates early outreach, plans look much better than original submittal. Cypress Ave has only a small window on first floor, would like it treated so it does not look like a blank wall hiding a garage, make it look more like a house on the street. Will be looking at the building from Cypress Avenue, not El Camino Real. Two scrawny street trees with small planters, request the developer take out concrete between the sidewalk and the curb to allow better trees with irrigation. Would like the fir tree trimmed around the streetlight. Drainage basins along El Camino Real do not work and there is standing water when it rains; if water is pumped out from the project it will add to the problem. Lots Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/19/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of Caltrans poles and boxes on the corner, narrows the sidewalk and hard to pass by - could be a nice gateway to the neighborhood. Assumes only the residents of 1500 Cypress would be able to get permit parking. Krista McCutcheon, 1512 Carol Avenue: Agrees with the neighbors regarding water accumulation. Does not like the architecture. Improved and the drawings look good, but in the rendering the building looks huge with big white concrete walls. Does not see the recesses and archways. Very tall compared to the surrounding buildings, concerned it will not look like the neighborhood residential. It is a gateway into a historic neighborhood. There could be additional improvements on the sidewalk, could widen it. James Baleix, 831 Edgehill Drive: Two homes were put onto one lot, and faced away from each other . Likes the design, wondered why not underground parking like the one across the street. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Has an issue with the parking variance. Does not see the exceptional circumstance, just because there is not access from El Camino Real. There is not a nexus with not being able to provide guest parking. >Can't accept that cars will park along the fence, would block others and lead to irritation and eventually people will park on the street. >Difficult architectural style to achieve unless can commit to the details. Risk is a watered -down Spanish-style building. 1512 Floribunda Avenue is a good example - a lot of timber on the balconies, ceramic tile, details that make it stand out and give it texture and richness. Still lacking on this proposal, such as the square windows without muntins. >Would expect wood-stained garage doors, but note specifies painted wood flush panel garage doors. If they are plain white or beige it would not contribute to the architecture. >Fence along the west property line looks like a common wood residential fence. Needs to go the distance for the Spanish Revival style. Has plaster details instead of wood corbels and wood timbers. >Needs to see more information on the roof decks, such as the handrail and sight lines. The glass rail does not fit with the architecture. >Feels like the variance has been backed into based on the development program, not site -specific. Feels like it is bursting at the seams. >Has the opportunity to be a really nice project on the corner if the architecture comes together. >Feels like it is turning its back on the corner, isolating itself behind the walls and hedges. The hedges will grow tall and hide the front doors, and will not give back to the street. >Two parking variances being requested. Can't see the unique characteristics of the site. Needs to address both variances, not just the guest parking. OK with the concept of tandem parking, but it still needs to be an approvable variance. >The building is in scale with the building to the right, and the building across the street. However the unit sizes are large, which drives the problem with the variance. >Applicant could revisit underground parking, like the building next door. >Likes tree being on the corner being retained, but makes it hard to use open space. Will be hard to grow things under the tree. >Design of the open space needs to embrace the tree or the corner more fully. >Windows in the family rooms are very large, could be reduced in size or modify the floor plans. Would appease the neighbor if bedrooms were on the back side. >Consider solid balconies for privacy. >Neighbor privacy issues are noted but it is a difficult balance. Roof decks seem well-positioned. >Nice design, appreciates that it does not need to have drastic changes. >Appropriate site for the project, on El Camino Real. >Commission has approved tandem parking previously. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/19/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gum, Gaul, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto9 - Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/19/2018 Image capture: Jan 2018 © 2018 Google Street View - Jan 2018 Burlingame, California Google, Inc. 1510 Cypress Ave 1 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A NEW FOUR-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 1500 CYPRESS AVENUE AND 101-105 EL CAMINO REAL (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO: 028-294-050 and 028-294-060) WHEREAS, on January 26, 2017, Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division requesting approval of the following requests:  Design Review for construction of a new three-story, four-unit condominium building (C.S. 25.28.045 and 25.57.010 (b)); and  Condominium Permit for construction of new four-unit condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020). WHEREAS, on December 11, 2017 the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing (design review study) to review a four-unit residential condominium project. At that time direction was provided to the applicant for revisions to the project design and to redesign the project so that there are no requests for Parking Variances; and Following consideration of all information contained in the June 25, 2018 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence, and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission grants approval of the four-unit multi-family residential condominium development based on the following findings regarding the project entitlements: Design Review Findings:  That the proposed condominium building will be compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood with the use of a variety of quality materials including cement plaster siding, ‘S’ curve roof tiles, painted wood entry and garage doors, metal clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood window trim and painted metal railings at balconies and the use of decorative elements such as accent tiles, plaster rosettes, arches and corbels. The new three- story building respects the mass and scale of this portion of El Camino Real which has a mix of two and three-story multifamily residential buildings with a variety of architectural styles. The building includes articulated façades that provide visual interest throughout the building. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's four design review criteria. Condominium Permit Findings:  Sound community planning; the economic, ecological, social and aesthetic qualities of the community; and on public health, safety and general welfare in that the four-unit residential condominium project is scaled to be compatible with existing multifamily buildings along El Camino Real and features ample landscaping with usable common open space; 2  The overall impact on schools, parks, utilities, neighborhoods, streets, traffic, parking and other community facilities and resources in that because the project site is located in an urban area, is surrounded by commercial and residential development which is served by utility and public services, and that the existing single family dwellings and detached garage will be replaced with a three-story building containing four residential units on the same lot, the proposed project can be adequately served by required utility and public services since the proposed project is only contributing two net new units on the site and the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and  Conformity with the general plan and density permitted by zoning regulations, in that the project provides two additional residential units (four total) consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning designations. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 25, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT: Section 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi-family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Section 1. Said Design Review and Condominium Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Condominium Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 2. 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 25th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 1 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 15, 2018, sheets A0.1 through A4.3, L1, L2 and Boundary and Topographic Map; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 3. that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Public Facilities Impact fee in the amount of $5,537.00, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 4. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 5. that the applicant shall apply for a Tentative and Final Condominium Map and Tentative Map for lot combination with the Public Works, Engineering Division for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 6. that the applicant shall apply for an encroachment permit from the Department of Transportation for any work proposed in the state right-of-way; 7. that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 134.75' as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.21') for a maximum height of 34’-7", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage/first floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 101.67'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 110.67’; third floor finished floor shall be elevation 120.67’. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 9. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of- way shall be prohibited; 10. that the service/delivery vehicle parking stall shall be identified on the site and designated on the final map and plans, the service/delivery vehicle stall shall not be assigned to any unit, but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the service/delivery vehicle stall shall always be accessible for parking and not be used for resident storage; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 2 2 11. that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the condominium project shall require that the service/delivery vehicle stall shall be reserved for service/delivery vehicles only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 12. that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 13. that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 14. that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 15. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 16. that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs (Best Management Practices) to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed, locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 17. that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 18. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 3 3 19. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 15 through April 15), that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of- way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 20. that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off, promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides; 21. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance 1845, the City of Burlingame Water Conservation in Landscaping Regulations, and complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 23. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 24. that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer’s expense if necessary; 25. that all utilities to this site shall be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site shall be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site; 26. that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 27. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 28. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 29. that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station prior to the final inspection for building permit; 30. that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the Municipal Code; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Condominium Permit. 1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real Effective July 5, 2018 Page 4 4 31. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1645, the City of Burlingame Recycling and Waste Reduction Ordinance, and shall submit a waste reduction plan and recycling deposit for demolition and new construction, before receiving a demolition permit; 32. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 33. that the project shall be required to comply with all the standards of the California Building and Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit issuance, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following four (4) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 34. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 35. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 36. 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 37. 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. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code_____________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _11_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 1500 Cypress Avenue P1. Other Identifier: 101 El Camino Real (1921 & 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps) *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date: 1999 *c. Address 1500 Cypress Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number: 028-294-060 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1500 Cypress Avenue is a one-story-over raised basement, 2100 sq. ft. residential building located on a 5000 sq. ft. lot at the southwest corner of Cypress Avenue and El Camino Real. The lot also includes a two -story garage that has been modified for residential use. Built in 1926 in a Spanish Colonial Revival style, the house has a rectangular footprint, stucco cladding, and is capped with a flat roof with decorative roof-massing elements particularly at the front. The primary façade faces east onto Cypress Avenue and is generally organized into three bays. The primary entrance, a paneled arched wood door, is located at center, within an arched and beveled entry alcove accessed via a straight brick stair with wrought iron railings. Directly to the right (north) of the entry alcove there is a blind arched niche with a small platform. The facade above the primary entrance is a tower with beveled corners, capped by a pyramidal hipped roof with red clay tiles and 6 cylindrical vent openings. The right (north) bay of the primary facade includes a mass which projects from the main mass of the house and includes a tripartite window group consisting of a central 20-lite fixed window flanked by 10-lite casement windows. These windows, and all windows at the house unless described otherwise, are wood sash. This window group is flanked by swag and c artouche applied ornament. The stucco around the window group is embossed in a dentil pattern. The window group is conjoined by a low wrought iron balconette, and topped by a shed roof supported by carved brackets and clad in red tile. Above this shed roof, the façade terminates with a flat roofline topped by metal coping. (See continuation sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other(Garage) P5b. Photo: (view and date) Primary (east) façade, Google Street View, image date April 2011. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: historic 1926, Municipal Water Card *P7. Owner and Address: Peach Investment Corp 23 Geary Street Ste 1200 San Francisco, CA *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 724 Pine Street San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: January 28, 2014 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) none *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description (continued): The left (south) bay of the primary façade includes a mass that projects from the main mass of the house and includes a tripartite window group consisting of an arched fourteen-lite window flanked by narrower arched eleven-lite windows. These windows are separated by engaged pilasters. Directly south of the window group there is a blind arched niche with a small platform. The roofline above this window group is a false front gable supported by carved brackets and clad in red tile. The portion of roofline behind this false front gable is flat and has a metal coping. The left perimeter of the projecting mass slopes outward to meet the ground; left of this projecting mass, the façade includes an aluminum sash fixed window with a casement and transom to one side, above which there is a shed roof element clad in red tile terminating above with the parapet and metal coping of a flat roofline. The secondary façade faces north onto El Camino Real and is organized into three bays. At center, an enclosed porch projects from the main mass of the building and is capped by a front gabled roof supported by carved brackets and clad in red tile. .The enclosed porch includes a secondary entrance to the house at left (east), accessed via a brick stair that rises from left to right. The secondary entrance is a 10-lite arched wood door set within an arched entry alcove. The enclosed porch also includes a 44-lite notched-arched window at the north (facing El Camino Real) and a 20 -lite notched arched window at the west. The enclosed porch includes applied cartouche ornament above the north-facing window. Left of the enclosed porch, the left (east) bay of the secondary façade includes a large brick chimney stack which projects from the wall plane and rises above the roofline of the house. The chimney stack is flanked by 15-lite fixed doors. The far left area of this bay projects from the main mass of the house and includes a shed roof element, above which the roofline of the building is flat with metal coping. R ight of the enclosed porch, the right (west) bay of the secondary façade is an open porch which steps back in massing from the main mass of the house. The open porch includes two 10-lite doors to the house and a double hung wood sash window. The porch has low concrete walls and is sheltered by an aluminum awning supported by steel poles. This area of the façade terminates with a flat roofline with metal coping. A large square chimney stack is located at the northwest corner of the building. The rear façade faces south and is accessed by passing through a shaped stucco wall with a wrought iron gate that connects the house to the garage. The rear façade is organized generally into three bays. At right (east), there is an aluminum sash fixed window with casement and transom to one side, similar to the one at the south end of the primary façade. Above this window is a shed roof element clad in red tile wrapping around from the primary façade and above which the shed roof element terminates into the parapet and metal coping of the flat roofline. At center, a below-grade glazed entry door is accessed via a stair that descends left to right: this below-grade section also includes a wood utility door, and is sheltered by an aluminum awning. Above the awning, the central bay includes an aluminum sash sliding window, above which the roofline includes a shaped parapet and a narrow tower with decorative vents capped with gabled red tile chimney top. The left (west) bay includes a glazed metal entry door sheltered by a plywood awning, accessed via a stair that rises from left to right, as well as two double hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs. The low pitched shed roofline above this left bay is clad in red tile. The west façade is largely obscured by a narrow yard with a tall privacy fence. The façade includes multiple masses , such as a large projecting bay and open porch toward the north end. Several different window types are featured on this façade, including single-lite aluminum sash fixed, wood sash double hung, and 3-lite wood sash casement pairs. There is no ornament at this façade. The roofline at this façade is flat and has a metal coping. The two-story garage is located at the southern portion of the lot and has a rectangular footprint. The primary façade of the garage faces east onto Cypress Avenue and includes a contemporary roll-up garage door at the first story, a 16-lite glass block window at the mezzanine level, and a broad blind window (infilled with plywood) at the second story. The roofline at the primary façade terminates with a short shed roof clad in red tile. The secondary façade of the garage faces north towards the main house and includes a hollow core wood door at the rear and two double hung wood sash windows of differing sizes at the far right. The mezzanine story includes, left to right, a 16-lite glass block window, three square blind windows, and a single square blind window. This window pattern is repeated at the second story, with the addition, at far right, of a small aluminum sash sliding window. There is no fenestration at the west or south facades of the garage. The space between the house and the garage is paved, and the narrow yard west of the house has sparse grass. Landscaping at the primary (east) façade includes low bushes and a mature palm; groundcover is tanbark, and there is a low brick dividing wal l that surrounds the perimeter of the house. There is a mature Cypress tree at the northeast corner of the lot, which appears to have a partner tree located north across El Camino Real, at the corner of El Camino Real and Primrose Road . These trees fall within the geographic scope of the Howard-Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Although not specifically mentioned in that National Register nomination, any c hanges to the cypress tree at 1500 Cypress Avenue should be considered by planning staff in this context. This building and the garage appear to be in good condition. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Secondary (north) façade, looking southwest. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Open porch at north façade, looking southeast. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Primary (east) façade, primary entrance and left bay. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Primary (east) façade, primary entrance and right bay. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Southeast corner of the building, east and south facades partially visible. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L South (rear) façade, secondary entrance. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. West façade, detail, fenestration and massing variety. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 6 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Garage, east (primary) façade. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Garage, north façade, fenestration variety. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 7 of 11 *NRHP Status Code_____6Z______________________ *Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue B1. Historic name: none B2. Common name: 1500 Cypress Avenue B3. Original Use: Single Family Residence B4. Present use: Single Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Spanish Colonial Revival *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Constructed 1926 (Municipal Water Tap Records). Permitted alterations include: Alterations from single family home to apartments, 07/11/1939 (permit #677); alterations to return house to single family home, and garage alterations, 04/09/1945 (permit #S-50); garage door replaced, 09/26/1961 (permit #M-206); remove old porch, build new front porch (unclear the exact scope of this work at the north façade, possible porch enclosure), 09/30/1968 (permit #R- 309); reroofing, 03/12/1985 (permit #8695); new furnace installed, 12/23/1986 (permit #2171). Unpermitted alterations include the replacement of original windows at the southeast corner of the house with aluminum sash windows (unknown date), the addition, at the northwest portion of the house, of a bedroom and open porch (unknown date, may have been part of the 09/30/1968 (permit #R-309), and expansion of the garage footprint to the rear (west) (unknown date, may have been part of garage alterations 04/09/1945 (permit #S-50). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: Garage (420 sq. ft.) at southern portion of the lot. B9a. Architect: unknown b. Builder: unknown *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture___________ Area _____ Burlingame Heights Period of Significance ___N/A____ Property Type__Residential_______________Applicable Criteria____N/A_____ (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted t o Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small - scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line b etween large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (See continuation sheet) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: February 11, 2014 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Sketch Map Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and busines ses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to th e City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Heights Neighborhood The house at 1500 Cypress Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Heights neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Park and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. These were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Heights is a small, three block subdivision bounded by El Camino Real to the north, Cypress Avenue to the east, and Barroihet and Crescent Avenue to the south. The western boundary is formed by the eastern hal f of the block bounded by El Camino Real, Newlands, Crescent, and Howard avenues. On May 18, 1905, the land that would become Burlingame Heights was purchased from the Occidental Land & Improvement Company by Antoine Borel. Within a month, Borel had hired surveyor D. Brofield to subdivide the land and lay out a street gri d, and the resulting subdivision map was field with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office on June 3, 1905. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps indicate that within the first five years of its creation, Burlingame Heights had begun to develop as a residential area primarily composed of small cottages. At this time, approximately 25 percent of the lots had been developed, many with houses featuring Craftsman style designs. By 1921, the neighborhood was approximately 50 percent developed, although the western half of Cypress Avenue included only one residence addressed as 1528 Cypress Avenue (extant). The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom beginning in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in Burlingame Heights were completed over the following decade. During this period, buildings designed with Mission and Spanish Colonial Revival influences—most frequently evidenced by the use of shaped rooflines, stucco facades, and red clay tile accents — became immensely popular in California. The neighborhood also grew denser with the construction of several apartment buildings and flats, mostly concentrated on the north side of the block near El Camino Real. Generally speaking, most of the neighborho od appears to have been built out prior to World War II, as only two empty lots remain visible on the 1949 Sanborn map. 1500 Cypress Avenue The house at 1500 Cypress Avenue was constructed in 1926, twenty-one years after the Burlingame Heights neighborhood was platted, during a time of rapid development within the subdivision. The land was purchased in April 1926 from Henry Kage by Joseph A. and Mary F. Swift, and in May of 1926 a municipal water tap was c onnected to the property; the architect and builder are unknown. At the time they purchased the land and built this house, Joseph A. Swift (1871-1936) and Mary F. Swift (1873-1942) were living next door at 105 El Camino Real, in a house they owned that had been constructed in 1924. Both Joseph and Mary were born in San Francisco; Joseph Swift was the son of Patrick Swift, an early peninsula settler who had lived in Belmont starting in the mid-1870s, and was a partner, along with his brother Edward, in the family business Swift & Co. Lumber of San Francisco. Mary F. Swift was the daughter of Irish immigrant Lillia n Lailer. While they lived in Burlingame, the Swifts were active in society life, and Joseph Swift put his voice behind a rezoning campaign in Burlingame that would allow for the construction of apartment dwellings in the Burlingame Heights subdivision. This campaign appears to have been successful, as permits were taken out in 1939 to convert the house at 1500 Cypress Avenue from a single family dwelling to apartments . The apartment, which was addressed as 101 El Camino Real, was occupied in 1939-1942 by M. E. Diehl (no occupation listed), and in 1943 by Inez Ormison. When Joseph Swift died in 1936, his obituary ran on the front page of the San Mateo Times. When Mary Swift died in 1942 after a long illness, her obituary in the San Mateo Times described her as a member of the Burlingame Women’s Club and the Catholic Daughters of America. After her death, Mary Swift’s will, and the disposition of her estate holdings of over $10,000, was contested by her sister, niece, nephew and cousins. The outcome of this case is unspecified; however, the property was sold by Swift’s estate in July of 1944 for $10,500 to Robert J. and Katherine C. Gotelli. Robert Gotelli (1897-1967) was born in Italy and immigrated to San Francisco in 1906. In 1921 he married Katherine Boglione (1896-1980) a native of California born to French and Italian immigrants. In 1940 the couple lived in San Francisco; Robert was the proprietor of a liquor wholesale store, and Katherine worked as a saleswoman at a bakery. The Gotellis did not have any children. After they moved to 1500 Cypress Avenue in 1944, the Gotellis took out a building permit to return the house to its original configuration as a single family house, and made alterations to the garage which may have included the construction of a second story, or the reconfiguration of an existing second story for residential use. Robert continued to work as a wholesale liquor dealer. His 1967 obituary in the San Mateo Times describes him as a member of St. Catherine’s Church (located across El Camino Real from their home at 1500 Cypress Avenue) and the San Mateo Elks Lodge. After Robert’s death, Katherine continued to live at 1500 Cypress Avenue until her death in 1980 . State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Between 1980 and 1988 the house appears to have changed ownership rapidly several times. Chain of ownership could not be followed completely, but known owners and years of ownership are listed below: 1984: R. Coppo et al. 1984: Maria Victoria Maniquis (residence inSan Francisco) 1986: Cecilia Los Banos 1987: J. Roemar 1987: Patricia Fonde In 1988 the house was purchased by Maria Chen (Fang), and has remained in ownership for use as a rental property by Maria Chen Fang, and the Fang family investment groups (Opal Investments, Peach Investments) of San Francisco, since then. Due to the lack of reverse City Directories for Burlingame after 1977, tenant occupants of 1500 Cypress Avenue after 1980 are unknown. Evaluation (Significance): The house at 1500 Cypress Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Na tional Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. Constructed in 1926, the house at 1500 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does convey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Heights, but it is not among the oldest homes in the neighborhood, nor does it appear influential in the development of the neighborhood. Rather, it appears to be one of many residences constructed during the 1920s-1930s building boom in this area, and is not individually significant within this historic context. Therefore, the property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. The house at 1500 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. The house’s original owners were Joseph E. and Mary F. Swift. Although Joseph Swift was descendant of a pioneer peninsula family and partner in a San Francisco lumber firm, he does not appear to have made any significant or lasting contribution to local, state, or national history. The subsequent owners, Robert and Katherine Gotelli, can be likewise described as middle clas s members of Burlingame society who do not appear to have made any significant or lasting contributions to local, state, or national history. The house at 1500 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The building displays some Spanish Colonial Revival architectural features including stucco cladding, arched window and door elements, red tile roof tiles, and an elaborate chimney top. However, the primary façade also includes less-characteristic design elements, including Classical ornament (swag and cartouche ornament, embossed dent il pattern in the stucco) and Craftsman ornament (carved wooden brackets supporting deep eave overhangs) that dilute the building’s ability to embody the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Additionally, changes to the footprint of the building and some window changes (detailed below in the Integrity analysis) further lower the building’s ability to embody the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The architect and builder are unknown, and therefore the building is not known to have been designed by a master architect. In sum, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for listing in under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Regist er and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 1500 Cypress Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): The house at 1500 Cypress Avenue retains integrity of location, as it is situated on its original lot. Integrity of setting has been compromised by the demolition of the Spanish Colonial Revival single family home that was located directly south of the subject property (formerly addressed as 1510 Cypress Avenue); however, this house was replaced with two single family homes, and the surrounding Burlingame Heights neighborhood does generally remain a residential character. The property has experienced several modifications since its construction; comparison between the 1949 Sanborn Map footprint of the house and a 1982 real estate flyer for the house indicate that the enclosed sunroom at the north façade used to be open, the bedroom and open porch at the northwest corner of the house are additions, as is the west portion of the footprint and the upper story of the garage. The large windows at the southeast corner of the house, which are visible from the east and the south, have been removed and replaced with aluminum sash windows. These changes are located at all four facades of the house and together serve to lower its integrity of State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L design, materials, and workmanship. Integrity of association and feeling are both good, as the house, which has alternated between single family and as multiple unit use throughout its history, is still in use as such. Overall, despite some changes to the building’s footprint and historic materials, the house at 1500 Cypress Avenue is able to convey its essential historic character as an early twentieth-century residence and therefore retains historic integrity. Conclusion 1500 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to 1500 Cypress Avenue, meaning that it was “found ineligible for National Register, California Register or Local designation through survey evaluation.” This design ation is based on the property’s lack of significance under the California Register eligibility criteria. This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A curs ory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Heights as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligib ility as a historic district. The mature cypress tree at the northeast corner of the lot, which appears to have a partner tree located north across El Camino Real, at the corner of El Camino Real and Primrose Road, falls within the geographic scope of the Howard -Ralston Eucalyptus Tree Rows, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Although not specifically mentioned in that National Register nomination, any changes to the cypress tree at 1500 Cypress Avenue should be considered by planning staff in this context. Historic Images: 1500 Cypress Avenue footprint, 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Dashed line (northeast corner) indicates open porch. Source: San Francisco Public Library. 1500 Cypress Avenue footprint, 1982 Grubb & Ellis Real Estate circular. Footprint changes are outlined in red. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. *B12. References: - Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. - Building Permit Records, 1500 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA - Burlingame City Directories. - California Voter Registration Records. - Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, circa 2004. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 11 Resource Name or # 1500 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References (cont’d): - Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. - McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. - Parcel History, 1500 Cypress Avenue, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. - United States Federal Census records: 1930, 1940 - San Mateo County Assessor Records. -San Mateo Times, accessed online at www.Newspaperarchives.com. - Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1949. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code __________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page _1_ of _8_ Resource name(s) or number(assigned by recorder) 105 El Camino Real P1. Other Identifier: none *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 105 El Camino Real City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-294-050 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 105 El Camino Real is a one-story-over raised basement, 1653 sq. ft. residential building located on a 5000 sq. ft. lot on the south side of El Camino Real between Cypress Avenue and Newlands Avenue. Built in 1925 in a simple Mission Revival style, the house has a rectangular footprint, stucco cladding, and is capped by a flat roof. The primary façade faces north onto El Camino Rea l and is organized into three bays. At center, a concrete stair with stucco stairwall rises from left to right to an arched entry porch which shelters the primary entrance, a multi-lite wood door. At right (west), a projecting mass includes a vinyl sash sliding window; this area appears to have historically been an open porch as a partial arch is still incorporated into the central entry porch. At left (east), the main mass of the house includes a vinyl sash 3 -part casement and fixed window. The entry porch at center and the projecting mass at right terminate with a molded coping and flat roofline, behind which can be seen a short shed roof with red tiles. The left area of the primary façade terminates with a band of molding, above which there is a shaped parapet with corner posts and a molded coping. (See continuation sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other(Garage) P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of primary (north) façade, January 2014 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: historic 1924 (original building permit #1214, dated 10/30/1924) *P7. Owner and Address: Peach Investment Corp 23 Geary Street Ste 1200 San Francisco, CA *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 1000 Sansome Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94111 *P9. Date Recorded: 01/28/2014 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter “none”) None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information P5a. Photo 105 El Camino Real, view looking southwest. Page & Turnbull, January 2014 State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 8 Resource Name or # 105 El Camino Real *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description: (continued) The east façade of the building includes, at right, a tapered chimney stack that rises above the roofline and terminates with molded coping and an aluminum chimney cap. Fenestration at this façade includes, from right to left, two double hung vinyl sash wind ows, a deeply set jalousie window, and, at far left, a double hung wood sash window with ogee lugs, below which, at the exposed basement story, there is a pair of 4-lite wood sash casement windows. This façade terminates with a flat roofline and metal coping. The rear (south) façade of the building includes a secondary entrance, a narrow glazed wood door sheltered by an aluminum awning, located at far right and accessed via a wooden stair that rises from left to right. Additional fenestration at the re ar façade includes, at center, an aluminum sash sliding window, and, at left, paired double hung vinyl sash windows with wood surrounds. Fenestration at the exposed basement includes, at center, a vinyl sash sliding window and, at left, a pair of fully glazed wo od casement windows. At the center of the rear façade, a metal fire escape ladder is affixed to the side of the building and rises above the roofline. The façade terminates with a flat roofline and metal coping. The west façade of the building includes a variety of fenestration types, including, from left to right, a 3-part aluminum sash fixed and casement window group (at the enclosed front porch area), a 2 -lite metal sash frosted glass casement window, a pair of vinyl sash double hung windows, an exaggerated-height narrow vinyl sash sliding window, a 2-lite metal sash frosted glass casement window, and, at far right (rear of the house), a pair of vinyl sash double hung windows. There is a grated utility door at t he exposed basement towards the rear of the house. The west façade termi nates with a flat roofline (although the enclosed porch at the front of the house has a lower roofline) and metal coping. The east and rear yards of the lot are fully paved, while the west yard has grass. In the rear yard, there is a small single story structure, clad in exposed plywood, board lumber, and stucco, and capped with a low-pitch front gable roof. The building has three fully glazed wood doors. Historic maps show this building as a garage; it is currently used as an office. The house appears to be in good condition, and the garage/office appears to be in fair condition. Detail, entry porch, view to the west. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Detail, primary entrance door, view to the south. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 Resource Name or # 105 El Camino Real *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L East façade, view to the northwest. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Detail, chimney stack at east façade, view to the southwest. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 8 Resource Name or # 105 El Camino Real *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Rear (south) façade, partial view. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. West façade, view to the northeast. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. Garage/office building, rear yard. Page & Turnbull, January 2014. State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 5 of 8 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 105 El Camino Real B1. Historic name: none B2. Common name: 105 El Camino Real B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Mission Revival ` *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Original building permit (#31214) was issued 10/30/1924 to owner Mary F. Swift; architect W. J. Hanna, builder Robert H. Chambers, cost $5000. Dwelling was remodeled (interior) in 1960 (permit # L-363, 07/21/1960). Repair was conducted in 1970 (permit #S-903, 12/28/1970). The front stairs of the building were rebuilt in 1986 (permit # 0835, 05/27/1986). Termite and dry rot repair including the removal and replacement in kind of the left front corner of the house was done in 1998 (permit # 980087, 06/18/19982). The bathroom was remodeled in 1999 (permit #9900836, 06/08/1999). The building was reroofed in 1976 and 1996 (permits #s W -558 and 9600741, respectively). Sewer replacement was conducted in 2001 (permit # 2011244, 09/24/2001). *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date:__________ Original Location:_____________________________ *B8. Related Features: Garage, construction date unknown. B9a. Architect: W. J. Hanna b. Builder: Robert H. Chambers *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Burlingame Heights Period of Significance _N/A Property Type Residential_________________ Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given by Governor Pio Pico to Cayetano Arena in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (1848) and William C. Ralston (1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame’s death in 1870, however, the land reverted t o Ralston, and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi-rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small - scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: (See Continuation Sheet) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: January 28, 2014 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Sketch Map Source: San Mateo County Assessor’s Office, 2014. Modified by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 6 of 8 Resource Name or #: 105 El Camino Real *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L B10. Significance (cont’d): Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which flourished after the disaster with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Heights Neighborhood The house at 105 El Camino Real was constructed in the Burlingame Heights neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Park and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of the San Mateo Rancho. These were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Bur lingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Heights is a small, three block subdivision bounded by El Camino Real to the north, Cypress Avenue to the east, and Barroihet and Crescent Avenue to the south. The western boundary is formed by the eastern half of the block bounded by El Camino Real, Newlands, Crescent, and Howard avenues. On May 18, 1905, the land that would become Burlingame Heights was purchased from the Occidental Land & Improvement Company by Antoine Borel. Within a month, Borel had hired surveyor D. Brofield to subdivide the land and lay out a street grid, and the resulting subdivision map was field with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office on June 3, 1905. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps indicate that within the first five years of its creation, Burlingame Heights had begun to develop as a residential area primarily composed of small cottages. At this time, approximately 25 percent of the lots had been developed, many with houses featuring Craftsman style designs. By 1921, the neighborhood was approximately 50 percent developed, although the western half of Cypress Avenue included only one residence addressed as 1528 Cypress Avenue (extant). The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom beginning in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in Burlingame Heights were completed over the following decade. During this period, buildings designed with Mission and Spanish Colonial Revival influences—most frequently evidenced by the use of shaped rooflines, stucco facades, and red clay tile accents— became immensely popular in California. The neighborhood also grew denser with the construction of several apartment buildings and flats, mostly concentrated on the north side of the block near El Camino Real. Generally speaking, most of the neighborho od appears to have been built out prior to World War II, as only two empty lots remain visible on the 1949 Sanborn map. 105 El Camino Real The house at 105 El Camino Real was constructed in 1924, nineteen years after the Burlingame Heights neighborhood was platted, during a time of rapid development within the subdivision. The land was purchased in September 1924 from Patrick McCann by Mary F. Swift, and the original building permit for new construction was issued on October 30, 1924, also to Mary F. Swift, who lived on Carl Street in San Francisco. The architect was W. J. Hanna, and the builder was Robert H. Chambers; the cost of construction was $5000. No architect or builder by these names is listed in the Burlingame City or San Mateo County Directories in the 1920s: in San Francisco, however, W. J. Hanna was described as a plumber, and Robert H. Chambers a carpenter—these two men may have worked from a residential construction pattern book, a common way to build houses at the time. Joseph E Swift (1871-1936) and Mary F. Swift (1873-1942) are listed in the Burlingame City Directory at 105 El Camino Real in 1925. Joseph Swift was the son of Patrick Swift, an early peninsula settler who had lived in Belmont starting in the mid -1870s, and was a partner, along with his brother Edward, in the family business Swift & Co. Lumber of San Francisco. Mary F. Swift was the daughter of Irish immigrant Lillian Lailer. The Swifts lived only briefly in the house at 105 El Camino Real; in 1926, they constructed a larger house next door at 1500 Cypress Avenue, and lived there from 1927 until their deaths. The Swifts did not have any children. When Joseph Swift died in 1936, his obituary ran on the front page of the San Mateo Times. After moving to their new home next door on Cypress Avenue, the Swift family rented 105 El Camino Real to a sequence of tenants, partially listed (with occupations when available) below: 1927 City Directory): R. L. DeBolt – no occupation listed 1929 CD: W. L. Cochran – electric refrigeration 1936 CD: L. Q. Haven -- auditor 1939 CD: Louis Cohen -- salesman, and V. J. Roberts – no occupation listed 1941 CD: Louis Cohen – salesman, and A. H. Madden -- employed, Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. 1943 CD: A. H. Madden – employed, Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. Shortly after the death of Mary Swift in 1942, the property was purchased by William D. Hammond, a Navy veteran and teacher. Hammond, in partnership with another veteran John S. Matthews, opened a private school at 105 El Camino Real in January of 1946. According to an anouncement in the San Mateo Times, the El Camino Private School offered pre-school through eighth grade classes with a California School curriculum stressing individual development in personality, drama, dancing, art, visua l State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 Resource Name or #: 105 El Camino Real *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L education, swimming, sport and hobbies, and special classes in remedial work. Advertisements for this school were included in the newspaper and the City Directories through 1950, after which time presumably the school closed; newspaper research has revealed no further information about this school. In 1952, Hammond and his wife Ruth lived in Palo Alto and William Hammond worked as a salesman, and Matthews was still living in Burlingame but was employed by the US Navy. In 1952 the property was owned and occupied by Ysbrand Petrus “Peter” Van Egmont and his wife Sophia Van Egmont. Ysbrand Van Egmont (1918-2004) was a native of Holland, who travelled the world as a sailor when he was young. He became a naturalized U. S. citizen in 1949, at which time he was living in San Francisco with his wife Sophia (1905 -1979), who had grown up in Canada; they had one daughter, Carol. The Van Egmonts moved to 105 El Camino Real in 1952 where they lived until their deaths. The property was sold in 2010 by Carol Cassinerio (nee Van Egmont) and the Y. P. Van Egmont Trust to current owner, Peach Investment Corp. Evaluation (Significance): The residence at 105 El Camino Real is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties, and therefore the property is not listed locally. Constructed in 1925, the house at 105 El Camino Real does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion A/1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant cont ribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house does conv ey contextual significance as a single-family residence associated with the development of Burlingame Park, but it is not among the oldest homes in the neighborhood and it does not stand out as a first, only, or unique example of such development. Therefore, the property does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for register inclusion under Criterion A/1. The house at 105 El Camino Real does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The house’s short association with the Swift family does not meet the significance threshold for historic register inclusion. The house’s five years spent as the location of the El Camino Private School likewise does not appear to have had a significant impact on the history of the state or nation . Later occupants and owners do not appear through research to have made contributions to national or state history that meet the significance threshold for historic register inclusion. The house at 105 El Camino Real does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under Criterion C/3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of constructi on. The building is a good contextual example of the type of single family residences constructed in the Burlingame Heights neighborhood during the construction boom of the 1920s, and it displays basic architectural features identified with the Mission Revival style. However, it is not a distinctive or prominent example of the style that stands out among other neighborhood examples. The architect and builder are not known to have been noted or prolific and cannot be considered masters. Therefore, the property is not individually significant for its architectural merit and does not appear eligible for register inclusion under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Regist er and California Register Criterion D/4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological reso urces. The analysis of the house at 105 El Camino Real for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): The house at 105 El Camino Real retains integrity of location because is situated on its original lot. Although the surrounding Burlingame Park neighborhood is characterized by single-family houses, setting of 105 El Camino Real is lessened by the contemporary construction of apartment building directly west and a co ntemporary office building on the north side of El Camino Real. The property has undergone alterations since its construction including the replacement of original windows at the primary façade with vinyl sash windows, the possible enclosure of a formerly open front porch, and the removal and replacement of most of the original windows at other facades. Therefore, integrity of design, materials, and workmanship are fair. The house remains in use as a residence associated with the early twentieth -century residential development of the Burlingame Park neighborhood, and therefore retains integrity of feeling and association. Overall the property retains a medium level of integrity, which lessens its ability to covey historic significance. Conclusion 105 El Camino Real does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California or National Register under any criteria. The property is a moderately well-maintained example of a Mission Revival style single family residential building, constructed State of California  The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 Resource Name or #: 105 El Camino Real *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date February 11, 2014  Continuation  Update DPR 523L during a busy era of development is the Burlingame Heights subdivision. However, it is not among the oldest homes in the neighborhood, nor is it a first, only, or best example of its type in the area. It has no association with anyone notable, and is not the work of a master builder. The California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “found ineligible for the National Register, California Register, or local designation through survey evaluation.” This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A curs ory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth -century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Heights as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. B12. References: - Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. - Building Permit Records, 105 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA - Burlingame City Directories. - Burlingame Historical Society files. - Burlingame Planning Department, Property file: 105 El Camino Real. - Condon-Wirgler, Diane. “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park.” Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. - Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. - McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. - Parcel History, San Mateo County Hall of Records, Redwood City. - United States Federal Census records: 1930, 1940. - San Mateo County Assessor Records. - Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1921, 1949. -San Mateo Times, historic archives accessed at www.NewspaperArchives.com. L0.2 L0.1 PROJECT LOCATION 1660 Westmoor Road Item No. 9a Design Review Study Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1660 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant and Architect: Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions APN: 025-232-740 Property Owner: Amauri Campos Melo Lot Area: 5,414 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot that has frontages on both Westmoor Road and Dufferin Avenue. For corner lots, the code defines the front for the property as the side with the shortest linear frontage (C.S. 25.08.435). For this property, the front of the lot is the frontage facing Dufferin Avenue even though the street address and front entrance of the house is on Westmoor Road. The existing one-story house with an attached garage contains 1,555 SF (0.29 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to remodel the first floor, expand the existing front covered porch, and add a new second story (1,157 SF). With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to the maximum allowed of 2,633 SF (0.49 FAR) which includes 199 SF covered porch exemption . The number of potential bedrooms is increasing from two to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The remodeled attached garage provides two covered parking spaces (19’-5” wide x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) and 1 uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the dri veway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for construction of a second story (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 1660 Westmoor Road Lot Area: 5,414 SF Plans date stamped: June 15, 2018 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-3½” n/a no change 23’-2½” 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” Side (interior): (exterior): 9’-5” 9’-4½” 11’-4½” (to addition) 8’-2½” (to porch) 6'-0" 7’-6” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-8” n/a no change 24’-7” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,682 SF 31.1% 1,745 SF 32.2% 2,166 SF 40% FAR: 1,555 SF 0.29 FAR 2,633 SF 0.49 FAR 2,633 SF 1 0.49 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19’-5” x 23’-2½” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 2 covered (19’-5” x 20’-0” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Design Review 434 Bloomfield Road 2 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Building Height: 18’-10” 27’-9½” 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5,414 SF) + 900 SF = 2,633 SF (0.49) FAR Staff Comments: 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Sonia Jimenez, TOPVIEW Design Solutions, applicant and designer Amauri Campos Melo, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant Letter of Explanation Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 6/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 7/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 8/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 9/9 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Attachments /91 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/4 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 /71 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/4 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 /71 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/4 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 /71 8/28/2019 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/4 18-433 - 1660 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.25.18 /71 PROJECT LOCATION 434 Bloomfield Road Item No. 9b Design Review Study Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 434 Bloomfield Road Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant and Architect: J Deal Associates APN: 029-181-200 Property Owners: Parshadi and Kaushal Shah Lot Area: 4,979 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is a substandard corner lot that has frontages on both Bloomfield Road and Lexington Way. For corner lots, the code defines the front for the property as the side with the shortest linear frontage (C.S. 25.08.435). For this property, the front of the lot is the frontage facing Lexington Way even though the street address and front entrance of the house is on Bloomfield Road. The existing one-story house with an attached garage contains 1,971 SF (0.40 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing to add a new 504 SF second story. Also proposed is removal of an existing patio niche on the exterior side of the first floor and filling it in with habitable space (14 SF). The existing exterior side wall of the patio niche has a non -conforming side setback (5’-6” where 7’-6” is the minimum required) but this exterior wall will not be demolished. With the proposed project, the floor area will increase to 2,489 SF (0.50 FAR) where 2,493 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed. 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 existing attached garage provides one covered parking space (10’-9” wide x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions). There is no uncovered parking space on site since the driveway depth (as measured from the garage door to the inner edge of the sidewalk) is only 7’-4” and only uncovered driveway areas leading to covered parking may count towards the parking requirement. The parking condition for the existing house is non-conforming and will remain so with the proposed project since no changes will be made to the garage and driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for construction of a second story (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 434 Bloomfield Road Lot Area: 4,979 SF Plans date stamped: June 14, 2018 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-0” n/a no change 20’-0” 15’-0” or block average 20’-0” Side (interior): (exterior): 5’-0” 5’-6” no change no change 4'-0" 7’-6” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18’-9” n/a no change 50’-5” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,985 SF 39.9 % 1,991 SF 40 % 1,992 SF 40 % Design Review 434 Bloomfield Road 2 SETBACKS EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED FAR: 1,971 SF 0.40 FAR 2,489 SF 0.50 FAR 2,493 SF 1 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’-9” x 20’ clear interior) no uncovered parking* no change 1 covered (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 21’-4” 27’-1” 30'-0" DH Envelope: n/a complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 4,979 SF) + 900 SF = 2,493 SF (0.50) FAR * existing non-conforming; see Project Description for more information 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 th e 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. J Deal Associates, applicant and designer Parshadi and Kaushal Shah , property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 15, 2018 Aerial Photo CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 20, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 119 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 119 Loma Vista Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission by consent calendar on October 26, 2015. An application for Design Review Amendment for changes to the project was approved by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2016 (see attached June 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). These changes included adding a covered front porch element and eliminating the existing brick veneer at the front of the house, adding wood siding elements throughout the house, changing the design of the roof above the garage, and eliminating the second floor balcony at the rear of the house. Lastly, an application for an FYI was accepted by the Planning Commission on April 10, 2017. These changes included replacing windows at the rear of the house with horizontal siding, replacing French doors at the rear of the house with a sliding folding door and several changes to windows throughout the house. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of the as-built changes listed below. Please see the attached letter from the property owner, dated June 8, 2018, for an explanation of the changes made to the project.  Nichiha Vintagewood Bark siding element was eliminated throughout the house.  Stucco siding on second floor was replaced with horizontal Hardie plank lap siding.  Stucco and horizontal siding on recessed wall at the rear of the house was replaced with board and batten siding.  Design of front entry door, door above entry and railing was changed.  Design and material of garage door was changed from aluminum and steel panels with glass panels to simulated wood panels.  Several changes were made to windows and doors throughout the house.  Miscellaneous changes to the landscaping were made, including replacing natural grass with artificial grass. The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped June 19, 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. Community Development Department Memorandum June 20, 2018 Page 2 Ruben Hurin Senior Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the applicant, dated June 8, 2018 June 13, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped June 19, 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 18, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 25, 2018 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 2721 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Side Setback Variance for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and detached garage at 2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2017 (see attached January 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in October 2017. With this application, the applicant is requesting approval of several proposed changes throughout the house. Please refer to the attached explanation letter, dated June 15, 2018 for a detailed list and explanation of the changes. The applicant submitted plans showing the originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped June 15, 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 applicant, dated June 15, 2018 January 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped June 15, 2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 23, 2017 b.2721 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Side Setback Variance for a detached garage for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a).(Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Anatoly Tikhman Tr, property owner) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Sargent noted that he reviewed the recording from the second design review study session . All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Randy Grange represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: Phil Koblis, 2711 Easton Drive: appreciates the efforts to make the project more consistent with the neighborhood. The garage placement makes it more obvious in their rear yard and also removes a large tree. Hopes that more foliage will be added to enhance privacy between the properties. Concerned about drainage. The house is quite large; larger than other homes in the neighborhood. (Grange: a lot of the square footage is under the house.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes the project is improved and conforms with the property to the right. Has addressed concerns expressed by the Commission. >The special permit is necessary because of the topography of the lot and the location of the creek . Conforms with the neighborhood character. >Perfect example of where a variance makes sense; the lot has unique conditions. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to approve application. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2018 January 23, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Gaul, and Gaul7 - Absent:Bandrapalli1 - Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/18/2018 N49°02'44"E51.56'55.71'12.89'64.45'66.85'S61°06'10"W7"TREE8"TREE6"TREE12"TREE6"8"BIRCH6"TREE6",(2)8"BAYS(2)6"BAY8"TREE(2)4"TREE22"OAK14"TREE4"6"TREE15151515151515151515151515151515151111111111111111111111111111111111333313787883331111111111111111171717171717171717171766661010101010101044444222222223381717888881111111111111112222222222222444444444333141414141371111111116666666661131313222111141414141414141414CADDDDD555FF5G1G1F5G1BC5V1V1E A S T O N D R I V E60' R.O.W.RESIDENCEADJACENTRESIDENCEADJACENTRESIDENCE(N)GARAGE(N)UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE(N)LAWN(N)LAWN(N)LOWER STONEPATIO(E) TREES TO BE REMOVED(E)DECK(E) TREES TO REMAIN(N) NATIVEDOGWOOD TREES(N) VERSALOKRETAINING WALLOUTLINE OF (E)GARAGE TO BEREMOVED(E) EVERGREENHEDGE(E) PICKETFENCING(E) CONCRETESIDEWALK(E) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY APRON(N) EVERGREENPRIVACY TREES(N) EVERGREENHEDGE(N) GRAVEL PATHW/ TIMBER STEPS(N) EVERGREENPRIVACY TREES(N) GRAVELPATH W/ TIMBERSTEPS(E) BIRCH TREESTO BE REMOVED(N) WOODGATE / FENCE(N) 6' WOODGATE / FENCING(N) STONEPORCH(N) 4'-0" STONECOLUMNS W/ LIGHTS*MATCH HOUSE(N) STONEPATHWAY /(N) GRAVEL PATH(N) STONESTEPS(E) SEWERMANHOLE(E) FENCING6' SOLID WOOD5' BLACK (N)(N)FENCING PLUSSTEEL FENCING 12" LATTICE 6' SOLID WOOD (N) FENCING PLUS 12" LATTICE (N) 5'-0" BLACKSTEEL FENCING / GATE(E) WATERMETER(E) STREETTREE*REPAIR / REPLACE ASNEEDED PER TOWNTOP OF CREEKTOE OF BANK(N) 6'-0" WOODFENCING PLUS12" LATTICEC R E E K(N) 6'-0" WOODFENCING PLUS12" LATTICE*permeable*non permeable(N) FENCING*ALLOW FOR(E) NEIGHBOR'SDRIVEWAY(E) NEIGHBOR'SDRIVEWAYSTDS / SPECS(N)UNIT PAVERDRIVEWAYCONCRETE(N)*INSTALL PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DETAIL/SPECS(N)UPPER STONETERRACE(N) SAFETY RAILING*36" TALL(N) STONE FIREPIT*18" TALL(N)LAWN(N) FIELDSTONE RET.WALL (DRYSTACK)*3'-0" TALL MAX.STEPS(E) OAK TREETO REMAIN(N) MAPLETREE(N) STAIRCASE105/09/16M.C.L1.0DATE:APRIL 7, 2016SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"LANDSCAPE PLANTITLE:SHEET NO:PLANLANDSCAPEREVISIONSMILLER RESIDENCE 2721 EASTON DRIVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIANOTES:1. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMITFROM THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT.2. EXISTING CITY STREET TREES MAY NOT BE CUT / TRIMMED OR REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT.3. IF CONSTRUCTION IS WITHIN DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES, A TREE PROTECTION PLAN MUST BE IN PLACE TO PROTECT TREES DURING ALL PHASESOF CONSTRUCTION.NOTE:NO WORK CAN TAKE PLACE WITHOUT FISH AND WILDLIFEPERMIT FROM THE TOP OF BANK TO THE CREEK.111208/31/16M.C.332312/22/16M.C.37/31/19406/14/18M.C.44