Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.06.11Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final-revised BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, June 11, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesc. Draft May 14, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are asked to fill out a "request to speak " card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff, although the provision of a name, address or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/8/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - Final-revised 1537 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for a One Year Extension for a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1). (Kenny Yip, applicant and designer; Yan Li, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 1537 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1537 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1537 Westmoor Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 2104 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Tom and Katie Eiseman, property owners) (54 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon b. 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Attachments 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single -family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environemntal Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Winges Architects, Inc., Jerry Winges, applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal c. 209 Channing Rd - Staff Report 209 Channing Rd - Attachments 209 Channing Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design and Associates, Inc ., James Chu, applicant and designer, Huan Wang, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal d. 1697 Broadway - Staff Report 1697 Broadway - Attachments 1697 Broadway - Plans- 6.11.18 Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/8/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - Final-revised 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Planning Commission resolutions on application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five -story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking (VMK Design Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner e. 556 El Camino Real - Staff Report 556 El Camino Real - Resolution 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018 Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right -of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. These projects are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303. (Abby Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R -1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) a. ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Staff Report ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Attachments ROW Adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr - Plans ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Staff Report ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Attachments ROW Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: 841 Rollins Road, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition, setback Variances, and a Special Permit for an attached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines SEciton 15301 (e)(1). (Joe Ouyang, designer; Kevin Peng, applicant; Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Erika Lewit b. 841 Rollins.sr 841 Rollins Rd - Attachments 841 Rollins Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/8/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - Final-revised 1812c Magnolia Avenue, zoned C -1 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use in an existing commercial building. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303- Class 1. (Nicole Byrne Yoga, applicant; Patricia Ann Britton Trust, property owner) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit c. 1812 Magnolia - Staff Report 1812 Magnolia - Attachments 1812 Magnolia - Plans Attachments: 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit studio) business. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property owner ) (16 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi d. 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 829 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review (Major Renovation) for first and second story additions to an existing house, Special Permits for an accessory structure with a depth more than 28 feet and located in the rear 40% of the lot, and Conditional Use Permits for a half -bath and glazed opening higher than 10 feet above grade in an accessory structure. (Gary Diebel, AIA - Diebel and Company Architects, applicant and architect; Aidani Santos, property owner) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 829 Maple Ave - Staff Report 829 Maple Ave - Attachments 829 Maple Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 301 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and Special Permits for a basement with a ceiling height of over 6'6", a direct exit and a bathroom greater than 25 SF. (Catherine Nilmeyer, applicant and architect; Dale and Elaine Chang, property owners) (64 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon b. 301 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report and Attachments 301 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/8/2018 June 11, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - Final-revised 1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front facade of an existing commercial storefront (Ron Stanford, applicant; Jeffrey J. Burris, architect; Olive Group Capital, LP, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin c. 1117 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1117 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1117 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting June 4, 2018 723-A Laurel Avenue - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project.a. 723-A Laurel Ave - Memorandum 723-A Laurel Ave - Attachments 723-A Laurel Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 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 11, 2018. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 21, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/8/2018 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 6/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 7/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 8/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 9/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 10/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 8/28/2019 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 11/11 18-461 - Draft April 23, 2018 Planning Commissio…/111 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, May 14, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and TerronesPresent6 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Consent Calendar items. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - a.1556 Alturas Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for a one -year permit extension for an approved permit for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for first and second story additions 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). (Mark Wilson, applicant; Jeff Baleix, architect; Ken Woo, property owner) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1556 Alturas Dr - Staff Report 1556 Alturas Dr - Attachments 1556 Alturas Dr - plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft b.705 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Peter and Hillary Blum, property owners) (145 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 705 Vernon Way - Staff Report 705 Vernon Way -Attachments 705 Vernon Way - plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: c.13 Victoria Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review (major renovation) for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e)(2). (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Patrick O'Connell, property owner) (205 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 13 Victoria Rd - Staff Report.pdf 13 Victoria Rd - Attachments.pdf 13 Victoria Rd - Plans - 05.14.18.pdf Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1316 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition and a new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Xie Guan , Xie Associate, applicant and architect; Carolyn Bao, property owner) (134 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1316 Laguna Ave - Staff Report 1316 Laguna Ave - Attachments 1316 Laguna Ave - plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto was recused from the discussion as she owns property within 500-feet of the subject property. She left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Unidentified property owner represented the applicant. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The revisions are for the better. There is enough room for a small car to fit into the parking space. >On the right side elevation, there will need to be some trim to finish off the area near the gutter at the roof line. Is approvable as submitted. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: >The project meets the zoning requirements; the only request is for design review. Meets the design guidelines. >The neighborhood is beginning to have more two-story homes. This design was done well. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.373 Lexington Way, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a major renovation and a first-floor addition to an existing single -family dwelling with an attached garage . This project is categorically exempt from the California Environemntal Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e) (1). (Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Gary Haslam, property owner) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal 373 Lexington Way- Staff Report- 5.14.18.pdf 373 Lexington Way- Attachment- 5.14.18.pdf 373 Lexington- Plans- 5.14.18.pdf Attachments: Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. Commissioner Kelly noted that he wasn't present at the design review study meeting, but reviewed the recording. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commissioner questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Wants to look at all projects with side courtyards on a case-by-case basis. >The front setback is gracious, the lot is smaller in area, therefore the rear -yard is smaller than is typical. >The applicant is attempting to create as much open space as possible by providing the courtyard, but changes have been made to make it a passive use area. >Appreciates the efforts to improve the home while keeping it a one-story structure. >Likes that the courtyard has been redesigned to become a focal point, not an active area . Approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. Discussion of Motion: >Noted that the spa could also be a gathering spot, but will not likely be a disturbance to neighbors. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - c.2720 Trousdale Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Gautam Dusija, applicant and property owner; Enrique Eckhaus, Eckhaus Designs, designer) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 2720 Trousdale Dr - Staff Report 2720 Trousdale Dr - Attachments 2720 Trousdale Dr - Plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the subject property. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had visited the uphill neighbor and viewed the story poles. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Gautam Dusija represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Asked if the designer was present. (Dusija: is caught in traffic.) Would like to know if a detailed section through the proposed construction has been done to determine the true height of the ridgeline; it is a matter of inches. >Have any different floor plans been considered? There are other configurations that would provide another ridge location. (Dusija: main consideration was to match the addition to the existing house.) >Were options considered that didn't extend out the garage wall? (Dusija: the plans considered would have extended more into the back yard, impacting more of the neighbor's view.) >Has a flat roof been considered; would reduce impacts? (Dusija: a flat roof would not match the rest of the house. Would be higher toward the neighbor.) >Need a drawing to show the true impacts. Can see several solutions that could reduce impacts upon the neighbor. "Match" could mean several things. (Dusija: the design is the best available option.) Public Comments: Attorney for Jackie Lim, uphill neighbor: asked the client to provide examples of view impacts from interior living space. From the dining room, it is a matter of inches when determining what is an impact. Feels a 10' 5" height would be acceptable. Jackie Lim, uphill neighbor: have lived in the home for 25-years. Provided a summary of the discussion with the applicant. Applicant needs to look at other alternative designs. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Appreciates the applicant's efforts. There is a minimal amount of view blockage from the neighbor's home. The hillside area view impact descriptions do not guarantee that there are no view impacts . However, there are still potential solutions that need to be explored. The designer needs to be present to discuss the project. Need more information such as sections, roof plans, etc. There are other solutions available. A match to the existing house isn't of critical importance. >The project application is only for a hillside area construction permit, not design review. The Commission cannot review this from a design review standpoint, limited to considering consistency with the hillside area restrictions. >The applicant's desire for a pitched roof is reasonable, but there are other options for the floor plan that could meet the interests of both parties while reducing the ridge height. There may still be some view impact from the adjacent property. >Consider shifting the addition away from the neighbor; this would effectively lower the ridge height as viewed from the neighbor's property. Need to see design analyses in drawing form of the options. >Consider providing 3-D renditions. >It appears that the finsihed floor heights of the properties (subject and uphill neighbor) are eight -feet different. Feels that the view impact is minimal. A section should be provided through both houses to show the finished floor elevations and to provide a good basis for comparison. Feels the neighbor would be less pleased with a flat roof. Feels the project could stand as it is now presented. >The ridge height will be roughly one-foot above the existing fence. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the item. Discussion of Motion: Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Encouraged the applicant to look at other options as indicated. Also suggested that the neighbor consider options other than a flat roof. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - d.825 Edgehill Drive, zoned R-2- Application for Design Review including a first and second story addition to convert a single family dwelling to a duplex. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Greg Scopazzi, property owner) (121 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 825 Edgehill Dr - Staff Report 825 Edgehill Dr - Attachments 825 Edgehill Dr - plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Greg Scopazzi represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is there any way to provide symmetry by the entry on the side rather than providing only one post at that location? (Scopazzi: can look at this as an FYI.) >Where does the 10" post appear on the front elevation? (Scopazzi: in line with the outside wall.) It is shown in plan, but doesn't understand how this detail comes together; can come back as an FYI. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Thinks the belly-band did a lot to break up the facades. Looks better with a garage. Appreciates the additional of the ornamental wood elements. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the application with an additional condition requiring that the final resolution of the post be brought back as an FYI. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft e.615 Airport Boulevard, zoned AA - Application to renew a Conditional Use Permit for long term airport parking as an interim use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. (Airport Parking LLC, applicant and property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 615 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 615 Airport Blvd - Attachments 615 Airport Blvd - Plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Sargent had a brief email exchange with the applicant. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Where does the State Lands Commission appear on the roster of owners? (Hudak: believes the roster is only of the individual property owners absent State Lands. The roster is a comprehensive list. Some owners don't live in the area, or even in the country, hence the challenge in getting all owners on-board.) >What is the potential of having the one remaining individual sign -off on development of the property? (Hudak: is primarily a matter of logistics.) >Had a conversation with the State Lands Commission; when does the lease expire? (Hudak: expires in 2038. It is a delicate negotiation; need to figure out what State Lands wants, then provide it.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Would like to see the plan of action and have full details in two years. Ensure that all owners have signed-off on the agreement to develop. Would prefer a comprehensive list of milestones that can always be revised in the future if needed. >Noted that condition 2a requires an update from the property owners on the second and fourth years . (Meeker: perhaps provide written evidence be submitted that the final owner provides consent to development with the oral report to the Commission at year two as part of condition 2b.) >Understands the need to have the long -term agreements to allow the operations to function. Would prefer to have the matter come back for reconsideration of an extension at two years (i.e. have the conditional use permit expire in two years). >Could the term of the conditional use permit be modified? (Meeker: yes, it is the prerogative of the Commission.) >Developers need a longer period of time to design the project, seek funding and entitlements. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Is comfortable with the conditions of approval as proposed. >If the Commission sees no progress in the future, the Commission will be unlikely to consider future extensions. >Is comfortable with the proposal. The applicant's discussion of the market conditions is compelling . Five years doesn't seem unreasonably long. >Could the Commission ask for proof of the additional owner's consent in six -months? (Meeker: since the City doesn't have control over the timing, two -years is not unreasonable. Noted that the State Lands Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission are both involved in entitling development on the property; a five-year time for this process is certainly not unreasonable.) >Would be helpful to see a graphic showing the individual owners of each parcel. The five -year timeframe provides a reasonable certainty with potential developer partners. >Could the City help coordinate with the State Lands Commission? (Meeker: the City has no influence over the agency's process. Kane: the City is in discussions with the agency on other issues, so could perhaps communicate the City's interests.) Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application with an amendment to condition 2b requiring evidence of the remaining owner's consent to developing the property by the end of year two. Discussion of Motion: >Feels that five-years is too long. >Some concerns expressed at the study discussion regarding this item, were misplaced as they were more related to another proposal. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Nay:Kelly1 - f.Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Accessory Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. ADU Staff Report - FINAL 5.10.18 ADU ord change REDLINES.reso REDLINED- ADU code changes 2018- FINAL CLEAN VERSION- ADU code changes 2018- FINAL ADU 2018 ord change -newspaper notice Attachments: >Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Thought the purpose of the regulations was to permit family to have older parents live on the same property as their children. (Meeker: can't restrict occupancy of the secondary unit to family members.) >What limitations will remain regarding parking in the front setback? (Keylon: currently can't park in the front setback unless it is done in a driveway leading to a garage. However, State law prohibits restrictions on the location of parking for ADUs, therefore one could park in the front setback if the parking is for an ADU. For units within one-half mile of transit, or conversion of existing structures on a property, parking is not required.) Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >How is parking for an ADU counted? (Keylon: parking for the ADU, when required, is counted separately from the parking for the residence.) >Understands that the City must come into compliance with State law. There are steps that the community can take to promote the development of additional housing stock. The City is restricted from requiring affordable housing in any new development due to Measure T. Permitting ADUs within R -1 districts is a relatively low -impact means of providing additional housing as long as they are provided consistent with local and State regulations. >Feels that the special permit for ceiling height should be eliminated. >Somewhat uncomfortable with eliminating the special permit for a basement ingress /egress. Should be reviewed to ensure that they are not an impact upon the neighbors. >In favor of removing the restriction on the size of bathrooms in basements. >Supports the restriction that would permit the removal of a parking space to accommodate construction of an ADU. >Torn regarding the restriction for owner occupancy of one unit. The issue should be vetted through the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. >Supports removing the requirement for approval of a conditional use permit for windows within ten feet of a property line in an accessory structure. >Is the floor area of an ADU taken off of the total allowed for the primary residence? (Keylon: counts toward FAR and lot coverage.) >Suggested looking at other cities' approaches to FAR and lot coverage for ADUs. >May ADUs be located greater than one -half mile from transit? (Keylon: yes, but must provide parking for the unit.) >Has construction of ADUs above a garage ever been considered? (Meeker: second-story occupiable space is not permitted above a garage as it may adversely impact the neighboring property.) >Has no issue with removing the owner -occupancy restriction; the City doesn't require the property owner to reside in a single-family residence without an ADU. >Would like to retain the ability to review having windows within ten feet of a property line in accessory structures. >Is there some way to encourage parking for ADUs not to be within the front setback. (Keylon: can't require, but may make suggestions to applicants when meeting with them. Meeker: but cannot require it . The issue may come to a head as it relates to stormwater requirements.) >Concerned that it would be very possible to convert a single -family dwelling into a duplex if an exterior basement ingress/egress is allowed without Commission review. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Commission is being asked to make recommendations regarding those items (State mandates) that it supports without change. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend approval of all State-mandated changes to the ADU regulations; recommend that the restrictions regarding openings within ten-feet of a property line and owner occupancy of one of the units on a property be referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee for further review; remove the restriction on basement ceiling heights; retain the requirement for Commission consideration of external ingress/egress from a basement; remove he restriction on the size of a basement bathroom; and remove the requirement for a special permit for removal of a parking space on-site when associated with construction of an ADU. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1125 Jackling Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (James Neubert, applicant and architect; Michael Stein, property owner) (32 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1125 Jackling Dr - Staff Report 1125 Jackling Dr - attachments 1125 Jackling Dr - plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Terrones indicated that he had a brief conversation with one of the property owners when viewing the property, but did not discuss the project details. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Neubert represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Asked if the architect designed the original home? (Neubert: no.) >Are the existing trims on the home foam with stucco covering? (Neubert: doesn't know, but is proposing this for the trim on the addition. Will match existing features.) >Could the dormers contain hip roofs like the rest of the house? (Neubert: could go either way if a condition.) The gable ends occur nowhere else on the house; suggested using the hip roof design . (Neubert: accepted the suggestion.) >Noted that the staff report shows cabinets in the garage being demolished, not shown on the plans . (Neubert: will ensure that these are demolished and shown on the plans.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Terrific project; likes the suggestion of the hip-roofs on the dormers. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, and Terrones6 - b.709 Plymouth Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jesse Guerse, Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft designer; Luai Kaileh, applicant; Ibrahim and Maha Kaileh, property owners) (135 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 709 Plymouth Way - Staff Report 709 Plymouth Way - Attachments 709 Plymouth Way - plans - 05.14.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse and Lu Kaileh represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have the neighbors reviewed the proposal? (Kaileh: yes.) >How large is the front porch, the upper deck area? (Geurse: the rooms arent too large and are trying to create some additional space for the rooms. Approximately 55 square feet.) >Noted that three new trees are to be planted in the courtyard area; the trees provide good privacy. Is this area to be paved? (Kaileh: is currently paved with brick; haven't given much thought. Geurse: keeping the current finish.) Anything that can be done to mitigate noise and privacy impacts will be appreciated. >The chimney on the right should show on the outside of the second story. (Geurse: acknowledged this plan error.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Likes the project; very pretty house. Concerned most about the decks and the courtyard. Have been concerned previously about noise and privacy issues. Would like to see some form of mitigation of these decks. >The Commission has informally set a 100 square foot limit for decks previously; these decks are off of bedrooms and fall below this limit. This lot is somewhat smaller than the standard lot. The courtyard is existing and is almost the only open space provided on the lot. The limited yard space supports the decks as shown, but don't increase the sizes. >Is primarily concerned about the deck above the courtyard. Wouldn't hurt the design to shrink it down a bit. >Agrees with comments regarding the consistency of the proposed decks with what has been approved in the past. Concern has been with creating larger public spaces on the second floor that can create noise and privacy impacts. Both decks proposed are off of small bedrooms and are consistent with what has been approved in the past. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Discussion of Motion: >Supports limits on the second floor decks. Chair Gaul asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, and Terrones5 - Nay:Comaroto1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no Director's Reports. a.815 Maple Avenue - FYI for review of revision requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. 815 Maple Ave - Memo.pdfAttachments: Accepted. b.1402 Grove Avenue - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Design Review project. 1402 Grove Avenue- FYI Memo and Attachments.pdfAttachments: Accepted. c.2683 Summit Drive - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 2683 Summit Drive- FYI Memo and Attachments.pdfAttachments: Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on May 14, 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 May 24, 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 12City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 May 14, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 6/7/2018 City of Burlingame One Year Extension Address: 1537 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Kenny Yip APN: 025-243-080 Property Owner: Yan Li Lot Area: 5,250 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting a one year extension of a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1537 Westmoor Road. The application was approved by the Planning Commission as a consent item on May 22, 2017 (see attached May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The Planning Commission approval of this application became effective on June 1, 2017. This approval is valid for a period of one year during which time a building permit must be issued. The property owner notes that she has not yet been able to find a contractor to build the project, therefore is requesting additional time in which to secure their building permit. If granted, a building permitted will need to be issued by June 3, 2019 (June 1st falls on a Saturday). If the extension is not granted, the property owner will need reapply with a new application. There are no changes to the approved plans since the May 22, 2017 Planning Commission approval. Project Description of Previously Approved Project: The existing split-level house and attached one-car garage contains 1,689 SF (0.32 FAR) of floor area. The previously approved project includes a first and second story addition at the rear of house, increasing the total floor area to 2,091 SF (0.40 FAR), where 2,780 SF (0.53 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 689 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. The existing house contains three bedrooms. With this application there is no increase in the number of bedrooms (the den on the lower level does not qualify as a bedroom since it is only accessible through another bedroom). A minimum of two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a three-bedroom house. The existing attached garage provides one covered parking space (11'-8" wide x 20'-0” 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 following application was approved for this project:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 7a Consent Calendar One Year Extension 1537 Westmoor Road -2- 1537 Westmoor Road Lot Area: 5,250 SF EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21'-6" 20’-6” no change no change 15'-0" or block average 20'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 6'-8" 7'-0" no change 7’-0” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 47'-4" 47’-4” 33’-4” 33'-4" 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1465 SF 27.9% 1690 SF 32.1% 2100 SF 40% FAR: 1689 SF 0.32 FAR 2091 SF 0.40 FAR 2780 SF ¹ 0.53 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-8” x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 1 covered (9' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 18' for existing) Building Height: 19'-5" 19'-5" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 5,250 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,780 SF (0.53 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for a One Year Extension of a Previously Approved Design Review Application: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's May 22, 2017 Regular Action Meeting and that there are no changes proposed to the previously approved application for a first and second story addition, the project may be found to be compatible with the criteria for the Design Review application. One Year Extension 1537 Westmoor Road -3- Planning Commission Action to Extend Permit to June 3, 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 April 28, 2017, sheets A1.0, A2.0, A3.0, A4.0, and A6.0, and date stamped May 12, 2017, sheets A3.1 and A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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; 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; One Year Extension 1537 Westmoor Road -4- 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. Yan Li, applicant and property owner Kenny Yip, designer Attachments: One Year Extension Request Letter Submitted by the Property Owner, dated May 29, 2018 May 22, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission (from previously approved application) Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Area Map Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for One Year Extension to a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1537 Westmoor Road, Zoned R-1, Yan Li, property owner, APN: 025-243-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 11, 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), 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 One Year Extension for a previously approved application for Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of June, 2018, by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension to a previously approved Design Review application 1537 Westmoor Road Effective June 21, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 28, 2017, sheets A1.0, A2.0, A3.0, A4.0, and A6.0, and date stamped May 12, 2017, sheets A3.1 and A5.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 Categorical Exemption and One Year Extension to a previously approved Design Review application 1537 Westmoor Road Effective June 21, 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. (E)(E) FRONT (EAST) ELEVATION (NO PROPOSED WORK)SCALE: 14" = 1'-0"14127'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-10"1' 19'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE5'8'T.O.C.18'-2"(E) BRICK FINISH CHIMNEYTO REMAIN UNCHANGED5'-2"(E) BRICK FINISH CHIMNEYTO REMAIN UNCHANGED7'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-9"1' 19'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE(E) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(N) DOWN SPOUT, TYP.(N) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(PROPOSED) RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 14" = 1'-0"(PROPOSED) REAR (WEST) ELEVATIONSCALE: 14" = 1'-0"6'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-10"1' 18'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE3'8'T.O.C.1' 17'-2"SUB FLOOR5'-2"(E) STUCCO PAINTEDUNDER-FLOOR VENT OPENING14"X6" COVERED W/ CORROSION-RESISTANT WIRE MESH W/ MESHOPENING OF 1/4", TYP.6'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-9"1' 18'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE5127'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-10"1' 19'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE(E) BRICK FINISH CHIMNEYTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(PROPOSED) LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 14" = 1'-0"(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.(E) STUCCO PAINTED2466'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.1' 18'-5"2ND FL¶´TOP OF RIDGE(E)(E)1'-5"(E)NEWEXISTINGNEWEXISTINGFLOOR(E)(E) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(E)(N) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD412(N) STUCCO PAINTED TO MATCHEXISTING WITH (3) COATS OVERMETAL LATH, OVER BLDG PAPER, TYP.STUCCO IS 3-COAT, 78" MIN THICK,CRC R703.6.2.TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D PAPERUNDER CEMENT PLASTER COVERINGWHERE OCCURS OVER PLYWOODSHEATHING. CRC R703.6.3.TOP OF RIDGE(E) BRICK FINISH CHIMNEYTO REMAIN UNCHANGED1'-3"1537(N) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(N) STUCCO PAINTED TO MATCHEXISTING WITH (3) COATS OVERMETAL LATH, OVER BLDG PAPER, TYP.STUCCO IS 3-COAT, 78" MIN THICK,CRC R703.6.2.TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D PAPERUNDER CEMENT PLASTER COVERINGWHERE OCCURS OVER PLYWOODSHEATHING. CRC R703.6.3.(E) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(E) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(N) STUCCO PAINTED TO MATCHEXISTING WITH (3) COATS OVERMETAL LATH, OVER BLDG PAPER, TYP.STUCCO IS 3-COAT, 78" MIN THICK,CRC R703.6.2.TWO LAYERS OF GRADE D PAPERUNDER CEMENT PLASTER COVERINGWHERE OCCURS OVER PLYWOODSHEATHING. CRC R703.6.3.(N)(N)(E)(E)(N) DECORATIVE WOOD RAILING(E) REAR DECK(N)(N)4" MAX.(N)(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.TOP OF RIDGE(PROPOSED) STAIR CASECHANGE DECK'S ORIGINAL STAIRCASE'S ORIENTATION FROM SIDEWAY TO FACING REAR YARD.412412(E)ENSURE THE THRESHOLD OF REARENTRY DOOR IS NO MORE THAN 7-34"ABOVE LANDING.ENSURE THE LANDING/STEP RISER ISNO MORE THAN 7-34". CRC R311.7.4.(N) CONCRETESLAB-ON-GRADE(N) CONCRETESLAB-ON-GRADE512PROVIDE WOOD TRIMSMFR. : Kelly-Moore Paint Co.COLOR : 45 White ShadowPROVIDE WOOD TRIMSMFR. : Kelly-Moore Paint Co.COLOR : 45 White Shadow(N) EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT SCONESMFR. : LAMPS PLUSBellagio 24" High Energy EfficientOutdoor Wall Light - Style # 42463(N) EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT SCONESMFR. : LAMPS PLUSBellagio 24" High Energy EfficientOutdoor Wall Light - Style # 424635127'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-9"1' 19'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.(E) STUCCO PAINTED(E) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(E)GRADE, V.I.F.512(E) LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 14" = 1'-0"37'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-9"1'19'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE(E) RIGHT (NORTH) ELEVATIONSCALE: 14" = 1'-0"5(E) BRICK FINISH CHIMNEYTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E) COMPOSITE SHINGLES - 30YEARS CLASS B ASPHALT15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(E)(E)GRADE, V.I.F.(E)17'-2"5'-2"8'T.O.C.TOP OF RIDGE2'-6" 2'-6"(E)(E)(E) WOOD GARAGEDOOR TO REMAIN(HARD WOOD DOOR)FIREPLACE CHIMNEY WILL TERMINATE ATLEAST TWO FEET HIGHER THAN ANYPORTION OF THE BUILDING WITHIN TENFEET OR WILL BE RETROFIT WITH AFIREPLACE INSERT (NOT A LOG LIGHTER.)2013 CRC1003.9FIREPLACE CHIMNEY WILL TERMINATE ATLEAST TWO FEET HIGHER THAN ANYPORTION OF THE BUILDING WITHIN TENFEET OR WILL BE RETROFIT WITH AFIREPLACE INSERT (NOT A LOG LIGHTER.)2013 CRC1003.9FIREPLACE CHIMNEY WILL TERMINATE ATLEAST TWO FEET HIGHER THAN ANYPORTION OF THE BUILDING WITHIN TENFEET OR WILL BE RETROFIT WITH AFIREPLACE INSERT (NOT A LOG LIGHTER.)2013 CRC1003.9FIREPLACE CHIMNEY WILL TERMINATE ATLEAST TWO FEET HIGHER THAN ANYPORTION OF THE BUILDING WITHIN TENFEET OR WILL BE RETROFIT WITH AFIREPLACE INSERT (NOT A LOG LIGHTER.)2013 CRC1003.9(E) BRICK BRICK CHIMNEYTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E)(E)(E)(N)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) METAL GUARD RAILSTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E) METAL GUARD RAILSTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E) FRONT STEPSBRICK-COVERFINISH TO REMAIN(E) 4X4 WOOD COLUMN(E) 4X4WOODCOLUMN(E) 4X4 WOOD COLUMN(E) FRONT STEPSBRICK COVERFINISH TO REMAIN(E) REAR WOODEN DECKAND WOODEN RAILINGTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E) REAR WOODEN DECKAND WOODEN RAILINGTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E) REAR DECK WOODENSTAIR CASE TO BE RELOCATED(E) REAR WOODEN DECKAND WOODEN RAILINGTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(N) REAR WOODENDECK, STAIR CASEAND WOODENGUARD RAILS.(E) HARDWOODEXTERIOR DOORTO REMAINUNCHANGED(E) HARDWOOD DOORTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(E) UN-PERMITTED WOODSHED TO BE REMOVED6'-2" X 13'-6" = 83.25 SQ. FT.(E) VINYL FRAME SLIDING DOORTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(SAFETY GLASS)(E) HARDWOODEXTERIOR DOORTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(N) HARDWOODEXTERIOR DOORWATER-PROOF(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOWS TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW W/ RED WOODSHUTTERS TO REMAIN(E) UN-PERMITTED WOODSHED TO BE REMOVED6'-2" X 13'-6" = 83.25 SF(N)(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) VINYL FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) VINYL FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(N) ALUMINUM CLADWOOD WINDOW WITHWOOD TRIM OUTSIDE(N) EXTERIOR WALL LIGHT SCONESMFR. : LAMPS PLUSBellagio 24" High Energy EfficientOutdoor Wall Light - Style # 4246318'-5" 6'-7"1'8'2'-9"T.O.C.T.O.C.2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOWS TO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEWINDOWS TO REMAIN(E) 4X4 WOOD COLUMN(N) ALUMINUM CLADWOOD WINDOW WITHWOOD TRIM OUTSIDE(N) ALUMINUM CLADWOOD WINDOW WITHWOOD TRIM OUTSIDE2'-6"(E) WOOD FRAMEGABLE END VENTTO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEGABLE END VENTTO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEGABLE END VENTTO REMAIN(E) WOOD FRAMEGABLE END VENTTO REMAIN(N) REAR WOODENSTAIR CASE ANDWOODEN GUARDRAILS.(E) VINYL FRAMEWINDOW TO REMAIN(E) METAL GUARD RAILSTO REMAIN UNCHANGED(N) DECORATIVEWOOD RAILINGGRADE, V.I.F.(N) CONCRETESLAB-ON-GRADE(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.(E) DOWNSPOUT, TYP.SIDE PROPERTY LINE 12'457'SIDE PROPERTY LINE 45* OVERALL BUILDINGHEIGHT IS 19'-5" FROMAVERAGE TOP OF CURBELEVATION 26.5'.*OVERALL FRONT BUILDINGHEIGHT IS 19'-5" FROMAVERAGE TOP OF CURBELEVATION 26.5'.* OVERALL REAR BUILDINGHEIGHT IS 18'-5" FROMAVERAGE TOP OF CURBELEVATION 26.5'.*OVERALL FRONT BUILDINGHEIGHT IS 19'-5" FROMAVERAGE TOP OF CURBELEVATION 26.5'.*OVERALL REAR BUILDINGHEIGHT IS 18'-5" FROMAVERAGE TOP OF CURBELEVATION 26.5'.(45'-11") (45'-11") (44'-11") (45'-11") (44'-11")X 27'-6"AVERAGE CORNERSPOT ELEVATION: 27'-6"(N)1(N) ALUMINUM CLADWOOD WINDOW(N) ALUMINUM CLADWOOD WINDOWS(N) ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOWSHEET NUMBER:PLOT DATE:SCALE:03.28.2017AS SHOWNA5.0DRAWING TITLE:ELEVATIONSPROJECT NUMBER:PLAN #: 2016R0807PROJECT TITLE:24 x 36DMISS. LI, YAN'S TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY REAR ADDITION ADDRESS: 1537 WESTMOOR ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010KENNY YIPKENNY YIPKENNY YIPETERNAL GREEN PROPERTIES, LLC 22958 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94541 TELEPHONE NO.: 415-202-3405 FAX NO.: 510-608-0567 EMAIL: constructionpermitzone@gmail.comREVISIONS DATE (N) DOWN SPOUT, TYP.6'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-10"1' 18'-5"2ND FL3'-2"2'-6"10"6'-6"SUB FLOOR1'-5"412TOP OF RIDGE(N)GRADE, V.I.F.412(E) REAR WOODEN DECKAND WOODEN RAILINGTO REMAIN UNCHANGED7'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-9"1' 19'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGE6'-7"T.O.C.8'T.O.C.2'-9"1'18'-5"2ND FLTOP OF RIDGENEWEXISTING(N)GRADE, V.I.F.GRADE, V.I.F.A-A' SECTIONSCALE: 38" = 1'-0"AB-B' SECTIONSCALE: 38" = 1'-0"B(N) R30 INSULATION(N) MASTERBEDROOM #2(N) MASTER BEDROOM8'(N) WALK-IN-CLOSET(N) R13 INSULATION(N) 2X6 DF#2 ROOF RAFTER @ 24" O.C.(N) FOUNDATION, SEE STRL PLAN(N) R13 INSULATION(N) R13 INSULATION(N) 2X12 DF#2 FLOOR JOIST @ 16" O.C.(N) 2X10 DF#2RAFTER @ 24" O.C.(N) REDWOODDECORATIVEGUARD RAILGRADE, V.I.F.(N) 2X6 DF#2 CEILING JOIST @ 24" O.C.(N) 2X8 DF#2 RIDGE BOARD(N) FOUNDATION, SEE STRL PLAN(N) MASTER BEDROOM(N)(N)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) ONE-CAR GARAGE(N) LAUNDRY RM(N) MASTER BEDROOM #2(N) R13 INSULATION(N) R13 INSULATION(N) R30 INSULATION(E) FOUNDATION(N) WALK-IN-CLOSET(N) MASTER BATHROOM(N) MASTER BATHROOM(E) BATHROOM(E) BEDROOM #1(E) CLOSET8" 7'-6" 8'(E) FOUNDATION(N) FOUNDATION, SEE STRL PLAN(N) 2X6 DF#2 CEILING JOIST @ 24" O.C.(N) 2X6 DF#2 ROOF RAFTER @ 24" O.C.(E) R13 INSULATION(N) R13 INSULATION(E) R19 INSULATION(E) R30 INSULATION(N) 2X12 DF#2 FLOOR JOIST @ 16" O.C.(N) 2X8 DF#2 RIDGE BOARDSHEET NUMBER:A6.0SECTIONSPLOT DATE:SCALE:03.28.2017AS SHOWNDRAWING TITLE:PROJECT NUMBER:PLAN #: 2016R0807PROJECT TITLE:24 x 36DMISS. LI, YAN'S TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY REAR ADDITION ADDRESS: 1537 WESTMOOR ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010KENNY YIPKENNY YIPKENNY YIPETERNAL GREEN PROPERTIES, LLC 22958 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94541 TELEPHONE NO.: 415-202-3405 FAX NO.: 510-608-0567 EMAIL: constructionpermitzone@gmail.comREVISIONS DATE GENERAL NOTES:1). ALL WORKS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND ALL CURRENT LOCAL GOVERNING CODES, REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES.2). CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LICENSED, FULLY INSURED AND EXPERIENCED IN LOCAL CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CODES AND REGULATIONS.3). CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL SITE CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. NO WORK SHALL BE STARTED UNTIL ALL QUESTIONS AND DISCREPANCIES ARE RESOLVED.4). CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE ALL RELEVANT PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. ANY OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES IN ANY PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE REPORTED TO OWNER PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. SCALE SHALL NOT BE USED FOR DETERMINING THE EXACT DIMENSIONS.5). WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS STAMPED BY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING INSPECTION. OWNER SHALL BE INFORMED IMMEDIATELY IF DIFFERENT SOLUTION IS NECESSARY. FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL PUT ENTIRE RESPONSIBILITY ONTO CONTRACTOR.6). CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY OF PEOPLE AND PROPERTY ON THE PROJECT SITE. CONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY CHECK THE STABILITY OF TALL EXISTING ELEMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALOSHA REQUIREMENTS. ALL POWER EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OPERATED ONLY UNDER THE APPROVAL OF THE GOVERNING AGENCIES. FIRE EXTINGUISHER SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION.7). CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING AT HIS/HER OWN EXPENSE. ANY DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS CAUSED BY HIS/HER WORK.8). ALL MATERIALS, FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT SHALL BE NEW AND UNUSED. NO SUBSTITUTION SHALL BE MAKE WITHOUT OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION. ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFIED BY TYPE OR MANUFACTURES SHALL BE OF AVERAGE QUALITY UNLCESS APPROVED BY OWNER.9). CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS:100% OF MIXED DEBRIS MUST BE TRANSPORTED BY A REGISTERED HAULER TO A REGISTERED FACILITY AND BE PROCESSED FOR RECYCLING, IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SAN FRANCISCO CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS ORDINANCE.10). RECYCLING BY OCCUPANTS: PROVIDE ADEQUATE SPACE AND EQUAL ACCESS FOR STORAGE, COLLECTION AND LOADING OF COMPOST-ABLE, RECYCLABLE AND LANDFILL MATERIALS. - SEE ADMINISTRATIVE BULLETIN 088.PROJECT DATA:1). PROJECT ADDRESS:1537 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 940102). BLOCK AND LOT:025-243-0803). TOTAL AREA:5,250 SQ. FT.4). OCCUPANCY:TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY5). AUTO FIRE SPRINKLER:NOBUILDING AREA CALCULATION:EXISTING DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (FOOT PRINT) = 1,157.65 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 1,157.65 / 5,250= 22.0%EXISTING ATTACHED REAR WOODEN DECK AREA = 137.5 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 137.5 / 5,250 = 2.6%EXISTING FRONT COVERED PORCH = 86.6 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 86.6 / 5,250 = 1.6%UN-PERMITTED ATTACHED SHED TO BE REMOVED = 83,25 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 83.25 / 5,250 = 1.6%TOTAL EXISTING BUILDING AREA = 1,465 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 1,465 / 5,250 = 27.9%TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA = 1,689 SF% FLOOR AREA RATIO = 1,689 / 5,250 = 32.0%PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR FLOOR AREA (FOOT PRINT) = 308 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 308 / 5,250 = 5.9%TOTAL BUILDING AREA AFTER DEMOLITION AND ADDITION = 1,690 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 1,690 / 5,250 = 32.1%TOTAL FLOOR AREA AFTER ADDITION = 1,605.75 + 308 + 177.3= 2,091 SF% OF SITE COVERAGE = 2,091 / 5,250 = 40.0%GRAPHIC CALCULATIONSEXISTING SETBACKSFRONT SETBACK : 20'-6"RIGHT SETBACK : 7'-0"REAR SETBACK : 37'-4"LEFT SETBACK : 6'-8"2'02'8'4'16'GRAPHIC SCALE1 inch = 8 ft.32'1. ALL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ONSIDE AND READILY ACCESSIBLE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. SWEEP OR SCRAPE UP SOILS TRACKED ONTO THE ROAD AT THE END OF EACH DAY. DO NOT HOSE INTO STREET, GUTTER, OR STORM DRAIN.3. RE-VEGETATE DISTURBED AREAS. EXPOSED BARE DIRT SHALL BE COVERED WITH MULCH, JUT NETTING OR OTHER EROSION CONTROL BLANKET.4. ALL TEMPORARY STOCKPILES SHALL BE COVERED WITH 6 MIL PLASTIC SHEETS, SUITABLY ANCHORED.5. THE SITE SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE CONTRACTOR /OWNER AFTER RAIN EVENT TO VERIFY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE FUNCTIONING. EROSION CONTROL PLAN NOTE TO CONTRACTOR1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE PLANS AND AT THE BUILDING SITE BEFORE COMMENCING WORK AND SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCY TO THE DESIGNER BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION.2. DETAILS SHOWN ARE BASED ON DATA TAKEN FROM EXISTING FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND MAY NOT AGREE WITH EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. WHERE A DIFFERENCE OCCURS WORK SHALL BE STOPPED ON THAT AREA IMMEDIATELY AND DESIGNER SHALL BE NOTIFIED.IMPORTANT NOTES:1. THE OWNER SHALL, AT HIS/HER EXPENSE, REPLACE ANY BROKEN SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SHALL BE THE SOLE JUDGE OF WHETHER ANY SUCH REPLACEMENT IS NECESSARY.2.THE OWNER SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT ANY PROPOSED REPAIR WORK TO SIDEWALK, CURB, AND / OR GUTTER WILL BE SATISFACTORY TO THE CITY, SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ANY WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL APPLICABLE FEES AND DEPOSITS. ALL WORK RELATED TO THESE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE.3. THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE ENGINEERING DIVISION'S "BUILDING PERMIT TYPICAL PLAN CHECK SUBMITTALS" REQUIREMENTS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE ENGINEERING DIVISION.4. IF NEW FIRE SPRINKLERS INSTALLED, FIRE SPRINKLER TEST DRAIN MUST BE CONNECTED TO SANITARY SEWER.5. STORM DRAINS MUST BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. DISCHARGE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION RELATED DEBRIS OR WATER TO THE STREET/STORM SYSTEM IS PROHIBITED.6. ROOF LEADERS / GUTTERS MUST NOT BE PLUMBED DIRECTLY TO STORM DRAINS.7. NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY!(PROPOSED) SITE PLANSCALE: 18 " = 1'-0"W E S T M O O R R O A DSTREET CENTERLINEMAIN ENTRY(E) WOODEN DECKDN(E) CHIMNEY(E) TWO-STORYSINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGSUBJECT PROPERTY:1537 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 940105:12 5:12(E) RIDGE(E) RIDGE (N) RIDGE(E) COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(E) COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD(E) COMPOSITE ASPHALT SHINGLE ROOF 15 LB FELT ON 12" PLYWOOD4:124:124:124:12SIDE WALKSIDE WALK50.0'PROPERTY LINES 56 14' 20" E50.0'PROPERTY LINES 56 14' 20" E105.0'PROPERTY LINEN 33 45' 40" E 105.0'PROPERTY LINEN 33 45' 40" E (E) BACKYARD20'-6"(E) TREE TO REMAINTOP OF CURBLINETOP OF CURBLINE(E) FRONT YARD (LAWN)(E) DRIVE WAY7'6'-8"(E) SHEDTO REMAIN80 SQ. FT.E L C A M I N O R E A L RIGHT SIDE SETBACK LEFT SIDE SETBACK(N) FLAT ROOFCLASS C MODIFIEDBITUMEN ROOFLANDSCAPING7'-6"4'11'-6"13'-6"25'FRONT SETBACK33'-4"REAR SETBACK8'10'2'1'-6"(N) REAR ADDITIONTOTAL NEW FOOTPRINT= 308 SQ. FT.13'7'10'(E) UN-PERMITTED SHED TO BE REMOVED (84 SQ. FT)(E) TWO-STORYSINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGADJACENT PROPERTY:1533 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 940106'-8"(E) BACKYARD(E) FRONT YARD (LAWN)(E) DRIVE WAYNEW SETBACKSFRONT SETBACK : 20'-6"RIGHT SETBACK : 7'-0"REAR SETBACK : 33'-4"LEFT SETBACK : 6'-8"37'-4"(E) ONE-STORYSINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGADJACENT PROPERTY:1541 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 940105'5'(E) BACKYARD(E) DRIVE WAY(E) FRONT YARD (LAWN)(E) 7' HEIGHTWOOD FENCE(E) 7' HEIGHTWOOD FENCE(E) 6' HEIGHTWOOD FENCE(E) 6' HEIGHTWOOD FENCE(E) 6' HEIGHTWOOD FENCE(E) WOOD FENCE AND GATE(E) WOOD FENCE AND GATE6'6'-2"EXISTING PERMEABLESTONE PAVER AREAEAVE TO PLEAVE TO PLPLANT A 24" BOX SIZE TREE,AND USE A LOW-WATER TREE SPECIES:SMALL SIZE FLOWERING CHERRY 'YOSHINO'.EXISTING PERMEABLESTONE PAVER AREA(E) 4" UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWERPUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENTSPUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENTSPUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENTSPUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENTS5'5'(E ) SAN ITARYSEWER CLEAN O UT (E ) SAN ITARYSEWER C LEAN O UT (E ) GASMETER(E ) WATER METER(E) UTIL.(N) ELECTRICAL METER(N) 200 AMPS ELEC.MAIN SERVICE PANEL(N) ELECTRICALSERVICE DROPx26.2'x26.1'x26.4'x26.6'x26.8'(E) TREE TO REMAINx26.9'x27.0'x27.3'x27.4'x27.1'x26.6'x28.5'x28.1'x27.8'x28.0'x28.3'x26.8'x26.7'SHEET NUMBER:PLOT DATE:SCALE:03.28.2017AS SHOWNA2.0DRAWING TITLE:SITE PLANPROJECT NUMBER:PLAN #: 2016R0807ETERNAL GREEN PROPERTIES, LLC 22958 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94541 TELEPHONE NO.: 415-202-3405 FAX NO.: 510-608-0567 EMAIL: constructionpermitzone@gmail.com PROJECT TITLE:24 x 36DREVISIONS DATEMISS. LI, YAN'S TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY REAR ADDITION ADDRESS: 1537 WESTMOOR ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010KENNY YIPKENNY YIPKENNY YIP 8/28/2019 18-448 - 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/3 18-448 - 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 /21 8/28/2019 18-448 - 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/3 18-448 - 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 /21 8/28/2019 18-448 - 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/3 18-448 - 2104 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 06.11.18 /21 PROJECT LOCATION 209 Channing Road Item No. 7c Consent Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 209 Channing Road Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for Design review and Special Permit for height for first and second-story addition to an existing single-family residence Applicant and Designer: Jerry Winges, Winges Architects, Inc. APN: 029-262-110 Property Owner: Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners Lot Area: 5,757 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single -family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single -family residences as part of a project Project Description: The existing one-story house with a detached garage is located on the second-lot from the corner on Channing Way and Howard Avenue. The house contains two bedrooms, family, living and dining rooms, and has a flat roof. The applicant proposes to expand the existing bedroom on the first-floor and add a new second-story to create a master suite. The new house would contain living, dining, family rooms, and two (2) bedrooms on the first-floor and two (2) bedrooms on the second-floor. With the proposed project the floor area of the house would increase to 3,012 SF, whereas 3,269 SF is the maximum allowed per the zoning code. The project would be 257 SF below the maximum allowed floor area. The proposed lot coverage of the project would be 2,126 SF, which is 177 SF below the maximum allowed as per the zoning code. All other applicable zoning requirements, such as setbacks comply. The new house would include a hip roof on the second-floor and a small portion of the first-floor would have flat roof towards the rear. A new bay window with standing seam metal roof is also proposed at the front of the house. The roof on the second-floor would have a steep pitch of 8:12, and therefore, the applicant requests for a Special Permit for height beyond the 30-foot limit (CS 25.26.060 (a) (1)). The total number of bedrooms would increase from two (2) to four (4) bedrooms . For four (4) bedrooms one covered (9’-0” x 18’-0” for existing), and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 10’-0”) is required. The project would retain its existing one (1) car non-conforming garage (17’-0” x 17’-0”) and there is space for one (1) uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) in the driveway. The project proposes no change to the non-conforming garage and therefore complies with the off-street parking requirements. The project has met all other applicable zoning code requirements with the exception of the height. The applicant requests for the following:  Design Review for a new second-story (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2));  Special Permit for height greater than 30’-0” (CS 25.26.060 (a) (1)). Item No. 7c Consent Item Design Review and Special Permit 209 Channing Road 2 209 Channing Road Lot Size: 5,757 SF Plans date stamped: May 4, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18’-11” NA 18’-4” 20’-1” 17’-10” (block average) 20'-0" or block average Side (left): (right): 18’-0 ¼” 4’-4” 10’-9 1/4” 4’-4” (no change) 4’-0" 4’-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr) 31’-2 ¼ ” NA 31’-2 ¼ ” (no change) 61’-0 ½” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,945 33.7% 2,126 SF 36% 2,303 SF 40% FAR: 1,945 0.33 FAR 3,012 SF 0.52 FAR 3,269 SF 0.56 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (17’-0” X 17’-0”) (non-conforming) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’-0”) 1 covered (10’-0” X20’-0”) 1 Uncovered (9’-0”X20’- 0”) 1 covered (9’x18’ for existing) 1 uncovered (9'x20') Height: 14’- 10 ¾” 30’- 10 ¼”3 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies CS 25.26.075 1 (0.40 X 5,757 SF) = 2,303 SF (40%) 2 (0.32 x 5,757 SF) + 1100 SF + 327 SF (detached garage) = 3,269 SF (0.56 FAR) 3 Special Permit need for height greater than 30 feet. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions . None of the comments require revisions to the plans for the Commission’s consideration. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on May 29, 2018, the Commission considered the proposal and the special permit request. The Commission was overall satisfied with the design of the project and requested no further changes. The Commission voted to place this item on the Consent Calendar (see attached May 29, 2018, Planning Commission Minutes). There are no changes to the plans submitted for the design review study session on May 4, 2018. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Design Review and Special Permit 209 Channing Road 3 Suggested Findings for Design Review: The proposed project is well balanced by designing the second-story mass at the front of the house. Every side of the house is well -articulated by using design features such as bay windows and wooden band. The center of the house is set away from the side property lines and would have low impact on the neighbors. At the May 29, 2018, Design Review meeting, Planning Commissioners indicated that the home is well designed and voted to place it on the Consent Calendar. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit for height, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighbo rhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (For height greater than 30 feet): The applicant requests a Special Permit to increase the height of the roof to 30’-10 ¼”, whereas 30 feet is the maximum allowed per the zoning code without a Special Permit. The new roof would have a steep pitch of 8:12 due to which a portion of the roof would project beyond the required 30’-0” height limit. At the meeting, the applicant mentioned that he did consider other options such as 7:12 to reduce the height of the roof but it did not complement with the rest of the house. Therefore, the proposal maintains the 8:12 pitch. At the May 29, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission agreed with the applicant’s observations and noted that the new pitch and increased height would have low impact on the neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found compatible with the above Special Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for an y action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 4, 2018, sheets T1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's January 3, 2018 memo, the Building Division's April 16, 2018 and January 3, 2018 memos, the Parks Division's April 18, 2018 and January 10, 2018 memos, Fire Department’s January 30, 2018 memo, and the Stormwater Division's February 1, 2018 memo shall Design Review and Special Permit 209 Channing Road 4 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 p art 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 pl an 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 desi gner, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the propert y; 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 inspec t and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Design Review and Special Permit 209 Channing Road 5 Sonal Aggarwal Contract Planner c. Jerry Winges, applicant and designer Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners Attachments:  Design Review Study Meeting Minutes, May 29, 2018  Application to the Planning Commission  Special Permit Application  Staff Comments  Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed)  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018  Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Tuesday, May 29, 2018 b. 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. (Winges Architects, Inc., Jerry Winges, applicant and designer; Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners) (133) noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 209 Channing Rd - Staff Report 209 Channing Rd - Attachments 209 Channing Road - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jerry Winges represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Was there consideration of reducing the pitch slightly to meet the height limit without needing to request a Special Permit for the 9-inch differential? Most houses in the area are single story with low pitch roofs. (Winges: Had looked at a 7/12 pitch to get below the height limit, but the 8/12 pitch looks better. It seems like a small portion of the roof and should not be a problem for neighbors. Floor to floor heights are at the minimum, at 8'-4" on the lower floor and 8 feet on the upper floor, so feels it is compatible with the design guidelines.) > Is the existing flat roof structure on the back being retained, just with a mansard roof a dded? (Winges: Yes. The portion of the house is in good condition. The mansard has been added to tie it in with the rest of the house.) > No access from the second floor to the flat roof in the back from the second floor? (Winges: Just a small window to access the water heater bumpout. It is not a usable deck.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Good project. > Transitioning neighborhood, will probably change over time. > Agrees with the analysis of the special permit. Special permits have been approved in the past to Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes maintain the integrity of the design. The pitch looks good, and it will have a low impact on the neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 7 - Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2018 Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Provide a residential fire sprinkler system throughout the residence and detached garage: a. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. b. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly – A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. c. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. d. Fire flow shall meet requirements of California Fire Code Appendix B. Contact Burlingame Engineering Department for fire flow information. 2. Electronic gate shall be equipped with a Knox key switch for emergency access by the Fire Dept. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 1/30/18 650-558-7600 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. . From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: April 16, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city’s stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2’x 3’ or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: February 1, 2018 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a “Type I” project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of- way). 2. Any work in the City right-of -way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 3. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). Please update “construction hours” on sheet T-1. 4. Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 8. Insert the ‘Best Management Practices’, updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Program%20BMP%20Plan%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click “construction bmp plan sheet” Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 1/3/18 650-558-7245 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-262-110 Description: Request for Design Review and Special Permit for Building Height for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No further comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. One 24 in single stem maple added Reviewed By: BD Date: 4.18.18 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design review and Special Permit for height for first and second-story addition to an existing single-family residence at 209 Channing Road, zoned R-1, Truman and Pamela Wong, property owners, APN: 029-262-110; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 11, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of June, 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit. 209 Channing Rad Effective June 22, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 4, 2018, sheets T1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second f loors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's January 3, 2018 memo, the Building Division's April 16, 2018 and January 3, 2018 memos, the Parks Division's April 18, 2018 and January 10, 2018 memos, Fire Department’s January 30, 2018 memo, and the Stormwater Division's February 1, 2018 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 Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit. 209 Channing Rad Effective June 22, 2018 Page 2 Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DIRECTORY T-1TITLE SHEET, VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA & DESCRIPTIONPROJECT DIRECTORYDRAWING INDEXCODE COMPLIANCE INDEX OF DRAWINGS FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONS SHEET NO. DETAIL NO. DETAIL NO. SHEET NO. SECTION REFERENCE DETAIL REFERENCE DETAIL NO. SHEET NO. DETAIL/ELEV. REFERENCEA-1 1 A-1 A-1 1 1 REFERENCE POINT DIMENSION TO FACE OF FINISH OR ARE CLEAR DIMENSION SYMBOL LEGEND THE SITE 209 CHANNING RD BURLINGAME, CA 209 CHANNING ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 LOCATION PLAN PROJECT DATA GENERAL NOTES T-1 TITLE SHEET, PROJECT DESCRIPTION & DATA DRAWING INDEX, PROJECT DIRECTORY VICINITY MAP, SYMBOL LEGEND SITE SURVEY BY L. WADE HAMMOND A1.1 SITE PLAN A2.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A2.1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN A2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.3 ROOF PLAN A2.4 FLOOR AREA SUMMARY DIAGRAMS A3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF FRONT AND REAR A3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF LEFT SIDE A3.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF RIGHT SIDE A4.1 BUILDING SECTIONS WONG RESIDENCE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCE NOTES BUILDING CODE NOTES A1.1SITE PLAN ANDLANDSCAPE PLANSITE PLAN FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCE PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH A3.1FRONT AND REAREXTERIOR ELEVATIONSNEW REAR ELEVATION FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCENEW FRONT ELEVATION EXISTING REAR ELEVATION EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION A3.2LEFT SIDEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONLEFT SIDE ELEVATION FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCEEXISTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION A3.3RIGHT SIDEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSRIGHT SIDE ELEVATION FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITIONSWONG RESIDENCEEXISTING RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 8/28/2019 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/6 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report /61 8/28/2019 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/6 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report /61 8/28/2019 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/6 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report /61 8/28/2019 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/6 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report /61 8/28/2019 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 5/6 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report /61 8/28/2019 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 6/6 18-451 - 1697 Broadway - Staff Report /61 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers Tuesday, May 29, 2018 c. 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage. (Chu Design and Associates, Inc., James Chu, applicant and designer, Huan Wang, property owner) (109 noticed) Staff contact: Sonal Aggarwal 1697 Broadway - Staff Report 1697 Broadway - Attachments 1697 Broadway - Plans - 5.29.18 Attachments: Commissioner Kelly was recused, as he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Why the curved roof over the entry? (Chu: There is a similar curved entry on a house up the street on Hillside, which the homeowner liked.) It does not seem consistent with the rest of the design. Perhaps there could be other curves elsewhere in the design. > Could provide a photo or the address of the other property with the curved roof element. Has seen other examples where it works. > Likes the curved element, it is something different. > The average setback is approximately 16 feet. Why not place the house closer to the street? Would provide more back yard space, be more consistent with the neighborhood. (Chu: It is a good suggestion. Will consider it.) > Have the arborist assess the 18" pine on the corner. Is does not appear to be in good shape. Since it is being retained, is there anything that can be done to help the tree? (Chu: Yes, will follow up.) Public Comments: Neighbor to the left (1601 Broadway): Likes the design, it looks like a lovely house. Inquiring what the rights of the neighbor is in the process. Best part is the house is the back yard, will be changed with a two-story house and assumes rules have been adhered to. Has a young child, wants to know what provisions there are during demolition for dust and debris. (Kane: Leave contact information with staff for follow-up. Construction-related impacts are handled through the Building Division.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2018 May 29, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: > Handsome project. > Curved porch roof is not a problem. Some eyebrow dormers or other curves might integrate it and help tie things in better. > Impacts to neighbor will be modest given house is across the alley, and bulk of massing is shifted to the corner. The larger garage will be replaced with a smaller garage. > Staff can provide neighbor with information on controls available during construction. > Suggest moving the house forward to the block average setback and gain extra yard space. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: Sargent, Loftis, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse 6 - Recused: Kelly 1 - Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/6/2018 Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: B Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Protected Private Tree Removal Permit required for removal of 15” birch tree on Broadway. Submit permit for review, permit will not be issued until Planning Division approves project. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. • Existing City Street Tree may not be cut, trimmed or removed without permit from Parks Division (558-7330) Landscape and Irrigation Plan approved. Reviewed By: BD Date: 5.10.18 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 2) Acknowledge that anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 3) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. (PWE letter dated 8-17-88) 4) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Note: that at the time of the building permit submittal, you will need to submit an erosion control plan and stipulate on the drawing the removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, sewer lateral, and water line to the Public Works Department. 5) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: May 2, 2018 650 558-7270 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 2. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit will be required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city’s right-of-way. (Please show compliance on the site plan) 3. No storm waters, underground waters draining from any lot, building, or paved areas shall be allowed to drain to adjacent properties nor shall these waters be connected to the city’s sanitary sewer system. These waters shall all drain to either artificial or natural storm drainage facilities by gravity or pumping regardless of the slope of the property. No rain water from roofs or other rain water drainage shall discharge upon a public sidewalk (except in single family area) per Municipal code sections 18.08.010 (m) and (n). 4. Show the location of down spouts for the entire roof and that there is enough finish grade elevation around the perimeter of the property to demonstrate the direction of storm water runoff for the property. If the grade is not sufficient to prevent storm water runoff onto adjacent properties, show a drainage system design. 5. Please show how the post-construction will address the additional stormoff due to the remodel. Please be aware that no additional storm runoff is allowed from post-construction project site. 6. This project appears to be over 10,000sf. If this is the case, the developer must construct permeant stormwater treatment measures on-site. No additional storm runoff will be allowed from post construction site. More information can be found at: http://www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment 7. A survey by a licensed surveyor or engineer is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All corners need to be maintained or reinstalled before the building final. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 8. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 4/3/18 Project Comments – Planning Application Project Address: 1697 Broadway Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-162-270 Description: Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project may create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface: 1. If the project will create and/or replace >2,500 ft2 to <10,000 square feet of impervious surface, then one or more site design measures listed on the Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects must be installed. Please complete, sign and return the Small Projects Checklist, which can be found at the link referenced http://flowstobay.org/newdevelopment - Checklist submitted via email. 2. Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) apply to all construction projects utilizing architectural copper. Please read “Requirements for Architectural Copper.” A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/files/newdevelopment/flyersfactsheets/ArchitecturalcopperBMPs.pdf NO COPPER The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city’s stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2’x 3’ or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolyn.critz@veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: April 19, 2018 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 April 30, 2018 May 15, 2018 Project Comments – Planning Application Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling and detached garage at 1697 Broadway, zoned R-1, Huan Wang, property owner, APN: 026-162-270; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on June 11, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of June, 2018 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1697 Broadway Effective June 22, 2018 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the revised plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 4, 2018, sheets A1 through L2.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Engineering Division's April 3, 2018 memo, the Building Division's May 2, 2018 and March 27, 2018 memos, the Parks Division's May 10, 2018 and April 3, 2018 memos, Fire Department’s April 2, 2018 memo, and the Stormwater Division's May 15, 2018, April 30, 2018, and April 19, 2018 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 built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Resolution on an application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Condominium Map for a Proposed Residential Condominium Address: 556 El Camino Real Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Condominium Map for a new five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking. Applicant: Roman Knop APN: 029-111-260 Property Owner: Roman Knop Lot Area: 15,107 SF Designer: Vadim Melik-Karamov General Plan: High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (R-3 Base District) Adjacent Development: Multi-family and single-family dwellings Current Use: 14-unit residential apartment building Proposed Use: 21-unit residential condominium building. Allowable Use: Multiple-family, duplex, and single-family dwellings Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new, five-story, 21-unit residential condominium building with below-grade parking at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3. The project site currently contains a 14-unit apartment building, which would be demolished to build the proposed 21-unit residential condominium building. The existing buildings were not identified on the Draft Inventory of Historic Resources of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The site is bordered by a three-story, 38-unit multifamily building to the north at 1545 Floribunda Avenue, three-story 12-unit and 32-unit multifamily buildings to the south at 550 and 530 El Camino Real, and a three-story 28-unit multifamily building to the to the rear at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Across El Camino Real are single family homes within the Town of Hillsborough. The proposed building would contain 21 residential units in five floors and a below-grade parking garage. The garage would utilize an automated mechanical parking system. Units would range from 1 to 3 bedrooms, and from 630 to 1,955 square feet in size. The average unit size proposed is 1,244 SF (1,250 SF average maximum unit size permitted). Planning staff identified that the following applications will be required for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new five-story, 21-unit condominium building with below-grade parking (C.S. 25.28.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan);  Conditional Use Permit for building height (55’-0” and five stories proposed where a Conditional Use Permit is required if the building exceeds 35’-0” in height and four stories; 55’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.28.060); and  Condominium Permit (Tentative Condominium Map) required for construction of new condominium building (C.S. 26.30.020). May 26, 2015 Planning Commission Hearing: On May 29, 2018, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the application, including both the environmental review (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) and the proposed project. In its deliberations the Planning Commission considered public testimony and the analysis contained within the Initial Study and staff reports prepared for the project. By resolution the Planning Commission to deny the project applications with prejudice (meeting minutes attached). Staff has prepared a resolution reflecting the action of the Planning Commission. The resolutions include references to findings that were made by the Planning Commission in the May 29th meeting. Item No. 7e Consent Calendar Proposed Residential Condominium – Planning Commission Resolutions 556 El Camino Real 2 State of California Government Code Section 65589.5 limits the ability of municipalities to deny a multifamily residential project that complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application is determined to be complete. In this instance, the proposed project does not comply with the objective development standards regulating Standards for Parking Spaces as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, and Standards for Parking Aisles and Driveways as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.70.025. The Planning Commission resolution includes references to these code sections accordingly. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: This application was placed directly on the consent calendar because it is limited to approval of the resolution reflecting the findings and action made by the Planning Commission at its May 29, 2018 meeting. There are no changes to the originally approved project. The Planning Commission decision is final, and may not be reconsidered. If the Commission feels there is a need to discuss the resolution for purpose of clarification, this item may be pulled off the consent calendar for a public hearing. However the action itself cannot be revisited. Kevin Gardiner Planning Manager Attachments: Draft May 29, 2018 Planning Commission meeting minutes Planning Commission Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, DENYING WITH PREJUDICE A REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 556 EL CAMINO REAL, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN THE R-3 ZONE RESOLVED, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, an application has been made for Environmental Review, Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Condominium Map for construction of a new 21-unit condominium at 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3, Roman Knop, 261 17th Avenue, San Francisco, CA, 94121 property owner, APN: 029-111-260; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on May 29, 2018, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make the Required Findings for Condominium Permit as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 26.30.060 with regards to sound community planning, and on public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was unable to make the Required Findings for Conditional Use Permit for building height as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.52.020 with regards to the proposed use, at the proposed location, being potentially detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and being potentially detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is not consistent with City of Burlingame objective development standards regulating Standards for Parking Spaces as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.70.020, and Standards for Parking Aisles and Driveways as outlined in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.70.025; and WHEREAS, the constraints imposed on the project by the mechanical parking system, including the potential for vehicle queuing, traffic conflicts, and the harm to the project and to property or improvements in the vicinity should the system fail in operation; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THIS PLANNING COMMISSION THAT: Section 1. Said application for Condominium Permit, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Condominium Map is denied with prejudice. Findings for such Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 2. Findings for said Condominium Permit cannot be made with regards to sound community planning, and with regards to public health, safety and general welfare; and Section 3. Findings for said Conditional Use Permit for building height cannot be made with regards to the proposed use, at the proposed location, being potentially detrimental RESOLUTION NO. or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and being potentially detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and Section 4. In that the proposed project is not consistent with City of Burlingame objective development standards regulating Standards for Parking Spaces and Standards for Parking Aisles and Driveways as outlined in the Burlingame Municipal Code, the constraints imposed on the project by said alternative mechanical parking system to result in potential for vehicle queuing, traffic conflicts, and the harm to the project and property or improvements in the vicinity should the system fail in operation; and Section 5. 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 11th day of June, 2018 by the following vote: Secretary 8/28/2019 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/4 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minu…/41 8/28/2019 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/4 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minu…/41 8/28/2019 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/4 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minu…/41 8/28/2019 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minutes - May 29, 2018 chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/4 18-458 - 556 El Camino Real - Draft Meeting Minu…/41 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive (existing utility pole is located along Oak Grove Avenue). Applicant: Abigail Reed, Modus LLC APN: N/A, in right-of-way Property Owner: Joint Pole Association Lot Area: N/A Architect: Borges Architectural Group Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Planning Commission Review: While the Planning Commission generally does not review projects or improvements proposed within the right-of-way, the Wireless Communications Ordinance states that a conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility may be granted only after a public hearing before and approval by the Burlingame Planning Commission (Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). The Planning Commission is limited to reviewing and discussing the proposed design of the wireless facility and not the radio frequency (“RF”) emissions since the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. The Planning Commission should limit and focus their comments on the design of the wireless facility based on the design criteria listed on pages 6 and 7. Wireless Communications Ordinance: Wireless telecommunications facilities are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation. The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012 (Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods, the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions. Background: In recent years, wireless telecommunication service providers have indicated they are experiencing increased customer demand, particularly with respect to data capacity and wireless broadband speed. In order to address this demand, wireless providers are installing small cell antennas placed in densely populated areas that have been determined to need additional network capacity, such as downtowns, heavily used traffic corridors or areas that cannot be effectively served by traditional macro cells. These small cell wireless antennas are not intended to replace macro cell sites, but to fill in areas that do not have sufficient capacity. Item No. 8a.1 Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 2 AT&T has submitted several applications for new wireless facilities in or near residential zones throughout the City. These applications consist of adding an antenna and associated equipment onto existing PG&E owned wood utility poles located within the public right-of-way. The proposed locations include existing PG&E utility poles adjacent to properties located at: 1505 Bernal Avenue 1800 Hillside Drive 1210 Oak Grove Avenue 1480 Broadway 937 Larkspur Drive 701 Winchester Drive 977 El Camino Drive At the request of the applicant, Planning staff is first bringing forward the proposed applications adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive for review by the Planning Commission. The remaining applications will be presented at future Planning Commission meetings. Staff would also note that Verizon recently submitted 12 similar small cell wireless antenna applications for installations on PG&E utility poles in the right-of-way; staff is currently reviewing those applications for completeness. This brings the total number of applications currently being reviewed to 19; staff anticipates additional applications to be submitted. Lastly, on March 5th the City Council reviewed information pertaining to the placement of wireless cell antennas and related equipment on City-owned utility poles (street light poles). The Council directed staff to provide additional information, but indicated that based on the information provided it may consider allowing installations on City-owned utility poles in the future. Currently there is one similar wireless facility installation on an existing utility pole located at the corner of Peninsula Avenue and Stanley Road. This wireless facility was installed prior to adoption of the Wireless Communications Ordinance, which at that time only required an encroachment permit. Study Meeting: At the March 12, 2018 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to provide responses to the questions listed below about the proposed application (see attached March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Responses to these questions can be found in the attached response letter, date stamped May 24, 2018. There were no changes to the plans reviewed at the study meeting.  Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like.  Need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected.  Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible.  Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers.  Provide information on improvements in technology. The Planning Commission expressed a concern about what happens when installations become obsolete. Specifically, who is responsible for removing the facility and how does the City decide when the facility should be removed. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.170 (Cessation of Operations) provides the following requirements for vacating or ceasing operations: (a) Vacation. The service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 3 (b) Cessation of Operations. If a wireless communication facilities site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the conditional or administrative use permit for that facility shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. (c) No later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facilities are sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. (d) If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to either subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance pursuant to Chapter 1.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Nuisance Abatement, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at the owners’ expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall apply to the abandoned antenna but not become effective for the tower until all users cease using the tower. The requirement for removal of equipment in compliance with this section shall be included as a provision in any lease of private property for placement of wireless communication facilities. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012)) The Commission also expressed a concern that the City does not have a master plan for this type of installation, noting that although the City can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan, the City may want to consider engaging an independent engineer to work on the City's behalf to address this type of application. Planning staff would note that cities either don’t have a master plan in place or are in the process of creating a master plan for these facilities. Project Description: The applicant, Abigail Reed, agent for AT&T, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole owned by the Joint Pole Association. The existing utility pole also contains a street light, which is operated by PG&E. The proposal includes installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way at the corner of Winchester Drive and Oak Grove Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 701 Winchester Drive. The utility pole is located along Oak Grove Avenue, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family and duplex residential uses to the north and Burlingame High School athletic facilities to the south. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. In their responses to plan review comments, AT&T notes that “the proposed site will assist with off-loading traffic from the macro sites and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT&T’s high speed 4G LTE. This is especially impactful for those who rely Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 4 on the AT&T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device and rely on their mobile phones to do more.” Visual simulations depicting existing and proposed site conditions are attached to the staff report for review. The proposed antenna, equipment and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The proposed wireless facility application consists of the following: 1) Install one (1) new cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing wood utility pole. The antenna measures 9.45” in diameter and 23.63” tall. In order to comply with minimum clearance requirements, the antenna is installed on a 7’-0” wooden extension and mounting bracket on top of the utility pole (see existing and proposed elevations on sheets A-3.1 and A-3.2). The top of the existing utility pole measures 29’-1” in height. The proposed antenna, extension and mounting bracket increases the overall height of the pole to 38’-1” above grade, or 9’-0” above the top of the existing pole. There are no cabinets proposed at grade within the right-of-way. 2) Install equipment associated with the antenna onto the side of the existing utility pole using a mounting bracket. The equipment includes two (2) twin duplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, with the following dimensions: Twin duplexers: 0’-8⅜” wide x 0’-4⅝” tall x 0’-3½” deep Radio remote units: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-6” deep Fiber distribution panel: 0’-8” wide x 0’-10” tall x 0’-4½” deep Electric load center: 0’-9” wide x 1’-1” tall x 0’-4½” deep Power meter: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-4⅝” deep Including the mounting bracket, the equipment extends approximately 1’-8” from the face of the utility pole. The equipment is proposed to be mounted on the side of the utility pole facing the sidewalk. As proposed, the equipment would not extend into the sidewalk area; a minimum clearance of 7’-0” is provided between the ground and the bottom of the equipment. 3) Install coaxial cables associated with the antenna and equipment in 1½” and 3” conduits mounted on the utility pole. As previously noted, AT&T has submitted a total of seven applications for new wireless facilities to be installed on wood utility poles located within the right-of-way. The applicant provided a map showing AT&T’s existing and proposed wireless facility locations over the next two years, including installations within the downtown, Rollins Road and Bayfront areas. AT&T also provided a propagation map which shows the increased coverage the proposed node adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive will provide compared to existing conditions. Propagation maps for the remaining six locations are provided for reference. The applicant notes that “small cell technology has a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore requires the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. The target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations.” The applicant also notes that “the proposed facilities are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites. These differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 5 rather than coverage. The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber.” The fiber is 0.8-inch thick and will be painted to match the pole color. The applicant notes that most of the sites will have above ground fiber, while one will be underground. “Overhead fiber will pull from, or extend, existing fiber located at the communication level along the existing lines and travel down the pole to the fiber distribution panel”. The fiber/cables will be installed under separate permits; fiber routes are unknown at this time. Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant sent out an informational notice to all residents/property owners within 300 feet of the proposed wireless facility (see attached copy of notice). The notice provides a description of the proposed facility and AT&T contact information for individuals with comments or questions about proposed facility. The applicant reported that they did not receive any comments or questions for this proposed installation prior to the study meeting. After hearing concerns expressed by neighbors at the March 12, 2018 study meeting, the applicant invited concerned residents to a meeting at the project site on April 19, 2018. Several residents attended the meeting to ask questions and discuss the proposed project with the applicant and a representative from Hammett & Edison (preparers of the radio-frequency report). Additional information about the design and radio-frequency exposure levels was provided in a follow-up email to those who attended. Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by descending priority. Per the current ordinance, placement on existing utility poles is low in preference, if not the lowest in certain areas. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons this location was chosen. 1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Completely enclosed within existing, permitted buildings. (B) Located on electric power transmission towers. (C) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities. (D) The roof of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (E) The side of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (F) Camouflaged stealth structure (a false tree, building, artifice, etc). (G) Existing utility poles, with all ancillary equipment placed underground if feasible, camouflaged or screened. (H) Existing utility distribution poles and street lights. (I) Slim line monopole, with antennas in a canister at the same diameter as the pole. (J) Standard monopole with attached flush-mounted (not extending more than twenty-four (24) inches from the pole) antenna elements. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 6 2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from pedestrian view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provision of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antenna, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. 3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply: (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons some of the criteria were not met. (a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities. (b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential Zoning Districts. However, staff would note that the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that wireless providers are a utility and therefore have rights of use of public right-of-ways as other utility. (c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 7 flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following: (1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting. (2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and ability for co-location by other providers. (3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface. (4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden. (5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials. (6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions. (d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless communication facilities. (e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site. (f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing. (g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact. (h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and landscaping. (i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged. (j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access. Radio Frequency Study: Staff would note that cities may not regulate placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities based on radio frequency (“RF”) emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated November 17, 2017, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that operation of the node proposed by AT&T at this location “will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 8 radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating nodes.” The evaluation prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. concludes that the proposed wireless facility will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits established by the FCC. Therefore, the City cannot use RF emissions as a reason for denying the modification request. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering and Parks Divisions. The application was reviewed by the Public Works Department and determined that the proposed facilities will not interfere with, present a hazard to, or otherwise incommode the use of the right-of-way. The Building, Fire and Stormwater Divisions had no comment on the proposed application. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 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 conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility within the right-of-way on an existing PG&E wood utility pole, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, two (2) twin diplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 2, 2018, sheets T-1, GN-1, C1, A-1 through A-7, E-1 and E-2; 3. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s November 3, 2017 and January 8, 2018 memos shall be met; 4. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 9 5. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished grade, no exceptions shall be allowed; 6. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 7. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 8. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall conduct a post‐installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations, shall submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct any noncompliance; 12. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 13. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 14. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; 15. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 16. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 10 17. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; 20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Abigail Reed, applicant Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 11 Attachments: March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter and Attachments, dated May 24, 2018 and June 5, 2018 Letter Submitted by Matteo and Clydie Rizzo, date stamped March 28, 2018 Email Submitted by Steve Lamont, dated March 10, 2018 Letter Submitted by Marsha Lee, dated March 11, 2018 Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities Application to the Planning Commission Northern California Joint Pole Association Membership Status and Letters of Authorization Scope of Work/Project Description, date stamped September 28, 2017 Conditional Use Permit Application Proof of Outreach, Information Notice prepared by applicant, dated January 17, 2018 Visual Simulations Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response, date stamped March 7, 2018 Existing and Proposed Facility Maps Propagation Maps, dated November 13, 2017 Evaluation of Proposed Wireless Facility, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated November 17, 2017 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 12, 2018 b.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. (Abigail Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) Chair Gum recused himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the proposed installation at 701 Winchester Drive; Commissioner Sargent recused himself as he lives within 500-feet of the installation at 1800 Hillside Drive; they left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Angela Kahn and Helene Nagazarian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Does the San Francisco example that was shown have fiber-optic cable running to it? How will it run in Burlingame's installations? (Kahn: it is buried in that instance. In Burlingame, a separate entity from AT&T will run the fiber-optic cable overhead. The fiber-optic cable will need to run closer to the antenna, above the PG&E lines.) > Clarified that this is not a co-located facility; other providers will seek additional locations and likely run fiber-optic cable to there antennae. > What is the radius served by the installations? (Kahn: 300-500 feet.) Public Comments: Doug Luftman, 2615 Easton Drive: noted that the City worked with residents five-years ago to draft the ordinance. Offered assistance in this matter. Encouraged following the ordinance very closely. Not certain all aspects have been addressed. The ordinance encourages public engagement. The process is moving forward in a piecemeal manner. A master plan approach is needed. The ordinance makes it clear that aesthetics and location are of importance. The most ideal locations within residential areas are in Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 March 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes easements behind properties; though every effort should be taken to keep the installations out of the residential areas. There is no accurate depiction in the application of the installations, the stealth design is not considered, there is a lack of justification regarding location; why are residential areas selected? Should be more engagement of the community and there should be more of a focus on aesthetics. Prakash Amani: not supportive. Every carrier will have their own installations. Is across from a church property with a lot of traffic. Sought more information regarding the radiation emission. There are other alternatives possible. Tom Santoro, 1804 Hillside Drive: lives on Hillside Drive. No one has discussed the radiation and cancer-causing impacts. Will the radiation hurt those children that pass by to go to Our Lady of Angels. Are there any studies that show that the installations are safe? Doesn't want anyone to experience health problems down the road. Perhaps AT&T has studies. Should approach the nearby church and school to discuss with them. Amit Chibber, 1406 Drake Avenue: agreed with prior speakers. What is the dispersal of the radiation from the installation; how much can be expected to enter the nearby homes? Bill Hemet: is an engineer that works with AT&T and other providers. There is no energy emitted from the boxes on the poles, only from the antenna on the top. Have projected exposure levels for every tenth of a meter from the installation. The maximum level of radiation at the ground is .7%; .8% at a nearby home, well below the safe exposure level. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Noted that a discussion or radio frequencies is "off the table"; meets the standards of the FCC. > Can look at time, place and manner. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. > Concerned when reference is made to potential failure of 911 systems; knows that this is not the full picture. Data is a big need. > Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like. > Concerned that the City doesn't have a master plan for this type of installation. Has Hillsborough done anything similar to a master plan? > Agrees that a master plan is needed. Individual providers will likely provide plans that the City will need to coordinate. Also need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected. > Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible. > Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers. > Provide information on improvements in technology. > What happens when the installations become obsolete? Who will remove them? How does the City decide when to remove them? > Can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan; stuck in a situation where an independent engineer will need to be engaged to work on the City's behalf. > Need to see the full picture. No action is required on this item. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 Burlingame ATT Proposed Wood Pole Nodes From: On Behalf Of Steve Lamont Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 4:37 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza <SMurtuza@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Bill Meeker <wmeeker@burlingame.org> Subject: Request to table Wireless Antenna discussion pending having a plan With regard to your agenda item 6b at your meeting Monday 12 March 2018: Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission table the discussion and approval of the wireless sites until such time as the City of Burlingame has a strategy to deal with the impending applications for networks of sites. Dealing with these two applications (701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive) early, solely because no citizens protested these particular sites, risks setting a dangerous precedent that could affect the scores of applications the City will face in the coming years. I support the need to improve wireless coverage and capacity within Burlingame, and understand the City must work within the Federal and States laws regulating the placement of wireless antennas in our neighborhoods. At the same time our City has an opportunity to reduce the visual impact and establish the best arrangement for all parties. Burlingame City Council, in their discussion last week, wisely noted that there will likely be applications for many sites over the coming years. The two sites up for discussion are the first of seven applications from AT&T Wireless, who have also predicted nine more over the next two years. We have just received applications from Verizon for seven sites. And we can predict that T-Mobile and Sprint will come along soon. With each site covering a radius of 300 feet and four carriers, we could easily see up to six sites per block on average in our residential district (assuming 1,000 feet/block as in Easton Addition) within a few years. We must plan for this future and avoid setting precedents that will be difficult to undo. Setting the right precedent is important because there are many variables in play at the same time. Burlingame has some influence over the location of the sites, the aesthetics, monthly lease fees and terms for City-owned poles, network design, and more. We must negotiate from strength to reach a fair balance. Leaving any of the elements off the table or approving the networks piecemeal reduces our leverage considerably. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. Regarding these particular applications, we would like to see more discussions about the time, place, and manner: 1. Regarding placement, the ordinance clearly indicates a preference for carriers to use the easements. The planning department asked the question of AT&T, but the answer was inadequate. We should be able to ask them to demonstrate factually why the nearest easement will not meet their needs. From their coverage maps it should make little difference to the number of homes covered by an alternative site. 2. The ordinance also favors camouflaged locations, including in buildings such as church steeples and playing field scoreboards. I have heard no evidence that the carriers or the City have explored such locations to mutual advantage. 3. There does not appear to have been discussion about co-location, which could considerably reduce the number of sites ultimately required. From what we understand one pole can support multiple carriers, even if it requires the addition of more radio remote boxes. The net visual impact of co-located sites is likely far less than having individual sites for each carrier. 4. Beyond these other factors there are likely many ways to reduce the visual effect of an antenna and support equipment on a residential street. We have yet to push the envelope to determine whether carriers can design equipment boxes to fit inside the poles; apply newer, more compact technology to reduce the size of boxes; or bury some of the equipment. Yes, these options will be more costly for the carriers, so it is natural their first applications will be biased to reducing their costs. Each application under consideration will add about 10.3 cubic feet of mass above ground (3.4 cu ft for the boxes, 3.2 cu ft for the pole extension and antenna, and 3.7 cu ft for the conduits), without including the additional fiber optic lines they will hang through the neighborhood to deliver the signal. When City Council asked the AT&T contractor at the meeting last week whether there were other equipment options, he said "yes, some of the boxes can be as small as six inches", although he did not provide all the dimensions. This suggests there is considerable room to move away from multiple hanging boxes that are each 2 ft X 1 ft X 6 inches. The bottom line is we have only begun to negotiate the best terms and conditions for what will be many applications. The first sites the City approves will set the standard. Let us pause and do this properly. Steve Lamont :: 415-354-9723 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT March 11, 2018 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Community Development Department-Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 RE: Comments for Planning Commission Meeting, March 12, 2018; Study Item 6. b. 1 and 2. Application for CUP to install new wireless facilities (antenna and equipment) on existing PG&E wood utility poles, located at 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. Dear Mr. Hurin, Please distribute the following comments to the Planning Commission and cc. the City Council, city manager, city attorney, city engineer, planning director and planning manager. Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for having this Study Session on this important issue – the location of “small cell technology” sites. First I discuss general comments on the need for a comprehensive plan to the location of these facilities in the City of Burlingame. I then will discuss specific comments as to the specific proposed projects. General Comments for a Technologically sound Burlingame. What we know: Burlingame is in the center of Silicon Valley and has more and more high tech companies and businesses that require dependable service. Providing good service to all residents and businesses is imperative. Technology will keep evolving and today we are all dependent on cellular facilities for our communication needs. We appreciate that there are 4 major carriers currently servicing our city and each will require upgrades, and will continue to need to do so in the future. Burlingame’s five your old Telecommunications Ordinance is excellent. It was jointly drafted by the City, residents and industry involvement and takes a balanced approach to the needs to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood while at the same time providing a means for cell phone providers to upgrade their telecommunication infrastructure. What we need to know: Since I come from an Urban/Environmental Planning background, my first reaction is to suggest that the City prepare and overall telecommunication master plan that incorporates the cell phone carriers needs, the residents’ priorities and the City’s approach to its master planning process. This might include locating areas required for enhanced service now and projected for some time in the future and what different types of technologies may be available today or in the near future to address those needs. 11.27.17 PC Meeting Item 9b 2115 Roosevelt Avenue Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 Perhaps an Inventory of Existing Conditions could help in drafting a Scope of Work. I suggest including the following Mapping and overlay information to identify the preferred and most suitable and unsuitable areas: 1. Mapped inventory of existing City owned poles (identifying those with meters and those without) 2. Locating PG&E power poles in the city. 3. Interested cellular carriers to provide- map showing existing coverage areas; areas currently with holes in coverage; and projected areas in need of coverage (based on zoning/increased development proposals, higher density project areas). 4. Special Decorative Streets / Streetscape Areas identified. 5. Map of prioritized list of streets that the City has identified for undergrounding power lines. Comments specific to current ATT projects 1. The proposed projects are incomplete including “Project Descriptions”. For example, these sites require overhead fiber connecting all of them. AT&T confirms that no overhead fiber route plan has been provided which is part of the project, thereby leaving this proposed project incomplete. The projects therefore should not be “accepted for processing” in its current form. 2. The proposed projects are the lowest on the Location Preference Order (see Telecom Ordinance.) There is no detailed explanation why other locations and technologies could not have been used to achieve the preferred locations in the city. Instead, the statement merely seems to state because AT&T chose a limiting technology with a limited range, it needed the location to be where it wanted it to be. This was not the intent of the Location Preference Order. The analysis starts with why the other locations are not viable based on any technologies that are commercially available. 3. The Design Criteria are not met. Adverse aesthetic impact with increased bulk and height ( 2’ antenna on 7 ‘ extension on top of existing 39 foot and 29 foot wooden PGE power poles. Equipment includes 5 boxes attached to the pole (3 boxes are 1’ x 2’ in size); a 5” diameter coax cable will also be attached to the pole running the entire length of the pole to the antenna. Note: PG&E often requires guy wires to hold up their poles with all the equipment strapped to the pole. Further, additional aesthetic options such as disguising the project as a fake tree, etc. has not been discussed. Lastly, the photo simulations are misleading in that they are missing the complete simulation of the design (e.g., the metal boxes are either not illustrated on all of the photos or are provided in a perspective that minimizes the actual aesthetic impact of the site.) 4. Hillside Drive is a major (east-west) beautiful tree lined street and a major entrance from Highway 280 to Burlingame. Hillside Drive should be a priority for undergrounding power lines, not adding additional clutter. Where will the overhead fiber be routed? 5. The applicant responses to the city engineer comments, (dated 1/8/18 for items #1 and #2), are inadequate. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 6. Regarding the PG&E power pole(s) at the Winchester Drive site: the existing condition of the two strapped-together power poles looks dangerous as well as ugly. Please refer to the existing conditions photo in the photo simulations. 7. It is hard to understand how this project could be exempt from CEQA since it does not comply with the Telecom Ordinance. Burlingame is beautiful and we hope the city can be kept special with careful assessment for any telecommunications facilities that locate in the city. Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, Marsha Lee, homeowner marshaleemjl@gmail.com 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 3 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking west across Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment Top of Antenna: 38’ 01” Top of Pole: 29’ 01” Bottom of Power Meter: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 00” 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment (view obscured by existing trees) 240 Stockton Street 3rd floor san francisco, ca 94108 t. 415.989.1102 www.modus-corp.com Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response 1. Provide a description of how this facility relates to the overall wireless network for the carrier(s) it is servicing as well as how this facility relates to other wireless facility projects in process of being constructed and/or planned in or near the City of Burlingame. (BMC Section 25.77.060 (a) (3)). Please see attached propagation map for the proposed node (attached). The propagation map shows the increase in coverage the proposed node will provide, compared to the current state of coverage. The proposed node is necessary in order to improve the capacity of the existing 4G LTE network. These nodes will be configured with a PCS band LTE carrier and a AWS band LTE carrier; this will improve the coverage of our primary capacity spectrum in the localized area. This means that the performance of the 4G LTE network will be substantially improved in the area of focus. This is especially impactful for those who rely on the AT &T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device (landlines to residences have decreased significantly) and rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, GPS, web access, text, etc.). The proposed site will assist with off -loading traffic from the macro sites (shown in the Burlingame node map) and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT &T’s high speed 4G LTE. The proposed nodes are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites, that differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity rather than coverage. The CRAN sites would be used for offloading two macro sites in Burlingame (see attached map). The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber. 2. Include a description of how the proposed wireless communication facility fits into the individual service provider’s network of existing and proposed wireless communication facility sites within a tentative two (2) year plan. (BMC Section 025.77.060 (a) (5)). AT&T will be proposing 9 additional site locations in Burlingame over the next two years. The nodes will likely be placed on City-owned assets, although the locations are still being finalized. The propagation map (attached) details precisely how the proposed 7 nodes fit into this plan, and details exactly where the nodes will be providing coverage. 3. Provide an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. In determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order outlined in BMC Section 25.77.080: a. Non-Residential Zoning Districts which are more than 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. b. Non-Residential Zoning Districts within 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. c. Residential Zoning Districts. These CRAN sites have a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore require the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. T he target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations. The proposed project will utilize the least intrusive design for this type of wireless faci lity and the antenna will be painted to match the color of the existing wood pole. The facility will use RRUs - 32s that produce no sound, significantly below the 47 decibel limit in the “quietest residential zone” in Burlingame, and therefore will not disturb residents. The proposed cylindrical antenna will match the approximate shape and diameter of the pole, as well as be painted to match the brown wood pole color. The radio units mounted on the pole will also be painted to match the color of the pole. Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive ############## ####################### 22'-9" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 23'-1" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-3" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) GUY WIRE (E) SIDEWALK ############# ####################### 9'-0" TOP OF (P) POWER METER 10'-3" TOP OF (P) LOAD CENTER AND FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (2) (P) RRUs -32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) WOOD POLE (P) GROUND BAR (P) POWER METER 18'-0" TOP OF (P) DIPLEXERS 13'-8" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 7'-0" BOTTOM OF (P) POWER METER (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 17'-3" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 (2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 7 (P) AT&T ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (P) 7' EXTENSION ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 6'-0" POWER SAFETY ZONE PER GO 95 37'-0" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 38'-1" TOP OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER (E) GUY WIRE (E) SIDEWALK 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-2" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 23'-0" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL (P) RF WARNING SIGN - MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 5'-0" (P) AT&T FIBER P.O.C. (P) 2" FIBER RISER FROM AT&T TO (P) FIBER DEMARK ENCLOSURE NEXT TO LOAD CENTER ON POLE 35'-6" TOP OF COAX RISER / BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA BRACKET 33'-2" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:51:28 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-3 Elevations.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-3.1 FRONT ELEVATIONS NOTES: 1.PAINT RRU SOLAR SHIELD, MOUNTING COMPONENTS & CABLE SWEEP TO MATCH (E) POLE. 17 3/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) SIDEWALK 9 3/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 23'-0" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-2" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 9'-0" TOP OF (P) POWER METER 10'-3" TOP OF (P) LOAD CENTER AND FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (2) (P) RRUs -32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) WOOD POLE (P) GROUND BAR (P) POWER METER 18'-0" TOP OF (P) DIPLEXERS 13'-8" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 7'-0" BOTTOM OF (P) POWER METER (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 17'-3" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 (2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 7 (P) AT&T ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (P) 7' EXTENSION ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 6'-0" POWER SAFETY ZONE PER GO 95 37'-0" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 38'-1" TOP OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER 22'-10" TOP OF (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE 21'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 26'-1" BOTTOM OF (E) STREET LIGHT ARM 23'-2" BOTTOM OF (E) CROSSARM 26'-7" TOP OF (E) STREET LIGHT 29'-1" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 23'-0" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL (P) RF WARNING SIGN - MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 6'-0"Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:55:14 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-3.2 SIDE ELEVATIONS.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 SIDE ELEVATIONS A-3.2 17 1/8" = 1'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN A-2 17 (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE W/STREET LIGHT HT. 29'± (E) BUILDING (E) BUILDING APN: 029-062-170 APN: 029-073-140 APN: 029-141-010 (E) "STOP" SIGN (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE (E) SIGN (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 1.3' (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 22.8' (E) WATER VALVE (E) BRICK PILLAR (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) LIP OF GUTTER (E) UTILITY POLE (E) "STOP" SIGN (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) FENCE(E) C O N C R E T E SI D E W AL K (E) C O N C R E T E SI D E W AL K DRI V E W A Y LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES:Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:45:23 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-1 Site Plan.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-1 SITE PLAN 8'4'8'16' 1/8"=1'-0" 00 N 17 1/2" = 1'-0" ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 5 (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE HT. 29'± (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) SIGN (E) TREES (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 1.3' (E) SAWED OFF UTILITY POLE HT. 22.8' (E) TREES (E) FENCE (E) WATER VALVE LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 5 1" = 1'-0" ENLARGED ANTENNA PLAN (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) (2) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON SIDE OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER (P) 1 1/2" AC POWER RISER (E) STREET LIGHT 8 1" = 1'-0" RRUS-32 MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (2) (P) AT&T RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 3 1" = 1'-0" POWER METER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) AT&T POWER METER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 7 1" = 1'-0" LOAD CENTER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:46:17 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-2 Enlarged Site Plan & Antenna Plan.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN & ANTENNA PLAN 1/2"=1'-0" 01'2'2'4'0 N 1'0.5'1'2'0 1"=1'-0" 0 N 4 1" = 1'-0" WIRE DIAGRAM CANISTER ANTENNA RETRETRETRETCOAX COAX COAXCOAX COAX COAXCOAXCOAX(P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) RET CABLE COAXCOAXCOAXCOAX COAXCOAXCOAX COAXPLAN VIEW NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 10" WIDE NEW 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE OR ROUND STOCK. 6" MIN. TYP. OF 4 NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT PER CABINET BOLTING PATTERN NEW UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU BOLT (TYP.) EXISTING WOODEN UTILITY POLE REQUIREDVERIFYPERCABINETBOLTINGPATTERN6" MIN 4" MIN CLEARANCE PER GO 95(E) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU - BOLT (TYP.) NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 6" WIDE MIN. NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH CABINET MFG. SPEC.) NEW 2" SQ. STL. TUBE STEEL 11'-0"NOTE: ALL CABINETS MOUNTED TO UTILITY POLE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM TOP & BOTTOM CLEARANCE OF 7". ELEVATION VEW 6"1'-0"2'-5"3'-3"3'-4"1'-0"NEW UNISTRUT P 1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 17 3/4" = 1'-0" EQUIPMENT MOUNTING DETAIL (N) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 3/4" = 1'-0" ANTENNA EQUIPMENT FRONT ELEVATION (P) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) UTILITY POLE 1'-0" (P) GROUND BAR (P) AT&T POWER METER 11'-0"(P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 2'-0"1'-3"1'-6"(2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (P) 2'-0" TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAFETY ZONE 2'-0"1'-6"2'-0"10"(P) PLACE SHUT DOWN PROTOCOLS ON THE INSIDE COVER OF THE LOAD CENTER TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T NEW 5-3/4" SQUARE WOOD EXTENSION FOR (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 15 1" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL (P) 6"X6"X6"X1/4" TUBE STEEL CAP (2) (P) 5/8" DIA. THRU BOLTS (P) WAGON WHEEL FOR 13" DIA RADOME UPPER BRACKET STEP 5/8'Ø X10" BOLT AND LOCKNUT (SUPPLIED) LOWER BRACKET STEP 13/16" HOLES FOR 3/4" BOLTS BRACKET ADAPTER (FOR POLE TOP DIAMETERS LESS THAN 8") EXISTING POLE EXTENSION BAYONET 5 3/4" SQUARE PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR BRACKET ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL A) ANTI- SPLIT BOLT EXISTING POLE DETAIL A BRACKET ASSEMBLY NOTE: NEW BRACKET ASSEMBLY TO BE PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANY DETAIL B WOOD EXTENSION ASSEMBLY 12" 5" 7-1/2" 7-1/2" 7 3/4" = 1'-0" WOOD POLE EXTENSION TOP FRONT SIDE METER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: B-LINE MODEL: 114TB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 24" x12" x 4 5/8" WEIGHT: UNKNOWN METER SOCKET 1'-0"MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT 4 5/8"2'-0"1" = 1'-0" 14 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONDUIT STRAP DETAIL (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 1/2" DIA. 3" ANTI-SPLIT LAG SCREW (P) 2-HOLE GALVANIZED CONDUIT STRAP (P) 3" COAX RISER 5 1' = 1'-0" NOTICE SIGNAGE NOTICE Transmitting Antenna(s) Radio frequency fields beyond this point MAY EXCEED the FCC General Population exposure limit. Obey all posted signs and site guidelines Call AT&T Mobility at 1 800-832-6662 PRIOR to working beyond this point. STATE:________SWITCH:__________________ SITE ID:_________________________________ SECTOR / NODE: ________________________ MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 6'-0" NOTE: SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR TO MATCH (E) POLE ALL TEXT AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITE MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE - 6' SFOK02_019 1 1' = 1'-0" SHUT DOWN PROTOCOL SIGNAGE NORMAL SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL (800) 638-2822 NOC 24 HRS. PRIOR TO SCHEDULE A SHUT-DOWN DAY AND TIME. 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.ON SCHEDULED DAY OF SHUT-DOWN, PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE *OFF* POSITION. 4.CAL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL NOC (800) 638-2822 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE OFF POSITION. 4.CALL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. NOTE: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PANEL DOOR SHOWING SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOL ON 3"X4" LABEL SHUT DOWN DISCONNECT FRONT SIDE ELEC LOAD CENTER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: SQUARE D MODEL: QO612L100RB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 12.64" x8.9" x 4.27" WEIGHT: 9.7 lbs 12 1" = 1'-0" ELEC LOAD CENTER DETAIL MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT ELEC LOAD CENTER 8.9" TOP 12.64"4.27" NOTE: RF SHUTDOWN SIGNAGE TO BE ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE LOAD CENTER ERICSSON RRU-32 WITH PSU-08 MODEL: RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 COLOR:WHITE DIMENSIONS:26.7" TALL X 12.1" WIDE X 6.7" DEEP (INCLUDING SUNSHIELD) WIEGHT:+/- 80.4 LBS. (INCLUDING MOUNTING HARDWARE) 12.1"26.7"FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT SUNSHIELD PSU-08 SUNSHIELD MFR'S STANDARD MOUNTING BRACKETS P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT 19 1 1/2" = 1'-0" RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTING DETAIL PSU-08 1'-0" 11 3" = 1'-0" TWIN DIPLEXER DETAIL TWIN DIPLEXER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: COMMSCOPE MODEL: CBC1923T-4310-E11F13P06 DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: 8.3" x 4.6" x 1.8" WEIGHT: 5.5 lbs PER UNIT 4 5/8"2 1/2"1 3/4"TOP: SIDE:FRONT: 8 3/8"8 7/8"(2) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA 9.45" ANTENNA =CANISTER WEIGHT =33.1 LBS CONNECTOR =10 X 4.3-10 DIN (FEMALE) / BOTTOM DIMENSIONS =9.45"(DIA.) X 23.63"23.63"Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:57:25 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\A-4 Details.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 A-4 DETAILS EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SWITCH LOCATED ABOVE ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 3"4" NOTE: NEW VINYL SIGN TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T AND BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE METER BOX. SIGN TO BE YELLOW. 4 NOT TO SCALE SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SIGNAGE Plot Date:2/23/2018 3:57:59 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\E-1 Single Line Diagram and Notes.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 E-1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AND NOTES 5 N.T.S. ELECTRICAL NOTES ELECTRICAL NOTES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE MOST STRINGENT OF THESE CODES. SHOULD CHANGES BE NECESSARY IN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE WORK COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING AND CEASE WORK ON PARTS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH ARE AFFECTED. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE A SITE VISIT PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION. 3. THE EXTENT OF THE WORK IS INDICATED BY THE DRAWINGS, SCHEDULES, AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. THE WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE COMPLETION OF ALL ELECTRICAL WORK NOT MENTIONED OR SHOWN WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF ALL SYSTEMS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A BID FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR. 5. WORKMANSHIP AND NEAT APPEARANCE SHALL BE AS IMPORTANT AS THE OPERATION. DEFECTIVE OR DAMAGED MATERIALS SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO OWNER AND ENGINEER. 6. COMPLETE THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION AS SOON AS THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK WILL PERMIT. ARRANGE ANY OUTAGE OF SERVICE WITH THE OWNER AND BUILDING MANAGER IN ADVANCE. MINIMIZE DOWNTIME ON THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. 7. THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INSTALLED UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DELIVERED IN PROPER WORKING ORDER. REPLACE, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, ANY DEFECTIVE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 8. ANY ERROR, OMISSION OR DESIGN DESCREPANCY ON THE DRWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. 9. "PROVIDE" INDICATES THAT ALL ITEMS ARE TO BE FURNISHED, INSTALLED AND CONNECTED IN PLACE. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS AND PAY ALL REQUIRED FEES. EQUIPMENT LOCATION: 1. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE DIAGRAMMATICALLY THE DESIRED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS OF CONDUIT RUNS, OUTLETS, EQUIPMENT, ETC., AND ARE TO BE FOLLOWED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. PROPER JUDGEMENT MUST BE EXERCISED IN EXECUTING THE WORK SO AS TO SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE INSTALLATION IN THE AVAILABLE SPACE LIMITATIONS OR INTERFERENCE OF STRUCTURE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 2. IN THE EVENT CHANGES IN THE INDICATED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR REARRANGEMENT OF FURNISHINGS OR EQUIPMENT, SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT COST, PROVIDING THE CHANGE IS ORDERED BEFORE THE CONDUIT RUNS, ETC., AND WORK DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SAME IS INSTALLED AND NO EXTRA MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 3. LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. COORDINATE THE FIXTURE LOCATION WITH MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO AVOID INTERFERENCE. 4. COORDINATE THE WORK OF THIS SECTION WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER TRADES, WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR, CONSULT WITH THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACTOR AND COME TO AGREEMENT AS TO CHANGES NECESSARY, OBTAIN WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE FROM ENGINEER FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE PROCEEDING. SHOP DRAWINGS: 1. N/A UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SUBSTITUTIONS: 1. NO SUBSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED TESTS: 1. BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, FIXTURES, ETC., ARE WORKING SATISFACTORILY AND TO THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS. PERMITS: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OUT AND PAYING FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. GROUNDING: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE, AND APPROVED GROUNDING SYSTEM INCLUDING ELECTRODES, ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR, BONDING CONDUCTORS, AND EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 250 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 2. CONDUITS CONNECTED TO EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES SHALL BE METALICALY JOINED TOGETHER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 3. FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING INSTALLED IN A NONMETALLIC CONDUIT SHALL INCLUDE A CODE SIZED GROUNDING CONDUCTOR HAVING GREEN INSULATION. THE GROUND CONDUCTOR SHALL BE PROPERLY CONNECTED AT BOTH ENDS TO MAINTAIN ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 4. REFER TO GROUND BUS DETAILS. PROVIDE NEW GROUND SYSTEM COMPLETE WITH CONDUCTORS, GROUND ROD AND DESCRIBED TERMINATIONS. 5. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOLID TINNED COPPER AND ANNEALED #2 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL NON-DIRECT BURIED TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT GROUND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE #2 STRANDED THHN (GREEN) INSULATION. 7. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH "HYGROUND" COMPRESSION SYSTEM BURNDY CONNECTORS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PAINT AT ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED. 9. GROUNDING SYSTEM RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 OHMS. IF THE RESISTANCE VALUE IS EXCEEDED, NOTIFY THE OWNER FOR FUTURE INSTRUCTION ON METHODS FOR REDUCING THE RESISTANCE VALUE. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS AND FURNISH TO SMART SMR ONE COMPLETE SET OF PRINTS SHOWING "INSTALLED WORK". UTILITY SERVICE: 1. TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL METERING FACILITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SERVICE LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. SERVICE INFORMATION WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE SERVING UTILITIES. 2. CONFORM TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. PRODUCTS: 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, CONFORMING WITH NEC, ANSI, NEMA, AND THEY SHALL BE U.L. LISTED AND LABELED. 2. CONDUIT: A) RIGID CONDUIT SHALL BE U.L. LABEL GALVANIZED ZINC COATED WITH ZINC INTERIOR AND SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLED IN OR UNDER CONCRETE SLABS, IN CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, UNDER PUBLIC ROADWAYS, IN MASONRY WALLS OR EXPOSED ON BUILDING EXTERIOR, RIGID CONDUIT IN CONTACT WITH EARTH SHALL BE 1/2 LAPPED WRAPPED WITH HUNTS WRAP PROCESS NO. 3. B) ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING SHALL U.L. LABEL, FITTINGS SHALL BE COMPRESSION TYPE. EMT SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR INTERIOR RUNS. C) FLEXIBLE METALLIC CONDUIT SHALL HAVE U.L. LISTED LABEL AND MAY BE USED WHERE PERMITTED BY CODE. FITTINGS SHALL BE "JAKE" OR "SQUEEZE" TYPE. SEAL TIGHT FLEXIBLE CONDUIT. ALL CONDUIT EXCESS OF SIX FEET IN LENGTH SHALL HAVE FULL SIZE GROUND WIRE. D) CONDUIT RUNS MAY BE SURFACE MOUNTED IN CEILING OR WALLS UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. CONDUIT INDICATED SHALL RUN PARALLEL OR AT RIGHT ANGLES TO CEILING, FLOOR OR BEAMS. VERIFY EXACT ROUTING OF ALL EXPOSED CONDUIT WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLING. E) ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 (UNLEES NOTED OTHERWISE) AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24" BELOW GRADE F) ALL CONDUIT ONLY (C.O.) SHALL HAVE PULL ROPE. G) CONDUITS RUN ON ROOFS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON 4x4 REDWOOD SLEEPERS, 6'-0" ON CENTER, SET IN NON-HARDENING MASTIC. 3. ALL WIRE AND CABLE SHALL BE COPPER, 600 VOLT, #12 AWG MINIMUM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. CONDUCTORS #10 AWG AND SMALLER SHALL BE SOLID. CONDUCTORS #8 AWG AND LARGER SHALL BE STRANDED. TYPE THHN INSULATION USED UNLESS CONDUCTORS INSTALLED IN CONDUIT EXPOSED TO WEATHER, IN WHICH CASE TYPE THWN INSULATION SHALL BE USED. 4. PROVIDE GALVANIZED COATED STEEL BOXES AND ACCESSORIES SIZED PER CODE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL DEVICES AND WIRING. 5. DUPLEX RECEPTACLES SHALL BE SPECIFICATION GRADE WITH WHITE FINISH (UNLESS NOTED BY ENGINEER), 20 AMP, 125 VOLT, THREE WIRE GROUNDING TYPE, NEMA 5-20R. MOUNT RECEPTACLE AT +12" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR IN DETAILS. WEATHERPROOF RECEPTACLES SHALL BE GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER TYPE WITH SIERRA #WPD-8 LIFT COVERPLATES. 6. TOGGLE SWITCHES SHALL BE 20 AMP, 120 VOLT AC, SPECIFICATION GRADE WHITE (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) FINISH. MOUNT SWITCHES AT +48" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. 7. PANELBOARDS SHALL BE DEAD FRONT SAFETY TYPE WITH ANTI-BURN SOLDERLESS COMPRESSION APPROVED FOR COPPER CONDUCTORS, COPPER BUS BARS, FULL SIZED NEUTRAL BUS, GROUND BUS AND EQUIPPED WITH QUICK-MAKE QUICK-BREAK BOLT-IN TYPE THERMAL MAGNETIC CIRCUIT BREAKERS. MOUNT TOP OF THE PANELBOARDS AT 6'-3" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. PROVIDE TYPE WRITTEN CIRCUIT DIRECTORY. 8. ALL CIRCUIT BREAKERS, MAGNETIC STARTERS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE AN INTERRUPTING RATING NOT LESS THAN MAXIMUM SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT TO WHICH THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED. 9. GROUND RODS SHALL BE COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8" ROUND AND 10' LONG. COPPERWELD OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALLATION: 1. PROVIDE SUPPORTING DEVICES FOR ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, BOXES, PANEL, ETC., SUPPORT LUMINARIES FROM UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL CEILING, EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BRACED TO WITHSTAND HORIZONTAL FORCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE PRIOR ALIGNMENT AND LEVELING OF ALL DEVICES AND FIXTURES. 2. CUTTING, PATCHING, CHASES, OPENINGS: PROVIDE LAYOUT IN ADVANCE TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY CUTTING OR DRILLING OF WALLS, FLOORS CEILINGS, AND ROOFS. ANY DAMAGE TO BUILDING STRUCTURE OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE ENGINEER BEFORE CORING. 3. IN DRILLING HOLES INTO CONCRETE WHETHER FOR FASTENING OR ANCHORING PURPOSES, OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE FLOOR FOR CONDUIT RUNS, PIPE RUNS, ETC., IT MUST BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL WILL NOT BE DRILLED INTO, CUT OR DAMAED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 4. LOCATION OF TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL ARE NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN AND THEREFORE, MUST BE SEARCHED FOR BY APPROPRIATE METHODS AND EQUIPMENT VIA X-RAY OR OTHER DEVICES THAT CAN ACCURATELY LOCATE THE REINFORCING AND/OR STEEL TENDONS. 5. PENETRATIONS IN FIRE RATED WALLS SHALL BE FIRE STOPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE C.B.C. PROJECT CLOSEOUT: 1. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK, CONDUCT CONTINUITY, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND FALL POTENTIAL GROUNDING TESTS FOR APPROVAL. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS TO PROJECT MANAGER. CLEAN PREMISES OF ALLS DEBRIS RESULTING FROM WORK AND LEAVE WORK IN A COMPLETE AND UNDAMAGED CONDITION. 2. PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGER WITH ONE SET OF COMPLETE ELECTRICAL "AS INSTALLED" DRAWINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB, SHOWING ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, ROUTINGS AND CIRCUITS. 3. ALL BROCHURES, OPERATING MANUALS, CATALOG, SHOP DRAWINGS, ETC., SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO OWNER AT JOB COMPLETION. GROUNDING NOTES: 1. ALL DETAILS ARE SHOWN IN GENERAL TERMS. ACTUAL GROUNDING INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO SITE CONDITIONS. 2. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS: #2 AWG SOLID BARE TINNED COPPER WIRE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. GROUND BAR LOCATED IN BASE OF EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED, FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE VENDOR. 4. ALL BELOW GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE, ABOVE GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE. 5. GROUND RING SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 24" BELOW GRADE OR 6" MINIMUM BELOW THE FROST LINE. 6. INSTALL GROUND CONDUCTORS AND GROUND ROD MINIMUM OF 1'-0" FROM EQUIPMENT CONCRETE SLAB, SPREAD FOOTING, OR FENCE. 7. EXOTHERMIC WELD GROUND CONNECTION TO FENCE POST: TREAT WITH A COLD GALVANIZED SPRAY. 8. GROUND BARS: A) EQUIPMENT GROUND BUS BAR (EGB) LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ANTENNA POLE/MAST FOR MAKING GROUNDING JUMPER CONNECTIONS TO COAX FEEDER CABLES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. JUMPERS (FURNISHED BY OWNERS) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND CONNECTED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL GROUNDING INSTALLATIONS AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 10. OBSERVE N.E.C. AND LOCAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE GROUNDING. 11. GROUNDING ATTACHMENT TO TOWER SHALL BE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR AT GROUNDING POINTS PROVIDED (2 MINIMUM). 12. IF EQUIPMENT IS IN A C.L. FENCE ENCLOSURE, GROUND ONLY CORNER POSTS AND SUPPORT POSTS OF GATE. IF CHAIN LINK LID IS USED, THEN GROUND LID ALSO. 13. GROUNDING AT PPC CABINET SHALL BE VERTICALLY INSTALLED. 14. ALL GROUNDING FOR ANTENNAS SHALL BE CONNECTED SO THAT IT WILL BY-PASS MAIN BUSS BAR. 15. ALL EMT RUNS SHALL BE GROUNDED AND HAVE A BUSHING, NO PVC ABOVE GROUND. 16. USE SEPARATE HOLES FOR GROUNDING AT BUSS BAR. NO "DOUBLE-UP" OF LUGS. 17. POWER AND TELCO CABINETS SHALL BE GROUNDED (BONDED) TOGETHER. 18. NO LB'S ALLOWED ON GROUNDING. 19. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL CLAMP AND BRASS TAGS ON COAX AT ANTENNAS AND DOGHOUSE. M (1) 3" C (2) 4/0 THWN AL (1) 1/0 AL NEUTRAL METER N G #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE, #2 BOND TO GROUNDING ROD UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PANEL 100 AMP, 1 PHASE, 120/240V AC 6 POSITION LOAD CENTER N G 30/2 #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR TO GROUND RING 100/2 - MAIN BREAKER RG 30/2 RRH RRH (2) RRH (1) 4" C (4) 1/2" COAX 1 1/2" C (3) #3/0, (1) #2 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND ANTENNA NEW 3/8" DIA. HARDWOOD MOLDING NEW GALV IRON MOLDING STAPLE TYP NEW 1/2" PVC CONDUIT FOR METER GROUND 6" MIN TYP MECHANICAL CONNECTION 5/8" DIA. X 10' GROUND ROD NEW GROUND CONDUCTOR #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE18"GROUND LEGEND MECHANICAL CONNECTION EXOTHERMIC CADWELD TYP 5/8" DIA. X 10' LONG COPPER CLAD GROUND ROD AT 10' O.C. MAX AND 18" MIN BELOW FINISH GRADE 15 1" = 1'-0" GROUND DETAIL EXISTING GRADE 5 1/2" = 1'-0" GROUNDING PLAN (P) 5/8" X 10" GROUNDING ROD (P) CADWELD CONNECTION TYPE "GRI" MOLD (P) MECHANICAL CONNECTION (P) #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE ENCASED WITHIN WOODEN MOLDING CONNECTED WITH GALVANIZED STEEL STRAPS AT 3'-0" O.C. PER PG& E REQUIREMENTS (P) ANTENNA GROUND (P) ANTENNA MAST GROUND Plot Date:2/23/2018 4:04:54 PM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_019-88\SFOK2_019\Sheets\Building A\E-2 POLE GROUND AND DETAILS.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: B.P.M. CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-88 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 10/02/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_019 SITE ADDRESS: ADJ. TO 701 WINCHESTER DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 12/04/17 100% CD Submittal 2 02/22/18 100% CD Rev 1 E-2 POLE GROUND AND DETAILS City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive. Applicant: Abigail Reed, Modus LLC APN: N/A, in right-of-way Property Owner: Joint Pole Association Lot Area: N/A Architect: Borges Architectural Group Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, Class 3, consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Planning Commission Review: While the Planning Commission generally does not review projects or improvements proposed within the right-of-way, the Wireless Communications Ordinance states that a conditional use permit for a wireless communication facility may be granted only after a public hearing before and approval by the Burlingame Planning Commission (Code Section 25.77.050 (c)). The Planning Commission is limited to reviewing and discussing the proposed design of the wireless facility and not the radio frequency (“RF”) emissions since the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. The Planning Commission should limit and focus their comments on the design of the wireless facility based on the design criteria listed on pages 6 and 7. Wireless Communications Ordinance: Wireless telecommunications facilities are licensed and regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission and the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The City can, within limited discretion, control the time, place, and manner of installation. The Wireless Communications Ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 6, 2012 (Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities is attached for review). The purpose of this ordinance is to maintain and more importantly, to facilitate modernization of Burlingame’s communications infrastructure in a manner that improves the quality of the City’s environment, the pleasant aesthetics of the City’s neighborhoods, the City’s architectural traditions dating to the early 20th century and the visual quality in the non-residential areas of the City. More specifically, the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate, as allowed by state and federal law and regulations, the location of communications facilities in the City of Burlingame in a manner that recognizes the community benefits of communications technology, which provides clear guidance to the communications industry but also recognizes the strong need to preserve the City’s aesthetic traditions. Background: In recent years, wireless telecommunication service providers have indicated they are experiencing increased customer demand, particularly with respect to data capacity and wireless broadband speed. In order to address this demand, wireless providers are installing small cell antennas placed in densely populated areas that have been determined to need additional network capacity, such as downtowns, heavily used traffic corridors or areas that cannot be effectively served by traditional macro cells. These small cell wireless antennas are not intended to replace macro cell sites, but to fill in areas that do not have sufficient capacity. Item No. 8a.2 Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 2 AT&T has submitted several applications for new wireless facilities in or near residential zones throughout the City. These applications consist of adding an antenna and associated equipment onto existing PG&E owned wood utility poles located within the public right-of-way. The proposed locations include existing PG&E utility poles adjacent to properties located at: 1505 Bernal Avenue 1800 Hillside Drive 1210 Oak Grove Avenue 1480 Broadway 937 Larkspur Drive 701 Winchester Drive 977 El Camino Drive At the request of the applicant, Planning staff is first bringing forward the proposed applications adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive for review by the Planning Commission. The remaining applications will be presented at future Planning Commission meetings. Staff would also note that Verizon recently submitted 12 similar small cell wireless antenna applications for installations on PG&E utility poles in the right-of-way; staff is currently reviewing those applications for completeness. This brings the total number of applications currently being reviewed to 19; staff anticipates additional applications to be submitted. Lastly, on March 5th the City Council reviewed information pertaining to the placement of wireless cell antennas and related equipment on City-owned utility poles (street light poles). The Council directed staff to provide additional information, but indicated that based on the information provided it may consider allowing installations on City-owned utility poles in the future. Currently there is one similar wireless facility installation on an existing utility pole located at the corner of Peninsula Avenue and Stanley Road. This wireless facility was installed prior to adoption of the Wireless Communications Ordinance, which at that time only required an encroachment permit. Study Meeting: At the March 12, 2018 Planning Commission study meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to provide responses to the questions listed below about the proposed application (see attached March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). Responses to these questions can be found in the attached response letter, date stamped May 24, 2018. There were no changes to the plans reviewed at the study meeting.  Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like.  Need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected.  Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible.  Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers.  Provide information on improvements in technology. The Planning Commission expressed a concern about what happens when installations become obsolete. Specifically, who is responsible for removing the facility and how does the City decide when the facility should be removed. Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.77.170 (Cessation of Operations) provides the following requirements for vacating or ceasing operations: (a) Vacation. The service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 3 (b) Cessation of Operations. If a wireless communication facilities site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the conditional or administrative use permit for that facility shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. (c) No later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facilities are sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facilities within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. (d) If the facility is not removed within thirty (30) days after the permit has been discontinued pursuant to either subsection (a) or (b) of this section, the site shall be deemed to be a nuisance pursuant to Chapter 1.18 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, Nuisance Abatement, and the City may cause the facility to be removed at the owners’ expense or by calling any bond or other financial assurance to pay for removal. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall apply to the abandoned antenna but not become effective for the tower until all users cease using the tower. The requirement for removal of equipment in compliance with this section shall be included as a provision in any lease of private property for placement of wireless communication facilities. (Ord. 1870 § 2, (2012); Ord. 1869 § 3, (2012)) The Commission also expressed a concern that the City does not have a master plan for this type of installation, noting that although the City c an't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan, the City may want to consider engaging an independent engineer to work on the City's behalf to address this type of application. Planning staff would note that cities either don’t have a master plan in place or are in the process of creating a master plan for these facilities. Project Description: The applicant, Abigail Reed, agent for AT&T, is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to install a new wireless communication facility (wireless facility) on an existing wood utility pole owned by the Joint Pole Association. The proposal includes installing a cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment and cabling mounted on the side of the utility pole. An application for a Conditional Use Permit is required because the project consists of installing a new wireless facility (not a co-location) and because it is located in a residential zoning district. The PG&E utility pole is located within the right-of-way near the corner of Hillside Drive and Cabrillo Avenue, adjacent to the parcel with an address of 1800 Hillside Drive. The utility pole is located along Hillside Drive, in the planter strip between the sidewalk and street. The proposed site is surrounded by single family residential uses and Our Lady of Angels Catholic Church and School to the east. There are existing street trees on either side of the utility pole, which would not need to be removed to accommodate the proposed wireless facility. In their responses to plan review comments, AT&T notes that “the proposed site will assist with off-loading traffic from the macro sites and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT&T’s high speed 4G LTE. This is especially impactful for those who rely on the AT&T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device and rely on their mobile phones to do more.” Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 4 Visual simulations depicting existing and proposed site conditions are attached to the staff report for review. The proposed antenna, equipment and cabling are proposed to be painted to match the utility pole. The proposed wireless facility application consists of the following: 1) Install one (1) new cylindrical antenna and extension on top of an existing wood utility pole. The antenna measures 9.45” in diameter and 23.63” tall. In order to comply with minimum clearance requirements, the antenna is installed on a 7’-0” wooden extension and mounting bracket on top of the utility pole (see existing and proposed elevations on sheet A-3). The top of the existing utility pole measures 38’-7” in height. The proposed antenna, extension and mounting bracket increases the overall height of the pole to 47’-10” above grade, or 9’-0” above the top of the existing pole. There are no cabinets proposed at grade within the right-of-way. 2) Install equipment associated with the antenna onto the side of the existing utility pole using a mounting bracket. The equipment includes two (2) twin duplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, with the following dimensions: Twin duplexers: 0’-8⅜” wide x 0’-4⅝” tall x 0’-3½” deep Radio remote units: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-6” deep Fiber distribution panel: 0’-8” wide x 0’-10” tall x 0’-4½” deep Electric load center: 0’-9” wide x 1’-1” tall x 0’-4½” deep Power meter: 1’-0” wide x 2’-0” tall x 0’-4⅝” deep Including the mounting bracket, the equipment extends approximately 1’-8” from the face of the utility pole. The equipment is proposed to be mounted on the side of the utility pole facing the sidewalk. As proposed, the equipment would not extend into the sidewalk area; a minimum clearance of 7’-0” is provided between the ground and the bottom of the equipment. 3) Install coaxial cables associated with the antenna and equipment in 1½” and 3” conduits mounted on the utility pole. As previously noted, AT&T has submitted a total of seven applications for new wireless facilities to be installed on wood utility poles located within the right-of-way. The applicant provided a map showing AT&T’s existing and proposed wireless facility locations over the next two years, including installations within the downtown, Rollins Road and Bayfront areas.. AT&T also provided a propagation map which shows the increased coverage the proposed node adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive will provide compared to existing conditions. Propagation maps for the remaining six locations are provided for reference. The applicant notes that “small cell technology has a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore requires the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. The target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations.” The applicant also notes that “the proposed facilities are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites. These differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity rather than coverage. The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber.” The fiber is 0.8-inch thick and will be painted to match the pole color. The applicant notes that most of the sites will have above ground fiber, while one will be underground. “Overhead fiber will pull from, or extend, existing fiber located at the communication level along the existing lines and travel Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 5 down the pole to the fiber distribution panel”. The fiber/cables will be installed under separate permits; fiber routes are unknown at this time. Public Outreach: Pursuant to the City’s ordinance, the applicant is encouraged to perform an early stage outreach with residents and property owners near the proposed wireless facility in order to address and, if possible, resolve any impacts of the proposed facilities on the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant sent out an informational notice to all residents/property owners within 300 feet of the proposed wireless facility (see attached copy of notice). The notice provides a description of the proposed facility and AT&T contact information for individuals with comments or questions about proposed facility. The applicant reports that they did not receive any comments or questions for this proposed installation. After hearing concerns expressed by neighbors at the March 12, 2018 study meeting, the applicant invited concerned residents to a meeting at the project site on April 19, 2018. The applicant reports that no residents attended the meeting. Location Preference Order: The City’s ordinance requires that in determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order listed below. Wireless communication facilities must be located where feasible in the locations listed below by descending priority. Per the current ordinance, placement on existing utility poles is low in preference, if not the lowest in certain areas. If applicable, the applicant shall include an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons this location was chosen. 1) Locations within Non-Residential Zoning Districts, which are more than five hundred (500) feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts and which are not within the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Completely enclosed within existing, permitted buildings. (B) Located on electric power transmission towers. (C) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities. (D) The roof of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (E) The side of existing structures (buildings, water tanks, etc.), designed to blend in with the building, camouflaged or screened from the public right-of-way which constitutes a pedestrian travel corridor. (F) Camouflaged stealth structure (a false tree, building, artifice, etc). (G) Existing utility poles, with all ancillary equipment placed underground if feasible, camouflaged or screened. (H) Existing utility distribution poles and street lights. (I) Slim line monopole, with antennas in a canister at the same diameter as the pole. (J) Standard monopole with attached flush-mounted (not extending more than twenty-four (24) inches from the pole) antenna elements. Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 6 2) Non-Residential Zoning Districts within five hundred (500) feet of Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts, and the Burlingame Downtown Districts. (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from pedestrian view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located on existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provision of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antenna, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. 3) Residential Zoning Districts. If located within a residential zoning district, the following guidelines apply: (A) Integrated into non-residential uses (libraries, churches, temples, etc.) or designed to blend in with open space (playing fields, parking lots, parks, etc.); hidden from view by means of stealth design, stealth structures, architectural integration or screening. (B) Co-located in existing wireless communications facilities which are in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. (C) In public right-of-way, within new light poles with interior stealth installations of cabling and antennae, and to the extent feasible, control equipment. (D) In public right-of-way, on existing utility or light poles, with all ancillary equipment either underground, if feasible, camouflaged, screened or painted to blend into the surrounding structure. Design Criteria: The goal of the City’s regulations is to reduce to the greatest extent possible all visual impacts resulting from the installation of wireless communications facilities. Stealth design and stealth structures for these facilities shall be considered the normal standard for all wireless communications facilities. Non-stealth designs and structures shall not be approved without evidence, independently verified, that it is not possible (using best efforts by applicant) to stealth such facilities. Applications shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the following criteria. If the applicant’s proposed facility cannot comply with the following criteria, the application shall include a detailed explanation of why it is not reasonably feasible to comply with the criteria. Please refer to the attached document title ‘Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response’ date stamped March 7, 2018 for reasons some of the criteria were not met. (a) Wireless communication facilities should be co-located where feasible and where the co-location does not create an adverse aesthetic impact due to such factors as increasing the bulk, the height or the amount of noise created by the proposed co-located facilities. (b) Wireless communication facilities should to the greatest extent feasible, not be located in Residential Zoning Districts. However, staff would note that the California Public Utilities Commission has determined that wireless providers are a utility and therefore have rights of use of public right-of-ways as other utility. (c) Wireless communication facilities should be designed, located and constructed in a manner that minimizes visual and auditory impacts of the facilities. The wireless communication facilities shall blend into the surrounding environment and/or shall be architecturally integrated into a structure, considering the color, design and character of the surrounding context (e.g., public art, clock towers, Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 7 flagpoles, trees/vegetation, rocks, water tank, existing office/industrial buildings, and church steeples). Specifically, the proposed facilities shall comply, to the greatest extent feasible, with the following: (1) The facilities should be concealed, screened or camouflaged by the surrounding topography, vegetation, buildings, or other setting. (2) The facilities should be proportional in size relative to surrounding and supporting structures and ability for co-location by other providers. (3) Roof-mounted facilities should be, out of view and screened; these facilities shall be set back at least one foot from the edge of the roof for every one foot of antenna height and shall not exceed ten (10) feet in height above the roof surface. (4) Wall-mounted facilities should be compatible in scale and design with the building, shall be flush mounted, i.e., not extending from the face of the building more than twenty-four (24) inches and shall be painted and/or textured to match the wall of the building. All cables and brackets, wires, shall also be hidden. (5) All facilities should be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials. (6) All concealing, screening, painting, camouflaging and/or use of stealth designs and stealth structures should be consistent with Section 25.77.010 (Purpose) including, but not limited to, promoting wholesome, attractive, harmonious and economic use of property, building construction, civic service, activities and operations in conformity with and preserving the overall aesthetics of City neighborhoods including its character and its century old architectural traditions. (d) Where applicable, appropriate landscaping should be installed in and around the proposed wireless communication facilities. (e) Any exterior lighting on the facilities should have a manual on/off switch and be contained on-site. (f) Ground equipment of the facilities should be concealed, screened, camouflaged or hidden using stealth design, stealth structures, underground installation or landscaping and fencing. (g) Signage in, on or near any facilities should be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact. (h) Wireless communication facilities should be discouraged in areas subject to the City’s hillside construction permit as designated in Section 25.61.010; if facilities cannot be avoided in the hillside areas, then visual impacts should be eliminated through stealth design, stealth structures and landscaping. (i) Support wires for structures should be discouraged. (j) The wireless communication facilities should be designed to discourage unauthorized access. Radio Frequency Study: Staff would note that cities may not regulate placement, construction or modification of wireless communications facilities based on radio frequency (“RF”) emissions if the proposed wireless facility complies with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions regulations. Federal law prohibits cities from considering RF emissions as a basis for denying or restricting cellular facilities. An evaluation of the proposed wireless facility was prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated September 17, 2017, for compliance with appropriate guidelines limiting human exposure to radio frequency (“RF”) electromagnetic fields (see attached full report). The report concluded that operation of the node proposed by AT&T at this location “will comply with the prevailing standards for limiting public exposure to Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 8 radio frequency energy and, therefore, need not for this reason cause a significant impact on the environment. The highest calculated level in publicly accessible areas is much less than the prevailing standards allow for exposures of unlimited duration. This finding is consistent with measurements of actual exposure conditions taken at other operating nodes.” The evaluation prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc. concludes that the proposed wireless facility will be compliant with Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure Limits established by the FCC. Therefore, the City cannot use RF emissions as a reason for denying the modification request. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering Division. The application was reviewed by the Public Works Department and determined that the proposed facilities will not interfere with, present a hazard to, or otherwise incommode the use of the right-of-way. The Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions had no comment on the proposed application. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 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 conditional use permit to install a new wireless communication facility within the right-of-way on an existing PG&E wood utility pole, consisting of a cylindrical antenna, extension on top of the utility pole, two (2) twin diplexers, two (2) radio remote units, one (1) fiber distribution panel, one (1) electric load center and one (1) power meter, shall be valid for ten (10) years from the date of approval. At least one hundred twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the initial ten (10) year term, the applicant shall complete and submit a renewal application to the Community Development Director; 2. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 2, 2018, sheets T-1, GN-1, C1, A-1 through A-7, E-1 and E-2; 3. that the conditions of the Engineering Division’s November 3, 2017 and January 8, 2018 memos shall be met; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 9 4. that prior to commencing any work at the site, the contractor commissioned by the applicant to perform the work shall obtain all required permits, such as a construction Encroachment Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Permit from the Department of Public Works – Engineering Division; 5. that all units must be at least seven (7) feet clear and above the highest adjacent finished grade, no exceptions shall be allowed; 6. that the wireless communication facility shall operate in conformance with all applicable provisions of Chapter 25.77 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Wireless Communications); where any conflicts exist between the applicable provisions of that chapter and this approval, the more restrictive provision shall apply; 7. that the facility shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FCC, the FAA, and any other agency of the state or federal government with the authority to regulate wireless communication facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed and are made applicable to existing facilities, the owners of the facilities governed by this chapter shall bring such facilities into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a different compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling state or federal agency. Failure to bring the facility into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the facilities at the owner’s expense, revocation of any permit or imposition of any other applicable penalty; 8. that the facility shall be constructed of graffiti-resistant materials and shall be painted a non-reflective material consistent with the color scheme on the utility pole; 9. that signage in, on or near the facility shall be prohibited with the exception of warning and informational signs, which shall be designed with minimal aesthetic impact; 10. that within forty-five (45) days of commencement of the facility operation, the applicant shall provide verification by independent qualified experts that the RF (radio frequency) levels of the facility complies with FCC regulations and with the City noise regulations; 11. that the applicant shall conduct a post‐installation field test to confirm that the radio frequency (RF) exposure levels comply with FCC Rules and Regulations, shall submit the comprehensive report to the City, and if necessary, agree to promptly correct any noncompliance; 12. that the applicant shall report to the City every five (5) years from the date of commencement of the facility operation, a review of the condition of the facility, of the facility’s compliance with federal and state regulations and of the facility’s compliance with the provisions of this chapter and the conditions of approval. The applicant shall also provide updated contact information for the owner and the applicant and verifiable confirmation information as to what carrier(s) are using the facility; 13. that the applicant shall procure and maintain a City business license, contact information for the applicant, for the agent responsible for maintenance of the facility and for emergency contact; 14. that the applicant shall either secure a bond, letter of credit or other similar financial assurance, in a form acceptable to the City, for the removal of the facility in the event that its use is abandoned, its operation is ceased or the approval is terminated; Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 10 15. that maintenance and repairs to facility shall be permitted provided that such maintenance and repair does not enlarge or extend the facility structure or equipment enclosures or change the number, type, dimensions, of the antenna or related equipment; 16. that current contact information of the person or entity responsible for maintaining and repairing the facility shall be provided to and maintained by the Community Development Department; 17. that the facility shall be kept clean and free of graffiti, litter and debris. Lighting, walls, fences, shields, cabinets, and poles, shall be maintained in good repair and free of graffiti and other forms of vandalism, and any damage from any cause, including degradation from wind and weather, shall be repaired as soon as reasonably possible to minimize occurrences of dangerous conditions or visual blight. Graffiti shall be removed from any facility as soon as practicable, and in no instance more than two (2) business days from the time of notification by any person or entity; 18. that except for emergency repairs, testing and maintenance activities that will be audible beyond the property line shall only occur between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, excluding holidays; 19. that the service provider shall notify the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate a site at least thirty (30) days prior to the vacation; 20. that if the facility site is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, the Conditional Use Permit shall be deemed terminated unless before the end of the twelve (12) month period: (1) The Community Development Director has determined that the same operator resumed operation; or (2) The City has received an application to transfer the permit to another service provider. 21. that no later than ninety (90) days from the date the facility is determined to have ceased operation or the Provider has notified the Community Development Director of the intent to vacate the site, the owner of the wireless communication facilities or the owner of the property on which the facility is sited shall remove all equipment and improvements associated with the use and shall restore the site to its original condition as required by the Community Development Director. The provider or owner may use any bond or other assurances provided by the operator to do so. The owner or his or her agent shall provide written verification of the removal of the facility within thirty (30) days of the date the removal is completed. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Abigail Reed, applicant Conditional Use Permit Right-of-Way Adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive 11 Attachments: March 12, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter and Attachments, dated May 24, 2018 and June 5, 2018 Email Submitted by Steve Lamont, dated March 10, 2018 Letter Submitted by Marsha Lee, dated March 11, 2018 Chapter 25.77 – Wireless Communications Facilities Application to the Planning Commission Northern California Joint Pole Association Membership Status and Letters of Authorization Conditional Use Permit Application Proof of Outreach, Information Notice prepared by applicant, dated January 17, 2018 Visual Simulations Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response, date stamped March 7, 2018 Existing and Proposed Facility Maps Propagation Maps, dated November 13, 2017 Evaluation of Proposed Wireless Facility, prepared by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated September 27, 2017 Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Aerial Photo BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, March 12, 2018 b.Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way at the locations listed below. The proposals consist of installing one antenna on top of an existing utility pole and associated equipment attached to the side of the utility pole. (Abigail Reed, Modus LLC, applicant; Joint Pole Association, owner; Borges Architectural Group, architect) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1. In right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive, zoned R-1 (pole is located on Oak Grove Avenue) (39 noticed) 2. In right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 (51 noticed) Chair Gum recused himself from the discussion of this item as he resides within 500-feet of the proposed installation at 701 Winchester Drive; Commissioner Sargent recused himself as he lives within 500-feet of the installation at 1800 Hillside Drive; they left the Council Chambers. All Commissioners had visited the properties. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Angela Kahn and Helene Nagazarian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Does the San Francisco example that was shown have fiber-optic cable running to it? How will it run in Burlingame's installations? (Kahn: it is buried in that instance. In Burlingame, a separate entity from AT&T will run the fiber-optic cable overhead. The fiber-optic cable will need to run closer to the antenna, above the PG&E lines.) > Clarified that this is not a co-located facility; other providers will seek additional locations and likely run fiber-optic cable to there antennae. > What is the radius served by the installations? (Kahn: 300-500 feet.) Public Comments: Doug Luftman, 2615 Easton Drive: noted that the City worked with residents five-years ago to draft the ordinance. Offered assistance in this matter. Encouraged following the ordinance very closely. Not certain all aspects have been addressed. The ordinance encourages public engagement. The process is moving forward in a piecemeal manner. A master plan approach is needed. The ordinance makes it clear that aesthetics and location are of importance. The most ideal locations within residential areas are in Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 March 12, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Minutes easements behind properties; though every effort should be taken to keep the installations out of the residential areas. There is no accurate depiction in the application of the installations, the stealth design is not considered, there is a lack of justification regarding location; why are residential areas selected? Should be more engagement of the community and there should be more of a focus on aesthetics. Prakash Amani: not supportive. Every carrier will have their own installations. Is across from a church property with a lot of traffic. Sought more information regarding the radiation emission. There are other alternatives possible. Tom Santoro, 1804 Hillside Drive: lives on Hillside Drive. No one has discussed the radiation and cancer-causing impacts. Will the radiation hurt those children that pass by to go to Our Lady of Angels. Are there any studies that show that the installations are safe? Doesn't want anyone to experience health problems down the road. Perhaps AT&T has studies. Should approach the nearby church and school to discuss with them. Amit Chibber, 1406 Drake Avenue: agreed with prior speakers. What is the dispersal of the radiation from the installation; how much can be expected to enter the nearby homes? Bill Hemet: is an engineer that works with AT&T and other providers. There is no energy emitted from the boxes on the poles, only from the antenna on the top. Have projected exposure levels for every tenth of a meter from the installation. The maximum level of radiation at the ground is .7%; .8% at a nearby home, well below the safe exposure level. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Noted that a discussion or radio frequencies is "off the table"; meets the standards of the FCC. > Can look at time, place and manner. Concerned about aesthetics. Not seeing the entire picture since the information regarding fiber-optic cable is not included in the information. Can be a significant difference between what is shown in the exhibits. We don't know where all of the installations are going to be installed - are providing what the customers are requesting to be provided. > Concerned when reference is made to potential failure of 911 systems; knows that this is not the full picture. Data is a big need. > Need to see the full picture of what the installations will look like. > Concerned that the City doesn't have a master plan for this type of installation. Has Hillsborough done anything similar to a master plan? > Agrees that a master plan is needed. Individual providers will likely provide plans that the City will need to coordinate. Also need some proof regarding why the sites have been selected. > Agreed with comments regarding the Commission's role in reviewing the applications. Need to investigate locations that are not as visible. > Why can't facilities be shared? There must be something that can be used for multiple servers. > Provide information on improvements in technology. > What happens when the installations become obsolete? Who will remove them? How does the City decide when to remove them? > Can't ask the vendors to prepare a master plan; stuck in a situation where an independent engineer will need to be engaged to work on the City's behalf. > Need to see the full picture. No action is required on this item. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/5/2018 Burlingame ATT Proposed Wood Pole Nodes From: smlamont@gmail.com [mailto:smlamont@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Steve Lamont Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 4:37 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Cc: PW/ENG-Syed Murtuza <SMurtuza@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin <RHurin@burlingame.org>; CD/PLG-Bill Meeker <wmeeker@burlingame.org> Subject: Request to table Wireless Antenna discussion pending having a plan With regard to your agenda item 6b at your meeting Monday 12 March 2018: Application for Conditional Use Permits to install a new wireless facility (antenna and equipment) on an existing wood utility pole located within the right-of-way. I respectfully request that the Planning Commission table the discussion and approval of the wireless sites until such time as the City of Burlingame has a strategy to deal with the impending applications for networks of sites. Dealing with these two applications (701 Winchester Drive and 1800 Hillside Drive) early, solely because no citizens protested these particular sites, risks setting a dangerous precedent that could affect the scores of applications the City will face in the coming years. I support the need to improve wireless coverage and capacity within Burlingame, and understand the City must work within the Federal and States laws regulating the placement of wireless antennas in our neighborhoods. At the same time our City has an opportunity to reduce the visual impact and establish the best arrangement for all parties. Burlingame City Council, in their discussion last week, wisely noted that there will likely be applications for many sites over the coming years. The two sites up for discussion are the first of seven applications from AT&T Wireless, who have also predicted nine more over the next two years. We have just received applications from Verizon for seven sites. And we can predict that T-Mobile and Sprint will come along soon. With each site covering a radius of 300 feet and four carriers, we could easily see up to six sites per block on average in our residential district (assuming 1,000 feet/block as in Easton Addition) within a few years. We must plan for this future and avoid setting precedents that will be difficult to undo. Setting the right precedent is important because there are many variables in play at the same time. Burlingame has some influence over the location of the sites, the aesthetics, monthly lease fees and terms for City-owned poles, network design, and more. We must negotiate from strength to reach a fair balance. Leaving any of the elements off the table or approving the networks piecemeal reduces our leverage considerably. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. Regarding these particular applications, we would like to see more discussions about the time, place, and manner: 1. Regarding placement, the ordinance clearly indicates a preference for carriers to use the easements. The planning department asked the question of AT&T, but the answer was inadequate. We should be able to ask them to demonstrate factually why the nearest easement will not meet their needs. From their coverage maps it should make little difference to the number of homes covered by an alternative site. 2. The ordinance also favors camouflaged locations, including in buildings such as church steeples and playing field scoreboards. I have heard no evidence that the carriers or the City have explored such locations to mutual advantage. 3. There does not appear to have been discussion about co-location, which could considerably reduce the number of sites ultimately required. From what we understand one pole can support multiple carriers, even if it requires the addition of more radio remote boxes. The net visual impact of co-located sites is likely far less than having individual sites for each carrier. 4. Beyond these other factors there are likely many ways to reduce the visual effect of an antenna and support equipment on a residential street. We have yet to push the envelope to determine whether carriers can design equipment boxes to fit inside the poles; apply newer, more compact technology to reduce the size of boxes; or bury some of the equipment. Yes, these options will be more costly for the carriers, so it is natural their first applications will be biased to reducing their costs. Each application under consideration will add about 10.3 cubic feet of mass above ground (3.4 cu ft for the boxes, 3.2 cu ft for the pole extension and antenna, and 3.7 cu ft for the conduits), without including the additional fiber optic lines they will hang through the neighborhood to deliver the signal. When City Council asked the AT&T contractor at the meeting last week whether there were other equipment options, he said "yes, some of the boxes can be as small as six inches", although he did not provide all the dimensions. This suggests there is considerable room to move away from multiple hanging boxes that are each 2 ft X 1 ft X 6 inches. The bottom line is we have only begun to negotiate the best terms and conditions for what will be many applications. The first sites the City approves will set the standard. Let us pause and do this properly. Steve Lamont :: 415-354-9723 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT March 11, 2018 Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Community Development Department-Planning Division City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 RE: Comments for Planning Commission Meeting, March 12, 2018; Study Item 6. b. 1 and 2. Application for CUP to install new wireless facilities (antenna and equipment) on existing PG&E wood utility poles, located at 1800 Hillside Drive and 701 Winchester Drive. Dear Mr. Hurin, Please distribute the following comments to the Planning Commission and cc. the City Council, city manager, city attorney, city engineer, planning director and planning manager. Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for having this Study Session on this important issue – the location of “small cell technology” sites. First I discuss general comments on the need for a comprehensive plan to the location of these facilities in the City of Burlingame. I then will discuss specific comments as to the specific proposed projects. General Comments for a Technologically sound Burlingame. What we know: Burlingame is in the center of Silicon Valley and has more and more high tech companies and businesses that require dependable service. Providing good service to all residents and businesses is imperative. Technology will keep evolving and today we are all dependent on cellular facilities for our communication needs. We appreciate that there are 4 major carriers currently servicing our city and each will require upgrades, and will continue to need to do so in the future. Burlingame’s five your old Telecommunications Ordinance is excellent. It was jointly drafted by the City, residents and industry involvement and takes a balanced approach to the needs to preserve the aesthetics of our neighborhood while at the same time providing a means for cell phone providers to upgrade their telecommunication infrastructure. What we need to know: Since I come from an Urban/Environmental Planning background, my first reaction is to suggest that the City prepare and overall telecommunication master plan that incorporates the cell phone carriers needs, the residents’ priorities and the City’s approach to its master planning process. This might include locating areas required for enhanced service now and projected for some time in the future and what different types of technologies may be available today or in the near future to address those needs. 11.27.17 PC Meeting Item 9b 2115 Roosevelt Avenue Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 12 2018 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD – PLANNING DIV. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 1 of 2 Perhaps an Inventory of Existing Conditions could help in drafting a Scope of Work. I suggest including the following Mapping and overlay information to identify the preferred and most suitable and unsuitable areas: 1. Mapped inventory of existing City owned poles (identifying those with meters and those without) 2. Locating PG&E power poles in the city. 3. Interested cellular carriers to provide- map showing existing coverage areas; areas currently with holes in coverage; and projected areas in need of coverage (based on zoning/increased development proposals, higher density project areas). 4. Special Decorative Streets / Streetscape Areas identified. 5. Map of prioritized list of streets that the City has identified for undergrounding power lines. Comments specific to current ATT projects 1. The proposed projects are incomplete including “Project Descriptions”. For example, these sites require overhead fiber connecting all of them. AT&T confirms that no overhead fiber route plan has been provided which is part of the project, thereby leaving this proposed project incomplete. The projects therefore should not be “accepted for processing” in its current form. 2. The proposed projects are the lowest on the Location Preference Order (see Telecom Ordinance.) There is no detailed explanation why other locations and technologies could not have been used to achieve the preferred locations in the city. Instead, the statement merely seems to state because AT&T chose a limiting technology with a limited range, it needed the location to be where it wanted it to be. This was not the intent of the Location Preference Order. The analysis starts with why the other locations are not viable based on any technologies that are commercially available. 3. The Design Criteria are not met. Adverse aesthetic impact with increased bulk and height ( 2’ antenna on 7 ‘ extension on top of existing 39 foot and 29 foot wooden PGE power poles. Equipment includes 5 boxes attached to the pole (3 boxes are 1’ x 2’ in size); a 5” diameter coax cable will also be attached to the pole running the entire length of the pole to the antenna. Note: PG&E often requires guy wires to hold up their poles with all the equipment strapped to the pole. Further, additional aesthetic options such as disguising the project as a fake tree, etc. has not been discussed. Lastly, the photo simulations are misleading in that they are missing the complete simulation of the design (e.g., the metal boxes are either not illustrated on all of the photos or are provided in a perspective that minimizes the actual aesthetic impact of the site.) 4. Hillside Drive is a major (east-west) beautiful tree lined street and a major entrance from Highway 280 to Burlingame. Hillside Drive should be a priority for undergrounding power lines, not adding additional clutter. Where will the overhead fiber be routed? 5. The applicant responses to the city engineer comments, (dated 1/8/18 for items #1 and #2), are inadequate. 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 2 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 6. Regarding the PG&E power pole(s) at the Winchester Drive site: the existing condition of the two strapped-together power poles looks dangerous as well as ugly. Please refer to the existing conditions photo in the photo simulations. 7. It is hard to understand how this project could be exempt from CEQA since it does not comply with the Telecom Ordinance. Burlingame is beautiful and we hope the city can be kept special with careful assessment for any telecommunications facilities that locate in the city. Thank you all for your attention to this matter. Yours truly, Marsha Lee, homeowner marshaleemjl@gmail.com 03.12.18 PC Meeting Item 6b CUP to install new wireless facility (antenna & eqpt.) Right-of-way adjacent to 701 Winchester Dr. Right-of-way adjacent to 1800 Hillside Dr. Page 3 of 3 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking west across Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment Top of Antenna: 38’ 01” Top of Pole: 29’ 01” Bottom of Power Meter: 07’ 00” Ground Level: 00’ 00” 09’ 00” 701 Winchester Drive, Burlingame, CA 94010 CRAN_RSFR_SFOK2_019 10.23.2017 Your Project. Visualized. www.photosims.com Photo simulation as seen looking northeast along Oak Grove Avenue proposed AT&T antenna proposed AT&T pole mounted equipment (view obscured by existing trees) 240 Stockton Street 3rd floor san francisco, ca 94108 t. 415.989.1102 www.modus-corp.com Burlingame Study Session 3.12 Written Response 1. Provide a description of how this facility relates to the overall wireless network for the carrier(s) it is servicing as well as how this facility relates to other wireless facility projects in process of being constructed and/or planned in or near the City of Burlingame. (BMC Section 25.77.060 (a) (3)). Please see attached propagation map for the proposed node (attached). The propagation map shows the increase in coverage the proposed node will provide, compared to the current state of coverage. The proposed node is necessary in order to improve the capacity of the existing 4G LTE network. These nodes will be configured with a PCS band LTE carrier and a AWS band LTE carrier; this will improve the coverage of our primary capacity spectrum in the localized area. This means that the performance of the 4G LTE network will be substantially improved in the area of focus. This is especially impactful for those who rely on the AT &T network for broadband data services and who increasingly use their mobile phones as their primary communication device (landlines to residences have decreased significantly) and rely on their mobile phones to do more (E911, GPS, web access, text, etc.). The proposed site will assist with off -loading traffic from the macro sites (shown in the Burlingame node map) and provide substantial improvement in service to residents in the area that will allow them to fully experience the advantage of AT &T’s high speed 4G LTE. The proposed nodes are Centralized Radio Access Network (CRAN) sites, that differ from Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) because CRAN are lower powered and provide capacity rather than coverage. The CRAN sites would be used for offloading two macro sites in Burlingame (see attached map). The CRAN sites are strategically placed to improve the network and will be connected to each other with overhead fiber. 2. Include a description of how the proposed wireless communication facility fits into the individual service provider’s network of existing and proposed wireless communication facility sites within a tentative two (2) year plan. (BMC Section 025.77.060 (a) (5)). AT&T will be proposing 9 additional site locations in Burlingame over the next two years. The nodes will likely be placed on City-owned assets, although the locations are still being finalized. The propagation map (attached) details precisely how the proposed 7 nodes fit into this plan, and details exactly where the nodes will be providing coverage. 3. Provide an explanation of the reason that the proposed facilities cannot be deployed at a higher-preference location. In determining the location of proposed wireless communication facilities, applicants should use best efforts to comply with the location preference order outlined in BMC Section 25.77.080: a. Non-Residential Zoning Districts which are more than 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. b. Non-Residential Zoning Districts within 500 feet from Residential Zoning Districts or the Burlingame Downtown Districts. c. Residential Zoning Districts. These CRAN sites have a maximum effective radius of 300 feet and therefore require the sites to be much closer together than the larger macro sites. These small cell facilities are not meant to increase the coverage area but to assist with unloading traffic from the macro site, which is why each site was carefully selected by AT&T’s radio frequency engineer. Small cell facilities increase data speed and decrease the number of dropped calls. Because of this they are placed in specific locations of need, in order to service a targeted community. T he target community for these sites are specific residential areas, intersections, and El Camino Real, which can only be reached by these proposed node locations. The proposed project will utilize the least intrusive design for this type of wireless faci lity and the antenna will be painted to match the color of the existing wood pole. The facility will use RRUs - 32s that produce no sound, significantly below the 47 decibel limit in the “quietest residential zone” in Burlingame, and therefore will not disturb residents. The proposed cylindrical antenna will match the approximate shape and diameter of the pole, as well as be painted to match the brown wood pole color. The radio units mounted on the pole will also be painted to match the color of the pole. Right-of-Way Adjacent to 701 Winchester Drive 17 1/2" = 1'-0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 0'-0" GRADE LEVEL (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK 32'-3" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM 32'-11" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR 37'-6" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM 38'-10" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS 22'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 23'-6" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 38'-7" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 9 1/2" = 1'-0" PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION 3 7 9'-0" TOP OF (P) POWER METER 10'-3" TOP OF (P) LOAD CENTER AND FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 22'-4" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 23'-6" TOP OF (E) UTILITY LINE AND ANCHOR POINT 0'-0" GROUND LEVEL (P) 2'-0" COMMUNICATIONS SAFETY ZONE PER GO95 (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK 32'-3" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM 32'-11" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR 37'-6" TOP OF (E) CROSSARM (E) UTILITY LINES AND ANCHOR POINTS (2) (P) RRUs -32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) WOOD POLE (P) GROUND BAR (P) POWER METER (P) AT&T ANTENNA MOUNTED TO (P) 7' EXTENSION ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 6'-0" POWER SAFETY ZONE PER GO 95 46'-10" RAD CENTER OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 47'-10" TOP OF (P) AT&T ANTENNA 18'-0" TOP OF (P) DIPLEXERS 13'-8" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 7'-0" BOTTOM OF (P) POWER METER (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 17'-3" TOP OF (P) RRU 32 (P) 3" COAX RISER (2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS 7'-4" (E) R.O.W. LINE 38'-10" TOP OF (E) INSULATOR 38'-7" TOP OF (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) RF WARNING SIGN - MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 4'-0"42'-10" TOP OF (P) RF SIGNAGE 45'-4" TOP OF (P) COAX RISER / BOTTOM OF (P) ANTENNA BRACKET AT&T FIBER P.O.C. (P) FIBER DROP FROM AT&T TO (P) FIBER DEMARK ENCLOSURE NEXT TO LOAD CENTER ON POLE Plot Date:2/23/2018 8:43:39 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\A-3 Elevations.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-3 ELEVATIONS NOTES: 1.PAINT RRU SOLAR SHIELD, MOUNTING COMPONENTS & CABLE SWEEP TO MATCH (E) POLE. 17 1/8" = 1'-0" OVERALL SITE PLAN A-2 17 (E) TELEPHONE MANHOLE (E) ELECTRICAL VAULT (E) CONCRETE SIDEWALKC A B R I L L O A V E HILLSIDE DRIVEAPN: 0026-052-090 (E) BUILDING (E) PROPERTY BOUNDARY(P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE APN: 0026-052-080 (E) BUILDING (E) PROPERTY BOUNDARY(E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL (E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE (E) CATCH BASIN (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE HT. 38.6'± (E) ELECTRICAL SERVICE LINE (E) SIGN (E) LIP OF GUTTER (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) TREES (E) TREES (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (E) VAULT (E) TELEPHONE MANHOLE(E) CONCRETE SIDEWALK(E) TREES (E) DRIVEWAY(E) FIRE HYDRANT APN: 0026-056-010 (E) BUILDING A L L E Y (E) LIP OF GUTTER LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-1 SITE PLAN 8'4'8'16' 1/8"=1'-0" 00 N 17 1/2" = 1'-0" ENLARGED SITE PLAN A-2 5 (E) OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES (E) SIGN (E) ELECTRIC SERVICE LINES (E) TELEPHONE MANHOLE (E) TREES (E) TREES TYP. (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE w/ (2) RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON (E) UTILITY POLE LEGEND: WATER: SANITARY SEWER: STORM DRAIN: OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES: 5 1" = 1'-0" ENLARGED ANTENNA PLAN (P) ANTENNA MOUNTED ON TOP OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) (2) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED ON SIDE OF (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX RISER (P) 1 1/2" AC POWER RISER 8 1" = 1'-0" RRUS-32 MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (2) (P) AT&T RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 (E) UTILITY POLE (P) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 3 1" = 1'-0" POWER METER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) AT&T POWER METER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 7 1" = 1'-0" LOAD CENTER MOUNTING DETAIL 12 3 6 NOTE: 30"X30" UNOBSTRUCTED CLIMBING SPACE (P) 3/8" "C" ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 8" WIDE (P) UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQ. (P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER (E) UTILITY POLE 9 (P) 5/8" ANTI-SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU-BOLT (TYP) (P) 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL 4 " (P) 1 1/2" CONDUIT Plot Date:2/23/2018 8:32:48 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\A-2 Enlarged Site Plan & Antenna Plan.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-2 ENLARGED SITE PLAN & ANTENNA PLAN 1/2"=1'-0" 01'2'2'4'0 N 1'0.5'1'2'0 1"=1'-0" 0 N 4 1" = 1'-0" WIRE DIAGRAM CANISTER ANTENNA RETRETRETRETCOAX COAX COAXCOAX COAX COAXCOAXCOAX(P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) (4) 1/2" SUPERFLEX COAX (P) RET CABLE COAXCOAXCOAXCOAX COAXCOAXCOAX COAXPLAN VIEW NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 10" WIDE NEW 2" SQ. STEEL TUBE OR ROUND STOCK. 6" MIN. TYP. OF 4 NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT PER CABINET BOLTING PATTERN NEW UNISTRUT P1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU BOLT (TYP.) EXISTING WOODEN UTILITY POLE REQUIREDVERIFYPERCABINETBOLTINGPATTERN6" MIN 4" MIN CLEARANCE PER GO 95(E) 1 1/2" CONDUIT 5/8" Ø ANTI - SPLIT GALVANIZED THRU - BOLT (TYP.) NEW 3/8" C ALUMINUM CHANNEL, 6" WIDE MIN. NEW 1/2"Ø MOUNTING BOLT (CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH CABINET MFG. SPEC.) NEW 2" SQ. STL. TUBE STEEL 11'-0"NOTE: ALL CABINETS MOUNTED TO UTILITY POLE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM TOP & BOTTOM CLEARANCE OF 7". ELEVATION VEW 6"1'-0"2'-5"3'-3"3'-4"1'-0"NEW UNISTRUT P 1000 OR EQUAL (TYP.)- HORIZONTAL - LENGTH AS REQUIRED PER CABINET 17 3/4" = 1'-0" EQUIPMENT MOUNTING DETAIL (N) 3" COAX CONDUIT 9 3/4" = 1'-0" ANTENNA EQUIPMENT FRONT ELEVATION (P) RRUs-32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTED TO (E) UTILITY POLE 1'-0" (P) GROUND BAR (P) AT&T POWER METER 11'-0"(P) ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 2'-0"1'-3"1'-6"(2) (P) TWIN DIPLEXERS (P) FIBER DISTRIBUTION PANEL (P) 2'-0" TELECOMMUNICATIONS SAFETY ZONE 2'-0"1'-6"2'-0"10"(P) PLACE SHUT DOWN PROTOCOLS ON THE INSIDE COVER OF THE LOAD CENTER TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T NEW 5-3/4" SQUARE WOOD EXTENSION FOR (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE 15 1" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL (P) 6"X6"X6"X1/4" TUBE STEEL CAP (2) (P) 5/8" DIA. THRU BOLTS (P) WAGON WHEEL FOR 13" DIA RADOME UPPER BRACKET STEP 5/8'Ø X10" BOLT AND LOCKNUT (SUPPLIED) LOWER BRACKET STEP 13/16" HOLES FOR 3/4" BOLTS BRACKET ADAPTER (FOR POLE TOP DIAMETERS LESS THAN 8") EXISTING POLE EXTENSION BAYONET 5 3/4" SQUARE PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR BRACKET ASSEMBLY (SEE DETAIL A) ANTI- SPLIT BOLT EXISTING POLE DETAIL A BRACKET ASSEMBLY NOTE: NEW BRACKET ASSEMBLY TO BE PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANY DETAIL B WOOD EXTENSION ASSEMBLY 12" 5" 7-1/2" 7-1/2" 7 3/4" = 1'-0" WOOD POLE EXTENSION TOP FRONT SIDE METER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: B-LINE MODEL: 114TB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 24" x12" x 4 5/8" WEIGHT: UNKNOWN METER SOCKET 1'-0"MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT 4 5/8"2'-0"1" = 1'-0" 14 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONDUIT STRAP DETAIL (E) WOOD UTILITY POLE (P) 1/2" DIA. 3" ANTI-SPLIT LAG SCREW (P) 2-HOLE GALVANIZED CONDUIT STRAP (P) 3" COAX RISER 5 1' = 1'-0" NOTICE SIGNAGE NOTICE Transmitting Antenna(s) Radio frequency fields beyond this point MAY EXCEED the FCC General Population exposure limit. Obey all posted signs and site guidelines Call AT&T Mobility at 1 800-832-6662 PRIOR to working beyond this point. STATE:________SWITCH:__________________ SITE ID:_________________________________ SECTOR / NODE: ________________________ MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE = 6'-0" NOTE: SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR TO MATCH (E) POLE ALL TEXT AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITE MINIMUM APPROACH DISTANCE - 6' SFOK02_014 1 1' = 1'-0" SHUT DOWN PROTOCOL SIGNAGE NORMAL SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL (800) 638-2588 NOC 24 HRS. PRIOR TO SCHEDULE A SHUT-DOWN DAY AND TIME. 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.ON SCHEDULED DAY OF SHUT-DOWN, PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE *OFF* POSITION. 4.CAL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. EMERGENCY SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOLS: 1.CALL NOC (800) 638-2588 2.GIVE NOC THE NODE NUMBER _______________ 3.PULL THE DISCONNECT HANDLE TO THE OFF POSITION. 4.CALL NOC WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. NOTE: INSIDE AND OUTSIDE PANEL DOOR SHOWING SHUT-DOWN PROTOCOL ON 3"X4" LABEL SHUT DOWN DISCONNECT FRONT SIDE ELEC LOAD CENTER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: SQUARE D MODEL: QO612L100RB DIMENSIONS, HxWxD.in: 12.64" x8.9" x 4.27" WEIGHT: 9.7 lbs 12 1" = 1'-0" ELEC LOAD CENTER DETAIL MOUNTING BRACKET FOR (P) EQUIPMENT ELEC LOAD CENTER 8.9" TOP 12.64"4.27" NOTE: RF SHUTDOWN SIGNAGE TO BE ON THE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE LOAD CENTER ERICSSON RRU-32 WITH PSU-08 MODEL: RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 COLOR:WHITE DIMENSIONS:26.7" TALL X 12.1" WIDE X 6.7" DEEP (INCLUDING SUNSHIELD) WIEGHT:+/- 80.4 LBS. (INCLUDING MOUNTING HARDWARE) 12.1"26.7"FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW TOP VIEW P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT SUNSHIELD PSU-08 SUNSHIELD MFR'S STANDARD MOUNTING BRACKETS P1000 UNISTRUT AS ALTERNATE ATTACHMENT 19 1 1/2" = 1'-0" RRUS 32 WITH PSU-08 MOUNTING DETAIL PSU-08 1'-0" 11 3" = 1'-0" TWIN DIPLEXER DETAIL TWIN DIPLEXER MAKE AND MODEL: MANUFACTURER: COMMSCOPE MODEL: CBC1923T-4310-E11F13P06 DIMENSIONS, HxWxD: 8.3" x 4.6" x 1.8" WEIGHT: 5.5 lbs PER UNIT 4 5/8"2 1/2"1 3/4"TOP: SIDE:FRONT: 8 3/8"8 7/8"(2) TWIN DIPLEXERS 3 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CANISTER ANTENNA 9.45" ANTENNA =CANISTER ANTENNA WEIGHT =33.1 LBS CONNECTOR =10 X 4.3-10 DIN (FEMALE) / BOTTOM DIMENSIONS =9.45"(DIA.) X 23.63"23.63"Plot Date:2/23/2018 9:08:04 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\A-4 Details.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 A-4 DETAILS EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SWITCH LOCATED ABOVE ELECTRIC LOAD CENTER 3"4" NOTE: NEW VINYL SIGN TO BE PROVIDED BY AT&T AND BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE METER BOX. SIGN TO BE YELLOW. 4 NOT TO SCALE SHUTDOWN DISCONNECT SIGNAGE Plot Date:2/23/2018 9:10:25 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\E-1 Single Line Diagram and Notes.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 E-1 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AND NOTES 5 N.T.S. ELECTRICAL NOTES ELECTRICAL NOTES GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND ALL STATE AND LOCAL CODES. NOTHING IN THESE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS TO PERMIT WORK NOT CONFORMING TO THE MOST STRINGENT OF THESE CODES. SHOULD CHANGES BE NECESSARY IN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS TO MAKE THE WORK COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING AND CEASE WORK ON PARTS OF THE CONTRACT WHICH ARE AFFECTED. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE A SITE VISIT PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SHALL NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY UPON DISCOVERY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. THE CONTRACTOR ASSUMES ALL LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION. 3. THE EXTENT OF THE WORK IS INDICATED BY THE DRAWINGS, SCHEDULES, AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT. THE WORK SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND SUPPLIES NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE WORK SHALL ALSO INCLUDE THE COMPLETION OF ALL ELECTRICAL WORK NOT MENTIONED OR SHOWN WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL OPERATION OF ALL SYSTEMS. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE A BID FOR A COMPLETE AND OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR. 5. WORKMANSHIP AND NEAT APPEARANCE SHALL BE AS IMPORTANT AS THE OPERATION. DEFECTIVE OR DAMAGED MATERIALS SHALL BE REPLACED OR REPAIRED PRIOR TO FINAL ACCEPTANCE IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLE TO OWNER AND ENGINEER. 6. COMPLETE THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION AS SOON AS THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK WILL PERMIT. ARRANGE ANY OUTAGE OF SERVICE WITH THE OWNER AND BUILDING MANAGER IN ADVANCE. MINIMIZE DOWNTIME ON THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. 7. THE ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM INSTALLED UNDER THIS CONTRACT SHALL BE DELIVERED IN PROPER WORKING ORDER. REPLACE, WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER, ANY DEFECTIVE MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE. 8. ANY ERROR, OMISSION OR DESIGN DESCREPANCY ON THE DRWINGS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. 9. "PROVIDE" INDICATES THAT ALL ITEMS ARE TO BE FURNISHED, INSTALLED AND CONNECTED IN PLACE. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL SECURE ALL NECESSARY BUILDING PERMITS AND PAY ALL REQUIRED FEES. EQUIPMENT LOCATION: 1. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE DIAGRAMMATICALLY THE DESIRED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS OF CONDUIT RUNS, OUTLETS, EQUIPMENT, ETC., AND ARE TO BE FOLLOWED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE. PROPER JUDGEMENT MUST BE EXERCISED IN EXECUTING THE WORK SO AS TO SECURE THE BEST POSSIBLE INSTALLATION IN THE AVAILABLE SPACE LIMITATIONS OR INTERFERENCE OF STRUCTURE CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED. 2. IN THE EVENT CHANGES IN THE INDICATED LOCATIONS OR ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, DUE TO FIELD CONDITIONS IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OR REARRANGEMENT OF FURNISHINGS OR EQUIPMENT, SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT COST, PROVIDING THE CHANGE IS ORDERED BEFORE THE CONDUIT RUNS, ETC., AND WORK DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE SAME IS INSTALLED AND NO EXTRA MATERIALS ARE REQUIRED. 3. LIGHTING FIXTURES ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. COORDINATE THE FIXTURE LOCATION WITH MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO AVOID INTERFERENCE. 4. COORDINATE THE WORK OF THIS SECTION WITH THAT OF ALL OTHER TRADES, WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR, CONSULT WITH THE RESPECTIVE CONTRACTOR AND COME TO AGREEMENT AS TO CHANGES NECESSARY, OBTAIN WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE FROM ENGINEER FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES BEFORE PROCEEDING. SHOP DRAWINGS: 1. N/A UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SUBSTITUTIONS: 1. NO SUBSTITUTIONS ARE ALLOWED TESTS: 1. BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSURE THAT ALL EQUIPMENT, SYSTEMS, FIXTURES, ETC., ARE WORKING SATISFACTORILY AND TO THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS. PERMITS: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING OUT AND PAYING FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS, INSPECTION AND EXAMINATION WITHOUT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE TO THE OWNER. GROUNDING: 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE, AND APPROVED GROUNDING SYSTEM INCLUDING ELECTRODES, ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR, BONDING CONDUCTORS, AND EQUIPMENT CONDUCTORS AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 250 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE. 2. CONDUITS CONNECTED TO EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES SHALL BE METALICALY JOINED TOGETHER TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 3. FEEDERS AND BRANCH CIRCUIT WIRING INSTALLED IN A NONMETALLIC CONDUIT SHALL INCLUDE A CODE SIZED GROUNDING CONDUCTOR HAVING GREEN INSULATION. THE GROUND CONDUCTOR SHALL BE PROPERLY CONNECTED AT BOTH ENDS TO MAINTAIN ELECTRICAL CONTINUITY. 4. REFER TO GROUND BUS DETAILS. PROVIDE NEW GROUND SYSTEM COMPLETE WITH CONDUCTORS, GROUND ROD AND DESCRIBED TERMINATIONS. 5. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS SHALL BE SOLID TINNED COPPER AND ANNEALED #2 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 6. ALL NON-DIRECT BURIED TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT GROUND CONDUCTORS SHALL BE #2 STRANDED THHN (GREEN) INSULATION. 7. ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITH "HYGROUND" COMPRESSION SYSTEM BURNDY CONNECTORS EXCEPT WHERE NOTED OTHERWISE. 8. PAINT AT ALL GROUND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED. 9. GROUNDING SYSTEM RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 OHMS. IF THE RESISTANCE VALUE IS EXCEEDED, NOTIFY THE OWNER FOR FUTURE INSTRUCTION ON METHODS FOR REDUCING THE RESISTANCE VALUE. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS AND FURNISH TO SMART SMR ONE COMPLETE SET OF PRINTS SHOWING "INSTALLED WORK". UTILITY SERVICE: 1. TELEPHONE AND ELECTRICAL METERING FACILITIES SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SERVICE LOCATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS. SERVICE INFORMATION WILL BE FURNISHED BY THE SERVING UTILITIES. 2. CONFORM TO ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVING UTILITY COMPANIES. PRODUCTS: 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE NEW, CONFORMING WITH NEC, ANSI, NEMA, AND THEY SHALL BE U.L. LISTED AND LABELED. 2. CONDUIT: A) RIGID CONDUIT SHALL BE U.L. LABEL GALVANIZED ZINC COATED WITH ZINC INTERIOR AND SHALL BE USED WHEN INSTALLED IN OR UNDER CONCRETE SLABS, IN CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, UNDER PUBLIC ROADWAYS, IN MASONRY WALLS OR EXPOSED ON BUILDING EXTERIOR, RIGID CONDUIT IN CONTACT WITH EARTH SHALL BE 1/2 LAPPED WRAPPED WITH HUNTS WRAP PROCESS NO. 3. B) ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING SHALL U.L. LABEL, FITTINGS SHALL BE COMPRESSION TYPE. EMT SHALL BE USED ONLY FOR INTERIOR RUNS. C) FLEXIBLE METALLIC CONDUIT SHALL HAVE U.L. LISTED LABEL AND MAY BE USED WHERE PERMITTED BY CODE. FITTINGS SHALL BE "JAKE" OR "SQUEEZE" TYPE. SEAL TIGHT FLEXIBLE CONDUIT. ALL CONDUIT EXCESS OF SIX FEET IN LENGTH SHALL HAVE FULL SIZE GROUND WIRE. D) CONDUIT RUNS MAY BE SURFACE MOUNTED IN CEILING OR WALLS UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. CONDUIT INDICATED SHALL RUN PARALLEL OR AT RIGHT ANGLES TO CEILING, FLOOR OR BEAMS. VERIFY EXACT ROUTING OF ALL EXPOSED CONDUIT WITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLING. E) ALL UNDERGROUND CONDUITS SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 (UNLEES NOTED OTHERWISE) AT A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 24" BELOW GRADE F) ALL CONDUIT ONLY (C.O.) SHALL HAVE PULL ROPE. G) CONDUITS RUN ON ROOFS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON 4x4 REDWOOD SLEEPERS, 6'-0" ON CENTER, SET IN NON-HARDENING MASTIC. 3. ALL WIRE AND CABLE SHALL BE COPPER, 600 VOLT, #12 AWG MINIMUM UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. CONDUCTORS #10 AWG AND SMALLER SHALL BE SOLID. CONDUCTORS #8 AWG AND LARGER SHALL BE STRANDED. TYPE THHN INSULATION USED UNLESS CONDUCTORS INSTALLED IN CONDUIT EXPOSED TO WEATHER, IN WHICH CASE TYPE THWN INSULATION SHALL BE USED. 4. PROVIDE GALVANIZED COATED STEEL BOXES AND ACCESSORIES SIZED PER CODE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL DEVICES AND WIRING. 5. DUPLEX RECEPTACLES SHALL BE SPECIFICATION GRADE WITH WHITE FINISH (UNLESS NOTED BY ENGINEER), 20 AMP, 125 VOLT, THREE WIRE GROUNDING TYPE, NEMA 5-20R. MOUNT RECEPTACLE AT +12" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON DRAWINGS OR IN DETAILS. WEATHERPROOF RECEPTACLES SHALL BE GROUND FAULT INTERRUPTER TYPE WITH SIERRA #WPD-8 LIFT COVERPLATES. 6. TOGGLE SWITCHES SHALL BE 20 AMP, 120 VOLT AC, SPECIFICATION GRADE WHITE (UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE) FINISH. MOUNT SWITCHES AT +48" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. 7. PANELBOARDS SHALL BE DEAD FRONT SAFETY TYPE WITH ANTI-BURN SOLDERLESS COMPRESSION APPROVED FOR COPPER CONDUCTORS, COPPER BUS BARS, FULL SIZED NEUTRAL BUS, GROUND BUS AND EQUIPPED WITH QUICK-MAKE QUICK-BREAK BOLT-IN TYPE THERMAL MAGNETIC CIRCUIT BREAKERS. MOUNT TOP OF THE PANELBOARDS AT 6'-3" ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR. PROVIDE TYPE WRITTEN CIRCUIT DIRECTORY. 8. ALL CIRCUIT BREAKERS, MAGNETIC STARTERS AND OTHER ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL HAVE AN INTERRUPTING RATING NOT LESS THAN MAXIMUM SHORT CIRCUIT CURRENT TO WHICH THEY MAY BE SUBJECTED. 9. GROUND RODS SHALL BE COPPER CLAD STEEL, 5/8" ROUND AND 10' LONG. COPPERWELD OR APPROVED EQUAL. INSTALLATION: 1. PROVIDE SUPPORTING DEVICES FOR ALL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, FIXTURES, BOXES, PANEL, ETC., SUPPORT LUMINARIES FROM UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURAL CEILING, EQUIPMENT SHALL BE BRACED TO WITHSTAND HORIZONTAL FORCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL CODE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE PRIOR ALIGNMENT AND LEVELING OF ALL DEVICES AND FIXTURES. 2. CUTTING, PATCHING, CHASES, OPENINGS: PROVIDE LAYOUT IN ADVANCE TO ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY CUTTING OR DRILLING OF WALLS, FLOORS CEILINGS, AND ROOFS. ANY DAMAGE TO BUILDING STRUCTURE OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM THE ENGINEER BEFORE CORING. 3. IN DRILLING HOLES INTO CONCRETE WHETHER FOR FASTENING OR ANCHORING PURPOSES, OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE FLOOR FOR CONDUIT RUNS, PIPE RUNS, ETC., IT MUST BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL WILL NOT BE DRILLED INTO, CUT OR DAMAED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. 4. LOCATION OF TENDONS AND/OR REINFORCING STEEL ARE NOT DEFINITELY KNOWN AND THEREFORE, MUST BE SEARCHED FOR BY APPROPRIATE METHODS AND EQUIPMENT VIA X-RAY OR OTHER DEVICES THAT CAN ACCURATELY LOCATE THE REINFORCING AND/OR STEEL TENDONS. 5. PENETRATIONS IN FIRE RATED WALLS SHALL BE FIRE STOPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE C.B.C. PROJECT CLOSEOUT: 1. UPON COMPLETION OF WORK, CONDUCT CONTINUITY, SHORT CIRCUIT, AND FALL POTENTIAL GROUNDING TESTS FOR APPROVAL. SUBMIT TEST REPORTS TO PROJECT MANAGER. CLEAN PREMISES OF ALLS DEBRIS RESULTING FROM WORK AND LEAVE WORK IN A COMPLETE AND UNDAMAGED CONDITION. 2. PROVIDE PROJECT MANAGER WITH ONE SET OF COMPLETE ELECTRICAL "AS INSTALLED" DRAWINGS AT THE COMPLETION OF THE JOB, SHOWING ACTUAL DIMENSIONS, ROUTINGS AND CIRCUITS. 3. ALL BROCHURES, OPERATING MANUALS, CATALOG, SHOP DRAWINGS, ETC., SHALL BE TURNED OVER TO OWNER AT JOB COMPLETION. GROUNDING NOTES: 1. ALL DETAILS ARE SHOWN IN GENERAL TERMS. ACTUAL GROUNDING INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO SITE CONDITIONS. 2. ALL GROUNDING CONDUCTORS: #2 AWG SOLID BARE TINNED COPPER WIRE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3. GROUND BAR LOCATED IN BASE OF EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED, FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY THE VENDOR. 4. ALL BELOW GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE, ABOVE GRADE CONNECTIONS: EXOTHERMIC WELD TYPE. 5. GROUND RING SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 24" BELOW GRADE OR 6" MINIMUM BELOW THE FROST LINE. 6. INSTALL GROUND CONDUCTORS AND GROUND ROD MINIMUM OF 1'-0" FROM EQUIPMENT CONCRETE SLAB, SPREAD FOOTING, OR FENCE. 7. EXOTHERMIC WELD GROUND CONNECTION TO FENCE POST: TREAT WITH A COLD GALVANIZED SPRAY. 8. GROUND BARS: A) EQUIPMENT GROUND BUS BAR (EGB) LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF ANTENNA POLE/MAST FOR MAKING GROUNDING JUMPER CONNECTIONS TO COAX FEEDER CABLES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. JUMPERS (FURNISHED BY OWNERS) SHALL BE INSTALLED AND CONNECTED BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 9. ALL GROUNDING INSTALLATIONS AND CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE BY ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. 10. OBSERVE N.E.C. AND LOCAL UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRICAL SERVICE GROUNDING. 11. GROUNDING ATTACHMENT TO TOWER SHALL BE AS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS OR AT GROUNDING POINTS PROVIDED (2 MINIMUM). 12. IF EQUIPMENT IS IN A C.L. FENCE ENCLOSURE, GROUND ONLY CORNER POSTS AND SUPPORT POSTS OF GATE. IF CHAIN LINK LID IS USED, THEN GROUND LID ALSO. 13. GROUNDING AT PPC CABINET SHALL BE VERTICALLY INSTALLED. 14. ALL GROUNDING FOR ANTENNAS SHALL BE CONNECTED SO THAT IT WILL BY-PASS MAIN BUSS BAR. 15. ALL EMT RUNS SHALL BE GROUNDED AND HAVE A BUSHING, NO PVC ABOVE GROUND. 16. USE SEPARATE HOLES FOR GROUNDING AT BUSS BAR. NO "DOUBLE-UP" OF LUGS. 17. POWER AND TELCO CABINETS SHALL BE GROUNDED (BONDED) TOGETHER. 18. NO LB'S ALLOWED ON GROUNDING. 19. PROVIDE STAINLESS STEEL CLAMP AND BRASS TAGS ON COAX AT ANTENNAS AND DOGHOUSE. M (1) 3" C (2) 4/0 THWN AL (1) 1/0 AL NEUTRAL METER N G #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE, #2 BOND TO GROUNDING ROD UTILITY DISTRIBUTION PANEL 100 AMP, 1 PHASE, 120/240V AC 6 POSITION LOAD CENTER N G 30/2 #2 GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTOR TO GROUND RING 100/2 - MAIN BREAKER RG 30/2 RRH RRH (2) RRH (1) 4" C (4) 1/2" COAX 1 1/2" C (3) #3/0, (1) #2 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND 1 1/2" C (3) #10, (1) #10 GROUND ANTENNA NEW 3/8" DIA. HARDWOOD MOLDING NEW GALV IRON MOLDING STAPLE TYP NEW 1/2" PVC CONDUIT FOR METER GROUND 6" MIN TYP MECHANICAL CONNECTION 5/8" DIA. X 10' GROUND ROD NEW GROUND CONDUCTOR #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE18"GROUND LEGEND MECHANICAL CONNECTION EXOTHERMIC CADWELD TYP 5/8" DIA. X 10' LONG COPPER CLAD GROUND ROD AT 10' O.C. MAX AND 18" MIN BELOW FINISH GRADE 15 1" = 1'-0" GROUND DETAIL EXISTING GRADE 5 1/2" = 1'-0" GROUNDING PLAN (P) 5/8" X 10" GROUNDING ROD (P) CADWELD CONNECTION TYPE "GRI" MOLD (P) MECHANICAL CONNECTION (P) #2 GREEN COATED SOLID COPPER WIRE ENCASED WITHIN WOODEN MOLDING CONNECTED WITH GALVANIZED STEEL STRAPS AT 3'-0" O.C. PER PG& E REQUIREMENTS (P) ANTENNA GROUND (P) ANTENNA MAST GROUND Plot Date:2/23/2018 9:13:56 AM File NameT:\2016\T-16509_Modus_SF_CRAN_AT&T\SFOK2_014-83\SFOK2_014_83\Sheets\Building A\E-2 Pole Ground & Details.dwg Plotted By:Brian Winslow1478 STONE POINT DRIVE, SUITE 350 ROSEVILLE CA 95661 TEL FAX borgesarch.com 916 782 7200 916 773 3037 SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE DRAWN BY: BPM CHECK BY: B.K.W. PROJECT NO.: T-16509-74 STAMP REV DESCRIPTIONDATE 240 STOCKTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 modus-corp.com 5001 EXECUTIVE PARKWAY SAN RAMON, CA 94583 No. C11535 0 08/25/17 90% CD Submittal SITE NUMBER: SFOK02_014 SITE ADDRESS: ACROSS FROM 1800 HILLSIDE DR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 09/13/17 100% CD Submittal 2 09/25/17 100% CD Sub Rev 1 3 02/20/18 100% CD Sub Rev 2 E-2 POLE GROUND & DETAILS City of Burlingame Design Review, Setback Variances, and Special Permit Address: 841 Rollins Road Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for first and second story additions, front and side Setback Variances, and a Special Permit for an attached garage. Designer: Joe Ouyang, Yo Consulting, Inc. APN: 026-254-010 Applicant and Property Owner: Kevin Peng and Xiaoming Huang Lot Area: 4,869 SF General Plan: Medium High Density Residential Zoning: R-3 CEQA 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 wi ll not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is a triangular-shaped interior lot. The property has a single-story house with a detached garage in the left side of the front yard. The existing detached garage has a front setback that is closer to the front property line than the front wall of the house (18'-0" to the garage and 20'-" to the house). The existing house is the only single -family dwelling on this block facing Rollins Road. The surrounding four properties have multi-family developments with attached garages. The applicant proposes a first story addition and to move and attach the single-car garage to the house and a second story addition to the house. The total proposed floor area is 2,511 SF (0.52 FAR), where 2,658 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including front covered porch exemptions). The applicant is requesting a Special Permit and Design Review for construction of an attached g arage to a single-family dwelling. The existing detached garage is located in the left side of the front yard and will be moved so that it is attached, but set back behind the face of the house and will be increased in length to meet current covered parking standards. The applicant is requesting front and side setback Variances for the newly attached garage. There is one covered parking space (10' x 19') in the garage and an additional uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. The proposed attached garage will have a code -compliant single covered parking space (10' x 20') and the uncovered parking space in the driveway will be increased in length (from 18' to 20'). The existing house has 2 bedrooms and with the new second story, the number of bedrooms on site will increase to 4. The 2 proposed parking spaces meet the code requirement for a 4 -bedroom house. The existing landscaping on site will remain and two 24-inch box trees will be planted in the front yard to meet the landscape requirement. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a second story ad dition (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2));  Design Review for an attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (6));  Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a));  Variance for a front setback to a single-car attached garage (C.S. 25.26.072 (b)(2)(A)); and  Variance for left side setback (C.S. 25.26.072 (c)(1)). Item No. 8b Regular Action Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road -2- 841 Rollins Road Lot Area: 4,869 SF Plans date stamped: May 18, 2018 EXISTING PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED REVISED 5.18.18 PLANS ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): (to attached garage): 15'-9" --- 18'-0" No change 20'-0 " 18'-0" to proposed newly attached garage 1 No change No change 21'-8" 2 to proposed newly attached garage 15'-1" (is block average) 20'-0" 25'-0" (for an attached, single-door garage) Side (left): (right): 7'-6" to house 7'-3" to garage 5'-3" 3 No change No change No change 3'-7" 4 to rear corner of newly attached garage No change 6'-0" 6'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 27'-5" --- No change 27'-5" No change No change 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,108 SF 23% 1,412 SF 29% 1,524 SF 32% 1,948 SF 40% FAR: 1,082 SF 0.22 FAR 2,342 SF 0.48 FAR 2,511 SF 0.52 FAR 2,658 SF 5 0.55 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 No change --- Parking: 1 covered, detached (10' x 19') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') No change to dimensions or setbacks, proposed will be attached 1 covered, attached (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Special Permit required per C.S. 25.26.035(a) 6 Height: 16'-6" 26'-0" 28'-11" 30'-0" DH Envelope: --- Encroaches a total of 63 SF 7 (1'-10" x 34'-3") Encroachment, Special Permit eliminated with re-design 8 C.S. 25.26.035(c) Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road -3- ¹ No front setback Variance was required for the original design because the location and setbacks of the garage were not proposed to be changed. The house was being extended to meet and attach the garage to the house. 2 Front setback Variance is requested for the newly attached garage (21'-8" proposed where 25'-0" is required). 3 Existing, non-conforming right side setback (5'-3" existing, where 6'-0" is required). 4 Side setback variance requested to the left side of the first floor (3'-7" proposed, where 6'-0" is required). 5 (0.32 x 4,869 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,658 SF (0.55 FAR). 6 Special permit required for an attached garage. 7 Requested Special permit for encroachment into the declining height envelope on the right side was eliminated. 8 As clarification, Planning Staff would note that there are two DHE depictions required for the left side. Both DHE depictions are shown on the Rear Elevation (Sheet A6). Two DHE are evaluated because the angled left side property line results in two different second story setbacks, one at the rear left corner (Bedroom 3 on the second floor) and one at the left side above the single-story attached garage (M. Bath on the second floor). The entire proposed second floor meets DHE restrictions and no encroachment is proposed with the final design. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 9, 2018, the Commission had comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to refer the project to a design review consultant (April 9, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes). 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 visited the site and surrounding area, met with the project designer and property owners 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, date stamped May 16, 2018, for a detailed review of the project. The revised plans are date stamped May 18, 2018. Listed below are some of the Commission's comments, followed by the responses and revisions made by the applicant (refer to the a ttached meeting minutes, and the design consultant’s recommendation for a detailed list of the Commission comments and the architects plan revisions). Because of the unusual shape of the this property and its status as the only single -family property on the block, the focus of the discussions with the Design review consultant was to find a cohesive architectural style for this project, which involved many enhancements for the portions of the existing dwelling that were to be retained with the addition. The resulting revisions to the project eliminated a Special Permit from the application and added two setback Variances (one for Front Setback Variance to an attached garage , the other for Side Setback Variance), but it was the consensus of the designer, own er, and Design review consultant that the final design greatly enhanced the property's architectural and street appeal without negatively impacting any of the surrounding properties. 1. It appears the DHE is shown in the wrong place on one of the elevatio ns? ▪ Please see Planning Staff explanation in the eighth footnote of the development table in this staff report and the Design review consultant's bullet point explanation on the second page of the analysis; the DHE depictions are accurate on the plans (one DHE for the right side- shown on the front elevation- and two DHEs on the left side- shown on the rear elevation). The proposed design does not encroach into the DHE on either side. 2. Window selection would want to match traditional style windows; vinyl sliders proposed don't match traditional; ▪ The applicant has revised the proposed window material to be full vinyl with simulated true divided lites. All the windows for the house will be new and the style is double-hung with simulated true divided lites to be consistent with the proposed traditional Colonial-revival style. The applicant will be providing a window sample at the hearing for the chosen brand of Milgard Montecito window. 3. The proposed design needs more detail and articulation as it almost blends with the bland apartment buildings on that block; and a front porch could help bring down the massing; Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road -4- ▪ A great number of revisions have been made to achieve a cohesive Colonial revival architectural style for the project. Please refer to the plans and the Design review consultant's analysis for a full list of the changes. Some of the details include: a) To achieve the balanced and symmetrical Colonial revival style, a portion of the existing front wall at the right side has been cut back by 1'-7" to center the massing of the house; the front porch is in the same location, but it's prominence is enhanced by thicker wood columns and a pediment to provide a center for the house; the garage has been relocated so that it is set back behind the primary form of the house; b) The proposed windows are double hung with simulated true divided lites and painted wood trim; c) 5-inch exposure painted wood siding with mitered corners and side window shutters are proposed for each elevation; d) A new wood garage door and wood front door are proposed; and e) Wrapped eaves and gable vents are proposed. 4. The second floor is taller and looks bulky; ▪ The plate height for the second floor has been reduced from 8'-6" to 8'-0" to match the plate height for the existing first floor. 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. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning C ommission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a -d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): That the proposed attached garage is consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood. That because of the irregular shape of the property, a detached garage would have to be located at the front of the property and therefore, the proposed front setback to the attached garage is not significantly different from the front setback that would be necessary for a detached garage design. That the attached garage is set back from the face of the main dwelling by 1'-6" and is single story so that the garage form is secondary to the primary street presence of the main dwelling. For these reasons, the project may be Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road -5- found to be compatible with the spec ial permit criteria listed above. Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a -d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare o r convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Front Setback Variance to an attached garage): That the proposed garage has a deeper setback than the existing garage and is single story so that it is a secondary form located beyond the primary form of the main dwelling. That the proposed setback for the garage on this single -family dwelling is greater than the setbacks to the attached garages for the neighboring multi -family properties on Rollins Road and therefore is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood . That the triangular shape of the property does not allow for a detached garage in the rear 30% of the lot and therefore, an attached garage is necessary. Furthermore, an attached garage must also be located towards the front portion of the lot in order to allow for a centered location for the two stories of the main dwelling. That the proposed single-car garage door will have minor visual presence from the street and that a wood garage door is consistent with the new architectural style for the dwelling. That the total encroachment of square footage into the se tbacks for the proposed attached garage is less than the existing encroachments for the detached garage that is at the front of the lot. For these reasons the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Suggested Variance Findings (Side Setback Variance): That the shape of the property cannot accommodate a detached garage at the rear of the lot and that the proposed attached garage cannot meet the required minimum length for a single parking space requirements without also requiring a setback variance. That the requested side setback variance for the rear left corner of the structure is for a single -story wall that is adjacent to the rear yard and accessory structure on the neighboring property, so there will be no detrimen tal impacts to this property. That the total encroachment of square footage into the setbacks for the proposed attached garage is less than the existing encroachments for the detached garage that is at the front of the lot. For these reasons the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance 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 followin g conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 18, 2018, sheets A1 through A7; 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); Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road -6- 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be r equired to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. 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 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 841 Rollins Road -7- c. Kevin Peng, applicant Attachments:  Minutes from the April 9, 2018 Design Review Study Meeting  Design Reviewer's Analysis, dated May 16, 2018  Application to the Planning Commission  Variance Forms (2)  Special Permit Forms (1)  Site Survey by Jozef Marcus Elemen, dated March 29, 2018  Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018  Address map City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: 1812c Magnolia Avenue Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a yoga studio in an existing commercial space. Applicant: Nicole Byrne, Nicole Byrne Yoga APN: 025-122-080 Property Owner: Patricia Ann Britton Trust Lot Area: 16,988 SF General Plan: Shopping and Services Zoning: C-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Article 19, per Section: 15303 – Class I- the operation repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing including but not limited to (a) interior or exterior alternations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Project Description: The proposed location is in the Burlingame Plaza shopping center. The shopping center is composed of eight separate parcels under the ownership of six different parties. The tenant space is located on the second parcel north of Trousdale Drive, parcel number 025-122-080. There are five tenant spaces located on this parcel, 1811 and 1811C El Camino Real, and 1812 A through C and 1813 Magnolia Avenue. The applicant is proposing a yoga studio in Suite C, which will replace the existing previous use that operated with a combination of retail and art classes. The previous use was approved for a Conditional Use Permit for classes in 2005. Code Section 25.36.030(b) requires a Conditional Use Permit for commercial recreation uses. The proposed yoga studio (Nicole Byrne Yoga) will be open Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:45 p.m. and occasionally on Sundays. The tenant space will be occupied as is, with no interior or exterior changes that will require a Building Permit. The front portion of the space will be used as reception and for cubicles to store belongings. The back portion of the space will be used for instruction. The applicant proposes a maximum of 10 persons, (2 employees and 8 students) on site at one time. The number of students is not anticipated to increase at any time in the future and in fact, expansion is limited by the square footage of the tenant space and by the amount of area required for a student to practice yoga and to view the instructor. The proposed yoga studio is 588 SF. The proposed commercial recreation use requires a total of 3 on–site parking spaces (commercial recreation = 1 space per 200 SF of gross floor area). There is no intensification of the required parking on-site based on the previous use in Suite C (the previous retail/class business required 14 parking spaces). This tenant space faces Magnolia Avenue, it is located on a parcel with an El Camino Real address, and all of the on-site parking is provided on the portion of the parcel that abuts El Camino Real. The applicant has provided the tenant information for each of the five spaces on this parcel. Planning staff has calculated that the total parking required for all of the uses on this parcel to be 36 parking spaces. There are 47 parking spaces provided for the uses on this parcel, therefore the on-site parking requirement is met. Existing Proposed Allowed/Required Use: Retail and art classes Commercial recreation (yoga studio) Allowed w/ Conditional Use Permit Parking: Retail and art classes required 14 parking spaces Commercial recreation use of yoga studio requires 3 parking spaces (decrease of 11 required parking spaces for Suite C) 1 552 spaces for entire shopping center, 47 spaces parking spaces on the subject parcel, where the existing tenant uses and the proposed commercial recreation require 36 parking spaces 1 Because of the size and dimensions of the tenant space, the number of students that can fit in the instruction area and that can view an instructor is limited and therefore, this square footage was Item No. 8c Regular Action Conditional Use Permit 1811c Magnolia Avenue -2- evaluated using a commercial recreation parking requirement (1 space: 200 SF) as opposed to a class parking requirement (1 space: 50 SF). Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that since this request for Conditional Use Permit does not require any interior or exterior changes to the building and does not include any intensification of the required on-site parking, the application was placed directly on the action calendar. 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. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: The proposed commercial recreation use will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity as it will be consistent with the surrounding commercial uses, including retail, personal service, classes, and office. That the proposed commercial recreation use will be less intense, with a smaller maximum number of persons on site at any one time, than the previous art class use. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s Conditional Use Permit criteria Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 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 and date stamped May 3, 2018, existing floor plan and site plans; 2. that the 588 SF tenant space shall be used for commercial recreation and that the maximum number of persons on site at any one time shall be limited to no more than 10 persons, or 8 students and 2 employees, and that any change to the hours of operation, number of employees, and size of the tenant space, including increasing the area used for group instruction, shall be reviewed by the Planning Department, and may require additional review by the Planning Commission; 3. that the yoga studio shall have regular business hours from 7:00 a.m. to 8:45 p.m.; 4. that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 5. 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. Conditional Use Permit 1811c Magnolia Avenue -3- Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Nicole Byrne, applicant Attachments: • Application to the Planning Commission • Conditional Use Permit Form • Supplemental Form for Commercial Applications and Current Tenant List • Applicant's Letter of Explanation • Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) • Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 • Address Map City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance Address: 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (CrossFit studio) and Parking Variance. Applicant: Craig Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance APN: 026-302-530 Architect: Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture Lot Area: 52,898 SF Property Owner: 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC Zoning: IB Bayfront Specific Plan: Office and Warehouse; Bayshore Overlay Area Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) which states that Interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveniences are exempt from environmental review. Project History: This application is the result of code enforcement complaints about the business due to its operating in a location where their use is not permitted. Prior to operating business at the current location, the applicant opened a CrossFit (commercial recreation) studio at 384 Beach Road, zoned APS (Anza Point South), in January 2014. Commercial recreation uses are prohibited in the APS Zoning District (Code Section 25.49.030 (f)). Based on a complaint and partial inspection conducted at the site, a Code Enforcement case (#CE14-0109) was opened on December 22, 2014 for operating in a non- permitted zone. A letter (dated January 5, 2015) was sent to the property owner, from the former Code Compliance Officer, to notify them about the violation. In October 2016, the current Code Compliance Officer took over the case. The applicant made contact with the Planning Division to seek out other site locations within the City that permits commercial recreation uses. Only the SL (Shoreline Area) Zoning District permits commercial recreation uses by-right. Other zoning districts where commercial recreation is allowed require a Conditional Use Permit, and in many instances also require a Parking Variance depending on the nature of the site and building. Based on a deadline provided by the Code Compliance Officer, the applicant moved out of 384 Beach Road in December 2016. The Planning Division was notified in early March 2017 that a CrossFit studio was operating at 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB (Inner Bayshore). Based on this complaint, a code enforcement case was opened on March 13, 2017 (#CE17- 0026) and a ‘Notice of Violation’ (dated March 13, 2017) was sent to the applicant and property owner. In the IB Zoning District, commercial recreation uses with a Conditional Use Permit are allowed to operate at properties that have frontage on Bayshore Highway (Code Section 25.43.045 (b)(3)). The parcel has frontages on both Bayshore Highway and Stanton Road. On March 16, 2017, the applicant submitted Planning application fees for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance; a completed application to the Planning Commission and plans were submitted on April 13, 2017. Project Description: The applicant, Craig Ranier Gadduang of Marvelous Performance, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance to operate a CrossFit studio at 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB. The existing multi-tenant building consists of three tenant spaces/units and three tenants: the applicant (Unit B, commercial recreation use), Joe’s Café (Unit A, food establishment/restaurant use), and Freight Forwarding (Unit C, warehouse use). At the prior Planning Commission hearings for the project, Unit C was vacant. And before Marvelous Performance began operation, the furniture store business Repo Depot occupied both Units B and C from 1981 until it closed operations in 2014. Please refer to the attached Letter of Explanation and the Commercial Application to review the proposed commercial recreation use and the proposed hours. The applicant notes that the CrossFit studio offers both small group classes (60 minutes long for each class session) and personal training. The current and projected maximum number of employees (full- time and part-time) that would be on-site at any one time is 8 and the current and projected maximum number of clients on- site at any one time is 20 for a total maximum of 28 people on-site at any one time. The applicant also indicates that the Item No. 8d Regular Action Items Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1669 Bayshore Highway 2 business intends to remain at 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B for a duration less than 5 years. There are a total of 57 on-site parking spaces which includes 1 ADA compliant parking space; of this total, 19 on-site parking spaces are designated for Marvelous Performance (includes the 1 ADA compliant parking space). With the proposed use, a total of 67 on-site parking spaces are required where 48 on-site parking spaces were required for the previous uses. There are currently 58 physical parking spaces on site and 57 physical parking spaces proposed. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a 10 space Parking Variance (67 required spaces – 57 physical parking spaces proposed on site). Please refer to the table below for a breakdown of the uses and parking required on-site. The applicant is requesting approval of the following applications:  Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (CrossFit studio proposed) (Code Section 25.43.045(b)(3)); and  Parking Variance for an incremental increase in the number of parking spaces required on-site due to the conversion of warehouse space to a commercial recreation use (increase of 19 required spaces; proposed deficiency of 10 parking spaces) (Code Section 25.70.040). 1669 Bayshore Highway Lot Area: 52,898 SF Plans date stamped: September 1, 2017 PREVIOUS/EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Use : (includes total SF, parking ratio, and parking required) Unit A (Joe’s Café) restaurant 1,864 SF (1:200 SF, 10 spaces) Unit B (formerly Repo Depot) office 1,516 SF (1:300 SF, 6 spaces) storage 164 SF (1:1,000 SF, 1 space) warehouse 7,330 SF (1:1,000 SF, 8 spaces) Unit C (formerly Repo Depot) furniture store 13,526 SF (1:600 SF, 23 spaces) Unit A (Joe’s Café) no change Unit B (Marvelous Performance)1 office 1,467 SF (1:300 SF, 5 spaces) storage 213 SF (1:1,000 SF, 1 space) warehouse 153 SF (1:1,000 SF, 1 space) commercial recreation 7,177 SF (1:200 SF, 36 spaces) Unit C (Freight Forwarding) warehouse 13,526 SF (1:1,000 SF, 14 spaces) commercial recreation use allowed with a Conditional Use Permit if located on a property with frontage on Bayshore Highway (Code Section 25.43.045 (b)(3)).1 Parking: 48 spaces required (in total) 67 spaces required (in total) Variance required for intensification of use (19 parking space increase) Total On-Site Parking: 58 spaces provided 57 spaces provided (including 1 ADA space) existing uses: 48 spaces proposed uses: 67 spaces Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1669 Bayshore Highway 3 Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks, and Stormwater Divisions. A new tenant, Freight Forwarding (warehouse use), moved in to Unit C on May 22, 2018 which has altered the numbers utilized to calculate intensification of use and need for a Parking Variance. Therefore, the parking numbers reflected in the applicant’s updated application materials submitted on May 17, 2018 are inconsistent with the numbers provided in this report. Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission study meeting on November 13, 2017, the Commission had a few questions regarding this application (November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The following is a summary of the Commission’s questions and respective responses: Were any of the code enforcement complaints related to parking? None of the complaints were related to parking. Code enforcement is primarily due to the fact that the business was operating in a zoning district where commercial recreation use is not permitted without a Conditional Use Permit. What is the justification for the Variance? The applicant has conducted their own parking survey to demonstrate that the parking on -site is sufficient for their use. Please see the applicant’s response letter and parking photos in the attachments. How many people are on site on a typical day? At the Study meeting, the applicant stated that class sizes are limited and that there is a range of 10-20 people in each class. The applicant has also pulled attendance records over specific time periods and found that the overall average class size is less than 15 people; most classes have an average attendance of 10 people or less. For more detail, please see applicant’s response letter and attendance reports in the attachments. Action Hearing: At the first Action hearing on January 22, 2018, the Commission continued to have concerns with the project and voted to deny it without prejudice (see attached January 22, 2018 Planning Commission minutes). List of Planning Commission’s Main Concerns and Applicant’s Response:  Capping the amount of clients – the Commission was concerned that the proposed maximum number of 25 to 30 clients on site at any one time is extraordinary and not reflective of the numbers shown on the attendance report. The applicant submitted a revised Commercial Application showing a decrease in the number of clients to be on site at any one time to a maximum of 20 people. A Class Attendance Summary (see attachments) shows that from April 10, 2018 to May 10, 2018, an average of 13-15 clients were on site in the morning sessions (weekdays), about 4 clients during the weekday afternoon session, and 6-13 people during the weekday evening sessions. On the weekends, the amount of clients on site ranged from 4-15 people.  Findings for a Parking Variance – the Commission wanted the applicant to demonstrate in their application the specific hardship and constraint that is not an attribute of the business. The applicant has submitted an updated Variance application providing more specific information demonstrating hardship. Primarily, the hardship pertains to the parking ratios utilized to calculate required parking for each respective business. The previous use (warehouse) has the lowest parking ratio compared to the proposed use (commercial recreation) which has one of the highest parking ratios. The applicant explains that the high ratio for the commercial recreation use is not reflective of the actual intensity of how the business operates where client size and flow is highly monitored. The applicant has also submitted a Parking Study and a Parking Plan. Please see attachments. Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1669 Bayshore Highway 4 Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Required Findings for Parking Variance: In order to grant a Parking Variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Parking): That the proposed commercial recreation use operates in a less intense manner than typical gymnasiums because it will be used for personal training and will therefore generate less traffic and fewer parking needs. Operating before and after main hours of neighboring businesses, the attendance reports, and the parking study and parking plan indicate available on-site parking during the hours of operation proposed for the commercial recreation use and that the site can therefore accommodate the proposed use. That the amount of on-site parking provided (57 spaces provided) is sufficient for the uses of the entire property (67 spaces required) and that t he 10 space parking deficiency will not create an adverse impact to neighboring businesses and/or properties. 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 r ecord. 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 September 1, 2017, sheets A0.0 through A4.0; and that the business owner shall apply for a Burlingame Business License prior to submitting to the Building Division for the required Building permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls or increasing the size of the mezzanine, shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 3. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, number of employees, or number of customers shall require an amendment to this use permit; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance 1669 Bayshore Highway 5 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, or if the use in the existing space is changed, the parking variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; and 7. 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Craig Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance, applicant Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect Attachments: January 22, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes Commercial Application, date stamped May 17, 2018 Conditional Use Permit Application, dated May 10, 2018 Variance Application, dated May 10, 2018 Parking Study, date stamped May 17, 2018 Parking Plan, date stamped May 17, 2018 Class Attendance Summary, date stamped May 17, 2018 November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Letter of Support from Joe’s Cafe Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation from Applicant Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Aerial Photo PROJECT LOCATION 829 Maple Avenue Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit Address: 829 Maple Avenue Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for (Major Renovation) for first and second story additions to an existing one- story house; Special Permits for an accessory structure with a depth of more than 28 feet and located in the rear 40% of the lot; and Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure exceeding 600 SF with a half-bath, and glazed openings within 10-feet of property line and higher than 10-feet above grade. Applicant and Architect: Gary Diebel, AIA | Diebel and Company Architects APN: 029-033-070 Property Owner: Aidani Santos Lot Area: 5,919 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: Located on an interior lot, the subject property is an existing one-story house with an attached garage that contains 1,250 SF (0.21 FAR) of floor area and has two bedrooms. The proposed project is considered a Major Renovation since more than 50% of the existing exterior walls are proposed to be demolished. The applicant is proposing additions to the first story, including a front covered porch (122 SF), and to add a new second story. In total, the new second story is 1,243 SF in size. With the exemption for attic space with a ceiling height of 5 feet or less (190 SF), the second story floor area amounts to 1,053 SF (751 SF living space and 302 SF attic space with a ceiling height that exceeds 5 feet). Also proposed is removal of the existing attached garage and construction of a new 864 SF detached garage at the rear 40% of the lot. With the proposed project, the total floor area will increase to 3,271 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,394 SF (0.57 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 new detached garage would provide two covered parking spaces (20’-2” wide x 34’-2” deep clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is also requesting Special Permits and Conditional Use Permits for the proposed accessory structure (detached garage) which are included in the list below. The proposed project requires the following Planning approvals: Main Dwelling  Design Review for a second story addition to a single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2));  Design Review for substantial construction (major renovation) (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(3)); Accessory Structure  Special Permit for detached garage exempt from setbacks located within rear 40% of the lot (C.S. 25.26.035 (d));  Special Permit for accessory structure exceeding 28 feet depth (44’-6½” proposed) (C.S. 25.26.035 (e));  Conditional Use Permit for a half bathroom in an accessory structure (CS 25.60.010 (j));  Conditional Use Permit for glazed openings (left side door 9’-3” from rear property line and garage door 2’-9” from right side property line proposed) within 10-feet of rear property line (CS 25.60.010 (i)); and  Conditional Use Permit for glazed openings (clerestory windows 10’-3” above grade and skylights 12’-4” above grade proposed) more than 10-feet above grade (CS 25.60.010 (i)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 829 Maple Avenue 2 829 Maple Avenue Lot Size: 5,919 SF Plans date stamped: May 15, 2018 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 17’-0” 16’-1” (to porch) 16’-1” (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 20’-0” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 4’-6” 4’-11” 4’-6” (to addition) 13’-6” (to addition) 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 48’-5” n/a 41’-0” (to rear porch) 48’-6” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,343 SF 22.7% 2,340 SF 39.5% 2,368 SF 40% FAR: 1,250 SF 0.21 FAR 3,271 SF 0.55 FAR 3,394 SF 1 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: existing attached garage proposed to be demolished 2 covered (20’-2” wide x 34’-2” deep clear interior dimensions)2 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 18’-4” 26’-95/8” 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable complies C.S. 25.26.075 1 (0.32 x 5,919 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,394 SF (0.57 FAR) 2 Clear interior dimension for depth is as measured from the interior garage door to the wall of the proposed half-bath. Accessory Structure PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Setback: Side: Rear: From house: 1’- 0” 1’- 0” 10’-6” Special Permit required for a detached garage located within the rear 40% of the lot to be exempt from setbacks (C.S. 25.26.035 (d)) Use: two-car garage (840 SF) and half-bathroom (24 SF) Conditional Use Permit required for toilet and sink (half-bathroom) (C.S. 25.60.010 (j)) Size: 864 SF Conditional Use Permit required for an accessory structure exceeding 600 SF in size (C.S. 25.60.010 (b)) Length: 44’-6½” Special Permit required if structure exceeds 28’-0” in length (C.S. 25.26.035 (e)) Plate Height: 7’-9” 9’-0” above grade Building Height: 13’-9” above grade 15’-0” above grade if plate height does not exceed 9’-0” Windows:  left side door: 9’3” from rear property line;  garage door: 2’-9” from side property line;  clerestory windows: 10’-3” above grade; and  skylights: 12’-4” above grade windows within 10' of property line or more than 10’ above grade require a Conditional Use Permit (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)) Design Review, Special Permit, and Conditional Use Permit 829 Maple Avenue 3 Staff Comments: 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. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Gary Diebel, AIA, applicant and designer Aidani Santos, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation Special Permit Application Conditional Use Permit Application Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Aerial Photo santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, california diebel and company architects private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxEXISTING EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.1 (E) Top of Ridge EL.= 29.8' (Verify) Average Top of Curb EL.= 11.56' (Verify) Top of Curb at Property Line EL. = 11.45' Top of Curb at Property Line EL. = 11.56'18'-3"EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A3.1 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 A3.1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A3.1 A3.1 1 Existing Elevation Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. (E) Composition roofing (E) Wood siding, vertical (E) Wood siding, horizontal (E) Brick fireplace and chimney 2 3 4 4 2 1 3 2 3 4 1 3 private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxPROPOSED EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.2 Top of Subfloor EL= 14.60' Top of Plate EL= 22.70' Top of Subfloor EL= 23.70' Top of Plate EL= 32.80' Top of Roof EL= 38.30'45.00°8'-1 1/4"1'-0"9'-1 1/4"7'-6"5'-6"12 10 12 3 4 7 2 13 156 12 11 4 10 7 9 3 30' Maximum Height Above Average Top of Curb 3'-1 1/4"Average Top of Curb EL= 11.50' EL = 41.50'26'-9 5/8"12'-0"12'-0" D.H.E. Point of Departure (left) EL= 11.85' D.E.H. Point of Departure (right) EL= 12.00' PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A3.2 12 10 12 10 4 11 10 14 13 8 5 1 9 7 D.H.E. Point of Departure (left) EL= 11.85' D.E.H. Point of Departure (right) EL= 12.00' PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A3.2 Egress Window 31"x27" net Egress Window 31"x27"net 12 10 3 4 11 15 2 14 13 A3.2 Proposed Elevation Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. (N) Clad wood doors, typ. (N) Clad wood windows, typ. (N) Composition roofing (N) Fiber-cement exterior siding, typ. (N) Gutters, typ. (N) Illuminated address sign (N) Thin stone veneer finish, typ. (N) Wall mount light fixture, typ. (N) Wood columns, typ. (N) Wood corbels, typ. (N) Wood gable brackets, typ. (N) Wood panel entry door and sidelights, typ. (N) Wood pergola, typ. (N) Wood railing at roof edge (N) Wood trim, typ. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxA3.3 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.3 Egress Window 31"x27" net Egress Window 31"x27" net 2 4 5 1 3 6 A B C D E F G H Egress Window 27"x36" net Proposed Elevation Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (N) Clad wood windows, typ. (N) Composition roofing (N) Downspout, typ. (N) Fiber-cement exterior siding, typ. (N) Gutters, typ. (N) Top hinged roof window. Velux MK08. Approved for egress. Calculations based on fire separation distance and degree of opening protection from CBC TABLE 705.8. South wall of house (left side) is setback from the property line 4'-6". Unprotected, sprinkler exterior wall is allowed 15% to have openings for walls 3'-5' from property lines. South wall area is 546 sf. 546 x 15% = 81.30 sf MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS WINDOWS DIMENSIONS AREA ALLOWABLE A 15 sf - B 15 sf - C 4 sf - D 4 sf - E 4 sf - F 4 sf - G 15 sf - H 15 sf - Total -76 sf 81.30 sf (13.92%)(15.00%) private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxBedroom Attic Storage Living RoomBedroom BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 A3.4 Top of Plate @ Roof Bearing EL= 25.7' Attic Crawl Space Top of Subfloor EL= 14.60' Top of Plate EL= 22.70' Top of Subfloor EL= 23.70' Top of Plate EL= 32.80' Top of Roof EL= 38.30'8'-1 1/4"1'-0"9'-1 1/4"5'-6"3'-1 1/4"Average Top of Curb EL= 11.50'2'-0"Bedroom Dining Room Closet BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A3.4 Bedroom 4 1 3 1 5 6 2 Attic Crawl Space BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.4 Hall Bedroom Living RoomKitchenLaundryDining Room ClosetBedroomCloset 2 3 1 3 1 5 Attic 4Attic Crawl Space 4'-0"A3.4 Fiber cement siding Built-up painted head trim Clad wood DH windows Painted extended sill Painted under sill trim 2x4 wood wall construction Clad wood window sill TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 A3.4 Proposed Building Section Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Wood-framed floor structure, typ. Wood-framed ceiling, typ. Wood-framed wall, typ. Wood-framed roof, typ. Foundation, typ. Grade, typ. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxBUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A3.5 BedroomBath Room Attic Crawl Space Bath RoomBedroom A3.5 GARAGE ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A1.2 6:126:1210 10 3:123:126 3 3 D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxGARAGE FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A1.2 Bath Garage 44'-6 1/2"21'-0"21'-0"41'-1 3/4" 1'-0"1'-0"8 1A1.22 A1.2 5 1966 Mustang GT Fastback 1929 Ford Model A Roadster 1971 Fiat Spider Toyota Matrix 7 7 PROPOSED GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION (LEFT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 3 A1.2 3 6 14 13 12 17 9 1 4 13'-9"Maximum above gradePROPOSED GARAGE EAST ELEVATION (FRONT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 A1.2 12 6 2 15 11 6 17 16 1 Top of Slab EL= Varies Top of Plate EL= 7'-5 1/4" Top of Roof EL= 13'-5 3/4"7'-5 1/4"6'-0 1/2"12 3 7'-9"Maximum above gradePROPOSED GARAGE WEST ELEVATION (REAR) 1/4" = 1'-0" 6 A1.2 7 PROPOSED GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION (RIGHT) 1/4" = 1'-0" 5 A1.2 7 A1.2 Proposed Garage Plan Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Cement fiber horizontal siding Cement fiber shingle siding Composition roofing Downspout, typ. Floor drain Gutter, Typ. One-hour fire-resistance-rated wall construction Property Line, typ. Stone clad foundation Velux fixed deck mounted skylight, model VSE 606, R.O. approx 45” x 46 1/2” with flashing kit, curb, tempered, or approved equal, typ. ICC approval number WDMA426. Wall mount light fixture, typ. Wood clad clerestory, typ. Wood clad door, typ. Wood clad window, typ. Wood corbels, typ. Wood panel overhead door, typ. Wood trim, typ. Wall Type Legend (N) Interior Wall. 2x4 studs at 16" o.c., interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. (N) Interior wall. 2x4 or 2x6 studs at 16" o.c., interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. Provide acoustical insulation full height. (N) Interior Partial Height Wall. 2x4 studs at 16" o.c., interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. (N) Glass Shower Wall. 1" tempered glass. (E) Exterior Wall w/wood siding (E) Interior Wall (E) Wall to be demolished (N) Foundation Wall w/stone veneer (N) Exterior Wall Siding. Fiber cement siding over 3/8" rainscreen, Tyvek, plywood sheathing on 2x4 wood studs @ 16" o.c. (UNO). Provide R-13 batt insulation in cavity. Pressure treated wood sills at the foundation. Interior finish per Room Finish Schedule, UNO. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxA1.3 GARAGE BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A1.3 Top of Slab EL= Varies Top of Plate EL= 7'-5 1/4" Top of Roof EL= 13'-5 3/4"7'-5 1/4"6'-0 1/2"3 4 1 2 12 6 12 3 GARAGE BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 A1.3 Garage Building Section Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. Gutter, Typ. Ridge beam, see Structural Velux fixed deck mounted skylight, model VSE 606, R.O. approx 45” x 46 1/2” with flashing kit, curb, tempered, or approved equal, typ. ICC approval number WDMA426. Wood clad clerestory, typ. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxA1.1 PROJECT DATASite Plan Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. (E) Electric service meter main (E) Fence to remain (E) Gas meter (E) Sanitary sewer lateral, approximate location (E) Water meter vault (N) Driveway (Pavers) Property line, typ. Required zoning setback line, typ. Two manuever garage access (N) French drain. Connect all downspouts to 4” diameter PVC pipe in French drain. (N) 4" dia. perforated PVC drain line, typ. Provide cleanouts. Slope pipe to drain at 2% to street front or provide pump as required. See details, include City standard curb face outlet details. General Notes 1.Approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numerals or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4" high with a minimum stroke width of 1/2". The address numbers shall be illuminated with dawn to dusk photo sensor. 2.Verify location of underground utilities. 3.Coordinate (N) electrical service drop wire. Provide (N) roof mast. 4.Coordinate (N) electrical service meter. 5.Coordinate (N) gas meter connection. E E ESS SSSSMAPLE AVENUE (50')Neighboring House Neighboring House 7' Wood Fence (neighboring) 6' Wood Fence 4' Wood Fence Fence Change6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence 4.5' Wood Fence Gate Gravel Concrete Pavers Chimney Gravel Concrete Base Planter Planter River Rock Brick Fence Change 6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp6" VcpConcrete Curb & GutterConcrete Curb & GutterS48°30'00"W 119.92'N50°43'42"W50.00'S48°30'00"W 119.93'S50°43'00"E50.00'Lot 19 SSCO (E) 7" CC (E) 3" ACE (E) 6" PIN(E) 4" ACE 4 (E) 2" ACE (E) 2" ACE (Remove) (E) 3" ACE (Remove) (E) 2" ACE (Remove) (E) 2' ACE 5(E) 12" Fruit (Remove)(E) 1" ACE 6 (E) 3" ACE 3 (E) 1" ACE (Remove) (E) 4" ACE (Remove) (E) 2" ACE (remove) (E) RO EXISTING SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 A1.1 36'-0" Rear 30% of Lot 16'-1" First Floor Required Setback 20'-0" Second Floor Required Setback15'-0" Rear Yard Required Setback 4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback56'-5" Verify 47'-2" Verify 16'-4" Verify 48'-5" Verify 33'-5" Verify 38'-1"4'-6"Verify39'-11"Verify4'-11"Verify(E) House (E) Wood Deck (E) Concrete Driveway (E) Concrete Path (E) Concrete Path 7 8 13 2 5 +11.70' T.O.C. +11.45' T.O.C. +11.56' +11.60' +12.10' +12.30' SSSSSSSSSSMAPLE AVENUE (50')Neighboring House Neighboring House 7' Wood Fence (neighboring) 6' Wood Fence 4' Wood Fence Fence Change Gate6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood Fence Gravel Gravel (E) Planter (E) Planter Fence Change 6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp6" VcpConcrete Curb & GutterConcrete Curb & GutterS48°30'00"W 119.92'N50°43'42"WS48°30'00"W 119.93'S50°43'00"E50.00'Lot 19 SSCO (E) 7" CC (E) 3" ACE (E) 6" PIN (E) 2" ACE (E) 1" ACE 6 (E) 4" ACE 4(E) 2' ACE 5 (E) 1" ACE 2 50.00'(N) GE (N) ACE 1 (E) 3" ACE 3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 2 A1.1 House (N) Detached Garage Porch Porch 36'-0" Rear 30% of Lot 16'-1" First Floor Required Setback 20'-0" Second Floor Required Setback 15'-0" Rear Yard Required Setback 4'-0"Side Yard Required Setback4'-0"Side Yard Required SetbackExtent of Second Floor SS SS SS SS SS SS SS 6 2 4 8 7 5 Synthetic Turf Synthetic Turf Landing 44'-6 1/2"74'-3" Verify 1'-0"1'-0"10'-6" Min.1'-0"21'-0"27'-4"Verify43'-6" Verify 53'-5" Verify 23'-2" Verify 4'-6"Verify28'-3"Verify16'-7"Verify9 5'-0"33'-5" (E) House Verify 15'-0" +11.70' T.O.C. +11.45' T.O.C. +11.56' +11.60' +12.10' +12.30' D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. D.S. D.S.D.S. D.S. 10 10 10 Floor Area Calculations A 1306 sf 1st Floor House B 748 sf 2ndFloor House C 299 sf 5' high Attic Space D 155 sf Covered Porches E 900 sf Garage A BE C D AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK ADDRESS FRONT SETBACK AVERAGE 801 12.0' 815 14.5' 817 14.5' 821 14.5' 825 16.6' 829 16.8' 833 14.5' 103.4'14.8' Public Works Notes 1.A Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public works. 2.A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit will be required to: 1. Replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site. 2. Plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral. 3. All water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification. 4. Any other underground utility works within city’s right-of-way. 3.All debris/garbage container locations shall be on the property. In a situation where that is not possible, an encroachment permit is required from Public Works department for placing debris/garbage containers in the public right-of-way. No wet garbage fluid shall enter public right-of-way or the storm drain system. 4.All water line connections to City water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per City standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the City water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2” and over will be installed by the builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Free Service permit for review and approval. 5.Any work in the City right-of-way, such as street, sidewalk, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 6.Based on the scope of work, this is a Type I that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 7.Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays on non-City Holidays between 8:00am and 5:00pm. This includes construction hauling. 8.It is the responsibility of the owner an/or contractor to notify Underground Service Alert (USA) at least 48 hours before the start of any excavation work. 9.No storm waters, underground waters draining from any lot, building, or paved areas shall be allowed to drain to adjacent properties nor shall these waters be connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system. These waters shall all drain to either artificial or natural storm drainage facilities by gravity or pumping regardless of the slope of the property. No rain water from roofs or other rain water drainage shall discharge upon a public sidewalk (except in a single family area) per Municipal code section 18.08.090. 10.No structure shall be built into the City’s right-of way. The property line on Maple Avenue is approximately 9’ measured from the face or curb. 11.Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 12.The project shall comply with the City’s NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. D ZONING R1 Single Family Residence OCCUPANCY GROUP R3 Dwelling U Garage TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION VB Fire Sprinklers under a separate permit SETBACKS FRONT REAR SIDES Upper Floor 20'0"20'0"* Lower Floor **15'0"15'0"4'0" LOT SIZE 5,919 sf LOT COVERAGE EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE House 1019 sf 1306 sf - Covered Porch 85 sf 155 sf - Garage 239 sf 900 sf - Total 1343 sf 2361 sf 2368 sf 22.7%39.9%40.0% (Total Additional Site Coverage)1018 sf FLOOR AREA RATIO EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE First Floor 1011 sf 1306 sf - Second Floor 0 sf 748 sf - 5' High Attic Space 0 sf 299 sf - Garage 239 sf 900 sf - ***Covered Porch 90 sf 155 sf - Total 1250 sf 3299 sf 3394 sf 21.1%55.7%57.3% (Total Additional FAR)2049 sf HEIGHT RESTRICTION EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWABLE 29.8'38.3'41.5' Average top of curb: (11.56’ + 11.45’)/2 = 11.5’ PARKING SPACES EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED 2 3 2 * The block average front setback is 16'-1" which was determined by two recent Design Review projects on the same block at 815 and 821 Maple Avenue. ** Declining Height Envelope *** Front porch excempt from FAR. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxSSSSSSSSMAPLE AVENUE (50')Neighboring House Neighboring House 7' Wood Fence (neighboring) Gate6' Wood Fence6' Wood Fence4.5' Wood Fence Gravel Gravel (E) Planter (E) Planter 6' Wood Fence (neighboring)6" Vcp6" VcpConcrete Curb & GutterConcrete Curb & GutterS48°30'00"W 119.92'N50°43'42"W50.00'S48°30'00"W 119.93'S50°43'00"E50.00'Lot 19 SSCO (E) 7" CC (E) 3" ACE (E) 6" PIN (E) 2" ACE (E) 1" ACE 6 (E) 3" ACE 3 (E) RO (E) 4" ACE 4 (N) ACE 1 (E) 2' ACE 5 (N) ST (N) ST (N) LOP (N) LOP (N) GE (N) GE (N) EU (N) RO (N) LIT (N) LIT (N) RO (N) EU (N) RO (N) SPR (N) SPR (N) ACA (N) LOP (N) NAN (N) LOP (N) NAN(N) WC (N) GE (N) PIN (N) TEQ (N) GE Planting bed (N) ST(N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST (N) ST LANDSCAPE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 L1.1 House (N) Detached Garage Porch (N) Synthetic Turf (N) Synthetic Turf (N) Driveway (pavers) L1.1 Planting Notes 1.Contractor shall contact Underground Services Administration prior to excavation and grading. 2.All planting areas shall be cleared of weeds and other debris. The Contractor shall verify with the Owner which existing plants are to remain. Existing plants to be removed shall be verified with Owner prior to removal. All ivy in project area shall be removed; ivy shall be sprayed with herbicide two weeks prior to removal. 3.Soil testing shall be undertaken by the Contractor, and performed by a certified laboratory. A copy of the report shall be provided to the Owner and Landscape Architect. Recommendations for amendments and fertilization shall reflect the nutrient requirements of specified plant species. 4.Soil amendments shall be free of debris such as litter, broken clay pots, and other foreign material. Rocks larger than one inch diameter will not be permitted. Soil amendments shall have the following content: redwood nitrified compost 40%, course sand 30%, black topsoil 30%. 5.Plant holes shall be double the size of the container (generally). The walls and bases of plant holes shall be scarified. Holls shall be backfilled with the following mixture: 80% to 20% imported soil to existing soil. 6.Soil Berms shall be formed around all plants 1 gallon size and larger. Basins shall be mulched with a 3" layer of bark chips, minimum of 1" in size. Planting areas shall be covered with a three inch layer of bark chips. 7.All plants shall be fertilized. Fertilizer shall be commercially available type, Agriform or equivalent. Application shall be according to manufacturer's instructions. Residual weed ppre-emergent shall be applied by the Contractor. Application shall be accoording to manufacturer's instructions. 8.Trees shall be staked with two pressure treated 2" diameter poles. Tree trunk shall be secured with two rubber ties or straps forming a figure-eight between trunk and stake. Tree Notes 1.Existing city street trees may not be cut, trimmed, or removed without a permit from the Park's Department. 2.If construction is within drip line of existing trees, a tree protection plan must be in place to protect trees during all phases of construction. 3.New landscape trees must be single stem, 24” box size trees. 4.No existing trees over 48" in circumference at 54" from base of tree may be removed without a protected tree removal permit from the Park's Department. CODE BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME NOTES ACE 1 Acer palmatum "sango kaku"Japanese maple ACE 2 Acer palmatum "ryusen"Japanese maple ACE 3 Acer palmatum "shishigashira"Japanese maple ACE 4 Acer palmatum "blood good"Japanese maple ACE 5 Acer palmatum "autum blaze"Japanese maple ACE 6 Acer palmatum "beni kawa"Japanese maple LOP Loropetalum Chinese fringe Chinese fringe GE Euonymus japenicus aureo-marginata Golden euonymus RO Rosmarinus offi Tuscan blue Upright rosemary ST Trachelospermum jasminoides Star jasmine EU Euryops - sonnenschein - yellow Yellow daisy KO Pittosporum tenuifolium Kohuhu GAR Gardenia jasminoides veitchii Gardenia TEQ Coprosma tequila sunrise Tequila sunrise LIT Lithodora heavenly blue Lithodora SPR Picea pungens pendula Crroked spruce tree PIN Pinus thunbergii Japanese black pine NAN Nandina domestica Nandina bamboo ACA Acacia cognata Cousin itt WC Prunus x snowfozam Weeping cherry GF Citrus x paradisi Grapefruit tree CC Prunus virginiana "Canada cherry"Ornamental cherry PLANTING LEGEND Objectives of the Landscape 1.To SAVE the PRE-EXISTING, drought tolerant TREES and SHRUBS from being wasted and eliminated. 2.To promote Water Conservation by using the minimal amount of water usage. 3.To add Aesthetic Street Value that will enhance Beautification of the Maple Street in Burlingame City. private residence santos residence 829 maple street burlingame, ca 94010 apn: 029.033.070 diebel and company a r c h i t e c t u r e x d e s i g njob name job number date revision This project is designed exclusively for the client by Diebel and Company. Use by outside parties is strictly forbidden. ©2018 Diebel and Company All rights reserved. 170622 5.25.18 po box 1044 burlingame, california 94011-1044 t. 650.558.8885 e. info@DiebelStudio.com santos residence 5/25/18Santos Residence DD R18b.vwxA2.5 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A2.5 4A3.43A3.41 A3.4 10:12 10:12 10:1210:1210:1210:123:12Ridge Ridge RidgeValleyValleyValley Ridge 1 1'-0" O.H. @ shed roof 1'-6"1'-0"1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-0" O.H. @ shed roof 1'-6" 1'-0"1'-6"1'-0"1'-6"Shed dormer5 3'-3"Verify6 Property Line D.S.D.S. D.S.D.S. (BELOW) D.S.D.S. D.S. 7 Roof Plan Keynotes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Hip below (N) Gutter, typ. (N) Composition roofing (N) TPO roofing (N) Top hinged roof window. Velux MK08. Approved for egress. (N) Roof overhangs to not be within 2' of property line. Scupper connected to D.S. Provide overflow drain 2 3 4 EXISTING EAST ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.0EXISTING EASTPROPOSED EASTEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.1EXISTING SOUTHPROPOSED SOUTHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 EXISTING WEST ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.2EXISTING WESTPROPOSED WESTEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATIONIssues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadCJMN1Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 2.3EXISTING NORTHPROPOSED NORTHEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS4/25/2018CJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 Issues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 940101Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 0.0EXISTING SITE PLANEXISTING ROOF PLANCJMN25/25/2018CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 BURLINGAME AVENUE - 70 R/WNOTES Issues / Revisions Number Date BySheet Number:FILE NAME:PROJECT NO.:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:APPROVED BY:PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR:ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THEORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE,REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR INPART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACYOF DRAWINGS IS FORDESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.Project:Client:NilmeyerASSOCIATES ARCHITECTSNilmeyer128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010650.347.0757 T650.347.0650 FMichael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARBmichael@nilmeyer.comCatherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIAcatherine@nilmeyer.comPoucher / ChangElaine Poucher & Dale Chang301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 940101Poucher Chang.dwg17094/20/2018As NotedCJMNA 0.1PROPOSED SITE PLANPROPOSED ROOF PLANCJMN25/25/18CJMN301 Bloomfield RoadBurlingame, CA 94010 LOCATION PLAN PROJECT TEAM DRAWING INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION SYMBOLSABBREVIATIONS ARCHITECT NILMEYER / NILMEYER ASSOCIATES 128 Pepper Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Catherine JM Nilmeyer AIA (650) 347-0757 OWNER ELAINE POUCHER DALE CHANG 301 BloomfieldRoad Burlingame, CA 94010 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK The existing single story structure of 1,801 sq. ft. will have have 845 sq. ft. demolished with the remainder of 956 sq. ft. of the existing first floor to remain for remodeling and an addition. The site will be excavated for a 587 sq. ft. Basement. The first floor will become a total of 1,549 sq. ft. with the addition. A second floor of 936 sq. ft. will be added. There will be new landscaping at Basement Patio; new side and backyard. The new residence will incorporate new fire sprinklers and a new HVAC system. PROJECT DATA: BUILDING CODE: 2016 CBSC (California Building Standards Code) 2016 CBC (California Building Code) 2016 CFC (California Fire Code) 2016 CEC (California Electrical Code) 2013 CMC (California Mechanical Code) 2013 CPC (California Plumbing Code) 2013 California Energy Code City of Burlingame Municipal Code & Ordinances OCCUPANCY GROUP: R - 1 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V - B FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: YES PARCEL NO. : APN #029-173-100 BUILDING AREA: 3,072 SQ. FT. TOTAL (INCL. BASEMENT) LOT SIZE: 4,979 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 1,991.6 SQ. FT PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 1,549 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE F.A.R.: 2,493 SQ. FT. PROPOSED F.A.R.: 2,485 SQ. FT. ARCHITECTURAL: CS 1 CONSULTANTS LOCATION PLAN DRAWING INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION / SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES BMP BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES T - 1 KAVANAUGH SURVEY 2013 A 0.0 EXISTING SITE PLAN EXISTING ROOF PLAN A 0.1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN PROPOSED ROOF PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN A 1.0 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A 1.1 PROPOSED BASEMENT PLAN PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A 2.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- EAST EXISTING / PROPOSED A 2.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- SOUTH EXISTING / PROPOSED DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE A 2.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- WEST EXISTING / PROPOSED A 2.3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS- NORTH EXISTING / PROPOSED PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL REMODEL & ADDITION FOR: Elaine Poucher Dale Chang 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 A/C ACOUS. ACC. AC. T. ADJ. A.F.F. AGG. ALUM. ANOD. A.P. APPROX ARCH. ASPH. BD. BLDG. BLK. BLKG. B.M. BM BOTT. BTW. CAB. C.B. CEM. CER. C.FL. C.FT. CLG. CLR. COL. CONC. CONST. CONT. CONTR. CORR. CPR. CPT. CTSK. C.YD. D.F. DIAM. DIM. DISP. DIV. D.L. DN. DR. D.S. DTL. DWG. DWR. AIR CONDITIONING ACOUSTIC (AL) ACCESS ACOUSTICAL TILE ADJUSTABLE, ADJACENT ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AGGREGATE ALUMINUM ANODIZED ACCESS PANEL APPROXIMATELY ARCHITECT (URAL) ASPHALT BOARD BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BENCH MARK BEAM BOTTOM BETWEEN CABINET CATCH BASIN CEMENT CERAMIC COUNTERFLASHING CUBIC FOOT, FEET CEILING CLEAR, CLEARANCE COLUMN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUOUS CONTRACT (OR) CORRUGATED COPPER CARPET COUNTERSUNK CUBIC YARD DOUGLAS FIR, DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIAMETER DIMENSION DISPENSER DIVISION DEAD LOAD DOWN DOOR DOWNSPOUT DETAIL DRAWING DRAWER E. (E) EA. ELEV. ENCL. EQ. EQUIP. EXH. EXIST. EXP. EXT. F.B.O. F.D. F.E. F.E.C. F.F.E. F.H.M.S. F.H.W.S. FIN. FLASH. FLR. FLUOR. FND. F.O.C. F.O.F. F.O.G. F.O.M. F.O.S. F.O.W. FT. FTG. FURR. GA. G.C. GD. G.I. GL. GYP. H.B. H.C. HDW. H.M. HORIZ. HR. HT. HTG. HVAC H.W.H. EAST EXISTING EACH ELEVATION, ELEVATOR ENCLOSE (URE) EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXHAUST EXISTING EXPOSED, EXPANSION EXTERIOR FURNISHED BY OTHERS FLOOR DRAIN FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FINISHED FLOOR ELEV. FLAT HD. MACH. SCREW FLAT HD. WOOD SCREW FINISH FLASHING FLOOR FLUORESCENT FOUNDATION FACE OF COLUMN FACE OF FINISH FACE OF GLASS FACE OF MASONRY FACE OF STUD FACE OF WALL FOOT, FEET FOOTING FURRED, FURRING GAUGE GENERAL CONTRACTOR GRADE, GRADING GALVANIZED IRON GLASS, GLAZING GYPSUM HOSE BIBB HOLLOW CORE HARDWARE HOLLOW METAL HORIZONTAL HOUR HEIGHT HEATING HEATING/VENTILATING/ AIR CONDITIONING HOT WATER HEATER I.D. INSUL. INT. JAN. JT. L. LAM. LAV. L.L. LT. MAT. MAX. M.B. MECH. MED. MEMB. MET. MFR. MIN. MISC. MLD. MOV. MTL. MULL. N. N.I.C. NO. N.T.S. O.C. O.D. O.F.C.I. OPP. OPNG. PFN. PL. P.LAM. PLAS. P.L.F. PLYWD. PNL. PNT. PR. P.S.I. PT. P.T. PTN. P.V.C. INSIDE DIMENSION INSULATED, INSULATION INTERIOR JANITOR JOINT LENGTH LAMINATE (D) LAVATORY LIVE LOAD LIGHT MATERIAL MAXIMUM MACHINE BOLT MECHANICAL MEDIUM MEMBRANE METAL MANUFACTURE (R) MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MOULDING MOVABLE METAL MULLION NORTH NOT IN CONTRACT NUMBER NOT TO SCALE ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OPPOSITE OPENING PREFINISHED PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLASTIC POUNDS PER LINEAL FOOT PLYWOOD PANELING (ING) PAINT (ED) PAIR POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH POINT PAPER TOWEL PARTITION POLYVINYL CHLORINE R. RAD. R.D. RDWD. REF. REFL. REG. REINF. REV. RM. R.W.L. S. S.C. SCHED. SECT. SHT. SIM. S.P. SPEC. SQ. S.S. S.ST. STD. STL. STOR. STRUCT. SUSP. SYM. T. TELE. TEMP. TEXT. T&G T.SL. T.STL. T.O.W. TYP. U.B.C. UNF. U.N.O. V.C.T. VERT. VEST. W. W/ W.C. WD. W.I. W/O W.P. WT. W.W.M. RISER, RADIUS RADIUS ROOF DRAIN REDWOOD REFERENCE REFLECTED REGISTER REINFORCED REVISED, REVISION ROOM RAINWATER LEADER SOUTH SOLID CORE SCHEDULE SECTION SHEET SIMILAR SOUND PROOF SPECIFICATION SQUARE SERVICE SINK STAINLESS STEEL STANDARD STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURE (AL) SUSPENDED SYMMETRY (ICAL) TREAD TELEPHONE TEMPERED TEXTURED TONGUE AND GROOVE TOP OF SLAB TOP OF STEEL TOP OF WALL TYPICAL UNIFORM BUILDING CODE UNFINISHED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VINYL COMPOSITE TILE VERTICAL VESTIBULE WEST WITH WATER CLOSET WOOD WROUGHT IRON WITHOUT WATERPROOF (ING) WEIGHT WELDED WIRE MESH CENTER LINE; FINISH FLOOR LINE BREAK LINE SECTION LINE; REFERENCE(S) ELEVATION KEY DETAIL KEY DIMENSION TO FACE OF WALL; ETC. DIMENSION TO CENTERLINE STAIR DIRECTION; (RISE & TREAD) EQUIPMENT OR FIXTURE NORTH ARROW ELEVATION # DRAWING # DETAIL # DRAWING # FOW C/L UP 16 R @ 7" 15 T @ 11" ROOM NAME 0000 ROOM NAME AND / OR NUMBER CONCRETE; PLASTER; GYP. BD. SHEET METAL GLASS WOOD BRICK MASONRY CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY CERAMIC TILE; QUARRY TILE PLYWOOD WOOD - ROUGH WOOD - FINISHED INSULATION - RIGID GLASS GYPSUM BOARD INSULATION - BATT ACOUSTICAL TILE METAL - LARGE SCALE METAL - SMALL SCALE DRAWING # REFERENCE # PLANS / SECTIONS ELEVATIONS NOTE: ALL BUILDINGS UNDERGOING CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION SHALL COMPLY WITH ARTICLE 87 OF THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE Bloom f ie ld Rd . U.S. 101 Howar d A v e. Conc or d W a y Vern o n W a y Lexin gt o n W a y SITE Burli n g a m e A v e. Plym o ut h W a y Oak Gr o v e Trent o n 325 BLOOMFIELD ROAD321 BLOOMFIELD ROADSUBJECT PROPERTY 301 FROM BLOOMFIELD ROAD SUBJECT PROPERTY 301 FROM BURLINGAME AVE. 704 BURLINGAME AVENUE708 BURLINGAME AVENUE CONSTRUCTION HOURS: No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, after or repair any building or structure other than between the following hours except in the case of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety, and then only with prior written permission from the Building Official, which approval shall be granted for a period not to exceed three days. Holidays are the first day of January, the third Monday of February, the last Monday of May, the fourth of July, the first Monday of September, the eleventh day of November, the fourth Thursday of November, the fourth Thursday in November and the twenty-fifth of December. If the first day of January, the fourth of July, the eleventh day of November, or the twenty-fifth of December falls upon a Sunday the following Monday is a holiday. The following construction hours per City of Burlingame Municipal Code 18.07.110. Monday through Friday: 8AM to 7PM Saturdays: 9AM to 6PM Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 Construction hours in the City Public right-of way are limited to weekends and non-City Holidays between 8 a.m. and 5p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right-of-way must now be included on the plans NOTE TO ANYONE DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY: Any one doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. NEW BUILDING ACCORDING TO BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE: According to the City of BMC, "when additions, alterations or repairs within a twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2016 CBC for new structures.BMC 18.07.020. Note: that at all the time of the building permit submittal, you will need to submit an erosion control plan and stipulate on the drawing the removal and replacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, sewer lateral, and water line to the Public Works Department. Acknowledge that due to the extensive nature of this construction project the CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY will be rescinded once construction begins. A new CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY will be issued after the project has been finalled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new CERTIFICATE OF OOCUPANCY has been issued. Acknowledge that when you submit your plans to the Building Department for plan review provided a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Plan will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. Issues / Revisions Number Date By Sheet Number: FILE NAME: PROJECT NO.: DATE: SCALE: DRAWN BY: APPROVED BY: PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REMODEL FOR: ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL CONTAINED HEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE REUSE, REPRODUCTION, OR PUBLICATION OF THE SAME , BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT. ACCURACY OF DRAWINGS IS FOR DESIGN PURPOSES ONLY. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. Project: Client: Nilmeyer ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS Nilmeyer 128 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650.347.0757 T 650.347.0650 F Michael Nilmeyer AIA, NCARB michael@nilmeyer.com Catherine J.M. Nilmeyer AIA catherine@nilmeyer.com Poucher / Chang Elaine Poucher & Dale Chang 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 1 CONSULTANTS LOCATION PLAN Poucher Chang.dwg 2017 4/20/2018 As Noted CJMN CS 1 DRAWING INDEX PROJECT INFORMATION SYMBOLS 4/25/2018 CJMN 2 5/25/2018 CJMN ABBREVIATIONS 301 Bloomfield Road Burlingame, CA 94010 PROJECT LOCATION 1117 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 9c Design Review Study 1 City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Address: 1117 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront. Applicant: Ron Stanford APN: 029-211-260 Architect: Jeffrey J. Burriss Property Owner: Olive Grove Capital LP Lot Area: 15,400 SF General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Zoning: BAC Current Use: Vacant, previously Aida Opera Candy (retail use) Proposed Use: Tuna Kahuna (ready-to-eat food shop, considered a retail use) Allowable Use: Ready-to-eat food shop (considered a retail use) is permitted. Summary: The applicant is proposing to replace an existing vacant retail space, previously Aida Opera Candy, with a new ready-to-eat food shop, Tuna Kahuna, at 1117 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC. Tuna Kahuna meets the operating criteria of a ready-to-eat food shop, which is considered to be a general retail use and therefore allowed as a permitted use in the BAC District (no Conditional Use Permit required for this type of food establishment). Operating criteria include 1) sells food that is ready to eat at the time of sale, 2) does not contain a full commercial kitchen, 3) contains no more than 150 SF of seating area, and 4) contains no more than 1,000 SF of gross floor area. This application includes changes to the exterior facade of the commercial storefront along Burlingame Avenue, which measures 14’-1” in width. At the front of the building, the existing recessed angled entry, canvas awning, and frameless glass storefront system will be removed. The existing stucco and horizontal decorative bands will remain. There are no changes proposed at the rear of the building. The proposed front elevation consists of a new aluminum and glass storefront system, including a smaller recessed entry, aluminum and glass entry door, a horizontal bifold window and frosted glass below. Above the new storefront, the applicant is proposing a new wood and steel horizontal awning. Retail uses located on the first floor within the parking sector of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan shall be exempt from providing off-street parking (CS 25.70.090 (a)). With this application, there is no intensification of uses proposed on the ground level. Therefore, no additional off-street parking is required for the proposed retail business. The following application is required:  Commercial Design Review for changes to the front façade of an existing commercial storefront in the BAC Zoning District (CS 25.32.045). Staff comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; Item No. 9c Design Review Study Commercial Design Review 1117 Burlingame Avenue 2 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Ron Stanford, applicant Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 1, 2018 Area Map 8'-10 5/8"EXISTING ELEVATIONAwning Clearance ADJACENT TENANT 11'-11 1/4"Adjacent Building at P.L.9'-8 7/8"AIDA OPERA CANDIESGARTAIDA OPERA CANDIESE CANVAS AWNINGE RECESSEDSTOREFRONT,(FRAMELESSGLASS)0'10'9'-7 1/4"PROPOSED ELEVATION0'10'(N) ALUMINUM ANDGLASS STOREFRONTWINDOW WALL &ENTRY DOOR7'-6"(N) PAINT O/ E STUCCOFINISH, (FARROW & BALL#275, 'PURBECK STONE")(N) STEEL 'C' SECTIONAWNING FRAMEAwning Clearance Adjacent Yogurt Shop 13'-4 1/2"(N) LIGHTINGAdjacent Wood & Stucco Building at P.L.3'-6 1/8"11'-2 1/8"7'-8"(increased opening width)(N) 2" X 2" WOOD SLATS(N) 4" X 1" INTERLACEDWOOD SLATS(E) TILE ROOF TOREMAIN(N) ALUMINUMFRAME GARAGESTYLE BIFOLDWINDOW WITHSCREENHATCH INDICATESFROSTED GLASS(N) SIDEWALK TABLE 24"X 24", (under separate permit)(N)AUTOMATICDOOROPENER,REFERSTNDRS ATI/02(N) AUTOMATICRECESSEDALUMINUM ANDGLASS ENTRYDOOR, (OPEN INPWR. OFF MODE)(E) BAS RELIEFPATTERN TO REMAINSUPPORT CABLESUPPORTCABLE8'-10"3'-0 5/8"11174'-0"9'-7 1/4"2'-0"Property Line/ Building Envelope Awning ProjectionN LIGHTINGSECTION AT (N) STOREFRONT0'10'(N) ALUMINUMFRAME GARAGESTYLE BIFOLDWINDOW WITHINTERIOR SCREEN(N) STEEL 'C'SECTION AWNINGFRAME(N) 4" X 1"INTERLACEDWOOD SLATSHATCH INDICATESFROSTED GLASS(N) SIDEWALKTABLE 24" X 24", (underseparate permit)(N) 2" X 2"WOOD SLATS7'-1 1/2"TAG #DOORREMARKS101TYPEMAT.M.HDWR.FRAMEMATERIALSIZE: W. x H. x TH.METAL W/GLASS PANELAUTOMATICM.36" x 86" x 1 3/4"WOOD, (INT.)LEVERDOOR SCHEDULE36" x 90" x 1 3/4"E-102E-103NO LATCH,TEMPEREDGLASS PER CODE,OPEN IN POWEROFF MODE)M.36" x 86" x 1 3/4"WOOD, (EXT.)LEVER101E-102E-1037'-6"3'-0"3'-0"6'-8 1/2"3'-0"6'-8 1/2"A4.1REVISIONS:AS NOTED2018-04RSFILE #:JOB #:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:step3studio.com1667JERROLDAVE. SANFRANCISCO,CA 94107T 415.519.06981117 BURLINGAME AVEEXISTINGANDPROPOSEDELEVATIONS03-26-18 d104-16-18 d416 APRIL 201805-22-18 d5 9'-7 1/4"PROPOSED ELEVATION0'10'(N) ALUMINUM ANDGLASS STOREFRONTWINDOW WALL &ENTRY DOOR7'-6"(N) PAINT O/ E STUCCOFINISH, (FARROW & BALL#275, 'PURBECK STONE")(N) STEEL 'C' SECTIONAWNING FRAMEAwning Clearance Adjacent YogurtShop 13'-4 1/2"(N) LIGHTINGAdjacent Wood & Stucco Building at P.L.3'-6 1/8"11'-2 1/8"7'-8"(increased opening width)(N) 2" X 2" WOOD SLATS(N) 4" X 1" INTERLACEDWOOD SLATS(E) TILE ROOF TOREMAIN(N) ALUMINUMFRAME GARAGESTYLE BIFOLDWINDOW WITHSCREENHATCH INDICATESFROSTED GLASS(N) SIDEWALK TABLE 24"X 24", (under separate permit)(N)AUTOMATICDOOROPENER,REFERSTNDRS ATI/02(N) AUTOMATICRECESSEDALUMINUM ANDGLASS ENTRYDOOR, (OPEN INPWR. OFF MODE)(E) BAS RELIEFPATTERN TO REMAINSUPPORT CABLESUPPORTCABLE8'-10"3'-0 5/8"EXTERIORPASSAGESUBJECT UNIT 975 SF,(+57 SF)EXTER IOR PASSAGEADA STANDARDS, ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM DETAILS0.2:PROJECT DATA, PLOT PLAN, , VICINITY MAP, NOTES,23 MAY, 2018 -Plumbing, Electrical and MechanicalUnder Seperate Permit.DESCRIPTION OF WORK:ZONINGLEGAL DESCRIPTION:1117 BURLINGAME AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010TENANT IMPROVEMENT: Change ofUse From: Retail Candy Shop to'Ready to Eat Food Establishment'(N) Storefront Window Wall and EntryDoor, Remove Non-Structural Returnto Expand Entry, (N) Awning, signage,and Exterior Lighting, Non-StructuralPartitions and Counter. (N) Fixturesand Finishes.AREA OF WORK: 810 SF.VALUATION: $60,000ZONING: BAC, (Burlingame Ave.Commercial).Proposed Use: RTEFE, (READY TOEAT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT)OCCUPANCY/EGRESS CALCS,(refer proposed plan at 2.1)Occupant Load: 26 p,'A2' < 75p qualifies for 'B' Occupancy.Load Calc: (Per CBC Table §1004.1(2016):STANDING: 71 +28 SF=99SF @ 5 SF/P=19.8PSEATING: 66 SF @15 SF/P = 4.4KITCHEN: 146 + 115 SF=261 SF @ 200SF/P = 1.3PSTORAGE: 96 SF @ 300 SF/P = .3P1 exit req.: 36" MinimumTENANT IMPROVEMENTSingle Story Wood and Stucco, NoBasement, Not sprinkleredAPN:029-211-260BUILDING OWNER:Triterra Realty Group, Inc.1105 Burlingame Ave.Burlingame, CA 94010AVICINITY MAPD PROJECT DATACONTRACTOR:CONCORE DEVELOPMENT:P.O. BOX 890CONCORD CA. 94522Lic. #868715925.435.5877SATELLITE-PLOT PLANSHEET INDEXATYPE : V-BECONTACTS:PROJECT ADDRESS:CNOTES:GENERAL NOTES:1HEALTH DEPT. NOTESEXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS,0.1:2.1FTENANT:TUNA KAHUNA:1117 BURLINGAME AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010Contact: 615.878.4668DESIGN-DOCUMENT PREPARATIONStep 3 Studio3201 3rd st. San Francisco CA 94124415.519.069820.1REVISIONS:AS NOTED2018-0416 APRIL 2018RSFILE #:JOB #:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:step3studio.com1667JERROLDAVE.SANFRANCISCO,CA94124T415.519.06981117 BURLINGAME AVEPLANNINGREVIEW 03-26-18 d1step.3.studioEXISTING FRONT VIEW CITY NOTESELEVATION3EXISTING AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS4.104-16-18 d405-10-18 D51)"Construction Hours"Weekdays: 8:00 a.m-7:00 pmSundays and Hollidays: No Work AllowedConstruction hours in the City Public right of way are limited to weekdaysand non-city Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.2) "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope ofthe building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvalsincluding review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, projectdesigner, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work notgraphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work.3) Anyone doing business in the City of Burlingame must have a current City of Burlingame business license.4)A set of plans stamped Approved by San Mateo County Environmental HealthDepartment must be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of the building permit.5)A grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works.6)PER SB407: For any property built prior to January 1, 1994: All Non Compliant Plumbing Fixtures to be replaced with Water Conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements.RENDERING OF PROPOSEDB8)No Public Money of any kind will be used to construct this project.7)A Supplemental Building Permit Application shall be submitted at thetime plans are submitted to Building Division.9) Plans submitted to building division shall include a complete underground plumbing plan with details for any required grease traps or city required back flow prevention devices. RESTROOM102 51 sf30" x 48" clearspace60" DIAM.A0.24123Wall Mounted S.S. Shelf abv.90" Triple Sink w/ 12" min.backsplash 30" x 48" clear spaceEXISTING-DEMOLITION PLAN(E) WALLS TO REMAIN24 X 72WH60" DIAM.13'-0 1/2"7'-8 1/2"8'-4 1/2"75'-4 1/2"EXTENTS OF (E)AWNINGABOVE4'-0"14'-1" 12'-10" 4'-91 2"FD10.29'-10"STORAGE10496 sfKITCHEN-PREP103121 sfAWNINGPROJECTIONproperty line 75.00'50.00'(918 SF)5 3/4"13'-2" 5'-3 1/2"E ENTRYALCOVE: (68 SF)8'-5 3/4"6'-8 7 /8"2'-2"7'-9"1'-1 3/8"2'-2"2'-1"24 X 72(E) WALLS TO DEMOLISHED, (Non Structural)(E)HARDWOOD FLOORING, (TOBE REMOVED TO (E)PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR)50.00'Adjacent Building at Property Line0'10'scale: 1/4" = 1'46'-3"Adjacent Tenant: Yogurt Shop(E)DEMISING WALLAdjacent Building at Property Lineproperty line(E) FRAMELESSSTOREFRONT GLAZINGAND DOOR TO BEREMOVEDBURLINGAME AVENUE 15' WIDE PAVED WALK WATERRESTROOM102 51 sfPrep Sink(E)Floor SinkCOMMON EXTERIOR PASSAGE TO STREET 34" HGT. P.O.S.PROPOSED PLAN (975 SF)0'10'scale: 1/4" = 1'(N) WALLS, ( NON STRUCTURAL, UNRATED)(E) WALLS24 X 72WH34" HEIGHT WORK SURFACEOVER REFRIGERATION34" HEIGHT COUNTER5'-6"60" DIAM.5'-0"10'-6"13'-0 1/2"75'-4 1/2"2'-0" 2'-6"4'-4 1/2"2'-0"23'-3 1/2"8"EXTENTS OFAWNINGABOVE4'-0"14'-1" 12'-10"2'-6"3'-8"FDUP FRIDGE/FREEZER A0.211'-6"3'-8"28 SF. @ 5 SF/P: 5.6P146 SF (GROSS) @200 SF/P: .73PSTORAGE10497 sfKITCHEN-PREP103115 sfKITCHEN-SERVICE102146 sfAWNINGPROJECTION15' WIDE PAVED WALK property line Adjacent Building at Property LineAdjacent Tenant: Yogurt Shop(E)DEMISING WALL75.00'50.00' property line 50.00'3'-0"2'-0"(max.)13'-2"1:20 (max)BENCH19" (min.)GARAGESTYLEBI-FOLDWINDOW66 SF. @15SF/P: 4.4P42" HEIGHT COUNTER71 SF. @ 5 SF/P:14.2 PP.O.T. 44" min., (to be kept clear)115 SF (GROSS)@ 200 SF/P: .6P97 SF(GROSS) @300 SF/P:.3PTRASHRECYCLEAREABENEATHCOUNTER30" x 48"CLCLCL30" x 48"34" CNTR.1'-10"30'-8"60" x 60" FLAT101BA E-102E-103'ORDER-QUEING AREA'LOCATION OFREQUIREDUNISEX R.R.SIGNAGE,REFER 0.260" x 60" FLAT4'-1"4'-5 1/2"AUTOMATICDOOR OPENER,REFERSTANDARDS ATI/0.2P.O.T.34" HGT. COUNTER(N) ELECTRICALPANEL IN (E)PANELLOCATIONP G & E 30" x 48"7'-8 1/2"8'-4 1/2"WATERAdjacent Building BURLINGAME AVENUE9'-11"7'-2"property lineNO LATCHAT ENTRYDOOR, (openin power offmode)3'-6 1/2"3'-0"28'-1"16'-1"12'-0"7'-11 1/2"34" HGT. TBL.4" DW TO S.S.CLEAN OUT6'-11 1/2"A2.1REVISIONS:AS NOTED2018-0416 APRIL 2018RSFILE #:JOB #:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:step3studio.com1667JERROLDAVE. SANFRANCISCO,CA 94107T 415.519.06981117 BURLINGAME AVEEXISTINGANDPROPOSEDPLANS03-26-18 d104-16-18 d405-22-18 D5 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: June 5, 2018 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: June 11, 2018 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 723-A LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-2. Summary: 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 of the following change:  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. 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 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 Originally approved and proposed plans, date stamped May 22, 2018 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