No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2018.02.26Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda - Final BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers7:00 PMMonday, February 26, 2018 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft Minutes - December 11, 2017a. December 11, 2017 Minutes (Draft)Attachments: 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 2/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - Final 833 Mahler Road, #10, zoned IB- Application for a Conditional Use Permit to add the sale of alcoholic beverages to an existing food establishment and to allow weekend hours of operation. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301. (Jorge Sebastiani, applicant; Racola Investments LLC, property owner) (22 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon a. 833 Mahler Rd #10 - Staff Report 833 Mahler Rd #10 - Application 833 Mahler Rd #10 - Attachments 833 Mahler Rd #10 - Photos and Plan Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 900 Carolan Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for side setback, front setback, and lot coverage variances for a single story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jerry Deal, JD Associates, applicant and designer; Kris and Premilia Reddy Trust, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 900 Carolan Ave - Staff Report & Attachments 900 Carolan Ave - Plans - 02.26.18 Attachments: 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 02.26.18 Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F), zoned HMU & R-4: Application for Design Review and Density Bonus Incentives for construction of a new 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Pacific West Architecture, architect) (246 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin a. 150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Staff Report 150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Attachments 150 Park Rd (Parking Lot F) - Plans - 02.26.18 Attachments: Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/26/2018 February 26, 2018Planning Commission Meeting Agenda - Final 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N), zoned R-4: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five level parking garage (Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies, applicant; City of Burlingame, property owner; Watry Design, Inc ., designer) (246 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin b. 160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Staff Report 160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Attachments 160 Lorton Ave (Parking Lot N) - Plans - 02.26.18 Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting February 20, 2018 1354 Columbus Avenue - FYI for review of revisions requested by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. a. 1354 Columbus Ave - FYI 1354 Columbus Ave - plans - 02.26.18 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 February 26, 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 March 8, 2018, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 2/26/2018 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 11, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes November 13, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Abstains Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the minutes of November 13, 2017. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto5 - Abstain:Gaul, and Terrones2 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Constance Quirk, 605 Lexington Way: expressed concern regarding noise from the pile driving at Burlingame Point. Neighbors disappointed nothing has been done to mitigate noise from the pile driving . The work is anticipated to end by mid -January. The City regulates loud music and leaf blowers but not this kind of noise. Suggestions have been made on NextDoor. Is concerned for the hotels, offices in the area . Something this large should have included residents in the discussion regarding noise mitigation . Technology exists to mitigate the noise. Did not mitigate the noise during the planning process. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2018 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 2018 Planning Commission Memorandum 2018 Planning Commission Schedule 2018 City Council Calendar - Draft Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve The Commission's Calendar. Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - b.1122 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for One-Year Extension for a previously approved Design Review project for a new, two -story single family dwelling with Special Permit for a basement with a 9-foot ceiling height and Conditional Use Permit for a full bathroom in an accessory structure. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Greg Beall, applicant and property owner) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1122 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report.pdf 1122 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments.pdf 1122 Cabrillo Ave - Plans - 12.11.17.pdf Attachments: Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Item 7b (1122 Cabrillo Avenue). Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Kelly1 - c.2115 Roosevelt Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Right Side Setback Variance for a major renovation, first and second story addition and modifications to existing detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, architect; Christopher and Tracey Papazian, property owners) (50 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Staff Report 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Attachments 2115 Roosevelt - Renderings 2115 Roosevelt - Revised elevations 12.11.17 2115 Roosevelt Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7c (2115 Roosevelt Avenue). Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - d.1465 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC- Application for Commercial Design Review and Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Conditional Use Permit for a new full service restaurant. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Josh Stumpf, Chef & The Butcher, applicant; William Duff Architects, architect; Mengshi Shen, property owner) (30 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 1465 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1465 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1465 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve Item 7d (1465 Burlingame Avenue). Chair Gum asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.133 Pepper Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for basement, first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage and a Conditional Use Permit for an approved Accessory Dwelling Unit CEQA (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jennifer Colvin Trust, property owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 133 Pepper Ave - Staff Report 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 133 Pepper Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 2 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 3 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >How substantial will the fascia detail trim piece be on the addition? (Grange: Very minimal. There will be the shingles and a small trim board.) >Confirming that the screening in the front will be from vegetation, and that the new stucco wall will be low? (Grange: The screening will be from the vegetation, not the height of the wall.) Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The difference with the added gable roof is subtle but significant. >There are different interpretations of the Secretary of Interior standards. Wants to make sure there is conversation/dialog between the existing and the new addition, and still be good architecture. This achieves that. >The front piece has a "pavilion" quality, and a "bookend" feel to the rear elevation. >No issue with relocating the structure - the significance of the historic structure is architecture of the structure, not the specific location or position on the property. >Likes the offset view into the property. Makes a nice transition. >The changes that have been made are exquisite. >Blends well but with the dichotomy that works well together. >Some concerns with the Page & Turnbull positions as it relates to the project. >Consistent with the commission's approach to modern architecture in traditional neighborhoods. >Does not see the landscape trees as hiding the addition - they provide a delightful transition in how one experiences the house and addition on the property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Nay:Gum1 - b.1333 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for changes to the facade of an existing commercial building and Conditional Use Permit for a commercial recreation use (fitness). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Shane, BBC Inc., applicant; Shawn Anderson, MSA Architecture + Design, architect; Michael C. and Athia M. Giotinis TRS, property owner ) (83 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1333 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1333 Howard Ave - Attachments 1333 Howard Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had an email exchange with the exterior architect. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak represented the applicant, with architect Mark Bucciarelli. Commission Questions/Comments: Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Is the darker material sample the preferred choice? (Bucciarelli: Yes.) >How far back is the supporting frame? (Bucciarelli: About a foot.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Changes are nice. They tidy the facade up. >Substitution of the metal panels and elimination of the protruding wing walls simplifies the facade . Facade is sophisticated with being able to see through to the frame behind, has some depth. >Conditional Use Permit is easily justified based on past decisions of the commission. No detriment for this use versus prior uses in the building under its most recent iterations. >Nice clean facade and the applicant has made a good argument for the 9-foot entry doors. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.821 Maple Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. (Waldemar Stachniuk, KWS United Technoogy, Inc, designer; Craig Mercer and Gina Corsetti, property owners) (94 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 821 Maple Ave - Staff Report 821 Maple Ave - Attachments 821 Maple Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Chair Gum was recused because he owns property within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Waldemar Stauchniuk, KWS United Technology, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Is the small door on the right -side elevation an access door? It does not have the same type of siding fascia that the rest of the house has so stands out starkly. Can something be done such as continuing the siding on the access door? (Stauchniuk: It is the access to the small basement and utlity room . Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Proposes to keep it the same with the new trim around it. Will wrap the trim all the way around the door.) >The new vents on the right and left side elevations at the top of the first floor seem off center from the peak of the roof. (Stauchniuk: Drawing error, should be centered.) >Is Hardie Shake a cementitious shake, like Hardie Plank with a wood texture? (Stauchniuk: Yes, it is a composite cementitious material and can be either smooth or textured.) >Does it require corner boards? (Stauchniuk: Customer does not want corner boards. The shingle needs to be to be mitered. It is a difficult installation but it is possible. Originally had the corner boards on the design but the customer requested they be removed.) >Was real wood shake considered? (Stauchniuk: Preference is to use the Hardie product. It works for years to come and less maintenance.) >What windows are specified? (Stauchniuk: Anderson E-Series aluminum-clad with the metal muntins inside.) The plans should note that the windows have simulated true divided lites. >Where is the basement on the plans? (Stauchniuk: Pages A1.0 2 of 7 and 3 of 7. Only the outline is shown, not the floorplan.) Should it be shown on the plans for potential impact on Floor Area Ratio? (Hurin: If it's a utility basement without a full stairway, it can just be shown with a dotted line. It should be clearly labeled as a utility basement. Up to 100 sq ft can be exempt from FAR.) >On the front porch there is a 6 x 8 Hardie beam and a 10-inch square post. Are theses structural members that are wrapped in Hardie? (Stauchniuk: It is wrapped and is not structural.) Will those be mitered or butt joints? (Stauchniuk: Probably both.) Details should be decided now so there is not a problem later on. >Wants to see a sample of the siding material and trim material. Encourages consideration of cedar wood shingles - can get them already pre -dipped in paint several times, and they are maintenance -free and last a long time. They are much easier to install and have a good look. >Existing fascia boards are shown on the plans as 1 x 8, but in the field they look like they are a 2 or 1 1/2 inch finish thickness. If Hardie is mixed with wood, there will be a significant observable difference . Encourages the details to be in wood rather than Hardie; the posts would be nice and simple if they were something like a knotty cedar 10 x 10, just stained and only needing maintenance every couple of years with a sealer. >There are some knee braces /corbels on the front porch, but not anywhere else on the house. Would be a nice detail to have some knee braces under the eaves at the gable ends. Would add a lot to the detailing of the house at some of the other bays, to tie the design together. Would encourage those to be in wood. (Stauchniuk: The corbels will be wood.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Vice-Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is handled nicely, but the details are a bit lacking. >Repeating the corbel details on the long side elevations will help. >Project would be better served with the wood products available. Concerned with the execution, running into problems and having to default to corner boards and added trims. It could be a nicely shingled house, but could fall apart with the details. >The cementitious material feels like plastic rather than wood. The maasing is handled well and is nicely sculpted, but concerned it will not look as good when it is built because of the materials. >Wants to make sure the new projects fit with the existing neighborhoods, and the traditional homes in the neighborhoods. Traditional homes are characterized by wood products. >Windows in the existing first floor that are not on the front facade would be allowed with a new addition because the grids are only between the glass panels. Important that the new windows are clearly specified on the plans. >If using the cementitious product, wants to see a physical sample or a local application. The cementious shingles have been prone to break or snap, and they are difficult to replace or repair. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Recused:Gum1 - b.1455 Cortez Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Art Lierman, property owner) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1455 Cortez Ave - Staff Reports and Attachments 1455 Cortez Ave - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: Commissioner Sargent was recused because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, represented the applicant, with property owner Arthur Lierman. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will the new dormer on the front create any light below? (Geurse: No, it is just a pseudo dormer to break up the roofline and tie into the existing house.) >Is the fireplace woodburning, and if so does the chimney need to be altered? (Geurse: It's a gas fireplace.) >Have the neighbors seen the proposed addition and the rear deck? (Geurse: No.) The uphill neighbor may not have an issue, and for the neighbor on the downside the deck is shifted over and shielded by the wall of the bedroom. It's not a large deck and it's off of a master bedroom rather than a public space, but should check with neighbors. >Will it be possible to cricket at the wing walls, and with the roof tiles? (Geurse: Yes. There will be galvanized crickets installed behind the tiles.) >What is the square footage of the rear deck? (Geurse: Approximately 120 square feet.) Concern with sound traveling to adjacent neighbors - talk to neighbors, or try to make it smaller. >Was there consideration of doing something over the right side of the house? The addition has not done any favors to the right side of the house. (Geurse: Had considered introducing a pitched roof to dress it up, but didn't want to disrupt the structural integrity of that part of the roof with new tiles.) Struggling with the massing - a perspective rendering could help. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Looks like a box dropped on top of a box with a bit of dressing. The parts do not blend together as well as other houses on the street. >Appreciates that the right side has not been increased since it is already a relatively steep wall, and the house next door is lower. It respects the house next door. >Concern with the size of the deck. Should consider the potential impact on the neighbor. >It's not a deep deck but it is over 100 square feet. Should be revisited. >Likes how the design is massed. It is nicely composed. Not sure anything needs to happen on the right side. >Likes how the dormer breaks up the roof mass, and is repeated on the left side elevation. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to have the item return on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - c.624 Lexington Way, zoned R- 1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a major renovation and first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer; Dave and Kelsey Armstrong, property owners) (67 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 624 Lexington Way - Staff Report and Attachments 624 Lexington Way - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto reported ex -parte communication with one of the neighbors. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >What is the distinction between Planning and Building in considering the building new construction? (Gardiner: For noticing purposes, the major renovation /addition is meant to convey that elements of the original house will be retained, as opposed to new construction which would convey a completely different structure.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Robert Wehmeyer, Wehmeyer Design, represented the applicant with property owner Dave Armstrong. Commission Questions/Comments: >On the east and west elevations it appears the shutters tuck behind the facia board, or run into the fascia board. They are a nice detail and want to make sure they are not forgotten. (Wehmeyer: The fascia board is extended out. Will need to play with the sizing a little bit, based on the window company being used and the window sizes. On the tighter ones on the other elevation, there is a larger window where the shutters may come off depending on how close it is. They will be board and batten style shutters.) >On the right side, has there been any thought to adjusting so it does not present a broad face to the neighbor. Perhaps a dormer? (Wehmeyer: With the Cape Cod style, it is important to balance the house and carry the look through and keep it consistent rather than cut it back on the side. On the second floor with the sloped ceilings the rooms are more gracious at certain points because of the volume, but in other parts are tighter because of the cuts and ridges. Having a dormer would complicate it, and take away from Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft the traditional look of the Cape Cod.) >Discrepancy on plans: A1 at the plate shows Lexington Way existing one story, and on A 1.0 shows existing one story. >Has the house at 612 Lexington been referenced as an example? It could be referenced in a follow -up presentation. >Elaborate on the comment about massing problems in the neighborhood that are trying to be avoided in choosing this design? (Wehmeyer: Received reaction from neighbors for the house at 612 Vernon. A farm house-style modern house down the street on Lexington also had a lot of push back from neighbors . 600 Vernon has received comments from neighbors regarding the size, however it is on a pie -shaped lot so fronts differently on the street. The neighborhood is sensitive regarding second story additions and houses becoming bigger.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Massing is handled nicely. Trying to look like a one -story house with a second story tucked under the roof. >This is the type of design for which the Special Permit is intended. >612 Lexington has a second story that probably violates the Declining Height Envelope but the massing is handled differently and does not have the same type of "pure" design in terms of the cape cod style. >This type of traditional design with the roof coming up from the first floor plate with the second floor tucked underneath is found in a lot of Burlingame neighborhoods, but would not strictly comply with the Declining Height Envelope requirements. The Special Permit process allows for this type of consideration, with scrutiny. This type of massing is responsive to the concerns of the neighborhood and is handled gracefully. >Likes the commitment to the stone base extending around the house. >The garage has its own presence adjacent to the house. >Declining Height Envelope exception works well with the design of the house, and it will fit in with the neighborhood. >Declining Height Envelope exception has been approved in the past for this type of circumstance. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to place the item on the Consent Calendar when the item is ready for action. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 - Nay:Gaul1 - d.1500 Cypress Avenue and 101-105 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Parking Variances and Lot Combination for a new three-story, four-unit residential condominium (Derrick Chang and Wayne Hu, applicants; Gary Gee Architects, Inc., architect; Opal Investments LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Attachments 1500 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 105 El Camino Real - Historic Resource Evaluation 1500 Cypress Ave & 101-105 El Camino Real - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that one of the letters sent to the Planning Commission was from her husband Peter Comaroto who talked about the project. He speaks for himself only, and Commissioner Comaroto's view will be unbiased. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Gary Gee, Gary Gee Architects, represented the applicant, with Wayne Hu. Commission Questions/Comments: >South elevation has a portion of blank wall right in the center. It stands out because everything else is so detailed and complex. Suggests using 6-inch tiles like in the front. (Gee: Could embellish it to make it integrated.) >How are the roof decks accessed? (Gee: The skylight over the staircase slides open. There is no stair penthouse. Has used them in other jurisdictions. Can also consider a hinged option.) >The turning radius from El Camino Real onto Cypress is a sharp right turn. Are any issues anticipated with cars parking at the corner? (Gee: There are two or three cars parked there already typically. Has not discussed restricted curb parking with staff, but it could be discussed.) >What is water table? Concern with basement water. (Hu: Has discussed this with a civil engineer and does not anticipate a problem since there is not a driveway going down into an underground garage. Has designed the front of building with a low landscape wall.) >Will there be drainage problems on the Cypress side? (Gee: Cypress is downhill. The driveway is at the highest point and it slopes down towards El Camino. There are two catch basins, one on the corner at El Camino.) Even the higher elevation properties experience issues with ground water. >Will the deep-set windows be only on El Camino Rea? (Gee: No, on all sides.) >What is the exceptional circumstance justifying the variance? (Gee: Does not have access for vehicles on El Camino Real, and does not want the driveway on Cypress close to the intersection. Tried to provide as much covered parking as possible, but could not provide the guest parking.) >How is the common open space at the corner used? (Gee: Landscaping with rocks, planting and seating. It is a passive seating area and is gated. The tree line extends over the open space.) Suggests a vegetable garden or bocce court - any way to activate it, or relocate it to to make it more active. (Gee: Anyone walking to their units needs to walk past the open space, which will activate it. Ties it closer to the residents. Could sit and watch children at play because it is enclosed. Can look at other possibilities.) >Average unit sizes? (Gee: 2511, 2611 and 1785 square feet.) >How would the style be described? (Gee: Spanish Hacienda or Revival like courtyard housing in Pasadena and Boyle Heights in Los Angeles.) >It is a difficult style unless willing to commit to the details that are necessary for the style. (Gee: The juliet balcony would be expressed correctly, maybe raising it so the floor of the balcony matches the floor of the window rather than the floor of the sill. Can provide more details in the next pass.) >How tall is the planter wall that screens El Camino? (Gee: It is approximately four feet. The shrubbery is meant to create a screen or visual filter between the inner walkway and the roadway. Storm water runoff Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft from the roof will be fed into the planter as well, so the planter needs to be a certain height to provide storm water filtration.) >How tall is the curved wall? (Gee: The outer part is just a wall; the other part is a planer. About 30 inches high. The rendering shows an earlier design and needs to be updated.) >Which will be higher, the wall along El Camino Real or the curved wall? (Gee: The wall along El Camino Real.) >Have there been studies of sight lines for the roof decks? Should be included with the next submittal . (Gee: Yes, they were requested by the neighbor at 1508 Cypress. Did not include them in the submittal.) >Is there a guard rail around to the deck? (Gee: It is a clear 42-inch laminated glass rail with a dark bronze/brown cap fastened to the side of the deck. It will prevent people from using the rest of the roof.) >If guests park along the 1508 Cypress fence side will there be enough turning radius for cars coming in and out of their driveways? (Hu: The driveway width is 24 feet. Tested to see if a vehicle could be moved in three maneuvers, and it fits. It would be temporary parking, and could work out among neighbors for guests and the service parking.) >Would spaces along the back wall be marked? (Hu: No, they would not be designated.) Public Comments: Fredy Bush, 1508 Cypress Avenue: Concerns with privacy, noise, and parking. Windows facing will look into living spaces of home. Three levels looking into the home. Driveway of project will be next to neighboring driveway, so will be facing parking garages with people coming in and out. Very little parking on Cypress Avenue, needs to be sure there is parking in front of her house for van with grandson in wheelchair. Winnie Tungpagasit, counsel for Fredy Bush. Has submitted letter with requests. Opposed parking variance, there are no extraordinary circumstances. Huge family room windows facing into client's bedroom, requests minimize the size, location height of the windows. Letter suggests a sound barrier wall with landscaping and trees of sufficient height to provide privacy on both sides. Concern about garage door openers; can be minimized with the type of opener. Requests site evaluation from the balconies and windows, suggests move decks closer to El Camino Real for more privacy. Request solid /opaque rails on south side of roofdecks. Concern with construction noise, requests construction fence with sound barrier . Would like weekends and holidays excluded from construction. William Stoyle, 1510 Cypress Avenue: Does not believe can turn a car within the amount of space. Cars will end up parking on Cypress Avenue. Busy intersection, a lot of parking demand on intersection . Two-hour parking on Cypress Avenue helps but still gets shoppers parking there. Commission should account for overall parking situation in the neighborhood when considering the project. Kirby Altman, 1537 Cypress Avenue: Appreciates early outreach, plans look much better than original submittal. Cypress Ave has only a small window on first floor, would like it treated so it does not look like a blank wall hiding a garage, make it look more like a house on the street. Will be looking at the building from Cypress Avenue, not El Camino Real. Two scrawny street trees with small planers, request the developer take out concrete between the sidewalk and the curb to allow better trees with irrigation. Would like the fir tree trimmed around the streetlight. Drainage basins along El Camino Real do not work and there is standing water when it rains; if water is pumped out from the project it will add to the problem. Lots of Caltrans poles and boxes on the corner, narrows the sidewalk and hard to pass by - could be a nice gateway to the neighborhood. Assumes only the residents of 1500 Cypress would be able to get permit parking. Krista McCutcheon, 1512 Carol Avenue: Agrees with the neighbors regarding water accumulation. Does not like the architecture. Improved and the drawings look good, but in the rendering the building looks huge with big white concrete walls. Does not see the recesses and archways. Very tall compared to the surrounding buildings, concerned it will not look like the neighborhood residential. It is a gateway into a historic neighborhood. There could be additional improvements on the sidewalk, could widen it. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft James Baleix, 831 Edgehill Drive: Two homes were put onto one lot, and faced away from each other . Likes the design, wondered why not underground parking like the one across the street. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Has an issue with the parking variance. Does not see the exceptional circumstance, just because there is not access from El Camino Real. There is not a nexus with not being able to provide guest parking. >Can't accept that cars will park along the fence, would block others and lead to irritation and eventually people will park on the street. >Difficult architectural style to achieve unless can commit to the details. Risk is a watered -down Spanish-style building. 1512 Floribunda Avenue is a good example - a lot of timber on the balconies, ceramic tile, details that make it stand out and give it texture and richness. Still lacking on this proposal, such as the square windows without muntins. >Would expect wood-stained garage doors, but note specifies painted wood flush panel garage doors. If they are plain white or beige it would not contribute to the architecture. >Fence along the west property line looks like a common wood residential fence. Needs to go the distance for the Spanish Revival style. Has plaster details instead of wood corbels and wood timbers. >Needs to see more information on the roof decks, such as the handrail and sight lines. The glass rail does not fit with the architecture. >Feels like the variance has been backed into based on the development program, not site -specific. Feels like it is bursting at the seams. >Has the opportunity to be a really nice project on the corner if the architecture comes together. >Feels like it is turning its back on the corner, isolating itself behind the walls and hedges. The hedges will grow tall and hide the front doors, and will not give back to the street. >Two parking variances being requested. Can't see the unique characteristics of the site. Needs to address both variances, not just the guest parking. OK with the concept of tandem parking, but it still needs to be an approvable variance. >The building is in scale with the building to the right, and the building across the street. However the unit sizes are large, which drives the problem with the variance. >Applicant could revisit underground parking, like the building next door. >Likes tree being on the corner being retained, but makes it hard to use open space. Will be hard to grow things under the tree. >Design of the open space needs to embrace the tree or the corner more fully. >Windows in the family rooms are very large, could be reduced in size or modify the floor plans. Would appease the neighbor if bedrooms were on the back side. >Consider solid balconies for privacy. >Neighbor privacy issues are noted but it is a difficult balance. Roof decks seem well-positioned. >Nice design, appreciates that it does not need to have drastic changes. >Appropriate site for the project, on El Camino Real. >Commission has approved tandem parking previously. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto7 - e.1300 Bayshore Highway, zoned SL - Design Review Study for an Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Height, Building Width and Retail Use, Parking Variance for tandem parking configuration and Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Lot Merger to demolish the existing structures, and construct one 8-story building and one 9-story building (connected) totaling 258,612 SF; the new buildings would include 238,162 SF of office space, 11,840 SF of restaurant space and 8,610 SF of retail space. (Steve Porter, applicant; Nardi Associates LLP, architect; Fox Bayshore Investment, property owner) (20 notices) Staff Contact: Sheldon Ah Sing 1300 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1300 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1300 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 12.11.17 Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Contract Planner Sheldon Ah Sing provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Was a different transportation demand management plan submitted previously; is this a new plan? (Gardiner: there was an earlier iteration, this represents the latest plan.) >Can a parking valet service be a condition of approval? (Gardiner: yes, but can be a bit tricky.) >Has providing a shuttle to BART been considered? (Gardiner: will need to get more information from the applicant.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. John Ward represented the applicant, with Omer Tamturk, Steve Porter, and Orhan Tolou present from Fox Investments (property owner). Also present were Gary Black from Hexagon Consultants; Ed Conlon, Hathaway-Dinwiddie; John Pappas, mechanical engineer; and Augustin Maxim, project developer. Noberto Nardi, Nardi Associates, made a presentation as the architect. Commission Questions/Comments: >Will Building B access to retail along the front? (Nardi: yes.) Will the public be able to access the rear area? (Nardi: depends on the type of use; it is a control measure. Noted that 60 bicycle parking spaces and showers are being provided within the building.) >The parking management plan is a great addition to the application. Is there a commitment by the developer to provide managment to ensure that the plan is implemented properly? (Nardi: yes.) >How does the structure of the building work? Doesn't see columns, implies clear span. (Nardi: structural engineer is designing by combining major porticos on the first three floors with an ectoskeleton . Two facades create the structure of the building that eliminates the needs for interior columns.) Touches down at 8 points? (Nardi: yes, within the view corridor. Past view corridor, the exoskeleton is touching the ground.) >How far along is the geotech analysis? Going down to bedrock? (Nardi: yes. Avoiding underground parking due to the water table. Already have the preliminary geotech report and are going down to bedrock.) >Is there an example of this type of building being done before? (Nardi: there is an example of such a building at Olympic and Figueroa in Downtown Los Angeles, 60-story building. The building includes an exoskeleton. This type of construction is not always feasible from a cost standpoint, but works in this instance due to the configuration of the building.) >The aerial rendering is confusing, it shows building encroaching into roadway. Please revisit this exhibit before the project returns. (Nardi: the exhibit is actually to be a location plan, but the rendering is improperly placed on the plan.) >How much of the ground floor is accessible to the public? (Nardi: about 50% of the site, not including Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft the enclosed spaces. There is a secondary access that acts as a fire lane. Ideally want people to be drawn to the center of the building.) >The glass and steel are faceted, not curved? (Nardi: no, both are faceted.) >Are the meeting areas in the back only accessed through the building? How high are the glass walls? (Nardi: walls are five feet tall.) Is there a concern about intruders? (Nardi: expects that there will be guards present on the property.) Public Comments: Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road: Is in favor of the project. Includes dramatic architecture. Is the highest and best use of the property. The location is within walking distance of the Broadway train station, proximity could help mitigate traffic. Gay O'Brien, Neuchatel Avenue: The project makes a statement; it will remove drab and tired buildings that block views of the Bay. City can endorse a modern office building that will connect with the Bay. The revised plans improve this vital connection. Encouraged approval as soon as possible. Jim Baylese: Agreed with prior speaker. Excited by a building of this calibur. Wishes it were surrounded by other beautiful structures. Pat Giorni: Can see that a lot of work has been done since initially presented. Totally content with the bike path and sidewalks, raised view portal, long -term shower, parking, and restroom facilities. Suggested approval of the applications. Should move the application to the Regular Action Calendar to streamline the project approval. Developer should talk to commute.org to get on the route. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Previously had concerns with pedestrian circulation. The renderings reveal that the pedestrian experience will be less brutal than initially thought. >CUPs are supportable. Taller buildings exist around the site, there area also constraints on the width . The retail adds to the appeal of the project.. >Variances supportable with creek and BCDC constraints place on the property. Does a good job of balancing street frontage with retail and creates a cradle in the back whree pedestrians experience the Bay it should be experienced; this design approach supports approval of the variance to permit parking in the front setback. The parking management plan will mitigate the Variance. >Appreciates the additional renderings. >Not sure about the glass pods. 6 feet fence wall might be better. Worries about transients or kids. >Newly forming and intensifying issue with transients. Higher fence will not be as effective as security. >Mix of ecological, pedestrian. Should be standard for the rest of the Bayfront. >Does not do what it needs to do for the pedestrian realm. Adds to the diversity of the architectural styles, but does not address. >First office level is 50 feet above grade. >Expensive to build a 250,000 square foot building in the Bay Area, and less convinced this is feasible. >Does not contribute to the pedestrian realm - wants to be the center of attention. >Nice pedestrian-sight connections to the Bay, but expanse of building is not welcoming. Does not do much for the pedestrian life of the city. >Dramatic architecture, a lot to like. Could be a major iconic draw to the Bay Area. >Odd that this decision is being made in advance of the General Plan Update. >There is a lot going on in Burlingame already. Will exacerbate, serve to be detrimental. >Is exciting and unique, but does not fit into the neighborhood. >With height two or three examples does not make a pattern. There are lots of shorter building. >Other buildings with same heights don't have the same width and presence. Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 December 11, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft >Parking excessive for the space. >Can't find exceptional circumstances that doesn't effect other properties in the area. >Each project should be evaluated on its own. Can't negate the merits of one project because there are others. >Not sure would want to fit in with the surrounding buildings since they are dated. >Variance supportable with creek running through the middle. >Concerns with parking management plan but details can be worked out. >There are enough tall buildings to support the height. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioners Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner noted a recent study session with the City Council regarding new housing legislation. Noted a recent newspaper article that addressed the session. Will be a similar discussion with the Commission at some point in the future. a.1417 Vancouver Avenue - FYI for review of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1417 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum 1417 Vancouver Ave - Attachments Attachments: Pulled for a future public hearing. Does not see anything changed, still concern with glass railings. Also not sure about door. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:47 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 December 11, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 21, 2017, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 2/22/2018 Item No. 8b Regular Action Items PROJECT LOCATION 305 Burlingame Avenue Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 2 Item No. 8b Regular Action Items City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 305 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: February 26, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant: Danny Meredith APN: 029-262-030 Architect/Designer: Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group Lot Area: 4,720 SF Property Owner: Helen Cook 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 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exe mpt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) si ngle-family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling with a new detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 2,903 SF (0.61 FAR) where 3,010 SF (0.64 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 120 SF covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling will contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on-site. One covered parking space is provided in the detached garage (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Though the clear interior dimensions of the detached garage qualifies as a two -car garage, only one covered space is code compliant. The covered space at the left side does not have the minimum requ ired 24-foot back-up area (14’-0” proposed) nor can a vehicle exit from this space within three maneuvers or less based on the parking template used by the Planning Division. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following:  Design Review for a new single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(1)). 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stamped: September 11 and November 13, 2017; February 13, 2018 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 09/11/17 Plans REVISED 11/13/17 Plans REVISED 02/13/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 15’-0” no change 15’-6” 15’-0” (2nd flr): 23’-6” no change 22’-6” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 6’-4” 11’-8” no change no change no change no change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37’-0” 34’-6” 37’-3” 36’-0” 36’-9” 35’-3” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1848 SF 39.2% 1881 SF 39.9% 1879 SF 39.8% 1888 SF 40% FAR: 2970 SF 0.63 FAR 2937 SF (0.62) FAR 2903 SF (0.61) FAR 3010 SF 1 0.64 FAR 1 (0.32 x 4720 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3010 SF (0.64 FAR) Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 3 305 Burlingame Avenue Lot Size: 4,720 SF Plans date stamped: September 11 and November 13, 2017; February 13, 2018 ORIGINAL PROPOSAL 09/11/17 Plans REVISED 11/13/17 Plans REVISED 02/13/18 Plans ALLOWED/REQ’D # of bedrooms: 4 no change no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (20’ x 20’ clear interior)* 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) no change no change 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Height: 27’-9” no change 28’-9” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies complies CS 25.26.075 * Left side covered space does not have minimum required 24’ back -up area and cannot be exited within 3 maneuvers or less. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Engineering, Building, Fire, Parks and Stormwater Divisions. The Design Review Consultant reviewed revised plans date sta mped January 22, 2018. After their review, minor revisions were made to the plans that involved non-design changes to the proposed detached garage to make it code compliant. Therefore, the latest revised plans are date stamped February 13, 2018 (after the Design Review Consultant’s Analysis was submitted on Jan uary 29, 2018). Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission provided recommendations for the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped November 13, 2017 that addressed the Commission’s recommendations which included:  Enlarging the front covered porch from 56 SF to 120 SF;  Revising the originally proposed vinyl material for the windows to fiberglass clad wood;  Resizing window sizes to be more compatible;  Adding detail to the Left Side and Rear Elevations; and  Coordinating with neighbors about the location/position of the detached garage. After making revisions to the plans, the design reviewer still had concerns regarding the massing of the project and recommended to meet again to go over the revisions made. The applicant and project architect decided to move forward with the revised plans as is. The design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, received November 16, 2017 is attached. Design Review Action Hearing: At the first Action Hearing on November 27, 2017, the Planning Commission continued to have concerns with the project and referred the applicant to meet with the Design Review Consultant once more (see attached November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Listed below were the Commissions’ main concerns:  The massing and drawings are not cohesive;  Articulation of the surfaces does not work with the design; and  Design is boxy and relies on the roofline to articulate the elevations. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped February 13, 2018. The revised plans include changes to the mass and bulk of the project as well as more articulation and detail to all four elevations. Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 4 Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant went through one more round of review with the project architect and applicant to address the Planning Commission's main concerns. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated January 29, 2018, for a detailed review of the project. The design reviewer notes that the “previous massing of the structure has been dramatically reduced” and that the latest revision “has a definite Tudor style” that blends in with the neighborhood. Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer supports approval of the project as proposed. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed project (featuring hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, wood trim, fiberglass clad wood windows and wood doors) is compatible with the variety of styles that define the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for t he record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans subm itted to the Planning Division date stamped February 13, 2018, sheets A-1.0 through A-4 and sheet L-1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, wind ows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Plannin g 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 pla ns 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 Design Review 305 Burlingame Avenue 5 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, interio r or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Buil ding and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential de sign 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 cer tification 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 heigh t of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Buildi ng Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans . ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Danny Meredith, applicant Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer Helen Cook, property owner Attachments: Design Review Analysis, dated January 29, 2018 November 27, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Design Review Analysis, date stamped November 16, 2017 Response Letter from Designer to the Planning Commission, dated November 16, 2017 October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 16, 2018 Aerial Photo NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCEOF THE ARCHITECT.SHEET NO.: REVISIONS BY SHEET CONTENT:DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB:801 MAHLER ROAD, SUITE 106 BURLINGAME, CA 94010A R C H I T E C T U R Eph 650.697.0950 email ardg@sbcglobal.netR.W./ E.A.B. AS SHOWN 20 JUN. 2017 A-1.0NEIGHBOR PHOTOSLOCATION : 305 BURLINGAME AVENUES TATE OF CALI FORN I AJAIME P. RAPAD A S LICENSED ARCHITEC T NO. C-26501EXP. 07/31/19PROJECT DATA LOT SIZE 4,720 SF FLOOR AREA: A.FIRST FLOOR - HABITABLE 1,425 SF FRONT PORCH 120 SERVICE ENTRY 10.5 FIRE PLACE 9 FIRST FLOOR, GROSS 1,434 B.SECOND FLOOR, HABITABLE 1,200.2 C.DETACHED GARAGE 441 MAX LOT COVERAGE @ 40% OF 4,720 1,888 FIRST FLR. GROSS + SECOND FLR. 1,887.7 INTERIOR LOT FAR MAX. @ (.32 x 4,720) + 1,100 + 400 3,010 TOTAL INT. LOT FAR MAX. A+B+C 2,937 SF ZONE :R-1 TYPE OF CONST.:TYPE V-N CODES : DEVELOPMENT STANDARD OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CA; 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (WHERE APPLICABLE), 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE AND 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889 AMENDMENT TO 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE: WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS LESS THAN TEN (10) FEET FROM THE EXIT TERMINAL OF ANY NEWLY INSTALLED OR REPLACED HIGH EFFICIENCY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, THE PIPE SIZE OF THE FINAL TEN (10) FEET OF ANY TERMINAL MUST BE INCREASED BY THREE (3) INCHES OR, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, MANUFACTURER BAFFLES MUST BE INSTALLED "CONSTRUCTION HOURS" WEEKDAYS: 8:00 AM - 7:00 PM SATURDAYS: 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM SUNDAYS & HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED. NOT TO SCALE LOCATION MAP OWNER : M. HELEN COOKNOT TO SCALE VICINITY MAP THE LOT NORT H NO SCALE NEIGHBOR PHOTOS 1 17:0302LOCATION MAPVICINITY MAPPROJECT DATA NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCE AT 305 BURLINGAME AVE A-1.0 NEIGHBOR PHOTOS LOCATION MAP VICINITY MAP PROJECT DATA PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-1.1 (E) SITE PLAN (N) ROOF/ SITE PLAN A-2 FIRST FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR PLAN DOOR/WINDOW SCHEDULE ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENING A-3 FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION A-4 SECTION A-A GARAGE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION L-1 LANDSCAPING PLAN IRRIGATION PLAN DRAINAGE PLAN SITE PLANRW15 AUG. 2017 DRAWING INDEX: RWPER 2ND REVIEW 30 AUG. 2017 PER OCT 26 2017 MEETING RW PER NOV 27 2017 MEETING RW PER FEB 8 2018 PLN. REVIEW NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCEOF THE ARCHITECT.SHEET NO.: REVISIONS BY SHEET CONTENT:DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB:801 MAHLER ROAD, SUITE 106 BURLINGAME, CA 94010A R C H I T E C T U R Eph 650.697.0950 email ardg@sbcglobal.net17:0302 R.W./ E.A.B. AS SHOWN 22 JUN. 2017 A - 3FRONT ELEVATIONOWNER : M. HELEN COOKLOCATION : 305 BURLINGAME AVENUEREAR ELEVATIONRIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONLEFT SIDE ELEVATIONScale: 1/4 : 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 4SHEET NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHT. A-2 FOR ELEVATION ALLOWABLE WALL OPENING; AND PARTIAL DOOR & WINDOW SCHEDULE RW15 AUG. 2017 RWPER 2ND REVIEW 30 AUG. 2017 PER P.C. 10 OCT. 2017 MEETING MINUTES RW PER OCT 26 2017 MEETING RW PER NOV 27 2017 MEETING RW PER 8 FEB 18PLN. REVIEW NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCEOF THE ARCHITECT.SHEET NO.: REVISIONS BY SHEET CONTENT:DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB:801 MAHLER ROAD, SUITE 106 BURLINGAME, CA 94010A R C H I T E C T U R Eph 650.697.0950 email ardg@sbcglobal.net17:0302 R.W. AS SHOWN 22 JUN. 2017 A - 4GARAGE FLOOR PLANLOCATION : 305 BURLINGAME AVENUEREAR ELEVATIONRIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONLEFT SIDE ELEVATIONScale: 1/4 : 1'-0" REAR ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" FRONT ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" LEFT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" FLOOR PLAN FRONT ELEVATIONOWNER : M. HELEN COOKNORTH5 Scale: 1/4 : 1'-0" SECTION A-A SECTION A-ARW15 AUG. 2017 RWPER 2ND REVIEW 30 AUG. 2017 PER P.C. 10 OCT. 2017 MEETING MINUTES RW PER OCT 26 2017 MEETING RW PER NOV 27 2017 MEETING RW PER 8 FEB 18PLN. REVIEW Scale: 1/8 : 1'-0" (E) SITE PLAN NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCEOF THE ARCHITECT.SHEET NO.: REVISIONS BY SHEET CONTENT:DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB:801 MAHLER ROAD, SUITE 106 BURLINGAME, CA 94010A R C H I T E C T U R Eph 650.697.0950 email ardg@sbcglobal.netAS SHOWN A-1.1(E) SITE PLANLOCATION : 305 BURLINGAME AVENUEOWNER : M. HELEN COOKNORTH17:0302 R.W. 22 JUN. 2017 Scale: 1/8 : 1'-0" (N) ROOF/ SITE PLAN 2(N) ROOF/ SITE PLANRW15 AUG. 2017 SHEET NOTES: 1.(E) SITE PLAN IS REFERENCED TO TOPOGRAPHIC MAP BY MISSION ENGINEER, INC. AS ATTACHED PLEASE NOTE: FOR ARCHITECTURAL CLARITY, NORTH OF OUR PLANS IS SHOWN POINTED DOWN, TYP. 2. WORK THE (N) ROOF/SITE PLAN W/ THE DRAINAGE PLAN / L-1 3. ROOF EAVES AS SHOWN ON THE (N) ROOF/SITE PLAN @1'-6" MAX TO FASCIA BD. WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FT. OF THE PROPERTY LINE 4. A GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORK 5. ROOD EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: TANKLESS WATER HTR. @ EXT. KIT. WALL PER 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING & MECHANICAL CODE FORCED AIR UNIT @ ATTIC PER 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING & MECHANICAL CODE RWPER 2ND REVIEW 30 AUG. 2017 RWRF. PITCH INFO. 21 SEP. 2017 PER OCT 26 2017 MEETING RW PER NOV 27 2017 MEETING RW LANDING NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCEOF THE ARCHITECT.SHEET NO.: REVISIONS BY SHEET CONTENT:DATE: SCALE: DRAWN: JOB:801 MAHLER ROAD, SUITE 106 BURLINGAME, CA 94010A R C H I T E C T U R Eph 650.697.0950 email ardg@sbcglobal.netAS SHOWN L -1LANDSCAPING PLAN LOCATION : 305 BURLINGAME AVENUEOWNER : M. HELEN COOK17:0302 R.W. 22 JUN. 2017 6 Scale: 1/8 : 1'-0" IRRIGATION PLAN Scale: 1/8 : 1'-0" LANDSCAPING PLAN IRRIGATION PLANScale: 1/8 : 1'-0" DRAINAGE PLAN RW DRAINAGE PLAN15 AUG. 2017 NORTHSHEET NOTES: LANDSCAPING PLAN IS REQUIRED TO MEET THE NEW "WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS" PER P.C. 10 OCT. 2017 MEETING MINUTES RW PER OCT 26 2017 MEETING RW PER OCT 26 2017 MEETING RW PROJECT LOCATION 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Density Bonus Incentives for a New 132-Unit Workforce and Senior Apartment Development Address: 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) Meeting Date: February 26, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Density Bonus Incentives for construction of a new five story, 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. Applicant: Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies APN: 029-224-270 Property Owner: City of Burlingame Lot Area: 36,750 SF Architect: Pacific West Architecture General Plan: Howard Avenue Mixed Use District/R-4 Incentive District Zoning: HMU (Howard Mixed Use) and R-4 Incentive District Subarea Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses Current Use: Public Parking Lot (Lot F) Proposed Use: 132-unit workforce and senior apartment development. Allowable Use: HMU: Retail, personal services, hotels, grocery stores/markets, financial institutions; and multifamily residential and offices above the first floor R-4: Multifamily, duplex, and single family residential uses. Background: In 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The culmination of a multi-year community planning process, the Plan provides a framework for sustaining the existing success of the downtown and accommodating new opportunities. One aspect of the Downtown Specific Plan is a focus on better use of parking facilities downtown, particularly the twenty City-owned surface parking lots. The plan encourages parking lots to be converted to different uses over time, such as housing, open space, and additional parking. Choices about uses are guided by what will most benefit the downtown area. Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council has expressed an interest in expanding the housing options available in Burlingame, including the provision of more affordable housing options, a category of housing that is minimally represented amongst the existing housing stock within the community. Extremely high property values and rental rates for housing within the Bay Area Region and particularly on the San Francisco Peninsula have escalated dramatically in recent years, forcing many who have enjoyed the quality of life in Burlingame to leave due to the ever-increasing costs of housing in the community. Likewise, as parking is important to Downtown businesses and residents alike, the City Council has been evaluating options for improving parking in the downtown area. This includes accommodating demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or structured parking. Most communities in San Mateo County are encouraging development of new housing near public transit, updating downtown planning policies and exploring new sources of funding. In Burlingame the City Council is pursuing the utilization of two city-owned downtown parking lots, Parking Lots F & N, to create new affordable housing and a new parking structure. The housing part of this development is being referred to as the “Village at Burlingame.” The proposed development of Parking Lots F and N is intended to respond to these objectives with:  new housing units to support the community, including housing for seniors and for people working in the community; Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 2  additional, conveniently-located parking for use by downtown businesses and residents alike;  additional open space to be enjoyed by both current and new residents. For more general information about the proposed project and affordable housing, please refer to the attached “Village at Burlingame Frequently Asked Questions” prepared by staff and the developer. Although the purpose of the design review study meeting is only to review and discuss the proposed design of the project and not the number or type of units, staff thought it would be helpful to include this background information so that the Planning Commission has a full understanding of the context for the proposed project. Project Summary: In December 2014 the City of Burlingame distributed a Request for Proposals seeking qualified developers interested in partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking Lots F & N with affordable housing. The City Council's Downtown Specific Plan Implementation Subcommittee reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations for the City Council to consider. After several public hearings, the City Council selected The Pacific Companies as its preferred developer at its regular meeting of July 6, 2015. Since that time, the developer has been doing preliminary work on the project including financing, site conditions reconnaissance, and design development. The project site consists of one parcel which extends from Park Road to Lorton Avenue (see attached aerial). It is currently owned by the City of Burlingame and contains Parking Lot F, a public parking lot with 97 stalls. The majority of the site (200 feet wide x 150 deep) has 200 feet of frontage on Park Road and is zoned HMU (Howard Mixed Use District); the remaining portion of the site (45 feet wide x 150 feet deep) has 45 feet of frontage on Lorton Avenue and is zoned R-4 (within the R-4 Incentive District Subarea). For the proposed project, the Park Road frontage is considered the front of the lot. The site is bordered by one and two-story commercial buildings to the north along Howard Avenue, a six-story multifamily residential building to the south along Park Road, Parking Lot G and two-story multifamily residential buildings to the west across the street on Park Road, and two and three-story multifamily residential buildings to the east along Lorton Avenue. The proposed project consists of decommissioning the existing public parking lot (Parking Lot F) and constructing a new, 5-story 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development. The existing 97 parking stalls that would be displaced would be provided in a proposed parking garage on Parking Lot N (see Item 9b, 160 Lorton Avenue). The broad intent is for the units to be rented by people working in Burlingame, and Burlingame seniors. Prospective residents must fall within the income limits and pass typical tenant background checks. To the full degree allowed by fair housing regulations, Burlingame residents and/or workers will receive preference for selection. It is intended that the proposed project has a mix of families and ages. The program design is still under review, but in general is intended to give a preference for public agency employees as well as persons living or working in Burlingame. The ground floor contains a lobby, community space and mechanical rooms to house the buildings’ generator, transformer, electrical equipment, fire riser, and refuse storage. The applicant notes that the community space (2,127 SF) will be a common space available solely for use by residents of the building for residential purposes (recreational activities, birthday parties, gatherings, etc.). The applicant notes that this space would not be available for rent by outside groups or community members. The majority of the building contains five levels of residential units above a partially below grade parking garage. The front portion of the building, above the ground floor space, contains four levels of residential units. The proposed apartment development would contain 78 workforce housing units (61, one bedroom units and 17, two-bedroom units) and 54 senior apartment units (40, one-bedroom units and 14, two-bedroom units). Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 3 One-bedroom workforce units would range from 508 SF - 682 SF and two-bedroom workforce units would range from 559 - 889 SF. One-bedroom senior apartment units would range from 561 SF - 633 SF and two- bedroom senior apartment units would range from 726 - 890 SF. The average unit size of the entire project is 627 SF. A total of 146 parking spaces are provided on-site in a partially above grade and below grade parking garage. 141 parking spaces are provided in a puzzle stacker system and 5 independent disabled-accessible spaces are provided within the parking garage. All vehicles would enter and exit the project through a driveway entrance on Park Road. The proposed project would provide bicycle storage space within the parking garage (see floor plan on sheet A3.1). This is not currently required under the zoning code but is recommended in Chapter 7.4.3 (page 7-11) of Downtown Specific Plan. Code Section 25.33.020 allows multifamily residential uses, with an average maximum unit size of 1,250 SF as a permitted use; the average unit size for the proposed development is 627 SF. Staff would note that apartment projects are not required to provide common open space or private open spaces, as is required for condominium developments. However, common spaces for residents and visitors, including an enclosed entry, lobby, community space (described above) and interior courtyard are provided on the ground floor and above the parking garage. In addition, some units would have decks or balconies. Lastly, an open park area is provided within the 45’ x 150’ portion of lot at the rear of the site along Lorton Avenue (see ‘Landscaping’ on page 5). In summary, the following applications are requested for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new five story, 132-unit affordable workforce and senior apartment development (C.S. 25.33.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan). Design Review: The purpose of this design review study meeting is to provide initial comments on design elements as they relate to the proposed project. The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 through 5-16) provides design guidelines specifically for mixed-use areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area, including developments on public parking lots. Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) provides design guidelines specifically for residential projects within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Because this is a 100% residential project, the Design standards for residential areas are generally most applicable in this case and can be found in Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) of the Downtown Specific Plan. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, including residential and mixed use areas. These applicable sections of the Design and Character chapters of the Downtown Specific Plan have been attached for reference. The materials proposed for the exterior of the building include stucco walls and roof cornices, horizontal lap siding (fiber cement), metal fascia and railings, and wood trellises at balconies. Vinyl windows (bronze color) with Hardie board trim are proposed throughout the building; a storefront window system is proposed at the ground level along Park Road. Please refer to the building elevations on sheets A4.1 and A4.2, color elevations and materials on sheets A7.1 through A7.4, and perspective renderings on sheets A10.1 and A10.2 for additional information. Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 4 The following design review criteria for development projects in commercial, industrial and mixed use districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (Code Section 25.57.030 (g) (1-6): 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Off-Street Parking: Parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit. Zoning Code Section 25.70.032 provides reduced residential parking standards specific to properties located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. In the Howard Avenue Mixed Use District, the minimum parking requirement is 1 space for each studio unit or one-bedroom unit and 1.5 spaces for each two-bedroom unit. The proposed project includes 101, one-bedroom units and 31, two-bedroom units. Therefore, the zoning code requires a total of 148 off-street parking spaces where 146 parking spaces are proposed. However, based on State of California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.3 – Density Bonuses and Other Incentives, if a development includes the maximum percentage of low-income or very low income units (20% required; 90% proposed), is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the development, then, upon the request of the developer, a city cannot not impose a vehicular parking ratio that exceeds 0.5 spaces per bedroom. The proposed project meets these minimum criteria. Based on a total of 163 bedrooms proposed by the project, a 0.5 space per bedroom ratio would correspond to 82 parking spaces. The 146 spaces proposed for the project significantly exceeds the density bonus off-street parking provisions. The applicant is proposing to install a puzzle stacker parking system manufactured by CityLift (see specifications on sheet A.15). A total of 141 parking spaces are provided by the puzzle stackers; 5 independent disabled-accessible spaces are provided within the garage. An area for on-site deliveries is not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking required on-site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. As shown on sheets A1.5 and A6.1, the puzzle stacker system is partially above and below grade, extending approximately 15’-6” below grade. The proposed puzzle stacker system accommodates three vehicles stacked vertically and provides independent access to all cars parked on the system (one empty slot required for each unit). All vehicles would enter and exit the project through a driveway entrance on Park Road. Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 5 The Municipal Code does not include specifications for parking lifts or automated parking systems, so the City currently does not have a standard mechanism for review and approval. However, as a policy the Downtown Specific Plan encourages “creative approaches” to providing on-site parking including automated parking systems. The parking system could each be considered within the scope of “creative approaches” to providing the required on-site parking. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with parking lifts. Landscaping: The project site is currently covered primarily by a paved public parking lot, with several small areas of landscaping at the entrance to the parking lot along Park Road. There would be one protected size Cypress tree proposed for removal located along the rear property line. The tree trunk appears to be partially located on the subject property and the adjacent property at 137 Lorton Avenue. Planning staff would note that California Civil Code Section 834 states: “Trees, whose trunks stand partly on the land of two or more conterminous owners, belong to them in common.” Therefore, the City, applicant and property owner at 137 Lorton Avenue will need to provide consent to remove this tree at the time an application for a tree removal permit is submitted to the Parks Division. There are no landscaping requirements in the HMU District. However, landscaping is proposed throughout the site and is shown on the Landscape Plans (sheets L1 through L4). A total of 10 Queen Palm trees are proposed to be planted on the site, including 7 in the park area and 3 in containers within the interior courtyard of the building. A variety of groundcovers, vines, shrubs and perennials are proposed along the front of the building and at select locations on the first and second levels. Within the park area (45’ x 150’ portion of lot at the rear of the site off Lorton Avenue), the proposed landscaping consists of soft landscaping (groundcover, vines, shrubs, perennials and seven trees), decorative paving and patios, raised planters, seating, a children’s playground and two shade structures. Please refer to sheets L1 and L4 for more information. Planning staff would note that the park area also serves as a required 20-foot wide fire lane as required by the Fire Division. There are three Magnolia trees along Park Road in front of the project site. All three street trees would be removed and replaced with eight new street trees along Park Road. The applicant will be working with the Parks Division to select the appropriate street tree species prior to the building permit submittal. The applicant would obtain the required tree removal permits from the Parks and Recreation Director pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.04, Street Trees. There are no existing street trees in front of the subject property along Lorton Avenue and none are proposed to be planted here. This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 6 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) Lot Area: 36,750 SF Plans date stamped: February 21, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED USE Use: 132-unit workforce and senior apartment development with 627 SF average unit size; community space available only to residents on ground floor ¹ Multifamily residential with 1,250 average maximum unit size; residential allowed above the ground floor SETBACKS Front (Park Road): 0’-0” (all floors) No minimum required Left Side: (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): (5th flr): 3'-4" to building 3'-4" to building 3'-4" to balcony 6’-6” to balcony 10’-0” to building No minimum required Right Side (1st flr): (2nd flr): (3rd flr): (4th flr): (5th flr): 3’-4” ² 3’-4” to 10’-0” ² 3’-4” to 10’-0” ² 3’-4” to 10’-0” ² 3’-4” to 10’-0” ² 7'-0" 8'-0" 9'-0" 10’-0” 11’-0” Rear: (1st flr): (2nd – 5th flrs): 3'-4" 5'-0" No minimum required BUILDING ENVELOPE: Ground Floor Ceiling: 15’-0” 15’-0” Building Height: 55'-0" 55’-0” (rooftop enclosures allowed to extend additional 10’) OFF-STREET PARKING Off-Street Parking: 147 spaces provided in automated puzzle parking system 163 bedrooms x 0.5 = 82 82 spaces by California State Government Code 101, 1-bdrm units x 1 = 101 spaces 31, 2-bdrm units x 1.5 = 46.5 spaces 148 spaces by Zoning Code ¹ Density bonus incentive for concession to not provide a commercial use on the ground floor (C.S. 25.63.040 (b)). 2 Density bonus incentive for concession to apply the HMU zoning district setback requirement along the right side property line (C.S. 25.63.040 (b)). Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 7 Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. The applicant is currently working with several City divisions on addressing their plan review comments. Affordable (Below-Market Rate) Units/Density Bonus Incentives: The City’s previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development standard incentives offered by the ordinance. Code Section 25.63.040 (b) allows up to three development incentives for projects with 30% of the total units offered to those that qualify as low-income earners.1 The applicant is proposing to include 90% (120 of the 132 total units) to be affordable offered at the low- income level and therefore under C.S. 25.63.040 (b) the project is eligible for up to three concessions received in the form of the following:  Right Side Setback Requirement: The project application includes a density bonus concession to apply the general HMU zoning district setback requirement along the right side property line (C.S. 25.63.040 (b)). There is no minimum side setback required under the general HMU District regulations. The HMU District regulations require that R-3 side setback standards (Section 25.28.075) shall apply to property line(s) with an existing residential use on the abutting property. In this case, the R-3 side setback standards apply along the right side property line since an existing multifamily residential use abuts this property line. In addition, the minimum side setback for a structure is required to be increased by one foot for each story above the first story (Code Section 25.28.075 (e)). With this application, the proposed right side setback is 3’-4” on the first floor and varies from 3’-4” to 10’-0” on the upper four levels. Based on the width of the lot, the first floor would otherwise be required to be setback a minimum of 7’-0” and an additional 1’-0” for each floor above the first floor (8’-0” on second floor, 9’-0” on third floor, 10’-0” on fourth floor and 11’-0” on fifth floor). The adjacent six-story multifamily residential building to the south (110 Park Road) is located approximately 50 feet away from the property line. The ramp to the underground parking garage, gazebo, open patio and pool are located between the property line and the existing building.  Use on Ground Floor: The project application includes a density bonus concession to not provide a commercial use on the ground floor. The HMU District Regulations allow multifamily residential uses above the first floor and commercial uses on the ground floor (Code Section 25.33.020 (i) (2)). With this application, there is no commercial use proposed on the ground floor. Instead, proposed uses on the ground floor are associated with the residential use and include a lobby, community space and mechanical rooms to house the buildings’ generator, transformer, electrical equipment, fire riser, a nd refuse storage. The community space (2,127 SF) will be a common space available solely for use by residents of the building for residential purposes (recreational activities, birthday parties, gatherings, etc.). The Downtown Specific Plan and corresponding zoning do not provide for specific density limits (dwelling units per acre); therefore, a number of bonus units is not applicable. However, because the proposed project includes 90% of the units to be offered to low-income households, under C.S. 25.63 the project is eligible for concessions received in building form of which in practice would allow the project to reach a higher density than what would have been able to under the regular development standards. 1 By government definition, “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of “Area Median Income” (AMI). The 2017 San Mateo County AMI is $80,700 for a single-person household, $92,250 for a two-person household, $103,750 for a three-person household, and $115,300 for a four-person household. Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 8 General Plan/Specific Plan: The existing Burlingame General Plan designates the main portion of the site as Shopping and Service and the rear portion of the site as High Density Residential. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (with amendments in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017), which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan; the majority of the site is in the Howard Avenue Mixed Use District and the remaining portion of the site is in the R-4 Incentive District. The Plan describes the Howard Avenue Mixed Use District and R-4 Incentive District as follows: The Howard Avenue Area is the area to the south of Burlingame Avenue and consists of a mix of uses, including retail and office along Howard Avenue, and multifamily residential uses between Howard and Peninsula Avenues. Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue together form the “Burlingame commercial” area. Ground floor retail use is encouraged, and housing is allowed on the upper levels above commercial uses. The interceding side streets - Lorton Avenue, Park Road, Primrose Road and Highland Avenue - will act as connector streets with the commercial uses along those streets strengthening the relationship between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue. The R-4 Incentive District consists of lands in the southern portion of Downtown, on either side of Bayswater Avenue between Highland Avenue and Park Road. The land uses for this area are predominantly higher density multifamily residential. The development standards for this district provide incentives to encourage high density residential uses. In addition to residential uses, small corner retails stores serving local residents would be allowed. Public Facilities Impact Fee: The purpose of public facilities impact fees is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses, the number of dwelling units, and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit offset if the existing development is a lawful use under this title, including a nonconforming use. Based on the proposed 132-unit multifamily dwelling apartment development, the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is $730,884.00. Environmental Review: Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is intended to promote in-fill development within urbanized areas. This class consists of in-fill projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in significant impacts on endangered, rare, or threatened species, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utilities, and public services. Application of this exemption, as all categorical exemptions, is limited by the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15332 states: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The City has entered into a contract with ICF to prepare and document the analysis, findings, and determination that the proposed project will have been reviewed and in compliance with the CEQA, pursuant to Section 15332 of the 2016 CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The scope of work includes analysis of potential Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 9 transportation/traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. If it is determined, through the analysis process, that additional CEQA review is required (such as an Initial Study), the scope of work will be revised accordingly. The site contains an existing soil vapor treatment system which was treating a commingled plume from multiple offsite sources. According to the Public Works Department, the treatment system was decommissioned in December 2017 and a new location is now being considered. The status of the remediation will be included in the analysis to be prepared by ICF. Design Review Criteria: A design review application in commercial, industrial and mixed use districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (Code Section 25.57.030 g, 1-6): (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Planning Commission Action: 1. Design Review Study: The Planning Commission should comment on the design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and to the following design criteria for commercial projects: a. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and b. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and c. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and d. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and Design Review 150 Park Road (Parking Lot F) 10 e. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and f. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner c. Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Email submitted by Jennifer Pfaff, dated February 20, 2018 Frequently Asked Questions – Village at Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines (reference only) Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 16, 2018 Aerial Photo 1 Village at Burlingame Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) February 20, 2018 A: INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT: What are key changes in our region’s housing and traffic conditions? How has that affected who lives and works in Burlingame? For years, housing development in Burlingame and San Mateo County has not kept up with the thousands of new jobs added, and the problem has gotten worse in recent years. Between 2010 and 2016 San Mateo County added 79,000 new jobs, but only 4,941 new homes of all types. The resulting jobs-housing gap ratio was 16. In other words, only one new housing unit was built for every 16 new jobs created. Very limited growth in housing relative to fast growth in jobs is sometimes called the “jobs-housing gap.” These conditions drive up the cost of housing for homebuyers and renters alike, produces congestion and long commutes for workers, and forces friends and family members to move away because they can no longer afford to live here. Past surveys have told us that Burlingame residents are concerned about their family members, co-workers and fellow residents who can no longer afford to live in the community. People are also concerned about local businesses, schools and service providers that are struggling to hire and retain people. As we face this difficult situation that impacts our entire region as well as our city, we also know that our community has innovators and problem solvers. Together, we can make meaningful progress. How are communities in San Mateo County responding? Most are encouraging development of new housing near public transit, updating downtown planning policies and exploring new sources of funding. In Burlingame we have a unique opportunity to utilize two city-owned downtown parking lots (F&N) to create new affordable housing as well as a new parking structure. The housing part of this development is called the “Village at Burlingame.” 2 B: DOWNTOWN: What is the City’s vision for the Downtown? 1. Why is the city developing the parking lots? In 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The culmination of a multi-year community planning process, the Plan provides a framework for sustaining the existing success of the downtown and accommodating new opportunities. One aspect of the Downtown Specific Plan is a focus on better use of parking facilities downtown, particularly the twenty City-owned surface parking lots. The plan encourages parking lots to be converted to different uses over time, such as housing, open space, and additional parking. Choices about uses are guided by what will most benefit the downtown area. Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council has expressed a keen interest in expanding the housing options available in Burlingame, including the provision of more affordable housing options, a category of housing that is minimally represented amongst the existing housing stock within the community. Extremely high property values and rental rates for housing within the Bay Area Region and particularly on the San Francisco Peninsula have escalated dramatically in recent years, forcing many who have enjoyed the quality of life in Burlingame to leave due to the ever- increasing costs of housing in the community. Likewise, as parking is important to Downtown businesses and residents alike, the City Council has been evaluating options for improving parking in the downtown area. This includes accommodating demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or structured parking. The proposed development of Parking Lots F and N is intended to respond to these objectives with:  new housing units to support the community, including housing for seniors and for people working in the community;  additional, conveniently-located parking for use by downtown businesses and residents alike;  additional open space to be enjoyed by both current and new residents. 3 Location of Parking Lots F and N 4 C: MIX OF HOUSING CHOICES: What types of housing are available to enhance Burlingame’s overall quality of life (relative to longtime residents, newer residents, economic vitality, etc.?) 1. What is the official government definition of Affordable Housing? And how do federal, state and local governments help support making housing more affordable to more people? When people talk about “affordable housing, they may be referring to housing that fits a person’s or family’s budget. In conversation, it is common to hear, “we need more affordable housing” or “I wish I could find affordable housing in the Bay Area.” The term “affordable housing” also has an official technical definition when referred to by local, state and federal governments. In this case, the commonly used definition of affordable rental housing, created by the federal government, is that a household’s housing is affordable if that household pays no more than 30 percent of its income towards rent and utilities. “Household income” refers to the combined incomes of all of the residents of a single house or apartment, whether related by family or not. In expensive areas of the country such as the Bay Area, housing costs for low-income and moderate-income families regularly exceed the accepted definition of affordable housing. In order to create more affordable conditions in high-cost areas, housing may receive some type of subsidy to reduce the cost to the renter. Subsidies can occur in two ways – directly to the renter through such programs as the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) or indirectly to the building owner who then agrees to use the subsidy to charge below-market rate rents. Owner subsidies are accomplished in many ways such as, land donations (reducing the cost of development), tax credit financing (federal and state), direct government payments (San Mateo County’s Affordable Housing Fund), low interest loans or zoning incentives. 2. What does “workforce” housing mean? Workforce housing is a term that is increasingly used by governments, planners and organizations concerned with housing policy or advocacy. The term does not have a 5 well- recognized definition, but is often used to describe a portion of the population that is seen as earning too much to qualify for subsidized housing and earning too little to be able to afford rents in a region. In the Bay Area, the term is frequently used to describe households earning between 80% - 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). Some planners reduce the lower end to 60% of AMI because housing subsidies are not available to households earning above this level. 3. How does eligibility for “affordable housing” work? Every housing subsidy program uses a central statistic — the area median income, or AMI — to determine whether families are eligible for the program and at what level. The area median income (AMI) is the household income for the median — or middle — household in a region. Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates the median income for every metropolitan region in the country. HUD focuses on the region — rather than just a city — because families searching for housing are likely to look beyond the city itself to find a place to live. In San Mateo County, the HUD-defined “Unadjusted Area Median Income” (AMI) for a family of four currently is $115,300. 4. What is the meaning of low, very low, moderate, etc. income? By government definition, “Moderate-Income” means a household with an income that is 120% of the “Area Median Income” (AMI), “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of AMI, “Very-Low Income” means a household with an income that is 50% of AMI, and “Extremely-Low Income” means a household with an income at 30% of AMI. The chart below lists these income definitions and the amount of rent a family in San Mateo County can “afford” (i.e., that is no more than 30% of their household income). 6 5. What ages qualify for Senior Housing? Depending on the project and circumstances, possible answers can be 55+ or 62. At the Village at Burlingame the age qualification will be 55+. D: ABOUT THE VILLAGE: Project Overview and City’s role 1. What are the number of units in the building? The current proposal for the Village at Burlingame, which will evolve over time, is designed to be an intergenerational complex with approximately 132 units over all, 78 for workforce and 54 for seniors. The proposal envisions a mix of one and two bedroom units. 2. How tall will the project be? In the current proposal, the height is proposed to be 55 feet to the top of the roof parapet (in other words, the top of the outer wall). Enclosures for the elevators and stairwells will extend an additional 10 feet to contain mechanical equipment and to allow emergency access to the rooftop. 3. Who will rent these units? The broad intent is for the units to be rented by people working in Burlingame, and Burlingame seniors. Prospective residents must fall within the income limits and pass typical tenant background checks. To the full degree allowed by fair housing regulations, Burlingame residents and/or workers will receive preference for selection. It is intended that the proposed project has a mix of families and ages. The program design is still under review, but in general is intended to give a preference for public agency employees as well as persons living or working in Burlingame. 4. What are the requirements to rent here? The workforce units are intended for people who work in the local area, so all units will have income requirements. The income requirements will vary depending on the designated income level assigned to each unit, ranging from 50% of area median income up to 120% of area median income. 7 The senior units are intended for seniors with incomes ranging from 50% of area median income, up to market rate. The income requirements will vary depending on the designated income level assigned to each unit. 5. How many people will be occupying each unit? Is this limited? The units have either one or two bedrooms. While too soon to adopt occupancy standards, the City will insist that best industry practices be followed by the owner/operator. 6. How close to the property line will the building be? The front of the building is designed to be built up to the sidewalk with no setback, in the manner of traditional downtown buildings. The sides are proposed to vary from 3’-4” to 10 feet, depending on the portion of the building. The rear is proposed to be 5 feet from the property line. 7. Can my friends or family get on the wait list for these units? A process, including any local preferences, will be established when completion is closer and that outreach will be especially intensive within Burlingame. 8. When will the construction start? Building Permits are estimated to take approximately 5-6 months after the project is approved by the City Council. Preliminary grading and excavation may begin prior to full permits depending on time of year. Obtaining funding commitments from the state and, if needed, from the county are variables that may add to the timeline. Depending on the timing of the City approval and finalizing the funding commitments, a possible timeframe could be in 2019 or 2020 for all permits to be issued and construction of the structures to be underway. 9. How long will construction last? Both the housing and the parking structure are anticipated to be completed within 24-28 months of start of construction. The duration of construction will depend on the time of year excavation can begin and the final requirements imposed through the project review process. 10. What is the rent charged? By rent is determined by income category and household size. Generally rents are set to be no more than 30% of their household income for each income category. The 8 income categories and rents are adjusted each year based on the area median income of San Mateo County. 11. Will this be “Section 8” housing? Families with vouchers may not qualify for this housing depending upon the target income requirements of the development. In general, because the building is anticipated to be built with other housing subsidies, vouchers would not be appropriate. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, commonly known as Section 8, is a federal program of rental subsidies that is administered by local housing authorities. It is not an entitlement program and the amount available for subsidies each year depends upon federal budget allocation. In general, a qualifying family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit that meets program maximum rental limits as well as health and safety requirements. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the housing authority on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. E: ABOUT PARKING AND LOCAL TRAFFIC FLOW 1. What will parking be like with the new apartments? Parking will be provided at the same ratio as other downtown apartment projects. There will be 1 space for each 1-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each 2-bedroom unit. In practice, the residents of some two bedroom units will need two spaces, whereas others will only need one space, so the 1.5 space ratio is an average. The City has found these parking ratios are suitable for downtown residential apartment developments, given the proximity to transit and services. 2. Where will the cars park that used to park in the lot? As a part of the overall project, the developer is required to replace the 97 public parking spaces displaced by the construction of the apartment development on parking Lot F. These spaces will be replaced via construction of a five-level public parking 9 structure on parking Lot N that would aggregate the public parking spaces on Lots F (97 spaces) and N (109 spaces) for a total of replacement 206 spaces. 3. Where will guests visiting the apartments park? Guests would most likely park in Parking Lot G, across Park Road from the apartments, or parking structure at Lot N, through the park and across Lorton Avenue. 4. Who is building the parking garage? The parking garage would be built by the housing developer, Pacific West Communities. However the City of Burlingame would ultimately own the structure. 5. How tall is the parking garage and how many stalls will there be? The parking structure would have five parking levels. The fifth parking level would be on the roof, so the structure would more closely resemble a four-story building. The total height would be 46’-6”. 6. How many parking stalls will be in the new garage, and how many more is that compared to the current, surface lots? The proposed garage would have a total of 388 spaces. This includes 182 new, additional spaces that will be provided beyond those in the existing lots. The additional spaces are intended to serve the downtown area and its surrounding neighborhoods as public parking. 7. Where will the drop off and pick up of the school happen since many parents use the city lot for this purpose? Public Parking Lot G, across Park Road and adjacent to St Catherine of Siena School, will remain a public parking lot and continue to be available. Did you find this document useful? If you have suggestions for other information we should include, please contact Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager, by phone at 650-558-7253 or by email at kgardiner@burlingame.org. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.0 Design & Character This chapter contains design guidelines and development standards that will guide and define the character of new development in the Downtown Specific Plan area. The design guidelines are intended to implement the vision and goals of the Specific Plan, as presented in the other chapters. The design guidelines are not directive, but are intended to establish the guiding principles for ensuring good design that effectively implement the goals and policies, as well as land use decisions, of the Downtown Specific Plan. The Design Guidelines are crafted to: • Provide property owners and developers with a clear vision of the type and quality of development the city desires and expects in Downtown. • Serve as a set of guiding design principles for public officials, developers, designers and the community to use, which are sensitive to the conditions of each subarea of the planning area. • Give the City of Burlingame tools to evaluate and guide project design. • Supplement the Commercial Design Guidebook with guidelines and standards specific to Downtown. The guidelines and standards that have been developed for the Downtown Specific Plan area are based on the land uses and character of each Downtown subarea. The Subareas are described in the Land Use Chapter (Chapter 3) of this plan. Within the Specific Plan area, any actions proposing substantial physical changes to any parcel of land or existing structure, or the proposed construction of new structures, shall be subject to Design Review as out- lined in Section 25.57 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. Applications shall be reviewed for consistency with all applicable Downtown Specific Plan and General Plan provisions, and applicable City ordinances and standards. Design guidelines and standards in both the Downtown Specific Plan and the Commercial Design Guidebook apply to all downtown projects and provide the basis for design review. 5.1 DOWNTOWN ARCHITECTURAL SETTING Downtown Burlingame was the focal point of the City during its early development, and over the years it has continued to be the symbolic center of the community. It continues to be a defined, identifiable place with distinct boundaries and a unique urban scale. A range of architectural styles and periods are represented within Downtown and serve to create a distinctive character for the area, one that is highly valued by the City’s residents and that leaves a lasting, positive impression upon visitors. New buildings and rehabilitation projects should draw from and build upon this character. 5.0 Design & Character 5- In the commercial areas, there is a consistency and cohesion of archi- tectural styles. Many buildings utilize classical proportions, and are enriched with detailing such as pilasters, wood detailing, and embossed relief. There are also some fine modern buildings, which overall are compatible in scale and detail with more historical examples. The "core" area centered around Burlingame and Howard Avenues func- tions as a defined retail center. In the residential neighborhoods, styles are more varied. Cohesion is achieved by compatibility in building scale and massing, along with consistently lush landscaping. All buildings within each area of Downtown should contribute to the area’s identity as a part of Downtown Burlingame. The core commer- cial areas centered on Burlingame and Howard Avenues should have a lively mix of buildings at different heights and styles. Ground floor retail should relate to Downtown’s traditional storefronts by using large display windows, kickplates, and clerestory and transom windows. In the California Drive commercial areas, development may be lower in intensity but should continue to build on the Downtown core’s classic, restrained styling. In the residential areas, new projects should rein- force the fine-grained scale and quiet amenity that exists. The variety of architectural styles is an asset to Downtown, and both historically inspired and modern styles should be accommodated. Regardless of architectural style and approach, new buildings should exhibit fine-grained, pedestrian-friendly scale and details. 5.2 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE AREAS The commercial areas of Downtown Burlingame have historically been the most active, public places in the community. New commercial and mixed use buildings should contribute to the existing “Main Street” character. They should enhance the pedestrian nature of Downtown, defining the street as a public place, with active storefronts, windows, FIGURE 5-1: The core commercial areas centered on Burlingame and Howard Avenues features a range of architectural styles and periods. FIGURE 5-2: Commercial and mixed use development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area are subject to the City of Burlingame’s Commercial Design Guidebook. 5.0 Design & Character 5- and doors at ground level. Architecture should include the type of well-crafted architectural details that are common to Burlingame, and convey that architectural heritage in terms of material, color, propor- tion, window type, and overall composition. Commercial and mixed use development projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area are subject to the City of Burlingame’s Commercial Design Guidebook. In addition, the following recommendations apply specifically to Downtown development: 5.2.1 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER 5.2.1.1 Entrances Commercial entrances should be recessed from the façade, creating a small alcove. This establishes a more definitive sense of entry and affords an alternative view of merchandise in the display windows. Existing recessed entries should be retained. The doors of a commercial storefront typically contain large glass panels with vertical proportions that present a visual connection to the streetscape. Storefronts should continue to exhibit this pattern, whether a new project or the re-use of an existing space. 5.2.1.2 Ground-Level Corner Uses High activity-generating uses are especially encouraged at the Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue intersections with side streets. Store façades along side streets should be designed to help entice pedestrians onto the side streets. To achieve this, the façades should include windows and continuation of the architectural details from the main storefront extending across the sidestreet façade. Entries to elevator lobbies should not be located at these intersections where they would serve to diminish pedestrian activity at these highly visible locations. FIGURE 5-3: Commercial entrances should be recessed from the facade, creating a small alcove. FIGURE 5-4: Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate special features such as rounded or cut corners, special corner entrances, display windows, corner roof features, etc. but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.1.3 Ground Level Treatment The unique community character created by the mixture of building ages and architectural styles should be maintained. All street-frontage establishments should provide primary access directly to the street. Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian’s range of touch and view. For instance, the use of special storefront detailing and façade ornamentation such as plant- ers, flower boxes, and special materials can reinforce the pedestrian nature of the street. To ensure ease in caring for landscaping, major remodels and new projects should provide outdoor water spigots and electric sockets. When businesses have access to water, they can more easily care for their plants and trees, and keep the streets cleaned as well. 5.2.1.4 Site Access Curb cuts are prohibited on Burlingame Avenue and should be avoided to the extent feasible on Howard Avenue and California Drive. Any on-site parking garage should be accessed in a safe, attractive manner and should not significantly detract from pedestrian flow, nor interfere with the orderly flow of traffic on public streets and within parking lots. Where possible, parking garage access should be from the side streets or alleys. In some cases, access to on-site parking could be provided from city-owned parking lots. FIGURE 5-6: Downtown Burlingame is characterized by relatively narrow building increments, predominantly 15 to 50 feet in width. FIGURE 5-5: Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian’s range of touch and view. 50' 25'25'15'15' 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.2.2 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy 5.2.2.1 Building Scale Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such as setbacks and height. Beyond conforming to the basic building mass, new development should preserve the rhythm and fine- grained pedestrian scale of existing buildings within the commercial districts by respecting the relatively narrow building increments, which typically range from 15 feet to no more than 50 feet in width. To be consistent with the existing character of Downtown Burlingame, to provide a welcoming retail environment, and to accommodate a range of potential uses over the lifetime of the building, first floors should have a floor to finished ceiling height of at least 15 feet. New development should also be sensitive to the human scale of Downtown with sensitivity to building height. Buildings should not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street and should account for the relationship between building height and street width. Where building mass and height might overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street, design strategies such as upper floor setbacks and articulated building mass should be considered to ensure comfortable human scale. FIGURE 5-7: Buildings should not overwhelm the pedestrian experience on the street and should account for the relationship between building height and street width. Wider Narrow FIGURE 5-8: Building scale should preserve he rhythm and fine-grained pedestrian character of downtown, particularly at the pedestrian level. Ground floor bays with narrow, pedestrian-scaled increments 15'-50'15'-50'15'-50' Upper floors may have wider bays as part of an overall composition Minimum 15' floor-to-ceiling height on ground floor 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-9: oN-SITE STRUCTURED PARKING IN CommERCIAl AND mIXED USE AREAS A. Wrapped on Ground Level An above-ground parking structure where non-parking uses such as retail spaces are integrated into the ground level of the building along the street frontage of the parcel. The parking structure may be exposed to the building street frontage on upper levels, with appropriate design and screening. Application: Municipal parking structure. B. Wrapped on All Levels An above-ground parking structure where non-parking uses are integrated into the building along the entire street frontage of the parcel on all levels of the building. The parking structure is totally hidden behind a "liner building" of non-parking uses. Application: Projects with relatively large amount of parking provided on-site. Typically requires a relatively large site to accommodate the parking structure and liner building. C. Underground A parking structure that is fully submerged underground and is not visible from the street. Depending on amount of parking provided, may also include a level of at-grade parking hidden behind non- parking uses such as retail. Application: Can be suitable for projects on relatively small sites, as well as larger sites. Could also be combined with in-lieu arrangement, where some parking is provided on-site (such as for residential uses) and other parking is provided off-site in a municipal facility through in-lieu fees. Parking Structure Retail Parking Structure Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office Underground Parking Upper-Level Courtyard Ground-Level Courtyard Parking Structure Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office Underground Parking Retail Residential/Office Residential/Office Residential/Office 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.2.2 on-Site Structured Parking Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures or under- ground. However, the parking should not overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Ground level enclosed parking should be fronted or wrapped with actively occupied spaces such as storefronts and lobbies. Access to parking shall be designed so that it is not prominent and ties into the adjacent architectural style. 5.2.2.3 Upper-Story Setbacks – Burlingame Avenue Frontages While the height limit allowed by conditional use permit is 55 feet on Burlingame Avenue, many existing buildings and in particular, many buildings with historic character, have façades of a smaller scale. New buildings and building additions should reinforce the historic pattern with heights and setbacks oriented to the many two- and three-story buildings. Where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, newer taller buildings should consider matching lower façades to those of adjoining lower buildings and setting upper floors back at least 10 feet from the lower façade. 5.2.2.4 Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area The unique mix of residential and commercial uses in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use area offers an opportunity to create a niche district with its own style distinct from other parts of downtown. Recognizing the varied auto-related commercial character of the area, new development and redevelopment projects within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area should be encouraged to feature a blend of both commercial and residential design features. Design features could include corrugated metal roofs and sidings, simple multi-paned metal rimmed windows, and recycled "green" building materials. Buildings may even draw inspiration from the style of utilitarian buildings found in such mixed use districts such as sheds and quonset huts. The creation of this commercial, live/work identity for the Myrtle Road area will allow it to be a unique subarea of Downtown Burlingame that accommodates infill while respecting existing uses. FIGURE 5-11: Design features such as corrugated metal roofs and sidings, simple multi-paned metal rimmed windows, and recycled "green" building materials can maintain the existing varied character of the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area. FIGURE 5-10: Where neighboring buildings are three stories or lower in height, newer taller buildings should consider matching lower facades to those of adjoining lower buildings with upper floors set back. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.3 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy 5.2.3.1 Facade Design To maintain the present scale and character of buildings in Downtown, large uninterrupted expanses of horizontal and vertical wall surface should be avoided. Building façades should respond to the relatively narrow increments of development (15 to 50 feet) with variation in fenestration, building materials and/or building planes. Facades should have generous reveals such as inset doorways and windows. Doors, windows, and details should be in keeping with pedestrian scale, as opposed to a monumental scale that is out of proportion to the surrounding context. Design details should be authentic and have purpose, rather than being applied or strictly decorative. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways and windows). Facades on both new and rehabilitated buildings should include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas and awnings. New buildings need not mimic an “historic” architectural style (and in fact should avoid imitation that results in caricatures) but should include a level of archi- tectural detailing and quality of materials that complements existing buildings. Where older exiting buildings are renovated, preservation of existing architectural details and materials is encouraged. Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the façade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the façade. Storefronts can be demarcated from each other within the same build- ing by subtle variations in the color or pattern of surfaces of doors, tiling, signage or entries. Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate features such as rounded or cut corners, corner entrances, display win- dows, corner roof features, wrap-around awnings/overhangs, blade signs, etc. FIGURE 5-12: Facades on both new and rehabilitated buildings should include the elements that make up a complete storefront including doors, display windows, bulkheads, signage areas and awnings. Interesting Roofline or Profile Cornice and Ornamentation Recessed Windows Create Shade and Shadow Building Ornament Recesses in Facade Create Interest and Depth Transom Windows High Quality Storefront Glazing Awnings Within Building Bays Street Entrance Doors Every 50 Feet Maximum, 15-25 Feet Preferred Signage to be Integral with Building Design Ornamental Base, 18" to 30" Height Compositional Change in Facade Every 15 to 50 Feet FIGURE 5-13: Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the façade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the facade. Large Space Large Space Small Space Small Space 15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50'15'-50' 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.3.2 Windows General Windows are important for providing "eyes on the street" and enliven- ing streetscapes. Building walls should be punctuated by well-propor- tioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be inset from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. The use of high-quality window products that contrib- ute to the richness and detail of the façade is encouraged. Reflective glass is considered an undesirable material because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a forbidding appearance. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture pres- ent in the Downtown area is encouraged. Display Windows Display windows should be designed to enliven the street and provide pedestrian views into the interior of the storefront. Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape. Glass used in the display windows should be clear so it is possible to see inside, and display cases that block views into stores are strongly discouraged. Noticably tinted glazing is discouraged and mirrored/reflective glass is not permitted. 5.2.3.3 Awnings Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protec- tion. The placement of awnings should relate to the major architec- tural elements of the facade, avoiding covering any transom windows or architectural elements such as belt courses, decorative trim and simi- lar features. The position of awnings should also relate to the pedes- trian and provide a sense of shelter, with awnings situated to corre- spond to the tops of doorways and scale of pedestrians rather than high up on the facade with a monumental scale. Separate awnings should be used over individual storefront bays as defined by the col- umns or pilasters rather than placing a continuous awning across the FIGURE 5-15: Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protection. FIGURE 5-14: Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape 5.0 Design & Character 5-0 building frontage. Backlit awnings that visually appear as large light sources will not be permitted. 5.2.3.3 Materials Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest; reference should be made to materials used in notable examples of his- toric Downtown architecture. Metal siding and large expanses of stuc- co or wood siding are also to be avoided, except in the Myrtle Mixed Use area. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, and tile accents should also offer color variation. Character and richness in Downtown can be enhanced from the incor- poration of details and ornamentation into the design of the buildings. These elements can include elements that have been traditionally used such as cornices, brackets or moldings. 5.2.3.4 Rear and Side Facades Because the side streets and alleys in Downtown are highly visible and are used for both pedestrian access and vehicular access, rear and side façades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisti- cated levels of design and materials. Rear and side façades of existing buildings should be improved with design features and quality materi- als where possible. Buildings should have windows and doors oriented to the alleys and side streets. Entry doors, garage doors and windows should be attractive and durable. Where buildings abut public parking lots, they are strongly encouraged to have rear entrances in addition to their principal street entrances. Rear facades may look like the back of a building, but still be pleasant and inviting. Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. Roofs and trellises are recommended for screening views from above. Whenever possible, trash and recycling enclosures should be consolidated and designed to serve several adjacent businesses provided they do not become over- FIGURE 5-16: Rear and side facades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisticated levels of design and materials of a quality similar to front facades. Buildings facing public parking lots are strongly encouraged to have rear entrances in addition to their principal street entrances. FIGURE 5-17: Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. 8 0 Downtown Precise Plan A rea-Specific Standards, Guidelines and Pro t o t y p e s 8.Open Space Requirements For residential/mixed-use projects, a minimum of 30 percent of the site area must be devot- ed to open space.The Zoning Administrator may reduce the requirements for residential/mixed-use projects where it is found that such a reduction improves the quality of the project. 9.Development on Public Parking Lot A mixed-use development is allowed on one public parking lot in Area H. The development is subject to the requirements for Area H with these additional requirements or exceptions: a .Vehicular access shall be from Hope Street, Bryant Street or an adjacent alley; b .Existing public parking shall be replaced on-site; and c .Parking for private development shall be provided in accordance with Section II.C, except that the parking requirement cannot be met by paying in-lieu fees. See Guidelines: Development on Public Parking Lot. S e rvice facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the build - ing architecture in form, material and detail. 8 8 13.Guidelines for Rears of Buildings Because the alleys in downtown are highly visible and are used for both pedestrian access and vehicular service access, rear facades should exhibit high levels of design and materials qual- ity similar to front facades. Rear facades of existing buildings should be improved with design features and quality materials where possible. Buildings should have windows and doors oriented to the alley. Entry doors, garage doors and windows should be attractive and durable. Service facilities such as trash enclosures and mechanical equipment should be screened with enclosures and devices consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail. Roofs and trellises are recommended for screening views from above. Where security devices are desired or warranted, designs should be artful with decorative grillwork that enhances the overall building design. Alley areas should be well lit but should be designed so as not to adversely impact adjacent properties. Downtown Precise Plan A rea-Specific Standards, Guidelines and Pro t o t y p e s Trash and loading areas should be well screened from view in structures that are consistent with the building design in both materials and detailing. 5.0 Design & Character 5- sized or too ungainly. Care should be taken to ensure refuse areas do not become noxious or smelly. Where security devices are desired or warranted, designs should be art- ful with decorative grillwork that enhances the overall building design. Alley areas should be well lit but should be designed so they are attrac- tive and do not adversely impact adjacent properties and detract from the ambiance of Downtown. 5.2.4 SITE DESIGN AND AMENITIES 5.2.4.1 Building Coverage In order to create well-defined street spaces consistent with the scale of Downtown Burlingame, side yards are generally discouraged in favor of contiguous building façades along the street. However, narrow mid-block pedestrian passages that encourage through- block pedestrian circulation and/or arcaded spaces that create wider sidewalk areas for cafés, etc. are encouraged. 5.2.4.2 Open Space Private open space within Downtown is not intended to provide recreational or large landscaped areas, since this is a more urban environment. However, open space is an important element and should be used to articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential mixed-use developments, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards and perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged. Commercial development should typically have less open space in order to maintain a direct pedestrian relationship and continuous storefront streetscape. Entry alcoves, courtyards, and employee open space are examples. Open space for nonresidential projects should provide a visual amenity for the development and an attractive buffer to adjacent residential uses where applicable. FIGURE 5-18: Open spaces such as retail plazas and outdoor seating areas should be located at building entries, or along or near well- traveled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. FIGURE 5-19: In residential mixed-use developments, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards and perimeter landscaping. 5.0 Design & Character 5- Open spaces such as retail plazas and outdoor seating areas should be located at building entries, or along or near well-traveled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Plazas and open spaces should be generously landscaped with trees, planters and vines. Permeable paving and/or creative site planning elements such as rain gardens are encouraged to alleviate the impacts of paved areas on drainage. Low walls may be used to screen service and mechanical areas, create spatial definition and to provide seating. Low walls should be designed of quality materials that are complementary to the architecture of the primary structure(s) on the property. 5.2.5 RESIDENTIAl mIXED-USE DEVEloPmENTS WITHIN COMMERCIAL AREAS 5.2.5.1 Setbacks To reinforce the Downtown commercial character of Downtown Burlingame, mixed-use buildings with a residential component shall conform to the setback standards for commercial projects (outlined in Table 3-1 in Chapter 3). The Community Development Director may allow increased side and rear setbacks to enhance the residential portion of a mixed-use project provided the setbacks do not detract from the commercial storefront character of the Downtown district. Setbacks and overall building form should maintain the human scale of Downtown and be in keeping with the character of the surround- ings, with emphasis on mainintaining an active street edge and sidewalk boundary. 5.2.5.2 Noise and Ground Vibrations Projects with a residential component on California Drive should be designed to minimize noise impacts on residents from the Caltrain FIGURE 5-20: To reinforce the Downtown commercial character of Downtown Burlingame, mixed-use buildings with a residential component shall conform to the setback standards for commercial projects. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-21: Parking garage access should be integrated into the overall design of the building façade and should minimize disruptions along the street frontage. line. A noise analysis prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer shall be required for all residential projects fronting California Drive. The acoustical engineer’s report shall identify any noise impacts and mea- sures to reduce these impacts to acceptable levels. 5.2.5.3 Parking Design Parking for residential uses shall be provided on-site per Downtown Specific Plan and zoning code requirements. Parking garage access should be integrated into the overall design of the building façade, should minimize disruptions along the street frontage, and impact should be softened with choice of materials and design details. Wherever possible, access should be provided from rear alleyways, or the least conspicuous location. Conveniently located and accessed bicycle parking is encouraged. 5.2.5.4 Service Areas Design of service areas shall be consistent with the general guidelines for rears of buildings in the commercial districts. On- site trash and recycling receptacles should be consolidated in an enclosure that is easily accessible for garbage pickup from a street or alley, and should be designed to serve multiple buildings whenever possible. 5.2.5.5 Ground-Level Treatment Commercial frontages should meet the general guidelines for ground-level treatment in the commercial districts. Commercial spaces should have a depth of at least 40 feet to ensure viability for a range of potential commercial tenants. Residential and commercial entrances should be separate and distinct. Common residential entries shall be designed in a manner to minimize their appearance at street level, so as not to adversely impact pedestrian character at street level. Stoops for residential units may also be appropriate in some instances. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.5.6 Development Massing Mixed use buildings will typically be taller than many of the existing buildings in Downtown. This additional height requires particular attention to the massing of the buildings to ensure an appropriate transition with the surrounding development. New residential development on larger parcels should echo the narrow parcel increments that characterize Downtown, with sensitivity to the traditional building size and storefronts. 5.2.5.7 Facade Treatment To maintain the scale and character of the Downtown district, large, uninterrupted expanses of horizontal and vertical wall surface should be avoided. Building façades should respond to the relatively narrow patterns of development (15 to 50 feet) with variation in fenestration, building materials and/or building planes. Stoops and balconies can enliven façades and allow "eyes on the street." Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate special features such as rounded or cut corners, special corner entrances, display windows, cor- ner roof features, etc. but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. Mixed use buildings should continue architectural treat- ments from the front around to exposed side and rear façades, and should include windows on any exposed wall. 5.2.5.8 Roof Treatment Mixed-use buildings with a residential component should exhibit rooflines and architectural character consistent with the Downtown commercial character. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed from view and/or integrated within the architecture of the building and screened for noise. Roof terraces are encouraged for enjoyment by residents, and green roofs and cool/white roofs are encouraged to mitigate heat transmission. FIGURE 5-22: New residential development on larger parcels should echo the narrow parcel increments that characterize Downtown, with sensitivity to the traditional building size and storefronts. 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.2.5.9 Lighting Exterior lighting features shall be of an intensity and design to main- tain the small town ambiance of Downtown. Exterior lighting shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or wall. 5.2.5.10 open Space Open Space in mixed use projects falls into three categories: public- oriented open space, semi-public open space, and private open space. Design and landscaping should respond to the particular use and nature of each type of open space: • Public-oriented open space designed to be accessed by the general public, such as entry plazas. Public-oriented open space should be welcoming and include pedestrian-scaled amenities that invite social interaction such as benches and planters. • Semi-public open space such as outdoor dining areas and residential courtyards. These spaces have a more limited access, defined by elements such as low walls, landscaping elements, and decorative gates. For mixed use projects with a residential component, open space should include evergreen trees for screening, specimen trees for visual color, and attractive shrubs and ground cover. Low walls and planters may be used to provide privacy between open space areas and residences. Semi-public open spaces should also be designed with pedestrian-scaled amenities that invite informal social interaction such as seating areas, clustered mailboxes, and inset doorways. • Private open space such as balconies, patios, and stoops. Private open space can be defined with elements such as railings, low walls, but should be encouraged to maintain views and provide interaction with the street and other more publicly- oriented open spaces to provide "eyes on the street." FIGURE 5-23: Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate special features such as rounded or cut corners, special corner entrances, display windows, corner roof features FIGURE 5-24: mixed-use buildings with a residential component should exhibit an architectural character consistent with the Downtown commercial character. Rooflines can emphasize significant elements such as entries and bays Corner buildings should be used to reinforce important intersections. A retail entry can strengthen the corner. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.2.6 mIXED-USE DEVEloPmENT oN PUBlIC PARKING LOTS For infill development on City-owned public parking lots, all development regulations and guidelines for the respective district apply. In addition, all required parking for the new development as well as parking to replace all existing spaces shall be provided on-site in a parking structure, ideally with access from an alley and one of the adjacent side or cross-streets. Where possible, parking structures should be provided underground. An above- grade parking structure may be considered when it can be located on the rear of the lot, with appropriate commercial uses along the front and sides. Rooftop parking may also be possible in certain situations. Infill buildings should be carefully designed and detailed so that scale and massing responds to the traditional small Downtown parcel scale and pro- vides a sensitive transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. Passageways connecting the parking lot development with nearby com- mercial streets should be carefully detailed to enhance the pedestrian expe- rience by leading pedestrians to the active shopping areas. Passageways should include windows and doors from the adjacent building, seating, planting and attractive lighting. Where the passageway meets the new building, a carefully designed transition such as a plaza open space should occur and a continuation of the passageway to the side street should be considered. Bicycle parking should be incorporated into the passageway design whenever possible. FIGURE 5-25: An above-grade parking structure may be considered when it can be located on the rear of the lot, with appropriate commercial uses along the front and sides. FIGURE 5-26: Passageways connecting the parking lot development with nearby commercial streets should be carefully detailed to enhance the pedestrian experience by leading pedestrians to the active shopping areas. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.3 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS Residential buildings in Downtown Burlingame offer higher density development than elsewhere in the City, providing a lifestyle for those who want to live within walking distance of the Downtown commercial areas and transit opportunities. New buildings will mediate this density with thoughtful design and details that create attractive, livable residential environments. Buildings should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas. Below are recommendations for the architectural treatment and organization of buildings and open space, and the suggested criteria for reviewing projects during the design review process. 5.3.1 ARCHITECTURAl DIVERSITy Residential projects should respect the diversity of building types and styles in the residential areas Downtown and seek to support it by applying the following principles: • Design buildings to maintain general compatibility with the neighborhood. • Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles. • Maintains the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used. • Create buildings with quality materials and thoughtful design to last into the future. 5.3.2 PEDESTRIAN USE AND CHARACTER 5.3.2.1 Entrances Primary pedestrian access to all ground-level uses should be from the sidewalk along the public street. Entries should be clearly defined features of front façades. Common entrances for multiple units are FIGURE 5-27: Buildings should contribute to an appealing neighborhood character and should employ recognizable residential design details such as visible residential entries, porches, bay windows and roof overhangs, and balconies and small outdoor areas. 35MAYFIELD PRECISE PLAN 4USFFU&MFWBUJPOB 'BDBEFTTIPVMEJODMVEFQPSDIFT QSPKFDUJOHFBWFTBOEPWFSIBOHT BOEPUIFSUSBEJUJPOBMBSDIJUFDUVSBMFMFNFOUTUIBUQSPWJEFSFTJEFOUJBMTDBMFBOEIFMQCSFBLVQCVJMEJOHNBTT#VJMEJOH&OUSBODFTTIPVMECFFBTZUPJEFOUJGZBOEEJTUJOHVJTIFEGSPNUIFSFTUPGUIFCVJMEJOHɨFZTIPVMECFQBSUPGBDMFBSFOUSZTFRVFODF FYUFOEJOHGSPNUIFQVCMJDTJEFXBMLUPUIFQSJWBUFGSPOUEPPS&OUSBODFTGSPNQBTFPTNBZCFBMMPXFEPOBMJNJUFECBTJTɨFGPMMPXJOHFOUSBODFFMFNFOUTBSFSFDPNNFOEFEB 4UPPQTBOEPS0QFO1PSDIFTTIPVME GBDFUIFTUSFFUBUSFHVMBSJOUFSWBMT XIJDIDPSSFTQPOEUPUIFWFSUJDBM NPEVMFTPGCVJMEJOHVOJUTɨFTUPPQT TIPVMECFXJEFFOPVHIGPSQFPQMFUP TJUPOBOEUPNBLFFOUSJFTJOWJUJOH 0QFOQPSDIFTTIPVMEIBWFBUUSBDUJWF CBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHTBOEBSPPGUIBU DPNQMFNFOUTUIFQJUDIBOENBUFSJBMPG UIFNBJOSPPG C 4UBJSTTIPVMECFCPYFEBOEGSBNFE CZBUUSBDUJWFTUFQQFECVMLIFBET XBMMT  PSCBMVTUSBEFSBJMJOHT#VMMOPTFUSFBET BSFSFDPNNFOEFE0QFOPSinPBUJOHw FYUFSJPSTUBJSTTIPVMEOPUCFVTFE D -PX)FEHFT 'FODFTBOEPS&OUSZ (BUFTTIPVMECFVTFEUPEFmOFUIF FEHFCFUXFFOUIFQVCMJDTUSFFUBOE QSJWBUFQSPQFSUZ E 0SOBNFOUBM-JHIUJOHPGQPSDIFTBOE XBMLTUPIJHIMJHIUFOUSBODFTBOEBEE TFDVSJUZ F -BOETDBQF&MFNFOUTTVDIBTUSFMMJTFT  BSCPST BOETQFDJBMMBOETDBQFNBUFSJBMT Low Hedges, Fences and/or entr gates should be used to define the edge between public and private property. Facades should include prches, projecting eaves and overhangs, and other traditional architectural elements to provide a residential scale. FIGURE 5-28: Entries should be clearly defined features of front façades, and are encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces that invite informal social interaction with neighbors. 5.0 Design & Character 5- encouraged to have appropriately-scaled, usable gathering spaces at or adjacent to entrances that invite informal social interaction with neighbors. 5.3.2.2 Ground Level Treatment Residential development may have a finished floor elevation up to 5 feet above sidewalk level to provide more interior privacy for residents. Entry porches or stoops along the street are encouraged to bridge this change in elevation and connect these units to the sidewalk to minimize any physical separation from the street level. The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and clear orientation to the street. 5.3.2.3 Site Access Curb cuts should be minimized to promote traffic and pedestrian safety and create cohesive landscaping and building façades. A maximum of two curb cuts should be provided for projects requiring 30 parking spaces or more; for projects with less than 30 spaces, only one curb cut should be provided. One-way driveways should have curb cuts with a fully depressed width no greater than 12 feet; two-way curb cuts should be no greater than 22 feet. On-site bicycle parking for residents is encouraged. 5.3.3 ARCHITECTURAl ComPATIBIlITy 5.3.3.1 Development Massing The residential areas within Downtown Burlingame have a range of building heights, and so particular attention must be paid to the massing of new buildings to ensure an appropriate transition with surrounding development. Massing and street façades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Burlingame neighborhoods. FIGURE 5-29: The street-level frontage should be visually interesting with frequent unit entrances and strong orientation to the street. FIGURE 5-30: Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. Orient doorways and windows to create a strong relationship with the street. Clearly defined entries that are proportional to size of building and use. Stoops provide transition to street, gathering place, define private space. 5.0 Design & Character 5- Articulation, setbacks, and materials should minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest. 5.3.3.2 on-Site Structured Parking Given the density and premium land values Downtown, new projects will likely provide on-site parking in enclosed garage structures, underground, or in “semi-depressed” garages that are partially underground and partially above ground. Parking should not be allowed to dominate the character of the project. Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible. If it is not possible to fully wrap the parking, it should be incorporated into the design of the facade. Semi-depressed parking (partly below ground and partly exposed above ground) should be screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony overhangs. 5.3.3.3 Roof Treatment Interesting and varied roof forms are encouraged. Rooflines should emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies. Rooftop equipment shall be concealed from view and/or integrated within the architecture of the building. 5.3.4 ARCHITECTURAl DESIGN CoNSISTENCy 5.3.4.1 Facade Design Facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Facades should have a variation of both positive space (massing) and negative space (plazas, inset doorways and windows). FIGURE 5-31: Where enclosed parking is at ground level, it should be fronted or wrapped with uses that can be occupied such as lobbies and living space when possible. Palo Alto:PTOD Overlay Zone -California Avenue Section 18.66.050 Context-Based Design d.L andscaping such as trees,shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorpo- rated into surface parking lots; e.Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance tra c calm- ing on the street . a.Parking is located behind buildings,below grade or,where those options are not feasible,screened by landscaping,low walls,etc.; b.Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible; c.Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops,balcony overhangs,and /or ar t ; 6. Parking DesignParkingneedsshall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to over whelm the character of theprojectordetractfromthepedestrianenvironment,such that : Landscaping should be incorporated into any surface parking lots. Parking should be wrapped by habitable uses when possible. Semi-depressed parking can be used to raise residential uses to provide privacy and op- por tunities for stoops and porches. Occupied space such as a lobby screens parking from sidewalk. Occupied space screens parking from sidewalk. FIGURE 5-32: Semi-depressed parking should be screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, porches, or balcony overhangs. Stoop Ventilation with decorative grillwork 5.0 Design & Character 5-0 Elements such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies should be visible to people on the street. Corner parcels are encouraged to incorporate features such as corner entrances, bay windows, and corner roof features, but should avoid monumentally-scaled elements such as towers. 5.3.4.2 Windows Building walls should be accented by well-proportioned openings that provide relief, detail and variation on the façade. Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. The use of high-quality window products that contribute to the richness, detail, and depth of the façade is encouraged. Windows with mullions should have individual window lights, rather than applied "snap-in" mullions that lack depth and are not integral to the window structure. Reflective glass is undesirable because of its tendency to create uncomfortable glare conditions and a visual barrier. Where residential uses are adjacent to each other, windows should be placed with regard to any open spaces or windows on neighboring buildings so as to protect the privacy of residents. 5.3.4.3 Materials Building materials should be richly detailed to provide visual interest. The use of materials that are reflected in the historic architecture present in the neighborhood is encouraged. Metal siding and large expanses of stucco or wood siding are also to be avoided. Roofing materials and accenting features such as canopies, cornices, tile accents, etc. should also offer color variation. Residential building materials should include quality details such as wrought iron, wood-framed windows, wood brackets and tile roofs. 5.3.5 SITE AMENITIES 5.3.5.1 Setbacks Table 3-2 in Chapter 3 specifies basic building standards such as setbacks and height. Building setbacks are intended to create FIGURE 5-34: Windows should be inset generously from the building wall to create shade and shadow detail. FIGURE 5-33: Residential facades should include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass. 5.0 Design & Character 5- a transition between the hardscape, urban environment of the commercial areas and the suburban setting in the surrounding neighborhoods. Setbacks have multiple purposes, including providing sunlight, places for landscaping, and areas for activity and recreation. Building setbacks should be appropriately landscaped to provide screening and introduce trees and plantings in this area. Landscaped setback areas should be integrated with buildings by providing openings in the building walls that connect the perimeter landscaping with interior courtyards and landscape pathways. Landscaping should be planned in relation to surrounding vegetative types with special consideration being given to native species where possible. Pathways and courtyards should be made of pervious materials to allow groundwater absorption. 5.3.5.2 Open Space Private on-site open space within the Downtown area is not intended to provide recreational space or large landscaped areas, since this is a more urban environment. However, open space is an important element for residential buildings and should be used to effectively articulate building forms, promote access to light and fresh air, and maintain privacy for Downtown residents. In residential development, most open space should be used to provide attractive amenities for residents, including interior courtyards, outdoor seating options and perimeter landscaping. Balconies and rooftop terraces are encouraged. Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, medium-sized trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces. Planters may be designed to not only accommodate colorful ornamental landscaping, but could also accommodate garden plots for "urban agriculture." Trees should be selected from the City's tree list. FIGURE 5-35: Where open space is situated over a structural slab, podium or rooftop it should have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and urban agriculture. 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4 ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ALL AREAS OF DOWNTOWN 5.4.1 LAND USE TRANSITIONS Where appropriate, when new projects are built adjacent to existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of adjacent properties. 5.4.1.1 Massing and Scale Transitions Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done through different building sizes or massing treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Massing and orientation of new buildings should respect the massing of neighboring structures by varying the massing within a project, stepping back upper stories, reducing mass by composition of solids and voids, and varying sizes of elements to transition to smaller scale buildings. 5.4.1.2 Privacy Privacy of neighboring structures should be maintained with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties, minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties, and limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties. 5.4.1.3 Boundaries Where appropriate, when different land uses or building scales are adjacent, boundaries should be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences. FIGURE 5-36: Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to lower can be done though building types or treatments that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses. Boundaries can be established by providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation, rather than walls or fences. Transition Area Medium Density Low Density High Density buffer / paseobuffer / mewsTransition Elements 2-Story 3-Story Low Density 1-2 Story street / mews4-Story FIGURE 5-37: Transitions can also be made by stepping massing down within a project, with lower building elements providing a buffer between taller elements and adjacent lower-density development. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-39: Example of two different land use intensities joined with a common paseo pathway. FIGURE 5-38: Following a cooperative, rather than defensive design approach for the spaces between buildings results in a more coherent downtown feel, as opposed to a collection of unrelated projects. PL PL DEFENSIVE Fence separates projects COOPERATIVE Plaza/pathway visually unites buildings 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4.2 SHADoW ImPACTS Every building invariably casts some shadows on adjoining parcels, public streets, and/or open spaces. However, as the design of a project is developed, consideration should be given to the potential shading impacts on surroundings. Site plans, massing, and building design should respond to potential shading issues, minimizing shading impacts where they would be undesirable, or conversely maximizing shading where it is desired. As part of the design review process, development in the Specific Plan Area that is proposed to be taller than existing surrounding structures should be evaluated for potential to create new shadows/ shade on public and/or quasi-public open spaces and major pedestrian routes. At a minimum, shadow diagrams should be prepared for 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM on March 21st, June 21st, September 21st, and December 21st (approximately corresponding to the solstices and equinoxes) to identify extreme conditions and trends. If warranted, diagrams could also be prepared for key dates or times of day — for example, whether a sidewalk or public space would be shaded at lunchtime during warmer months. FIGURE 5-40: Sample shadow analysis shows the range of shading conditions through the year. Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project 9 am 12 noon 3 pm March 21st March 21st March 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project June 21st June 21st June 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project September 21st September 21st September 21st Proposed Project Proposed Project Proposed Project December 21st December 21st December 21st 5.0 Design & Character 5-5 5.4.3 SUSTAINABIlITy AND GREEN BUIlDING DESIGN Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into projects. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction and aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: • Resilient, durable, sustainable materials and finishes. • Flexibility over time, to allow for re-use and adaptation. • Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation. • Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects. • Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, and provide on-site bicycle parking. • Maximize on-site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement. • On flat roofs, utilize cool/white roofs to minimize heat gain. • Design lighting, plumbing, and equipment for efficient energy use. • Create healthy indoor environments. • Pursue adaptive re-use of an existing building or portion of a building as an alternative to demolition and rebuilding. • Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants as part of project open space, or providing garden plots to residents for urban agriculture. To reduce carbon footprint, new projects are encouraged to follow the standards and guidelines of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), and pursue LEED certification if appropriate. FIGURE 5-41: Use of shading devices to control solar loads in summer and gain passive heat in winter. FIGURE 5-42: Minimize stormwater runoff to impermeable areas with landscaping, green roofs, and rain gardens when possible. Winter Sun Summer Sun South facing windows with shading devices to control overheating in Summer Direct sunlight through south facing windows would improve passive heating in Winter 5.0 Design & Character 5- 5.4.4 lANDSCAPE TREES The City of Burlingame has a long history of proactive tree planting and proper tree care. From the late 1800’s when trees were planted along El Camino Real and Easton Drive to the current day, Burlingame has enjoyed the many benefits trees provide to an urban area. Burlingame's longtime commitment to trees is evidenced by recogni- tion as a "Tree City USA" for 30 consecutive years. This is the longest streak in the County, 5th longest in the State and one of the longest in the Country for receiving this award. In Downtown Burlingame, trees include street trees lining sidewalks and roadways (typically within the public right-of-way), as well as trees on private property in settings such as landscaped setback areas, court- yards, and roof gardens. Chapter 4: Streetscapes & Open Space) provides guidance for street trees within the public right-of-way. Landscape trees on private prop- erty have equal importance as part of the "urban forest," in contrib- uting environmental and aesthetic benefits to downtown. Trees are important for their beauty, shade and coolness, economic benefits, and role in reducing energy use, pollution, and noise. The City of Burlingame has an Urban Forest Management Plan that includes policies and management practices for both city and private trees. Maintaining existing trees is a priority, and large trees on private property are protected by City Ordinance. Any tree with a circumfer- ence of 48 inches or more when measured 54 inches above the ground is a "Protected Tree." A permit is required to remove or heavily prune a protected tree. Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space plans. Property owners should consult the Burlingame Urban Forest Management Plan for design considerations, planting techniques, and maintenance guidance. FIGURE 5-43: Consistent with Burlingame's status as "Tree City USA," new projects are required to incorporate trees into landscape and private open space plans. 5.0 Design & Character 5- FIGURE 5-44: Downtown’s late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix of buildings. 5.4.5 PRESERVATIoN oF HISToRIC BUIlDINGS Downtown Burlingame is the symbolic and historic center of the City. The vision for Downtown is to preserve the mix of buildings, the pedestrian-scaled environment and the carefully designed public spaces that contribute to its special community character. Downtown’s flex- ible and timeless late 19th and early 20th Century buildings contribute historic character and distinctiveness to this desirable pattern and mix of buildings. New buildings should be sensitive to the historic scale and architecture of Downtown. Historic preservation and adaptive re-use is encouraged both to main- tain the unique ambience of Downtown Burlingame but also for eco- logical benefits. Preservation maximizes the use of existing materials and infrastructure, reduces waste, and preserves historic character. Historic buildings were often traditionally designed with many sustain- able features that responded to climate and site, and when effectively restored and reused, these features can bring about substantial energy savings. The guidelines in this chapter, together with the Commercial Design Guidebook for commercial and mixed use developments and the Inventory of Historic Resources are intended to ensure that both new development and improvements to existing properties are compatible with the historical character of Downtown and will be the basis of design review. Where a building is described in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the inventory should be consulted as part of the design review. Building characteristics described in the inventory should be a consideration in project design and review, together with other design considerations described in this chapter and in the Commercial Design Guidebook. 150 Park Road (Lot F), zoned HMU and R-4 Incentive District; 160 Lorton Avenue (Lot N), zoned R-4 Incentive District CODE REFERENCESOCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONAPARTMENT BUILDINGS = R−2AMENITY ROOMS= ACCESSORY TO R−2GROUND FLOOR COMMUNITY= A−3PARKING STRUCTURE = S−2DESIGN CRITERIA2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, & PLUMBING CODE2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODEUFAS − CURRENT EDITIONFAIR HOUSING ACT2016 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODEBUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPEAPARTMENT BUILDINGS = IA & TYPE IIIB2−HR EXTERIOR WALLS AT TYPE IIIB R−2 ABOVE PODIUMSEPARATED BY 3−HR HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLY PER CBC 510.2NFPA−13 AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM55’−0" HEIGHT LIMIT (75’ PER CBC)LEVEL 1 TO BE TYPE IA CONSTRUCTION PER CBC 510.2LEVEL 1 − 5 RESIDENTIAL TO BE TYPE IIIB PER CBC 510.2BUILDING AREA PROPOSED TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 137,368 SFLEVEL AREA OCCUPANCY ALLOWABLE AREALEVEL 0 − SUBGRADE 22,416 SF S−2 UL LEVEL 1 − COMMERCIAL 2,519 SF S−2 UL2,141 SF A−3 ULLEVEL 1 − RESIDENTIAL 19,027 SF R−2 48,000 SFLEVEL 2 23,686 SF R−2 48,000 SFLEVEL 3 22,896 SF R−2 48,000 SFLEVEL 4 22,319 SF R−2 48,000 SFLEVEL 5 22,314 SF R−2 48,000 SFTOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA PER CBC 506.2.3: Aa = [At + (NS X If)] x Sa Aa = 48,000 x 3 Aa = 144,000 SF > 137,368 SFALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR R−2 IIIB ABOVE TYPE IA PODIUM IS 5 STORIESADA STANDARDS THE FAIR HOUSING ACT (FHA)THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES AC (ADA)THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2016 (CBC), CHAPTERS 11A AND 11B* ALL PATHS OF TRAVEL AND COMMON USE SPACES WILL BE ACCESSIBLE AND ALL LIVING UNITS WILL BE ADAPTABLE.PROJECT FUNDING NO PUBLIC MONEY WILL BE USED IN FUNDING.TAX CREDIT APPLICATION WILL BE SUBMITTED.NOTE:ALL PATHS OF TRAVEL AND COMMON USE SPACES WILL BE ACCESSIBLE AND ALL LIVING UNITS WILL BEADAPTABLE.CONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS: 8:00AM − 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM − 6:00PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWEDA GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THEDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270T1.201/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWTHE VILLAGE AT BURLINGAMEARCHITECTURALA1.1A SITE PLAN − OVERALLA1.1B SITE PLAN 1:10A1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONSA1.3 EXISTING AND PROPOSEDA1.4 ADA PATH OF TRAVELA1.5 SITE DETAILSA1.6 SITE DETAILSA2.1 UNIT PLANSA3.1 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 0 − SUB GRADEA3.2 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 1 − COMMERCIALA3.3 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 1 − RESIDENTIALA3.4 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 2A3.5 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 3A3.6 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 4A3.7 FLOOR PLANS − LEVEL 5A4.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.3 ALLOWABLE AREA CALCSA6.1 BUILDING SECTIONSA7.1 COLOR BOARDA7.2 COLOR BOARDA7.3 COLOR BOARDA7.4 COLOR BOARDA9.1 ROOF PLANA10.1 PERSPECTIVEA10.2 AERIAL PERSPECTIVEA12.1 DETAILSA13.1 AREA PLANSPROJECT SHEET INDEXT1.2 DRAWING SHEET INDEX, PROJECT DATA, TITLE SHEETT4.1 TYPICAL CBC 11A DETAILST4.2 TYPICAL CBC 11A DETAILST4.3 TYPICAL CBC 11B DETAILST4.4 UFAS DETAILSWORKFORCE / SENIOR HOUSING150 PARK ROAD − LOT FREVISIONSLANDSCAPEL1 PARK MASTER PLANL2 MASTER PLAN − STREET LEVELL3 MASTER PLAN − LEVEL 2 − RESIDENTIALL4 PARK PLAN AND PERSPECTIVESCIVILC1.1 CIVIL SURVEY PLANC1.2 CIVIL SITE PLANC1.3 STORMWATER CONTROL PLAN EXHIBIT N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A1.509/13/17THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONSCITY LIFTS CUT SHEET COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A1.601/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONSS02BOLLARD LIGHTINGPEDESTRIAN PODIUM DECKAND GROUND FLOORWB1SECURITY LIGHTINGWB3ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGWB3ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTINGWB1SECURITY LIGHTINGWP1PODIUM DECK LIGHTING <4"1 1/4" MIN.2" MAX.1 1/4"1 1/4"X > 24"X > 15"15" MAX.TYP. PAVEMENTSYMBOL PERSECTION 1109A.8.815"48" MAX.190"1COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270T4.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS1 Revision 1 Date 1 HEAD END WALL12" MIN.SEAT9A.54" MIN.17" − 18"17" − 19"6"6".6" MAX.1 1/4" TO 2"CONTROLEND WALLHEAD ENDWALLBACK WALLBACK WALLCONTROLEND WALLHEAD ENDWALLLENGTH OF BATHTUBLENGTH OF BATHTUB15"−16"15"−16"15"−16"33"−36"54" MIN.COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270T4.201/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 11B−403.5.2−CLEAR WIDTH AT TURN11B−305.7−MANEUVERING CLEARANCE11B−307.2−LIMITS OF PROTRUDING OBJECTS11B−307.3−POST−MOUNTED PROTRUDINGOBJECTS11B−308.2.2−UNOBSTRUCTED HIGH FORWARDREACH11B−308.3.2−OBSTRUCTED HIGH SIDE REACH11B−308.2.2−OBSTRUCTED HIGH FORWARDREACH11B−404.2.3−CLEAR WIDTH OF DOORWAYS11B−307.4−VERTICAL CLEARANCE11B−403.5.1−CLEAR WIDTH OF AN ACCESSIBLEROUTE11B−306.3−KNEE CLEARANCE11B−306.2−TOE CLEARANCE11B−305.5−POSITION OF CLEAR FLOOR ORGROUND SPACE11B−611.4−HEIGHT OF LAUNDRYCOMPARTMENT OPENING11B−308.2.2−UNOBSTRUCTED SIDE REACH11B−407.2.2.2−VISIBLE HALL SIGNALS11B−407.2.3.1−DESIGNATION ON JAMBS OFELEVATOR HOISTWAY ENTRANCES20NTS191817NTSNTSNTS12NTS11NTS13NTS9NTS10NTS14NTS6NTS7NTS8NTS5NTS4NTS3NTS2NTS1NTS11B−407.4.1−ELEVATOR CAR DIMENSIONS11B−703.4.2−LOCATION OF TACTILE SIGNSAT DOORS16NTSFIGURE 11B−305.7.1FIGURE 305.7.2FIGURE 11B−303.2VERTICAL CHANGE IN LEVELFIGURE 11B−303.3VERTICAL CHANGE IN LEVEL11B−303−CHANGES IN LEVEL15NTS11B−609.3−SPACING OF GRAB BARS21NTSCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270T4.301/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS UFAS NOTESKITCHENS: ACCESSIBLE OR ADAPTABLE KITCHENS AND THEIR COMPONENTSSHALL BE ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.CLEARANCES. CLEARANCES BETWEEN ALL OPPOSING BASE CABINETS, COUNTERTOPS, APPLIANCES OR WALLS SHALL BE 40" MINIMUM, EXCEPT IN U−SHAPEDKITCHENS, WHERE SUCH CLEARANCES SHALL BE 60" MINIMUM.CLEAR FLOOR SPACE. A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AT LEAST 30" BY 48" THAT ALLOWSEITHER A FORWARD OR A PARALLEL APPROACH BY A PERSON IN A WHEELCHAIRSHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL APPLIANCES IN THE KITCHEN, INCLUDING THE RANGEOR COOKTOP, OVEN, REFRIGERATOR, DISHWASHER AND TRASH COMPACTOR.CONTROLS. ALL CONTROL IN KITCHEN SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:(1) FORWARD REACH 15" MIN. AND 48" MAX. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR(2) SIDE REACH 9" MIN. AND 54" MAX. ABOVE FINISH FLOOR.EXCEPT WHERE THE USE OF SPECIAL EQUIPMENT DICTATESOTHERWISE, ELECTRICAL AND COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMRECEPTACLES ON WALL SHALL BE MOUNTED NO LESS THAN 15"ABOVE FLOOR.OPERATION. CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITHONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, OR TWISTING OFTHE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS SHALL BE NOGREATER THAN 5 LBF.WORK SURFACES. AT LEAST ONE 30 IN. SECTION OF COUNTER SHALL PROVIDE AWORK SURFACE THAT COMPLIES WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:(1) THE COUNTER SHALL BE MOUNTED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 34"ABOVE THE FLOOR, MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR TO THE TOP OF THECOUNTER SURFACE, OR SHALL BE ADJUSTABLE OR REPLACEABLE AS AUNIT TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE HEIGHTS OF 28", 32" AND 36", MEASUREDFROM THE TOP OF THE COUNTER SURFACE.(2) BASE CABINETS SHALL BE REMOVABLE UNDER THE FULL 30" MINIMUMFRONTAGE OF THE COUNTER. THE FINISHED FLOOR SHALL EXTENDUNDER THE COUNTER TO THE WALL.(3) COUNTER THICKNESS AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURE SHALL BE 2"MAXIMUM OVER THE REQUIRED CLEAR AREA.(4) A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 30" BY 48" SHALL ALLOW A FORWARDAPPROACH TO THE COUNTER. NINETEEN INCHES MAXIMUM OF THECLEAR FLOOR SPACE MAY EXTEND UNDERNEATH THE COUNTER. THEKNEE SPACE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF 30" AND AMINIMUM CLEAR DEPTH OF 19.(5) THERE SHALL BE NO SHARP OR ABRASIVE SURFACES UNDER SUCHCOUNTERS.SINK. THE SINK AND SURROUNDING COUNTER SHALL COMPLY WITH THEFOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:(1) THE SINK AND SURROUNDING COUNTER SHALL BE MOUNTED AT AMAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 34" ABOVE THE FLOOR, MEASURED FROMTHE FLOOR TO THE TOP OF THE COUNTER SURFACE, OR SHALL BEADJUSTABLE OR REPLACEABLE AS A UNIT TO PROVIDE ALTERNATEHEIGHTS OF 28", 32" AND 36", MEASURED FROM THE FLOOR TO THE TOPOF THE COUNTER SURFACE OR SINK RIM. THE TOTAL WIDTH OF SINKAND COUNTER AREA SHALL BE 30".(2) THE DEPTH OF A SINK BOWL SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 6 1/2".ONLY ONE BOWL OF DOUBLE OR TRIPLE−BOWL SINKS NEEDS TO MEETTHIS REQUIREMENTS.(3) LEVER−OPERATED OR PUSH−TYPE FAUCETS ARE TWO ACCEPTABLEDESIGNS.(4) BASE CABINETS SHALL BE REMOVABLE UNDER THE 30" MINIMUMFRONTAGE OF THE SINK AND SURROUNDING COUNTER. THE FINISHEDFLOORING SHALL EXTEND UNDER THE COUNTER TO THE WALL.(5) COUNTER THICKNESS AND SUPPORTING STRUCTURES SHALL BE 2"MAXIMUM OVER THE REQUIRED CLEAR SPACE.(6) A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 30" BY 48" SHALL ALLOW FORWARDAPPROACH TO THE SINK. NINETEEN INCHES MAXIMUM OF THE CLEARFLOOR SPACE MAY EXTEND UNDERNEATH THE SINK. THE KNEE SPACESHALL HAVE A CLEAR WIDTH OF 30" AND A CLEAR DEPTH OF 19".(7) THERE SHALL BE NO SHARP OR ABRASIVE SURFACES UNDER SINKS.HOT WATER AND DRAIN PIPES UNDER THE SINKS SHALL BE INSULATEDOR OTHERWISE COVERED.(8) CONTROLS FOR STOVE/RANGE SHALL BE MOUNTED ON FRONTPANEL OF APPLIANCE. NO REACHING ACROSS BURNERS WILL BEALLOWED.RANGES AND COOKTOPS. THE LOCATION OF CONTROLS FOR RANGES ANDCOOKTOPS SHALL NOT REQUIRE REACHING ACROSS BURNERS.OVENS. OVENS SHALL BE OF THE SELF−CLEANING TYPE OR BE LOCATED ADJACENTTO AN ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT COUNTER WITH KNEE SPACE BELOW. FOR SIDE−OPENING OVENS, THE DOOR LATCH SIDE SHALL BE NEXT TO THE OPEN COUNTERSPACE AND THERE SHALL BE A PULL−OUT SHELF UNDER THE OVEN EXTENDING THEFULL WIDTH OF THE OVNR AND PULLING OUT NOT LESS THAN 10" WHEN FULLYEXTENDED. OVENS SHALL HAVE CONTROLS ON FRONT PANELS; THEY MAY BELOCATED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE DOOR.REFRIGERATOR / FREEZERS. PROVISION SHALL BE MADE FOR REFRIGERATORSWHICH ARE;(1) OF THE VERTICAL SIDE BY SIDE REFRIGERATOR / FREEZER TYPE OR(2) OF THE OVER−AND−UNDER TYPE AND MEET THE FOLLOWINGREQUIREMENTS:a. HAVE AT LEAST 50% OF THE FREEZER SPACE BELOW 54" ABOVE THE FLOOR.b. HAVE 100% OF THE REFRIGERATOR SPACE AND CONTROLS BELOW 54"FREEZERS WITH LESS THAN 100% OF THE STORAGE VOLUME WITHIN THE LIMITS SHALL BE THE SELF DEFROSTING TYPE.DISHWASHERS. DISHWASHERS SHALL HAVE ALL RACK SPACE ACCESSIBLE FROMTHE FRONT OF THE MACHINE FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING DISHES.KITCHEN STORAGE. CABINETS, DRAWERS AND SHELF AREAS SHALL HAVE THEFOLLOWING FEATURES:(1) MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 48" FOR AT LEAST ONE SHELF OF ALLCABINETS AND STORAGE SHELVES MOUNTED ABOVE WORK COUNTERS(2) DOOR PULLS OR HANDLES FOR WALL CABINETS SHALL BE MOUNTEDAS CLOSE TO THE BOTTOM OF CABINET DOORS AS POSSIBLE. DOORPULLS OR HANDLES FOR BASE CABINETS SHALL BE MOUNTED ASCLOSE TO THE TOP OF CABINET DOORS AS POSSIBLE.GRAB BARSALL HANDRAILS, GRAB BARS AND TUB AND SHOWER SEATS SHALL COMPLY WITHTHE FOLLOWING:(1) THE DIAMETER OR WIDTH OF THE GRIPPING SURFACES OF AHANDRAIL OR GRAB BAR SHALL BE 1 1/4" TO 1 1/2", OR THE SHAPE SHALLPROVIDE AN EQUIVALENT GRIPPING SURFACE. IF HANDRAILS OR GRABBARS ARE MOUNTED ADJACENT TO A WALL, THE SPACE BETWEEN THEWALL AND THE GRAB BAR SHALL BE 1 1/2". HANDRAILS MAY BE LOCATEDIN A RECESS IF THE RECESS IS A MAXIMUM OF 3" DEEP AND EXTENDS ATLEAST 18" ABOVE THE TOP OF THE RAIL.(2) THE STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF GRAB BARS, TUB AND SHOWERSEATS, FASTENERS, AND MOUNTING DEVICES SHALL MEET THEFOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS:a. BENDING STRESS IN A GRAB BAR OR SEAT INDUCED BY THE MAXIMUM BENDING MOMENT FROM THE APPLICATION OF 250 LBF. SHALL BE LESS THAN THE ALLOWABLE STRESS FOR THE MATERIAL OF THE GRAB BAR OR SEAT.b. SHEAR STRESS INDUCED IN A GRAB BAR OR SEAT BY THE APPLICATION OF 250 LBF SHALL BE LESS THAN THE ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS FOR THE MATERIAL OF THE GRAB BAR OR SEAT. IF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE GRAB BAR OR SEAT AND ITS MOUNTING BRACKET OR THEIR SUPPORT IS CONSIDERED TO BE FULLY RESTRAINED, THEN THE DIRECT AND TORSIONAL SHEAR STRESSES SHALL BE TOTALED FOR THE COMBINED SHEAR STRESS, WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THE ALLOWABLE SHEAR STRESS.c. SHEAR FORCE INDUCES IN A FASTENER OR MOUNTING DEVICE FROM THE APPLICATION OF 250 LBF SHALL BE LESS THAN THE ALLOWABLE LATERAL LOAD OF EITHER THE FASTENER OF MOUNTING DEVICE OR THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE, WHICH EVER IS THE SMALLER ALLOWABLE LOAD.GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT:(1) WHERE A TUB IS INSTALLED WITH SURROUNDING WALLS, GRAB BARREINFORCEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON EACH END OF THE BATHTUB32" TO 38" ABOVE THE FLOOR EXTENDING A MINIMUM OF 24" ALIGNEDWITH THE FRONT EDGE OF THE BATHTUB TOWARDS THE BACK WALL OFTHE BATHTUB. THE GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE A MINIMUMOF 6" NOMINAL HEIGHT.(2) GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE BACKWALL OF THE BATHTUB COMMENCING A MAXIMUM OF 6" ABOVE THEBATHTUB RIM AND EXTENDING UPWARD TO A POINT A MINIMUM OF 38"ABOVE THE FLOOR. THE GRAB BAR BACKING SHALL BE INSTALLEDHORIZONTALLY A LENGTH TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF A 48" GRABBAR WITH EACH END A MAXIMUM OF 6" FROM THE END WALLS OF THEBATHTUB. THE GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6"NOMINAL HEIGHT.(3) GRAB BAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE WALL INBACK OF THE TOILET BETWEEN 32" AND 38" ABOVE THE FLOOR. GRABBAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 6" NOMINAL IN HEIGHTAND 40" IN LENGTH. PROVISIONS FOR A FLOOR−MOUNTED, FOLDAWAYOR SIMILAR GRAB BAR AT THE SIDE MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF GRAB BARBACKING AT A SIDE WALL.DWELLING UNITSADAPTABILITY. ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE DESIGNED FOR EITHERPERMANENT ACCESSIBILITY OR ADAPTABILITY.1−5% OF TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PHYSICALLYDISABLED. THESE UNITS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:CONSUMER INFORMATION. TO ENSURE THAT THE EXISTENCE OF ADAPTABLEFEATURES WILL BE KNOWN TO THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF A DWELLING, THEFOLLOWING CONSUMER INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED IN EACH UNITAVAILABLE FOR OCCUPANCY:(1) NOTIFICATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF REMOVABLE CABINETS ANDBASES UNDER COUNTERS, SINKS, AND LAVATORIES.(2) NOTIFICATION OF THE PROVISIONS FOR THE INSTALLATION OFGRAB BARS AT TOILETS, BATHTUBS AND SHOWERS.(3) NOTIFICATION THAT THE DWELLING UNIT IS EQUIPPED TO HAVE AVISUAL EMERGENCY ALARM INSTALLED.(4) IDENTIFICATION OF THE LOCATION WHERE INFORMATION ANDINSTRUCTIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REMOVING CABINETS ANDBASES, INSTALLING A VISUAL EMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEM ANDINSTALLING GRAB BARS.(5) NOTIFICATION THAT THE DWELLING UNIT HAS BEEN DESIGNED INACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFORM FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITYSTANDARDS. IN ADDITION, THE PARTIES WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLEFOR MAKING ADAPTATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THEFOLLOWING INFORMATION:a. INSTRUCTION FOR ADJUSTING OR REPLACING KITCHEN COUNTER AND SINK HEIGHTS AND FOR REMOVAL OF CABINETS.b. A SCALE DRAWING SHOWING METHODS AND LOCATIONSFOR THE INSTALLATION OF GRAB BARS.c. A SCALE DRAWINGS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF ADJUSTABLE OR REPLACEABLE COUNTER AREAS AND REMOVABLE CABINETS.d. IDENTIFICATION OF THE LOCATION OF ANY EQUIPMENT AND PARTS REQUIRED FOR ADJUSTING OR REPLACING COUNTERTOPS, CABINETS AND SINKS.e. INSTRUCTIONS FOR INSTALLING A VISUAL EMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEM, IF THE DWELLING UNIT IS EQUIPPED FOR SUCH AN INSTALLATION.2−7% OF TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE HEARING ANDSIGHT IMPAIREDTHESE UNITS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:(1) AUDIBLE ALARMS. IF PROVIDED, AUDIBLE EMERGENCY ALARMS SHALL PRODUCE A SOUND THAT EXCEEDS THE PREVAILINGEQUIVALENT SOUND LEVEL IN THE ROOM OR SPACE BY AT LEAST 15DECIBELS OR EXCEEDS ANY MAXIMUM SOUND LEVEL WITH ADURATION OF 30 SECONDS BY 5 DECIBELS, WHICHEVER IS LOUDER.SOUND LEVELS FOR ALARM SIGNALS SHALL NOT EXCEED 120DECIBELS.(2) VISUAL ALARMS. IF PROVIDED, ELECTRICALLY POWEREDINTERNALLY ILLUMINATED EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNS SHALL FLASH ASVISUAL EMERGENCY ALARM IN CONJUNCTION WITH AUDIBLEEMERGENCY ALARMS. THE FLASHING FREQUENCY OF VISUAL ALARMDEVICES SHALL BE LESS THAN 5Hz. IF SUCH ALARMS USE ELECTRICITYFROM THE BUILDING AS A POWER SOURCE, THEN THEY SHALL BEINSTALLED ON THE SAME SYSTEM AS THE AUDIBLE EMERGENCYALARMS.EXCEPTIONS:a. VISUAL ALARM DEVICES THAT ARE MOUNTED ADJACENTTO EMERGENCY EXIT SIGNS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF FLASHING EXIT SIGNS.b. SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS UTILIZING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE VISUAL SYSTEMS SPECIFIED ABOVE IF EQUIVALENT PROTECTION ISAFFORDED HANDICAPPED USERS OF THE BUILDING OR FACILITY.(3) AUXILIARY ALARMS. ACCESSIBLE SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONSSHALL HAVE A VISUAL ALARM CONNECTED TO THE BUILDINGEMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEM OR SHALL HAVE A STANDARD 110−VOLTELECTRICAL RECEPTACLE INTO WHICH SUCH AN ALARM COULD BECONNECTED. INSTRUCTION FOR USE OF THE AUXILIARY ALARM ORCONNECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED.UNIT AREA(1) DOORS TO AND IN ACCESSIBLE SPACES THAT ARE INTENDED FORPASSAGE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR OPENING OF 32" WITH THEDOOR AT 90 DEGREES, MEASURED BETWEEN THE FACE OF THE DOORAND THE STOP. DOORS NOT REQUIRING FULL USER PASSAGE, SUCH ASSHALLOW CLOSETS, MAY HAVE THE CLEAR OPENING REDUCED TO 20"MINIMUM.(2) DOOR HARDWARE. HANDLES, PULLS, LATCHES, LOCKS AND OTHEROPERATING DEVICES ON ACCESSIBLE DOORS SHALL HAVE A SHAPETHAT IS EASY TO GRASP WITH ONE HAND AND DOES NOT REQUIRETIGHT GRASPING, TIGHT PINCHING OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST TOOPERATE. LEVER−OPERATED MECHANISMS, PUSH−TYPE MECHANISMSAND U−SHAPED HANDLES ARE ACCEPTABLE DESIGNS. WHEN SLIDINGDOORS ARE FULLY OPEN, OPERATING HARDWARE SHALL BE EXPOSEDAND USEABLE FROM BOTH SIDES.(3) DOOR CLOSER. IF A DOOR HAS A CLOSER, THEN THE SWEEP PERIODOF THE CLOSER SHALL BE ADJUSTED SO THAT FROM AN OPENPOSITION OF 70 DEGREES, THE DOOR WILL TAKE AT LEAST 3 SECONDSTO MOVE TO A POINT 3" FROM THE LATCH, MEASURED TO LEADINGEDGE OF THE DOOR.STORAGE(1) A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AT LEAST 30" BY 48" THAT ALLOWS FOREITHER FORWARD OR PARALLEL APPROACH BY A PERSON USING AWHEELCHAIR SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ACCESSIBLE STORAGE FACILITIES.(2) ACCESSIBLE STORAGE SPACES SHALL BE WITHIN AT LEAST ONE OFTHE REACHING RANGES (48" FORWARD APPROACH OR 54" SIDEAPPROACH). CLOTHS RODS SHALL BE MAXIMUM OF 54" FROM THE FLOOR.(3) HARDWARE FOR ACCESSIBLE STORAGE FACILITIES SHALL BEOPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING,PINCHING OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TOACTIVATE SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5LBS. TOUCH LATCHES AND U−SHAPED PULLS ARE ACCEPTABLE.BATHROOMS: ACCESSIBLE OR ADAPTABLE BATHROOMS SHALL BE ON ANACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:a. DOORS SHALL NOT SWING INTO THE CLEAR FLOOR SPACE REQUIREDFOR ANY FIXTURES.WATER CLOSETS(1) A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 30" WIDE BY 48" LONG SHALL BE PROVIDED INFRONT OF A LAVATORY TO ALLOW A FORWARD APPROACH ANDPARALLEL TO THE TUB. SUCH CLEAR FLOOR SPACE SHALL ADJOIN OROVERLAP THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND SHALL EXTEND INTO THE KNEEAND TOE SPACE UNDERNEATH THE LAVATORY. CLEAR FLOOR SPACEMAY BE ARRANGED TO ALLOW EITHER A LEFT−HANDED OR RIGHT−HANDED APPROACH.(2) THE HEIGHT OF ACCESSIBLE WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE A MINIMUMOF 15" AND A MAXIMUM OF 19" MEASURED TO THE TOP OF THE TOILETSEAT.(3) STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT OR OTHER PROVISIONS THAT WILLALLOW INSTALLATION OF GRAB BARS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THELOCATIONS SHOWN.(4) LOCATE TOILET TISSUE DISPENSERS WITHIN 13" OF THE FRONT EDGEOF THE TOILET SEAT.(5) TOILET FLUSH CONTROLS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND ANDSHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING OR TWISTING OF THEWRISTS. CONTROLS FOR THE FLUSH VALVES SHALL BE MOUNTED ONTOTHE WIDE SIDE OF THE TOILET AREAS NO MORE THAN 44" ABOVE THEFLOOR. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE THE CONTROLS SHALL BENO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS.(6) TOILETS SHALL BE LOCATED IN A MANNER THAT PERMIT A GRAB BARTO BE INSTALLED ON ONE SIDE OF THE FIXTURE. IN LOCATIONS WHERETOILETS ARE ADJACENT TO WALLS OR BATHTUBS, THE CENTERLINE OFTHE FIXTURE MUST BE A MINIMUM OF 16" FROM THE OBSTACLE ONBOTH SIDES. THE TOILET SHALL BE LOCATED IN A CLEAR SPACE 36" IN WIDTHAND 48" MINIMUM CLEAR SPACE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF TOILET. A FLIP−DOWN GRAB BAR MAY BE USED WHERE NO SIDE−WALL EXISTS.LAVATORY, MIRRORS AND MEDICINE CABINETS(1) LAVATORIES SHALL BE MOUNTED WITH THE RIM OR COUNTERSURFACE NO HIGHER THAN 34" ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR. PROVIDE ACLEARANCE OF AT LEAST 39" FROM THE FLOOR TO THE BOTTOM OF THEAPRON. KNEE AND TOE CLEARANCES SHALL COMPLY.(2) A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE 30" BY 48" SHALL BE PROVIDED IN FRONT OFTHE LAVATORY TO ALLOW FORWARD APPROACH. SUCH CLEAR FLOORSPACE SHALL ADJOIN OR OVERLAP AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND SHALLEXTEND A MAXIMUM OF 19" UNDERNEATH THE LAVATORY.(3) HOT WATER AND DRAIN PIPES UNDER LAVATORIES SHALL BEINSULATED OR OTHERWISE COVERED. THERE SHALL BE NO SHARP ORABRASIVE SURFACES UNDER LAVATORIES.(4) CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITHONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING ORTWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATECONTROLS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 LBF. LEVER−OPERATED,PUSH−TYPE AND ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED MECHANISMS AREEXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE DESIGNS. SELF CLOSING VALVES AREALLOWED IF THE FAUCET REMAINS OPEN FOR AT LEAST 10 SECONDS.(5) MIRRORS SHALL BE MOUNTED WITH THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THEREFLECTING SURFACE NO HIGHER THAN 40".(6) IF A CABINET IS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAVATORY IN ADAPTABLEBATHROOMS, THEN IT SHALL BE REMOVABLE TO PROVIDE THEREQUIRED CLEARANCES.(7) IF A MEDICINE CABINET IS PROVIDED ABOVE THE LAVATORY, THENTHE BOTTOM OF THE MEDICINE CABINET SHALL BE LOCATED WITH AUSABLE SHELF NO HIGHER THAN 44" ABOVE THE FLOOR.BATHTUBS(1) A CLEAR FLOOR SPACE OF 48"x60" SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FRONTAPPROACH BATHTUBS. AS SHOWN IN DIAGRAMS.(2) AN IN−TUB SEAT AT THE HEAD END OF THE TUB SHALL BE PROVIDED.THE STRUCTURAL STRENGTH OF SEATS AND THEIR ATTACHMENTSSHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE SHOWN LOCATIONS.(3) STRUCTURAL REINFORCEMENT OR OTHER PROVISIONS THAT WILLALLOW INSTALLATION OF GRAB BARS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THESHOWN LOCATIONS.(4) FAUCETS AND OTHER CONTROLS SHALL BE LOCATED 15" FROM BACKWALL OF TUB, NO HIGHER THAN 32".(5) CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITHONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING, ORTWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATECONTROLS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 LBF. LEVER−OPERATED,PUSH−TYPE AND ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED MECHANISMS AREEXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE DESIGNS.(7) SHOWER UNIT. A SHOWER SPRAY UNIT WITH A HOSE AND AT LEAST60 IN. LONG THAT CAN BE USED AS A FIXED SHOWER HEAD OR AS AHAND−HELD SHOWER SHALL BE PROVIDED.DISABLED ACCESS NOTES:ADAPTABILITY. ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE DESIGNED FOR EITHER(THESE NOTES ARE IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL DISABLED ACCESS NOTES ANDARE PER UNIFORM FEDERAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS − U.F.A.S. − AS REQUIREDBY H.U.D.)ACCESSIBLE ROUTE(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THESITE SHALL BE PROVIDED FROM PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION STOPS,ACCESSIBLE PARKING, AND ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADINGZONES, AND PUBLIC STREETS OR SIDEWALKS TO ACCESSIBLEBUILDING ENTRANCE THEY SERVE.(2) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL CONNECT ACCESSIBLEENTRANCE OF EACH ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN THEBUILDING OR FACILITY.(4) AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL CONNECT AT LEAST ONEACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE OF EACH ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT WITHTHOSE EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR SPACES AND FACILITIES THATSERVE THE ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT.(5) THE MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL BE36" EXCEPT AT DOORS. IF A PERSON IN A WHEELCHAIR MUST MAKE ATURN AROUND AN OBSTRUCTION, THE MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF THEACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL BE 48".(6) IF AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE HAS LESS THAN 60" CLEAR WIDTH, THENPASSING SPACES AT LEAST 60" BY 60" SHALL BE LOCATED ATREASONABLE INTERVALS NOT TO EXCEED 200 FT. A T−INTERSECTIONOF TWO CORRIDORS OR WALKS IS AN ACCEPTABLE PASSING SPACE.(7) WALKS, HALLS, CORRIDORS, PASSAGEWAYS, AISLES OR OTHERCIRCULATION SPACES SHALL HAVE 80" MINIMUM CLEAR HEAD ROOM.(8) GROUND FLOOR SURFACES ALONG ACCESSIBLE ROUTES AND IN AACCESSIBLE ROOMS AND SPACES, INCLUDING FLOORS, WALKS,RAMPS, STAIRS, AND CURB RAMPS, SHALL BE STABLE, FIRM AND SLIPRESISTANT.(9) CHANGES IN LEVEL UP TO 1/4" MAY BE VERTICAL AND WITHOUTEDGE TREATMENT. CHANGES IN LEVEL BETWEEN 1/4" AND 1/2" SHALLBE BEVELED AND SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 1:2. CHANGE IN LEVELGREATER THAN 1/2" SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MEANS OF A RAMP.(10) AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE WITH A RUNNING SLOPE GREATER THAN1:20 IS A RAMP AND SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING:a. THE LEAST POSSIBLE SLOPE SHALL BE USED FOR ANY RAMP. THE MAXIMUM SLOPE OF A RAMP IN NEW CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE 1:12. THE MAXIMUM RISE FOR ANYRUN SHALL BE 30". CURB RAMPS AND RAMPS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON EXISTING SITES OR IN EXITING BUILDINGSOR FACILITIES MAY HAVE A SLOPE NO GREATER THAN 1:6 FORA RUN NOT TO EXCEED 2 FT. MAY BE USED AS PART OF AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AT AN ENTRANCE.b. THE MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF A RAMP SHALL BE 36"c. RAMPS SHALL HAVE LEVEL LANDINGS AT THE BOTTOM AND TOP OF EACH RUN. THE LANDING SHALL BE AT LEAST ASWIDE AS THE RAMP RUN LEADING TO IT. THE LANDING LENGTH SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 60" CLEAR. IF RAMP CHANGES DIRECTION AT LANDINGS, THE MINIMUM LANDING SIZE SHALL BE 60".(11) OBJECTS PROJECTING FROM WALLS WITH THEIR LEADING EDGESBETWEEN 27" AND 80" ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR SHALL PROTRUDENO GREATER THAN 4" INTO WALKS, HALLS, CORRIDORS,PASSAGEWAYS, OR AISLES. OBJECTS MOUNTED WITH THEIR LEADINGEDGES BELOW 27" ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. PROTRUDINGOBJECTS SHALL NOT REDUCE THE CLEAR WIDTH OF AN ACCESSIBLEROUTE OR MANEUVERING SPACE. ELEVATORSACCESSIBLE ELEVATORS SHALL BE ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND SHALLCOMPLY WITH THE AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARD SAFETY CODE FORELEVATORS, ANSI A17.1−1978 AND A17.1a−1979.ELEVATOR OPERATION SHALL BE AUTOMATIC. EACH CAR SHALL BE QUIPPEDWITH A SELF−CLOSING FEATURE THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BRING THE CAR TOFLOOR LANDINGS WITHIN A TOLERANCE OF 1/2" UNDER RATED LOADING TO ZEROLOADING CONDITIONS. THIS SELF−LEVELING FEATURE SHALL BE AUTOMATIC ANDINDEPENDENT OF THE OPERATING DEVICE AND SHALL CORRECT THEOVERTRAVEL OR UNDERTRAVEL.CALL BUTTONS IN ELEVATOR LOBBIES AND HALLS SHALL BE CENTERED AT 42"ABOVE THE FLOOR. SUCH CALL BUTTONS SHALL HAVE VISUAL SIGNALS TOINDICATE WHEN EACH CALL IS REGISTERED AND WHEN EACH CALL ISANSWERED. CALL BUTTONS SHALL BE A MIN. OF 3/4" IN THE SMALLESTDIMENSIONS. THE BUTTON DESIGNATING THE UP DIRECTION SHALL BE ON TOP.BUTTONS SHALL BE RAISED OR FLUSH. OBJECTS MOUNTED BENEATH HALL CALLBUTTONS SHALL NOT PROJECT INTO THE ELEVATOR LOBBY MORE THAN 4".A VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE SIGNAL SHALL BE PROVIDED AT EACH HOISTWAYENTRANCE TO INDICATE WHICH CAR IS ANSWERING A CALL. AUDIBLE SIGNALSSHALL SOUND ONCE FOR THE UP DIRECTION AND TWICE FOR THE DOWNDIRECTION OR SHALL HAVE VERBAL ANNUCIATORS THAT SAY "UP" OR "DOWN."VISIBLE SIGNALS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES:(1) HALL LANTERN FIXTURES SHALL BE MOUNTED SO THAT THEIRCENTERLINE IS AT LEAST 72" ABOVE THE LOBBY FLOOR.(2) VISUAL ELEMENTS SHALL BE AT LEAST 2 1/2" IN THE SMALLESTDIRECTION.(3) SIGNAS SHALL BE VISIBLE FROM THE VICINITY OF THE HALL CALL BUTTON. IN−CAR LANTERNS LOCATED IN CARS, VISIBLE FROM THEVICINITY OF THE HALL CALL BUTTONS AND CONFORMING TO THE ABOVEREQUIREMENTS.ALL ELEVATOR HOISTWAY ENTRANCES HALL HAVE RAISED FLOOR DESIGNATIONSPROVIDED ON BOTH JAMBS. THE CENTERLINE OF THE CHARACTERS SHALL BE60" FROM THE FLOOR . SUCH CHARACTERS SHALL BE 2" HEIGH. PERMANENTLYAPPLIED PLATES ARE ACCEPTABLE IF THEY ARE PERMANENTLY FIXED TO THEJAMBS.DOOR PROTECTION AND REOPENING DEVICE − IF A SAFETY DOOR EDGE ISPROVIDED IN EXISTING AUTOMATIC ELEVATORS, THEN THE AUTOMATIC DOORREOPENING DEVICES MAY BE OMITTED.THE MINIMUM TIME FOR ELEVATOR DOORS TO REMAIN FULLY OPEN IN RESPONSETO A CAR CALL SHALL BE 3 SECONDS.FLOOR PLAN OF ELEVATOR CARS − WHERE EXISTING SHAFT OR STRUCTURALELEMENTS PROHIBIT STRICT COMPLIANCE, THEN THE MINIMUM FLOOR AREADIMENSIONS MAY BE REDUCED BY THE MINIMUM AMOUNT NECESSARY, BUT INNO CASE SHALL THEY BE LESS THAN 48" BY 48".THE LEVEL OF ILLUMINATION AT THE CAR CONTROLS, PLATFORM, AND THE CARTHRESHOLD AND LANDING SILL SHALL BE AT LEAST 5 FOOTCANDLES.ELEVATOR CONTROL PANELS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING FEATURES:(1) BUTTONS. ALL CONTROL BUTTONS SHALL BE AT LEAST 3/4" IN THESMALLEST DIMENSIONS. THEY MAY BE RAISED OR FLUSH.(2) TACTILE AND VISUAL CONTROL INDICATORS. ALL CONTROLBUTTONS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY RAISED STANDARD ALPHABETCHARACTERS FOR LETTERS, ARABIC CHARACTERS FOR NUMERALS, ORSTANDARD SYMBOLS. THE CALL BUTTON FOR THE MAIN ENTRY FLOORSHALL BE DESIGNATION BY A RAISED STAR AT THE LEFT OF THE FLOORDESIGNATION. ALL RAISED DESIGNATIONS FOR CONTROL BUTTONSSHALL BE PLACED IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT OF THE BUTTON TOWHICH THEY APPLY. APPLIED PLATES, PERMANENTLY ATTACHED, AREAN ACCEPTABLE MEANS TO PROVIDE RAISED CONTROL INDICATORS.FLOOR BUTTONS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH VISUAL INDICATORS TOSHOW WITH EACH CALL IS REGISTERED. THE VISUAL INDICATORSSHALL BE EXTINGUISHED WHEN EACH CALL IS ANSWERED.(2) ALL FLOOR BUTTONS SHALL BE NO HIGHER THAN 48", UNLESSTHERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN COST, IN WHICH CASE THEMAXIMUM MOUNTING HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED TO 54" ABOVE THEFLOOR. EMERGENCY CONTROLS, INCLUDING THE EMERGENCY ALARMAND EMERGENCY STOP, SHALL BE GROUPED AT THE BOTTOM OF THEPANEL AND SHALL HAVE THEIR CENTERLINES NO LESS THAN 35" ABOVETHE FLOOR.(4) CONTROLS SHALL BE LOCATED ON A FRONT WALL IF CARS HAVECENTER OPENING DOORS AND AT THE SIDE WALL OR AT THE FRONTWALL NEXT TO THE DOOR IF CARS HAVE SIDE OPENING DOORS.LAUNDRY FACILITIESLAUNDRY FACILITIES ARE TO MEET THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:(1) LAUNDRY FACILITIES AND LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE.(2) WASHING MACHINES AND CLOTHS DRYERS IN COMMON USELAUNDRY ROOMS SHALL BE FRONT LOADING.(2) LAUNDRY EQUIPMENT CONTROLS SHALL BE MOUNTED A MAXIMUMOF 48" FOR FORWARD APPROACH AND 54" MAXIMUM FOR SIDEAPPROACH.POST OFFICE BOXESAT LEAST 5 PERCENT OF THE POST OFFICE BOXES IN A FACILITY SHALL BEACCESSIBLE TO WHEELCHAIR USERS. ACCESSIBLE POST OFFICE BOXES SHALLBE LOCATED IN THE SECOND OR THIRD SET OF MODULES FROM THE FLOOR,APPROXIMATELY 12" TO 36" ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR. AISLES BETWEEN POSTOFFICE BOXES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 66" CLEAR WIDTH.COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270T4.401/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS DWREF.DWREF.DWREF.567 SF6’−8"PARTITIONWALLBATHROOMBEDROOMCLOSETCLOSETKITCHEN / LIVING / DINING15’ − 1 1/4"38’ − 3 5/8"3’ x 5’ SINGLE HUNGWINDOWS WITH MIN. NETCLEAR OPENING OF 5.7 SFAND 20" W X 24" H MIN.OPENING DIMENSIONSPER CBC 1030.2 AND 1030.2.1628 SFBATHROOM LIVING / DININGPATIOKITCHENBEDROOMCLOSET8’ − 6 1/4"12’ − 4 1/4"33’ − 1 7/8"20’ − 11 5/8"3’ x 5’ SINGLE HUNGWINDOWS WITH MIN. NETCLEAR OPENING OF 5.7 SFAND 20" W X 24" H MIN.OPENING DIMENSIONSPER CBC 1030.2 AND 1030.2.1780 SFBATHROOMBEDROOMKITCHEN / LIVING / DININGBEDROOMCLOSETCLOSET29’ − 9 1/4"9’ − 2"9’ − 7 1/4"26’ − 10 1/4"CLOSET3’ x 5’ SINGLE HUNG WINDOWS WITH MIN.NET CLEAR OPENING OF 5.7 SFAND 20" W X 24" H MIN. OPENINGDIMENSIONS PER CBC 1030.2 AND 1030.2.1COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A2.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/4" = 1'-0"1UNIT PLAN - 1 BDRM. WORKFORCE / SENIOR - TYPE 1 1/4" = 1'-0"4UNIT PLAN - 1 BDRM. WORKFORCE / SENIOR - TYPE 3 (LEVEL 3) 1/4" = 1'-0"2UNIT PLAN - 2 BDRM. WORKFORCE / SENIOR - TYPE 1 (LEVEL 2)REVISIONS 1/2" = 1'-0"3WINDOW EGRESS REQUIRMENTS PER 2016 CBC UPUP2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-6 3_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-6 3_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-63_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-63_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)UPUP2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64 x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64 x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64 x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64 x17'-04" (Car)3"33"3 2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64 x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64 x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64 x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64 x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64 x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64 x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64 x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64 x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)DD1A22BCA4.12A4.11A4.21A6.12A4.21A.1A.11.11.1C.1C.115.0%20’ − 0"A4.31A4.32A4.333’ − 4"3’ − 4"45’ − 0"3’ − 4"3’ − 4"30’ − 3 7/8"8’ − 4 5/8"8’ − 4"193’ − 4"146’ − 7 7/8"7.5%18’ − 0"22’ − 0"20’ − 6"22’ − 0"22’ − 0"22’ − 2 5/8"22’ − 5 1/8"22’ − 9 5/8"21’ − 3 1/2"24’ − 10"4’ − 0"3’ − 3 5/8"4’ − 0"5’ − 0"10’ − 0"9’ − 0"5’ − 0"9’ − 0"9’ − 0"8’ − 0"9’ − 0"5’ − 0"NOTE:SEE SHEET 7/A12.1 FORACCESSIBLE SIGNAGEDETAILS116’ − 4 1/2"105’ − 4 1/2"1’ − 10"29’ − 10"81’ − 4 1/2"9’ − 8 1/2"57’ − 1 1/2"18’ − 8 1/2"196’ − 6 1/2"ONE WAY DRIVE AISLETWO WAY DRIVE AISLECOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 0 - SUBGRADE PARKING 3/64" = 1'-0"2EXHIBIT - ONE WAY VS. TWO WAY DRIVE AISLES 2.5 CUBICYARD BIN48.0000 2.5 CUBICYARD BIN48.0000 UPUPUPUPUPUP2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-63_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-6 3_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-6 3_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 6'-634"x17'-034" (Car) 6'-64 x17'-04" (Car) 3"3 3"3 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 2000x5200 CityLift 2500X5735 6'-6 3_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-6 3_ 4"x17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)2000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-64x17'-04" (Car)6'-634"x17'-034" (Car)6'-64x17'-04" (Car)3"33"32000x5200CityLift 2500X57352000x5200CityLift 2500X57356'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)6'-63_4"x17'-03_4" (Car)DD11AA22BCCOMMUNITYSPACE2,127 SFTRANSFORMER RM.ENTRANCEA4.1227’ − 2 5/8"ELEV.EQUIP.ELEV.EQUIP.REFUSESTORAGEFIRERISERA4.2GENERATOR RM.200’ − 0"1A6.1EXISTING WALL6’ − 11 5/8"ELEC. RM.6’ − 8"5’ − 2"2A4.2115.0%.1A.11.11.1.1C.118’ − 0"3’ − 4"3’ − 4"3’ − 4"3’ − 4"A4.31A4.33OCCUPANT LOAD:USE TYPE ’A−3’ ATGRADE15 O.L.2,141 SF / 15 = 142OCCUPANTS19’ − 3 1/4"8’ − 4"8’ − 4"U.S.P.S.78’ − 1 1/8"FDC7.5%7.5%3’ − 4 1/2"6’ − 4 1/2"14’ − 4"13’ − 7 1/2"7’ − 1 1/2"13’ − 10 1/2"7’ − 2"12’ − 11"7’ − 7"14’ − 3"6’ − 10 1/2"13’ − 8 1/2"7’ − 7 1/2"26’ − 0 1/2"7’ − 2 1/2"12’ − 2"22’ − 5"146’ − 7"COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.201/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 - COMMERCIALREVISIONS UPUPDNDNDNDNDNDNUP50'SAFE ZONELANDSCLANDSCDD11AA22BCR.BR.AR.2R.1A4.12A4.21A6.16’ − 8"1 BDRM SR.1 BDRM WORKFORCE6’ − 8"6’ − 8 5/8"6’ − 8"2A4.21COMPUTERRM.846 SF577 SF755 SF594 SF890 SF621 SF628 SF628 SF682 SF633 SF587 SF561 SF567 SF585 SF594 SF621 SF585 SF585 SF585 SF567 SFA.1A.11.11.1C.110’ − 0"3’ − 4"5’ − 0"5’ − 1 1/8"A4.31A4.3311’ − 5 1/2"3’ − 4"4’ − 3 7/8"10’ − 0"3’ − 6 3/8"3’ − 4"5’ − 0"5’ − 10 1/8"7’ − 10 1/2"5’ − 3 7/8"7’ − 3 1/2"7’ − 3 1/4"8’ − 9 1/2"16’ − 4 5/8"10’ − 0"193’ − 4"15’ − 1 1/4"10’ − 0"EXITSTAIRWAYCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.301/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 - RESIDENTIAL UPDNDNUPUPUPDNUPUPDNDNUPUPUPDNUPDD11AA22BCR.BR.B10’ − 0"45’ − 0"45’ − 0"90’ − 0"10’ − 0"R.AR.AR.2R.1A4.12A4.112 BDRMWORKFORCE2 BDRM SR.870 SFA4.2889 SF1A6.110’ − 0"135’ − 0"5’ − 0"6’ − 8"695 SF551 SF847 SF599 SF599 SF846 SF577 SF594 SF890 SF621 SF628 SF628 SF682 SF633 SF587 SF11’ − 2"561 SF567 SF585 SF679 SF1 BDRM SR.1 BDRMWORKFORCE2A4.21594 SF621 SF585 SF585 SF585 SF567 SFA.1A.11.11.1C.1C.16’ − 8"A4.31A4.32A4.335’ − 0"7’ − 10 1/2"8’ − 8 3/8"7’ − 3 3/8"5’ − 10 1/8"3’ − 4"6’ − 8"16’ − 4 5/8"3’ − 4"10’ − 0"9’ − 1 3/8"10’ − 0"3’ − 6 3/4"10’ − 0"4’ − 5 7/8"3’ − 4"3’ − 4"16’ − 0 1/8"4’ − 0 3/4"7’ − 4 3/4"755 SF12’ − 11 1/2"17’ − 10"9’ − 7 1/2"14’ − 7 1/2"8’ − 6"12’ − 11 1/2"8’ − 6 1/2"12’ − 11 1/2"8’ − 7"13’ − 0 1/2"13’ − 10 1/2"11’ − 0 1/2"14’ − 11 1/2"19’ − 4"7’ − 2"13’ − 5 1/2"28’ − 1"3’ − 5 1/2"10’ − 6 1/2"7’ − 1 1/2"13’ − 4"8’ − 0"33’ − 0 1/2"19’ − 10"14’ − 7 1/2"192’ − 11 1/2"10’ − 11"14’ − 6 1/2"7’ − 3"16’ − 5 1/2"18’ − 3"17’ − 2"18’ − 0 1/2"16’ − 8"25’ − 5 1/2"144’ − 8 1/2"38’ − 1 1/2"21’ − 0 1/2"11’ − 10 1/2"8’ − 4"19’ − 5 1/2"27’ − 4"19’ − 8"17’ − 1 1/2"23’ − 2"241’ − 10 1/2"94’ − 6"79’ − 3"COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.401/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2REVISIONS 1" = 20'-0"2EXITING PLAN - 1/3 DIAGONAL DNDNUPDNDNUPUPUPDNUPDD11AA22BCR.BR.AR.2R.1A4.12A4.11A4.21A6.12 BDRM SR.10’ − 0"134’ − 11 7/8"5’ − 0"6’ − 8"577 SF755 SF11’ − 2"561 SF567 SF582 SF580 SF1 BDRM SR.1 BDRMWORKFORCE629 SF738 SF676 SF753 SF517 SF744 SF503 SF508 SF726 SF621 SF594 SF621 SF594 SF842 SF609 SF2A4.21629 SF629 SF577 SF561 SF582 SF567 SF582 SFA.1A.11.11.1C.1C.1A4.31A4.32A4.3310’ − 0"11’ − 6"8’ − 0 1/2"5’ − 0"180’ − 0"10’ − 0"16’ − 1 1/4"11’ − 1 1/8"18’ − 1 1/4"12’ − 8"5’ − 3 1/2"COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.501/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3REVISIONS DNDNDNUPDNUPDNUPD11AA22BCR.BR.BR.AR.AR.2R.1A4.12A4.11A4.21A6.12 BDRM SR.6’ − 8"821 SF1 BDRM SR.1 BDRMWORKFORCE2 BDRM SR.755 SF1 BDRM SR.1 BDRMWORKFORCE587 SF718 SF753 SF509 SF669 SF508 SF726 SF842 SF559 SF2A4.21738 SF587 SF587 SF628 SF508 SF577 SF561 SF567 SF582 SF580 SF621 SF594 SF621 SF594 SF577 SF561 SF582 SF567 SF582 SFA.1A.11.11.1C.1A4.31A4.32A4.3313’ − 4"15’ − 9 1/8"10’ − 0"5’ − 0"3’ − 4"10’ − 0"180’ − 0"145’ − 0"COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.601/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4REVISIONS DNDNUPDNDD11AA22BCR.BR.AR.2R.1A4.12A4.11A4.21A6.16’ − 8"2 BDRM SR.755 SF1 BDRM SR.1 BDRMWORKFORCE753 SF508 SF726 SF842 SF2A4.21577 SF561 SF567 SF582 SF580 SF621 SF594 SF621 SF594 SF577 SF561 SF582 SF567 SF582 SF669 SF559 SF508 SF509 SF738 SF628 SF587 SF587 SF587 SFA.1A.11.11.1C.1C.1A4.31A4.32A4.3310’ − 0"8’ − 10 3/8"180’ − 0"145’ − 0"16’ − 1 1/4"10’ − 0"13’ − 6"COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A3.701/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5REVISIONS T.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L2 PLATE25' - 0 1/4"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L3 PLATE35' - 0 1/4"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L4 PLATE44' - 0 1/4"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. L5 PLATE53' - 0 1/4"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"71A6.1T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"65’ − 10"37.29’ = AVG. T.O.C52.29’ = AVG. T.O. L2 GYP C.63.373’ = AVG. T.O. L3 GYP C.73.373= AVG. T.O. L4 GYP C.82.373’ = AVG. T.O. L5 GYP C.92.29’ = AVG. T.O. PARAPETT.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. ROOF.54' - 1"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"123456EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDINGT.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"55’ − 0"52’ − 10 1/2"63’ − 0 1/4"37.29’ = AVG. T.O.C52.29’ = AVG. T.O. L2 GYP C.63.373’ = AVG. T.O. L3 GYP C.73.373= AVG. T.O. L4 GYP C.82.373’ = AVG. T.O. L5 GYP C.92.29’ = AVG. T.O. PARAPET810111.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.KEY NOTES−CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM. TEXTURE HEAVY SAND.BRONZE VINYL WINDOWS W/ HARDIE BOARD TRIM.6" HORIZONTAL JAMES HARDIE OR EQUAL LAP SIDINGWOOD TRELLIS STRUCTUREMETAL LOUVER SCREEN AT MECH. EQUIPMENTPAINTED METAL HANDRAIL.STORE FRONT WINDOW SYSTEMALUMINUM SUN SHADE SYSTEM.NOT USED.STUCCO ROOF CORNICEPOWDER COATED METAL VINE SCREENING.NOTE:EXTERIOR AND GROUND FLOOR DOORS TO BE METAL.RESIDENTIAL UNIT INTERIOR ENTRY DOORS TO BE INS. FIBERGLASS.COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A4.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTHWEST - HOWARD AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONS 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.KEY NOTES−CEMENT STUCCO SYSTEM. TEXTURE HEAVY SAND.BRONZE VINYL WINDOWS W/ HARDIE BOARD TRIM.6" HORIZONTAL JAMES HARDIE OR EQUAL LAP SIDINGWOOD TRELLIS STRUCTUREMETAL LOUVER SCREEN AT MECH. EQUIPMENTPAINTED METAL HANDRAIL.STORE FRONT WINDOW SYSTEMALUMINUM SUN SHADE SYSTEM.NOT USED.STUCCO ROOF CORNICEPOWDER COATED METAL VINE SCREENING.NOTE:EXTERIOR AND GROUND FLOOR DOORS TO BE METAL.RESIDENTIAL UNIT INTERIOR ENTRY DOORS TO BE INS. FIBERGLASS.T.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L2 PLATE25' - 0 1/4"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L3 PLATE35' - 0 1/4"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L4 PLATE44' - 0 1/4"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. L5 PLATE53' - 0 1/4"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"1A6.1T.O. SUB-TERRAINPARKING-8' - 6"T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"EXISTING BUILDINGEXISTING BUILDING55’ − 0"12345681037.29’ = AVG. T.O.C52.29’ = AVG. T.O. L2 GYP C.63.373’ = AVG. T.O. L3 GYP C.73.373= AVG. T.O. L4 GYP C.82.373’ = AVG. T.O. L5 GYP C.92.29’ = AVG. T.O. PARAPETT.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L2 PLATE25' - 0 1/4"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L3 PLATE35' - 0 1/4"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L4 PLATE44' - 0 1/4"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. L5 PLATE53' - 0 1/4"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"T.O. SUB-TERRAINPARKING-8' - 6"T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"55’ − 0"65’ − 10"58’ − 7"1137.29’ = AVG. T.O.C52.29’ = AVG. T.O. L2 GYP C.63.373’ = AVG. T.O. L3 GYP C.73.373= AVG. T.O. L4 GYP C.82.373’ = AVG. T.O. L5 GYP C.92.29’ = AVG. T.O. PARAPETCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A4.201/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 1/8" = 1'-0"1NORTHEAST ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0"2SOUTHEAST ELEVATION T.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L2 PLATE25' - 0 1/4"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L3 PLATE35' - 0 1/4"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L4 PLATE44' - 0 1/4"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. L5 PLATE53' - 0 1/4"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"T.O. SUB-TERRAINPARKING-8' - 6"T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"T.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. ROOF.54' - 1"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"T.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L2 PLATE25' - 0 1/4"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L3 PLATE35' - 0 1/4"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L4 PLATE44' - 0 1/4"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. L5 PLATE53' - 0 1/4"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"T.O. SUB-TERRAINPARKING-8' - 6"T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4" UNPROTECTED OPENINGS PER CBC TABLE 705.8 AS CALCULATED IN TABLE BELOWOPENINGS LEGENDCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A4.301/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 1" = 10'-0"1ALLOWABLE OPENING - NORTHEAST ELEV. 1" = 10'-0"2ALLOWABLE OPENING - NORTHWEST ELEV. 1" = 10'-0"3ALLOWABLE OPENING - SOUTHEAST ELEV. T.O. CONCRETE0' - 0"T.O. LEVEL 1PLATE15' - 0"T.O. L2 GYP. C.16' - 1"T.O. L2 PLATE25' - 0 1/4"T.O. L3 GYP. C.26' - 1"T.O. L3 PLATE35' - 0 1/4"T.O. L4 GYP. C.36' - 1"T.O. L4 PLATE44' - 0 1/4"T.O. L5 GYP. C.45' - 1"T.O. L5 PLATE53' - 0 1/4"T.O. PARAPET55' - 0"12R.2R.155’ − 0"T.O. SUB-TERRAINPARKING-8' - 6"T.O. L1 GYP. C.5' - 11 1/4"8’ − 6"7’ − 0"5’ − 11 1/4"70’ − 6"15’ − 6"1.165’ − 0"15’ − 0"COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A6.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1SITE SECTION 1REVISIONS 1" = 10'-0"2052317 - PARK AVE. ELEVATION ABCDEIFGHCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWN.T.S.1SOUTHWEST - PARK RD. ELEVATIONBSTUCCO − COLOR #2EHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGFWOOD TRELLISGMETAL FASCIAHMETAL RAILINGASTUCCO − COLOR #1CSTUCCO − COLOR #3COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR"SWISS COFFEE" 7002−16 OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "CHURCHILLHOTEL IVORY" 3007−8C OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "FRAPPE’ "6003−1B OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HOPSACK"3003−10B.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "ELCARAMELO", 203−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"GARRET GRAY", 242−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.REVISIONSDSTUCCO − COLOR #4COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "SMOKEDOYSTER" 6005−1C.IVINYL WINDOW TRIMCOLOR TO MATCH "URBAN BRONZE" OREQUAL. CBEADFGICOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.201/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWN.T.S.1NORTHEAST - LORTON AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONSBSTUCCO − COLOR #2EHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGFWOOD TRELLISGMETAL FASCIAHMETAL RAILINGASTUCCO − COLOR #1CSTUCCO − COLOR #3COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR"SWISS COFFEE" 7002−16 OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "CHURCHILLHOTEL IVORY" 3007−8C OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "FRAPPE’ "6003−1B OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HOPSACK"3003−10B.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "ELCARAMELO", 203−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"GARRET GRAY", 242−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.DSTUCCO − COLOR #4COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "SMOKEDOYSTER" 6005−1C.IVINYL WINDOW TRIMCOLOR TO MATCH "URBAN BRONZE" OREQUAL. PARK RD.BACDEFGHICOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.301/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWN.T.S.1NORTHWEST - HOWARD AVE. ELEVATIONREVISIONSBSTUCCO − COLOR #2EHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGFWOOD TRELLISGMETAL FASCIAHMETAL RAILINGASTUCCO − COLOR #1CSTUCCO − COLOR #3COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR"SWISS COFFEE" 7002−16 OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "CHURCHILLHOTEL IVORY" 3007−8C OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "FRAPPE’ "6003−1B OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HOPSACK"3003−10B.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "ELCARAMELO", 203−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"GARRET GRAY", 242−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.DSTUCCO − COLOR #4COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "SMOKEDOYSTER" 6005−1C.IVINYL WINDOW TRIMCOLOR TO MATCH "URBAN BRONZE" OREQUAL. ABCDEFGHiICOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A7.401/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWN.T.S.1SOUTHEAST ELEVATIONREVISIONSBSTUCCO − COLOR #2EHORIZONTAL LAP SIDINGFWOOD TRELLISGMETAL FASCIAHMETAL RAILINGASTUCCO − COLOR #1CSTUCCO − COLOR #3COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR"SWISS COFFEE" 7002−16 OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "CHURCHILLHOTEL IVORY" 3007−8C OR EQUALCOLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "FRAPPE’ "6003−1B OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "HOPSACK"3003−10B.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS, "ELCARAMELO", 203−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"GARRET GRAY", 242−C6 OR EQUAL.COLOR TO MATCH SHERWIN WILLIAMS,"URBANE BRONZE", SW7048 OR EQUAL.DSTUCCO − COLOR #4COLOR TO MATCH VALSPAR "SMOKEDOYSTER" 6005−1C.IVINYL WINDOW TRIMCOLOR TO MATCH "URBAN BRONZE" OREQUAL. DNDD11AA22BCR.BR.AR.2R.1A4.12A4.11A4.24121A6.1[No Slope]2A4.21A.1A.11.11.1C.1C.1A4.31A4.32A4.33[No Slope]4OPEN TO BELOWA9.13CONDENSER UNIT, TYP.METAL LOUVRE SCREENING.ROOF ACCESS.ELEVATOR ENCLOSUREKEY NOTES−1.2.3.4.AR.AA.1COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A9.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 1/8" = 1'-0"1ROOF PLANREVISIONS 3/64" = 1'-0"2AREA PLAN - ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"3ROOF PLAN - STAIR ACCESS COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A10.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWN.T.S.1PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGREVISIONS COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A10.201/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAW 12" = 1'-0"1SITE AERIALREVISIONS 6"R10"R2 1/2"1 1/2"3’1’−3"1’−0"3"3’1 ’−1 "2"1 1/2"1’−3"FLASHING WIDTH MUST BEEQUAL TO THE ROUGHOPENING PLUS 8". FOLDFLASHING ALONG ITSLENGTH 8" TO FORMA 90DEG. ANGLE. CUTFLASHING ALONG FOLD TOWIDTH OF OPENING. FOLDENDS TO 90 DEG. UPWARDAND INSTALL FLASHING.STEP #1SHEATHINGROUGH OPENINGAPPLY HIGHPERFORMANCESEALANT AROUND THETOP AND SIDES OFROUGH OPENINGWITHIN 3/8" FROM THEEDGE. INSTALLWINDOW PERMANUFACTURERS;SREQUIREMENTS.APPLY VERTICALFLASHING TO OVERLAPTHE PREVIOUSLYINSTALLED FLASHINGAPPLY HEAD FLASHINGTO OVERLAP THEPREVIOUSLYINSTALLED FLASHING.CAULK OR TAP THE TOPEDGE OF THIS SECTIONOF FLASHING.3rd COURSEDRAINAGE PLANE OVER HEAD FLASHING &TOP OF NAIL−ON FRAME4" MIN. HORIZONTAL LAP6" VERTICAL LAP6"6"−8"90°90°STEP #3STEP #4STEP #5STEP #22nd COURSE1st COURSE2x WALL BELOWEXTERIOR SHEATHING PERSTRUCTURALWATER RESISTIVE BARRIERHEAVY TEXTURE STUCCO FINISH,OVER METAL LATH, SEEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1.5" THICK INSULATION BRD.OVER WATER RESISTIVE BARRIERTYVEK, OR EQUAL, BUILDINGWRAP OVER SHEATHING ANDDOUBLE PLATEWINDOW TRIM, REFER TOELEVATIONS FOR INFORMATIONCAULKINGMFR. WEEP HOLESTANDARD PROFILEPAINTED WOOD WINDOWSILL PLATE & APRONVINYL WINDOW, SEE WINDOWAND DOOR SCHEDULE ANDSPECIFICATIONS.BEAM, JOIST, OR HEADERPER STRUCTURALVINYL WINDOW, REFER TODOOR AND WINDOWSCHEDULE.2x WALL ABOVEEXTERIOR SHEATHING PERSTRUCTURALWATER RESISTIVE BARRIERATTACHED TO SHEATHING ANDLAPPED OVER J−TRIMHEAVY TEXTURE STUCCO FINISH,OVER METAL LATH, SEEEXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1.5" THICK INSULATION BRD.OVER WATER RESISTIVE BARRIERWINDOW TRIM W/ INTERNALWEEPS, REFER TO ELEVATIONSAND SPECIFICATIONSLATCH SIDE OFDOORLETTERINGRAISED 1 / 40"60" MAX.A.F.F.TACTILE SIGNAGE REQ’SSIGNAGE SHALL BE1.INSTALLED ON LATCHSIDE OF DOOR OR IF NOSPACE ON THE NEARESTWALL PREFERABLE TOTHE RIGHT.SIGNAGE MUST BE2.LOCATED SO THAT APERSON CAN APPROACHWITHIN 3" W/O OBSTRUCTION.SIGNAGE SHALL HAVE A3.NON−GLARE FINISH W/ ACONTRASTING BACKGROUND.SIGNAGE TO HAVE A WIDTH−TO4.HEIGHT RATIO BETWEEN 3:5 &1:10.CHARACTER STROKE WIDTH−TO5.HEIGHT RATIO BETWEEN 1:5 &1:10.SIGNAGE SHALL CONTAIN GRADE6.2 BRAILLE W/ DOTS 1/10" O.C. &2/10" SPACE BETWEEN CELLSRAISED 1/40".LETTERING TO BE SANSSERIF UPPER CASE 3"TALL BLACK CHARACTERSON WHITE BACKGROUNDCORRESPONDINGGRADE II BRAILLE("CALIFORNIA BRAILLE)HOISTWAY AND ELEVATOR ENTRANCETACTILE EXIT SIGNAGEHALL LANTERNFLOOR LANDINGCALL BUTTONNUMBERS ON BOTHSIDES OF DOORJAMB72" MIN.42"5"29"ABELEVATOR CONTROL PANEL DETAIL563412SBXALARMOPENCLOSESTOP35" MIN.5/8" MIN. NUMERAL HEIGHT 3/4" MIN.BUTTON DIA.3/8" MIN.SEPARATIONPLACE STARALONGSIDEMAIN EXITFLOOR NUMBERABV. FLR.MAX. INSTALLATION HTS ABOVE CAB FLOOR563412SBXALARMOPENCLOSESTOP1−1/2" MIN.RAIL32"35" MIN.FRONT APPROACH48" MAX. FORSIDE APPROACH54" MAX. FORSEE CONTROLPANEL DETAIL60" MAX. A.F.F. FROM THEBASELINE OF THE HIGHESTLINE OF RAISED CHARACTERS6" RADIUSBLUE BACKGROUND EQ. TOCOLOR #15090 IN FED. STD.595A−TYP.2" WHITE PAINTEDSTRIPING, TYPICALBOTTOM OF PARKINGSTALLCENTER LINE OF PARKINGSTALLVAN ACCESSIBLEMINIMUMFINE $25010"2"1"12"1"4"..8’−4"6’−8"4"16"4"24"12"TYP. SIDEWALKS.SEE CIVIL DWGS.CONC. FOOTING2" METAL POSTEMBEDDED IN CONC.FOOTINGINTERNATIONALSYMBOL OFACCESSIBILITYPROVIDE VANACCESSIBLE SIGNAGEAT VAN ACCESSIBLEPARKING SPACE ONLYAREA OF SIGN TO BE A MIN. OF 70SQUARE INCHES.CORNERS OF SIGN TO HAVE 1/2’ RADIUSREFLECTORIZED SIGN CONSTRUCTEDOF PORCELAIN STEEL WITH BEADEDTEXT OR EQUALBACKGROUND TO BE BLUE. TEXT ANDGRAPHICS TO BE WHITE.SIGN TO BE CENTERED A THE INTERIOREND OF THE PARKING SPACE.DESIGNATE FOR "VAN ACCESSIBLE"WHERE APPROPRIATE.MOUNTING HEIGHT OF SIGN TO BE TOBOTTOM EDGE OF SIGN AND SHALL BE80" MIN FOR FREE STANDING SIGN AND36" MIN. FOR WALL MOUNTED SIGN.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.DRINKING FOUNTAINSN.T.S.5RECESSED FOUNTAINS:WITHIN ALCOVES MINIMUM 63" WIDE, MINIMUM 18" DEEP WHEN DOUBLEDRINKING FOUNTAINS ARE REQUIRED AND 32" MIN. CLR. WHEN ASINGLE FOUNTAIN IS PERMITTED.NOTE:ILLUSTRATIONS SHOWN HERE ARE FOR WHEELCHAIR DISABLEDACCESSIBILITY PURPOSE ONLY. A SECOND DRINKING FOUNTAINSHOULD BE PROVIDED AT A MOUNTING HEIGHT SUITABLE TO PERSONSWITH PHYSICAL BENDING ABILITY, ADJACENT TO THE ACCESSIBLEFOUNTAIN, MAINTAINING MINIMUM CLEARANCES NOTED AND ASREQUIRED. PROVIDE TEXTURED AREA OF CONTRASTING COLOR TOIDENTIFY WATER FOUNTAIN, LOCATION AS NOTED. WHEN FOUNTAIN ISAT AN INTERIOR LOCATION, THE TEXTURED AREA SHALL ALSO BEDIFFERENT RESILIENCY THAN THAT OF THE ADJACENT FLOORSURFACE FINISH.1.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH SIZE OFWATER FOUNTAIN TO BE USED AND SIZE ALCOVEACCORDINGLY COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS AND COORDINATION WITH THEARCHITECT.A.PROJECTED FOUNTAINS:WARNING FOR THE VISION IMPAIRED AT A PROJECTED DRINKINGFOUNTAIN CAN BE PROVIDED BY EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS:1.THE SURFACE OF THE FLOOR OR GROUND AT THEDRINKING FOUNTAIN CAN BE OF CONTRASTING COLORWITH A TEXTURE THAT CONTRAST SIN RESILIENCYWITH THE ADJACENT FINISHED FLOOR MATERIAL, SOTHAT IT CAN BE SENSED BY A CANE, WITH THETEXTURE EXTENDING FROM THE WALL TO ONE FOOTBEYOND THE EDGE OF THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN ANDONE FOOT BEYOND EACH SIDE OF THE FOUNTAIN, ORINSTALL WING WALLS ON EACH SIDE OF THE DRINKINGFOUNTAIN TO PROJECT OUT FROM THE MAIN WALL ATLEAST AS FAR AS THE DRINKING FOUNTAIN AND TOWITHIN 6" OF THE PATH OF TRAVEL FLOOR FINISH.THERE MUST BE 32" CLEAR BETWEEN THE WINGWALLS, ORGUARDRAILS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 32" CLEARBETWEEN AND PROJECT FROM THE SUPPORT WALL TOTHE PROJECTING FACE OF THE FOUNTAIN AND WITHIN6" OF THE FINISH SURFACE OF THE PATH OF TRAVEL.A.B.C.FOUNTAIN & GUARDRAILS, ETC. SHALL NOT REDUCE THE REQUIREDACCESSIBLE ROUTE/PATH WIDTH.2.SIDE ELEVATION OFWATER COOLERARECESSED FOUNTAINSBPROJECTED FOUNTAINSEXTENT OFWING WALLSAS OCCURSRAIL AS OCCURSSEE FLOOR PLAN TYP.TEXTUREDAREA−TYP.EQUIPMENTPERMITTEDWITHINTHIS AREAUNITS SHALL HAVE A CLEARFLOOR OR GROUND SPACECOMPLYING WITH SECTION11B−305, POSITIONED FOR AFORWARD APPROACH ANDCENTERED ON THE UNIT.KNEE AND TOE CLEARANCECOMPLYING WITH SECTION11B−306.18" MIN.18" MIN.6" MAX5" MAX27" MIN.32" CLR. FOR SINGLE12" TYP.27" MIN.24" MAX18" MIN.36" MAX6" MIN18" MIN.18"−19"32" CLR.FOR SINGLE6"MAX12"CLR.12"CLR.36" MAX HC. ACCESS40" STD. HT.8"MIN6"MAX9"MIN.27" MIN18"−19"NOTE:DRINKING FOUNTAIN TOCOMPLY WITH 2013 CBCSECTION 11B−602.158" MIN AND 60" MAX. A.F.F.CENTERSIGNAGE PER CBC11B−703.7.2.6NOTE:CONFIRM PLACEMENT OFSIGNAGE WITH APPLICABLECA TITLE 24 SECTOINS3"10"1/2"CLMECHANICALROOMMECHANICALROOMELEVATORMACHINE ROOMFIRE SPRINKLERRISER ROOMFIRE ALARMCONTROL PANELTYPICAL SIGNAGE:LOWEST LINE OF BRAILLE48" MIN. A.F.F. FROM BASELINE OFNOTE:SIGNAGE SCHEMATICS SHOWN ARE FOREXAMPLE ONLY. FINAL SIGN PACKAGE TOINCLUDE MOUNTING LOCATIONS, TEXT,COLORS AND CONTRASTING BACK GROUNDTO BE PER LOCAL JURISDICTIONALAUTHORITIES AND AS APPROVED BY THEARCHITECT.60" MAX. A.F.F.DOOR SWING AT LATCH SIDE9" BEYONDNOTE:SIGNAGE SHALL BE LOCATED ALONGSIDE THE DOOR AT THE LATCH SIDE. WHEN SIGNAGE IS PROVIDE AT DOUBLE DOORS IT IS TO BELOCATED TO THE RIGHT OF THE RIGHT HAND DOOR. WHEN NO WALL SPACE IS AVAILABLE AT THE LATCH SIDE OR RIGHT SIDE OF SINGLEAND DOUBLE DOORS, THE LOCATION SHALL BE ON THE NEAREST ADJACENT WALL IN A 18" BY 18" CLEAR FLOOR SPACE BEYONDTHE ARCOF ANY DOOR SWING BETWEEN THE CLOSED AND 45 DEGREE POSITION. SIGNS TO BE LOCATED ON THE APPROACH SIDE OF DOOR ASONE ENTERS THE ROOM. SIGNS THAT IDENTIFY EXITS SHALL BE LOCATED AS ONE EXITS THE ROOM OR SPACE.2 1/2"4 1/2"R 0' - 0 1/2"1/2"RAISED TEXTHEIGHT OF LETTERING 5/8" MIN TO 2" MAX.RAISED BRAILLE TO BE GRADE IICHARACTERS, SYMBOLS, AND THEIRBACKGROUND SHALL HAVE A NON GLAREFINISH, EITHER LIGHT ON DARK BACKGROUNDOR DARK ON LIGHT BACKGROUND.UPPERCASE CHARACTERS RAISED 1/32"MEN’S EQUILATERAL TRIANGLE SHALL 1/4"THICK WITH EDGES 12" LONG AND A VERTEXPOINTING UPWARD. WOMEN’S CHARACTERCIRCLE SHALL BE 12" IN DIA.WOMENS CIRCLE SHALL BE 1/4" THICK AND12" IN DIA.EDGES OF SIGNS SHALL BE ROUNDED,CHAMFERED OR EASED.CORNERS OF SIGNS SHALL HAVE A MIN.RADIUS OF 1/8".UNISEX SANITARY FACILITY SHALL BEIDENTIFIED BY A CIRCLE, 1/4" THICK AND 12" INDIA. WITH A 1/4" THICK TRIANGLESUPERIMPOSED ON THE CIRCLE AND WITHINTHE 12" DIA. THE TRIANGLE SYMBOL SHALLCONTRAST WITH THE CIRCLE SYMBOL. THECIRCLE SYMBOL SHALL CONTRACT WITH THEDOOR.ASSISTIVELISTENINGSYSTEMAVAILABLE6" MIN.7" MIN.PICTOGRAM SHALL BEACCOMPANIED BY THEEQUIVALENT VERBALDESCRIPTION PLACEDADJACENT TO THEPICTOGRAM.THE BORDER DIMENSIONOF THE PICTOGRAM SHALLBE 6" MIN. IN HEIGHT.CHARACTERS ANDSYMBOLS SHALLCONTRAST WITH THEIRBACKGROUND.INTERNATIONALSYMBOL OFACCESS FORHEARING IMPAIREDPROPORTIONALGRID LAYOUTCOPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A12.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 3/4" = 1'-0"1WINDOW FLASHING DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2TYP. WINDOW SILL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"3TYP. WINDOW HEAD 3/8" = 1'-0"5ELEVATOR DETAILS 1/2" = 1'-0"6ACCESSIBILITY LOGO 1" = 1'-0"7ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN 1" = 10'-0"8HI LO DRINKING FOUNTAIN 1 1/2" = 1'-0"4TTY DEVICE SYMBOL 1/2" = 1'-0"9TYP. ADA RESTROOM SIGNAGE 6" = 1'-0"10TYP. SIGNAGE EXAMPLE 1/2" = 1'-0"11TYP. SIGNAGE LOCATIONS 6" = 1'-0"12TYP. UNIT SIGN PACKAGE 3/4" = 1'-0"13SANITARY FACILITY SYMBOLS 3" = 1'-0"14HEARING IMPAIRED SIGNAGE UPDNDNUPUPUPDNUP2.5 CUBICYARD BIN48.0000 2.5 CUBICYARD BIN48.0000UPUPDN DNDNDNDNDNUPDNDNUPDNDNUPUPUPDNUPDNDNDNUPDNUPDNUPDNDNUPDNUPUP23,686 SFR−22141 SFA−319,027 SFR−22,569 SFS−222,896 SFR−222,319 SFR−222,314 SFR−2COPYRIGHT DATEPacific West Architecture430 E. STATE STREET, SUITE 100EAGLE, IDAHO 83616(208) 461−0022fax (208) 461−3267ALASKA − ARIZONA − CALIFORNIA − COLORADO − HAWAII − IDAHO −LOUISIANA − MONTANA − NEW MEXICO − NEVADA − NORTH DAKOTA − OREGON −SOUTH DAKOTA − U.S.V.I. − UTAH − WASHINGTON − WYOMINGDRAWN BYPROJECT #THIS DRAWING CONTAINS INFORMATION WHICH IS THEPROPRIETARY PROPERTY OF DOUGLAS L. GIBSON. NOUNAUTHORIZED REUSE OR DUPLICATION OF THESEPLANS OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREINWITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF DOUGLASL. GIBSON. THIS DRAWING IS NOT TO BE USED FORCONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT IS SIGNED BY THE ARCHITECT.COPYRIGHT BY PACIFIC WESTARCHITECTURE©PROJECTBURLINGAME, CAAPN #s 029−224−270A13.101/19/18THEVILLAGE AT BURLINGAMERESIDENTIALPWH17−3ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION150 PARK ROADAWREVISIONS 1" = 20'-0"1AREA PLAN - LEVEL 2 - 23,686 SF 1" = 20'-0"2AREA PLAN - LEVEL 1 RESIDENTIAL - 18,697 SF 1" = 20'-0"3AREA PLAN - LEVEL 3 - 22,896 SF 1" = 20'-0"4AREA PLAN - LEVEL 4 - 22,319 SF 1" = 20'-0"5AREA PLAN - LEVEL 5 - 22,314 SF 1" = 20'-0"6AREA PLAN - LEVEL 0 - SUBGRADE PARKING - 22,416 SF PROJECT LOCATION 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Lot Merger for a New Five-Level Parking Garage Address: 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Meeting Date: February 26, 2018 Request: Application for Design Review and Lot Merger for construction of a new five-level parking garage. Applicant: Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies APN: 029-231-060 and 029-231-240 Property Owner: City of Burlingame Lot Area: 33,750 SF Architect: Pacific West Architecture General Plan: R-4 Incentive District Zoning: R-4 Incentive District Subarea Adjacent Development: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses Current Use: Public Parking Lot (Lot N) with 109 stalls Proposed Use: Five-level parking garage providing 388 stalls. Allowable Use: Multifamily, duplex, single family residential uses and public buildings. Background: In 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The culmination of a multi-year community planning process, the Plan provides a framework for sustaining the existing success of the downtown and accommodating new opportunities. One aspect of the Downtown Specific Plan is a focus on better use of parking facilities downtown, particularly the twenty City-owned surface parking lots. The plan encourages parking lots to be converted to different uses over time, such as housing, open space, and additional parking. Choices about uses are guided by what will most benefit the downtown area. Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council has expressed an interest in expanding the housing options available in Burlingame, including the provision of more affordable housing options, a category of housing that is minimally represented amongst the existing housing stock within the community. Likewise, as parking is important to Downtown businesses and residents alike, the City Council has been evaluating options for improving parking in the downtown area. This includes accommodating demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or structured parking. The proposed development of Parking Lots F and N is intended to respond to the following objectives with:  new housing units to support the community, including housing for seniors and for people working in the community;  additional, conveniently-located parking for use by downtown businesses and residents alike;  additional open space to be enjoyed by both current and new residents. For more general information about the proposed project and affordable housing, please refer to the attached “Village at Burlingame Frequently Asked Questions” prepared by staff and the developer. Although the purpose of the design review study meeting is only to review and discuss the proposed design of the project, staff thought it would be helpful to include this background information so that the Planning Commission has a full understanding of the context of the proposed project. Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 2 Project Summary: In December 2014 the City of Burlingame distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking qualified developers interested in partnering with the City to develop City-owned Parking Lots F & N with affordable housing. One requirement of the RFP was that the development should not only replace the existing spaces on the two parking lots, but also to the extent possible expand the amount of public parking for the benefit of the downtown business district. The City Council's Downtown Specific Plan Implementation Subcommittee reviewed the proposals and provided recommendations for the City Council to consider. After several public hearings, the City Council selected The Pacific Companies as its preferred developer at its regular meeting of July 6, 2015. Since that time, the developer has been doing preliminary work on the project including financing, site conditions reconnaissance, and design development. The project site consists of merging a portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Block 10 (see attached parcel map), which combined will extend from Lorton Avenue to Highland Avenue (see attached aerial). These lots are currently owned by the City of Burlingame and contain Parking Lot N, a public parking lot with 109 stalls. The project site has 100 feet of frontage on Lorton Avenue and 125 feet of frontage on Highland Avenue and is zoned R-4 and located within the R-4 Incentive District Subarea. The site is bordered by two-story commercial buildings to the north along Howard Avenue, a two-story multifamily residential building and private parking lot to the south, two-story multifamily residential buildings and Parking Lot F to the west across the street on Lorton Avenue, and a gasoline station and automotive repair buildings to the east along Highland Avenue. The proposed project consists of demolishing the existing public parking lot (Parking Lot N) and constructing a new five-level above-grade parking garage. The proposed parking garage would provide a total 388 parking stalls, including 97 parking stalls that would be displaced by the proposed affordable housing development on Lot F, 109 parking stalls currently located on Lot N and 182 new parking stalls. The garage will contain four levels of covered parking with the fifth level being open to the sky. The proposed parking garage has been designed to allow vehicles to enter and exit on both Lorton Avenue and Highland Avenue by way of one driveway entrance on each street. Code Section 25.29.020 (a) of the R-4 District Regulations allows all uses permitted in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Districts. In the R-1 District, public buildings are permitted under Code Section 25.26.020 (b)). A public parking garage is considered to be a public building. The proposed parking garage measures 55’-0” in height, where 55’-0” is allowed by right in the R-4 Incentive District Subarea. As noted above, the fifth level is open to the sky and therefore the building will appear as a four-story building. The following applications are requested for this project:  Design Review for construction of a new five-level above ground parking garage (C.S. 25.29.045 and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan); and  Lot Merger to combine a portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 of Block 10, Town of Burlingame Map No. 1 Subdivision into one lot. Design Review: The purpose of this design review study meeting is to provide initial comments on design elements as they relate to the proposed parking garage. The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2.6 (page 5-16) provides design guidelines specifically for developments on public parking lots. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-27) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown, Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 3 including residential and mixed use areas. These applicable sections of the Design and Character chapters of the Downtown Specific Plan have been attached for reference. The materials proposed for the exterior of the parking garage include natural concrete finish walls, and angled metal shields along the Lorton Avenue, Highland Avenue and south facades of the building. Green screen panels are also proposed on the street-facing and north facades of the building that will allow vines to climb up onto the green screens. Openings along the exterior of the parking garage will be secured by cable rails. Please refer to the building elevations on sheets A3.1 through A-3.3 and perspective renderings on sheet A-3.4 for additional information. The following design review criteria for development projects in commercial, industrial and mixed use districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (Code Section 25.57.030 (g) (1-6): 1. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Lot Merger: In the R-4 District, the minimum requirement is a 5,000 SF lot with 60 feet of street frontage for lots measuring greater than 10,000 SF in area. The proposed combined lot would have 100 feet of street frontage along Lorton Avenue and 125 feet of street frontage along Highland Avenue, and would measure 33,750 SF in area. Therefore, the proposed lot merger is in compliance with lot size and street frontage requirements. Landscaping: The project site is currently covered primarily by a paved public parking lot, with several small areas of landscaping at the entrance to the parking lot along Lorton Avenue. There are no existing trees on the project site. There are several existing trees that are located adjacent to the proposed project, including a large Redwood tree and an unknown tree species at the rear of 1115 Howard Avenue. The City Arborist notes that an arborist report will be required to establish tree protection measures during construction, but pointed out that the smaller tree at the rear of 1115 Howard Avenue, located very close to the property line would most likely need to be removed. He also noted that he would like to see standard conditions of approval included in the entitlements, such as require hand-digging for the garage foundation, having a qualified arborist on-site during the construction of the foundation, and notifying the City Arborist if roots over a certain size are encountered. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 4 Landscaping is proposed along the south side of the site, which also includes a 10 to 14 foot wide pedestrian walkway connecting Lorton and Highland Avenues (see Landscape Plan on sheet L1). A total of eight 36-inch box Columnar European Hornbeam trees are proposed to be planted in the area portion of the lot nearer to Highland Avenue. In addition to the trees, the pedestrian walkway will consist of decorative paving, a raised planter, groundcover and pervious paving. These elements also are provided to comply with stormwater requirements. There are three existing street trees along Lorton Avenue and two existing street trees along Highland Avenue in front of the project site. All existing street trees would be removed and replaced with three new 36-inch box street trees along Lorton Avenue and four new 36-inch box street trees along Highland Avenue. The applicant will be working with the Parks Division to select the appropriate street tree species prior to the building permit submittal. The applicant would obtain the required tree removal permits from the Parks and Recreation Director pursuant to the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.04, Street Trees. 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) Lot Area: 33,750 SF Plans date stamped: January 18, 2018 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Use: Five-level parking garage with 388 stalls (includes 97 parking stalls displaced by the proposed affordable housing development on Lot F, 109 parking stalls currently located on Lot N and 182 new parking stalls) public buildings Setbacks Lorton Ave: 0’-0” to metal fins ¹ 10’-0” Highland Ave: 0’-0” to metal fins ¹ 10’-0” North Side: 1’-0” ¹ 10'-0" South Side: 10’-0”/14’-0” 10'-0" Building Height: 55'-0" 55’-0” (rooftop enclosures allowed to extend additional 10’) Lot Coverage: 85.1% ¹ (28,750 SF) 50% (16,875 SF) Landscaping: 3% of front setback ² (45 SF) 40% of front setback (600 SF) ¹ Request to allow 85.1% lot coverage based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). 2 Request to allow 3% front setback landscaping based on Code Section 25.29.050(f). Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 5 The proposed parking structure deviates from the setback, lot coverage, and front setback landscaping requirements of the R-4 district, as outlined in Section 25.29 (R-4 District Regulations). However, the R-4 district regulations include a provision (Section 25.29.050(f)) that allows the Planning Commission and the City Council, in the considerations and acceptance of any tentative or final map submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, to approve or accept any such tentative or final map wherein one or more lots or parcels of land do not conform to all of the provisions of Chapter 25.34, when the planning commission and the city council find that by reason of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances the approval or acceptance of such maps will not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. The Vesting Tentative Map for the project would propose that the building be built to the lot lines on the Lorton and Highland Avenue frontages and along the northern property line, that the lot coverage be 85.1% (50% maximum allowed) and the percentage of front setback landscaping be 3% (40% minimum required). The Planning Commission and City Council would need to determine that the proposal would be not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city, and incorporate the appropriate findings into their actions on the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map and the project. Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. The applicant is currently working with several City divisions on addressing their plan review comments. General Plan/Specific Plan: The Burlingame General Plan designates the project site as High Density Residential. In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (with amendments in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017), which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan; the site is in the R-4 Incentive District. The Plan describes the R-4 Incentive District as follows: The R-4 Incentive District consists of lands in the southern portion of Downtown, on either side of Bayswater Avenue between Highland Avenue and Park Road. The land uses for this area are predominantly higher density multifamily residential. The development standards for this district provide incentives to encourage high density residential uses. In addition to residential uses, small corner retails stores serving local residents would be allowed. Environmental Review: Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines is intended to promote in-fill development within urbanized areas. This class consists of in-fill projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in significant impacts on endangered, rare, or threatened species, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utilities, and public services. Application of this exemption, as all categorical exemptions, is limited by the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15332 states: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The City has entered into a contract with ICF to prepare and document the analysis, findings, and determination that the proposed project will have been reviewed and in compliance with the CEQA, pursuant to Section 15332 of the 2016 CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The scope of work includes analysis of potential transportation/traffic, noise, and air quality impacts. If it is determined, through the analysis process, that additional CEQA review is required (such as an Initial Study), the scope of work will be revised accordingly. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 6 Design Review Criteria: A design review application in commercial, industrial and mixed use districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (Code Section 25.57.030 g, 1-6): (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Planning Commission Action: 1. Design Review Study: The Planning Commission should comment on the design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and to the following design criteria for commercial projects: a. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city’s commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and b. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and c. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and d. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and e. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and f. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Design Review and Lot Merger 160 Lorton Avenue (Parking Lot N) 7 Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner c. Chris Grant, The Pacific Companies Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Frequently Asked Questions – Village at Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines (reference only) Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed February 16, 2018 Aerial Photo 1 Village at Burlingame Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) February 20, 2018 A: INTRODUCTION/CONTEXT: What are key changes in our region’s housing and traffic conditions? How has that affected who lives and works in Burlingame? For years, housing development in Burlingame and San Mateo County has not kept up with the thousands of new jobs added, and the problem has gotten worse in recent years. Between 2010 and 2016 San Mateo County added 79,000 new jobs, but only 4,941 new homes of all types. The resulting jobs-housing gap ratio was 16. In other words, only one new housing unit was built for every 16 new jobs created. Very limited growth in housing relative to fast growth in jobs is sometimes called the “jobs-housing gap.” These conditions drive up the cost of housing for homebuyers and renters alike, produces congestion and long commutes for workers, and forces friends and family members to move away because they can no longer afford to live here. Past surveys have told us that Burlingame residents are concerned about their family members, co-workers and fellow residents who can no longer afford to live in the community. People are also concerned about local businesses, schools and service providers that are struggling to hire and retain people. As we face this difficult situation that impacts our entire region as well as our city, we also know that our community has innovators and problem solvers. Together, we can make meaningful progress. How are communities in San Mateo County responding? Most are encouraging development of new housing near public transit, updating downtown planning policies and exploring new sources of funding. In Burlingame we have a unique opportunity to utilize two city-owned downtown parking lots (F&N) to create new affordable housing as well as a new parking structure. The housing part of this development is called the “Village at Burlingame.” 2 B: DOWNTOWN: What is the City’s vision for the Downtown? 1. Why is the city developing the parking lots? In 2010 the Burlingame City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The culmination of a multi-year community planning process, the Plan provides a framework for sustaining the existing success of the downtown and accommodating new opportunities. One aspect of the Downtown Specific Plan is a focus on better use of parking facilities downtown, particularly the twenty City-owned surface parking lots. The plan encourages parking lots to be converted to different uses over time, such as housing, open space, and additional parking. Choices about uses are guided by what will most benefit the downtown area. Consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan, the City Council has expressed a keen interest in expanding the housing options available in Burlingame, including the provision of more affordable housing options, a category of housing that is minimally represented amongst the existing housing stock within the community. Extremely high property values and rental rates for housing within the Bay Area Region and particularly on the San Francisco Peninsula have escalated dramatically in recent years, forcing many who have enjoyed the quality of life in Burlingame to leave due to the ever- increasing costs of housing in the community. Likewise, as parking is important to Downtown businesses and residents alike, the City Council has been evaluating options for improving parking in the downtown area. This includes accommodating demand by using the land more efficiently with decked or structured parking. The proposed development of Parking Lots F and N is intended to respond to these objectives with:  new housing units to support the community, including housing for seniors and for people working in the community;  additional, conveniently-located parking for use by downtown businesses and residents alike;  additional open space to be enjoyed by both current and new residents. 3 Location of Parking Lots F and N 4 C: MIX OF HOUSING CHOICES: What types of housing are available to enhance Burlingame’s overall quality of life (relative to longtime residents, newer residents, economic vitality, etc.?) 1. What is the official government definition of Affordable Housing? And how do federal, state and local governments help support making housing more affordable to more people? When people talk about “affordable housing, they may be referring to housing that fits a person’s or family’s budget. In conversation, it is common to hear, “we need more affordable housing” or “I wish I could find affordable housing in the Bay Area.” The term “affordable housing” also has an official technical definition when referred to by local, state and federal governments. In this case, the commonly used definition of affordable rental housing, created by the federal government, is that a household’s housing is affordable if that household pays no more than 30 percent of its income towards rent and utilities. “Household income” refers to the combined incomes of all of the residents of a single house or apartment, whether related by family or not. In expensive areas of the country such as the Bay Area, housing costs for low-income and moderate-income families regularly exceed the accepted definition of affordable housing. In order to create more affordable conditions in high-cost areas, housing may receive some type of subsidy to reduce the cost to the renter. Subsidies can occur in two ways – directly to the renter through such programs as the Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8) or indirectly to the building owner who then agrees to use the subsidy to charge below-market rate rents. Owner subsidies are accomplished in many ways such as, land donations (reducing the cost of development), tax credit financing (federal and state), direct government payments (San Mateo County’s Affordable Housing Fund), low interest loans or zoning incentives. 2. What does “workforce” housing mean? Workforce housing is a term that is increasingly used by governments, planners and organizations concerned with housing policy or advocacy. The term does not have a 5 well- recognized definition, but is often used to describe a portion of the population that is seen as earning too much to qualify for subsidized housing and earning too little to be able to afford rents in a region. In the Bay Area, the term is frequently used to describe households earning between 80% - 120% of Area Median Income (AMI). Some planners reduce the lower end to 60% of AMI because housing subsidies are not available to households earning above this level. 3. How does eligibility for “affordable housing” work? Every housing subsidy program uses a central statistic — the area median income, or AMI — to determine whether families are eligible for the program and at what level. The area median income (AMI) is the household income for the median — or middle — household in a region. Each year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculates the median income for every metropolitan region in the country. HUD focuses on the region — rather than just a city — because families searching for housing are likely to look beyond the city itself to find a place to live. In San Mateo County, the HUD-defined “Unadjusted Area Median Income” (AMI) for a family of four currently is $115,300. 4. What is the meaning of low, very low, moderate, etc. income? By government definition, “Moderate-Income” means a household with an income that is 120% of the “Area Median Income” (AMI), “Low-income” means a household with an income that is 80% of AMI, “Very-Low Income” means a household with an income that is 50% of AMI, and “Extremely-Low Income” means a household with an income at 30% of AMI. The chart below lists these income definitions and the amount of rent a family in San Mateo County can “afford” (i.e., that is no more than 30% of their household income). 6 5. What ages qualify for Senior Housing? Depending on the project and circumstances, possible answers can be 55+ or 62. At the Village at Burlingame the age qualification will be 55+. D: ABOUT THE VILLAGE: Project Overview and City’s role 1. What are the number of units in the building? The current proposal for the Village at Burlingame, which will evolve over time, is designed to be an intergenerational complex with approximately 132 units over all, 78 for workforce and 54 for seniors. The proposal envisions a mix of one and two bedroom units. 2. How tall will the project be? In the current proposal, the height is proposed to be 55 feet to the top of the roof parapet (in other words, the top of the outer wall). Enclosures for the elevators and stairwells will extend an additional 10 feet to contain mechanical equipment and to allow emergency access to the rooftop. 3. Who will rent these units? The broad intent is for the units to be rented by people working in Burlingame, and Burlingame seniors. Prospective residents must fall within the income limits and pass typical tenant background checks. To the full degree allowed by fair housing regulations, Burlingame residents and/or workers will receive preference for selection. It is intended that the proposed project has a mix of families and ages. The program design is still under review, but in general is intended to give a preference for public agency employees as well as persons living or working in Burlingame. 4. What are the requirements to rent here? The workforce units are intended for people who work in the local area, so all units will have income requirements. The income requirements will vary depending on the designated income level assigned to each unit, ranging from 50% of area median income up to 120% of area median income. 7 The senior units are intended for seniors with incomes ranging from 50% of area median income, up to market rate. The income requirements will vary depending on the designated income level assigned to each unit. 5. How many people will be occupying each unit? Is this limited? The units have either one or two bedrooms. While too soon to adopt occupancy standards, the City will insist that best industry practices be followed by the owner/operator. 6. How close to the property line will the building be? The front of the building is designed to be built up to the sidewalk with no setback, in the manner of traditional downtown buildings. The sides are proposed to vary from 3’-4” to 10 feet, depending on the portion of the building. The rear is proposed to be 5 feet from the property line. 7. Can my friends or family get on the wait list for these units? A process, including any local preferences, will be established when completion is closer and that outreach will be especially intensive within Burlingame. 8. When will the construction start? Building Permits are estimated to take approximately 5-6 months after the project is approved by the City Council. Preliminary grading and excavation may begin prior to full permits depending on time of year. Obtaining funding commitments from the state and, if needed, from the county are variables that may add to the timeline. Depending on the timing of the City approval and finalizing the funding commitments, a possible timeframe could be in 2019 or 2020 for all permits to be issued and construction of the structures to be underway. 9. How long will construction last? Both the housing and the parking structure are anticipated to be completed within 24-28 months of start of construction. The duration of construction will depend on the time of year excavation can begin and the final requirements imposed through the project review process. 10. What is the rent charged? By rent is determined by income category and household size. Generally rents are set to be no more than 30% of their household income for each income category. The 8 income categories and rents are adjusted each year based on the area median income of San Mateo County. 11. Will this be “Section 8” housing? Families with vouchers may not qualify for this housing depending upon the target income requirements of the development. In general, because the building is anticipated to be built with other housing subsidies, vouchers would not be appropriate. The Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program, commonly known as Section 8, is a federal program of rental subsidies that is administered by local housing authorities. It is not an entitlement program and the amount available for subsidies each year depends upon federal budget allocation. In general, a qualifying family's income may not exceed 50% of the median income for the county or metropolitan area in which the family chooses to live. A family that is issued a housing voucher is responsible for finding a suitable housing unit that meets program maximum rental limits as well as health and safety requirements. A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the housing authority on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program. E: ABOUT PARKING AND LOCAL TRAFFIC FLOW 1. What will parking be like with the new apartments? Parking will be provided at the same ratio as other downtown apartment projects. There will be 1 space for each 1-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces for each 2-bedroom unit. In practice, the residents of some two bedroom units will need two spaces, whereas others will only need one space, so the 1.5 space ratio is an average. The City has found these parking ratios are suitable for downtown residential apartment developments, given the proximity to transit and services. 2. Where will the cars park that used to park in the lot? As a part of the overall project, the developer is required to replace the 97 public parking spaces displaced by the construction of the apartment development on parking Lot F. These spaces will be replaced via construction of a five-level public parking 9 structure on parking Lot N that would aggregate the public parking spaces on Lots F (97 spaces) and N (109 spaces) for a total of replacement 206 spaces. 3. Where will guests visiting the apartments park? Guests would most likely park in Parking Lot G, across Park Road from the apartments, or parking structure at Lot N, through the park and across Lorton Avenue. 4. Who is building the parking garage? The parking garage would be built by the housing developer, Pacific West Communities. However the City of Burlingame would ultimately own the structure. 5. How tall is the parking garage and how many stalls will there be? The parking structure would have five parking levels. The fifth parking level would be on the roof, so the structure would more closely resemble a four-story building. The total height would be 46’-6”. 6. How many parking stalls will be in the new garage, and how many more is that compared to the current, surface lots? The proposed garage would have a total of 388 spaces. This includes 182 new, additional spaces that will be provided beyond those in the existing lots. The additional spaces are intended to serve the downtown area and its surrounding neighborhoods as public parking. 7. Where will the drop off and pick up of the school happen since many parents use the city lot for this purpose? Public Parking Lot G, across Park Road and adjacent to St Catherine of Siena School, will remain a public parking lot and continue to be available. Did you find this document useful? If you have suggestions for other information we should include, please contact Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager, by phone at 650-558-7253 or by email at kgardiner@burlingame.org. Lot Merger to combine portion of Lot 7 and Lots 8, 9, 14 and 15 150 Park Road (Lot F), zoned HMU and R-4 Incentive District; 160 Lorton Avenue (Lot N), zoned R-4 Incentive District N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N M I C H A E L G. I M B E RA R C H I T E C T111 WEST EL PRADOSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212© 2018 Michael G. Imber ArchitectFAX (210) 824-7706(210) 824-7703SASTRY RESIDENCEFEBRUARY 7, 2018CITY PLANNING FYI SUBMITTALOWNER INFORMATION:NAVEEN & SESHU SASTRY1354 COLUMBUS AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(650) 525-1843APN: 027-152-320NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA3.01EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"24'-0"sidesetback42'-0"4'-0"sidesetback9'-6"proposeddriveway1'-10"9'-10" 7'-6"+90.24 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ WEST P.L.-1'-9" (REF.)+90.70 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ EAST P.L.-1'-4" (REF.)6'-11"11'-2"29'-9"MASTER BEDRM. PLATE HT.+18'-7" (REF.)45.00°12'-0" 12'-0"45.00°30'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curbp r o p e r t y l i n e p r o p e r t y l i n e DECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ EAST SIDEDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ WEST SIDE834"EAVE OVERHANGBEYOND ENVELOPE(UP TO 2'-0" OVER-HANG ALLOWED)EXTERIOR FACE OFWALLLOCATEDWITHIN D.H.E.2'-0"STONE VENEER ATCHIMNEY AS SELECTEDCUT STONE CHIMNEY CAPCHAMFERED CORNERCHIMNEY POT AS SELECTED12163-COAT STUCCOFINISH -ARCHITECTTO SELECT COLOR& TEXTUREPLASTER BUTRESSOPEN TOPORCHBEYONDSTONE BASE ASSELECTEDSTONE GARDEN WALLVENEER STONEAS SELECTEDROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCO FINISH -ARCHITECT TO SELECT COLOR & TEXTURESTONE GARDEN WALL1212STAINEDTIMBER TRIMAS SELECTEDPTD. TRIM & V-GROOVE SIDINGFINISH AS SELECTED6.5124121012MTL. CHIMNEY TIE ROD3129.512TIMBER, FINISHAS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT7'-6"+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)WOOD CLAD CASEMENTWINDOW AS SELECTED,SIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BARS, TYP.(92.56 + 88.94)2(91.88 + 88.6)26" V-GROOVE PLANKINGPAINTEDFINISH AS SELECTEDPTD. TRIM W/V-GROOVE PLANKINGPAINTED FINISH AS SELECTED2'-4" X 4'-5" EGRESSWINDOW - WOODEXT. CLAD CASEMENTSIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BAR, TYP.(EGRESS)2'-0"METAL STEPFLASHINGAS SELECTED30'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curbEXISTING GRADE @BUILDING FOOTPRINTSHOWN DASHEDSCREEN WALL REMOVED FOR CLARITY -SHOWN DASHED21'-0"second floor frontsetback21'-0"FIRST floor frontsetbackp r o p e r t y l i n e1214 12121214OPEN TOPORCHBEYONDTAPERED STONE COLUMNROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &FINISHSTONE GARDEN WALL3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR& FINISH126.5129.5312COPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUTCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT, TYP.VENEER STONEAS SELECTEDTIMBER, FINISHAS SELECTEDPTD. COMPOSITE SIDING& TRIM AS SELECTED1'-8"2'-3 1 4"3'-0"BASEMENT WINDOWWELLS SHOWN DASHED2'-0"'LOWER FLOOR'AREA SHOWNWITH HATCH2'-3"FOUNDATIONWALL BEYOND+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)1'-10"9'-10" 29'-9" 18'-1"LIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.12'-0" B/CLG. AT DORMERWOOD CLAD CASEMENTWINDOW AS SELECTED,SIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BAR, TYP.STAINED WOOD ENTRYDOOR W/VISION PANELWOOD CLAD EXTERIORDOOR AS SELECTED,SIMULATED DIVIDEDLITE W/ SPACER BAR3-COAT STUCCO SCREENWALL AS SELECTED6" V-GROOVEPLANKING - PAINTEDFINISH AS SELECTEDWOOD/COMPOSITEGUARDRAIL & PICKETSAS SELECTED - RE:DETAILS/ A4.011'-6"BAY PROJECTION2'-4" X 3'-7" EGRESSWINDOW - WOODEXT. CLAD PUSH-OUTCASEMENT, SIMULATEDDIVIDED LITE W/SPACER BAR, TYP.(EGRESS)2'-4" X 3'-7" EGRESSWINDOW - WOOD EXT.CLAD PUSH-OUT CASEMENT(EGRESS)SIM.WINDOW FILM TO BE ADDEDTO (5) STAIRWELL AND (5)CLERESTORY WINDOWS, TYP.WINDOW FILM TOBE ADDED TO (2)BEDROOM WINDOWSARCHED WINDOWS W/TRANSLUCENT GLASSAS SELECTED, TYP. OF (3) M I C H A E L G. I M B E RA R C H I T E C T111 WEST EL PRADOSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212© 2018 Michael G. Imber ArchitectFAX (210) 824-7706(210) 824-7703SASTRY RESIDENCEFEBRUARY 7, 2018CITY PLANNING FYI SUBMITTALOWNER INFORMATION:NAVEEN & SESHU SASTRY1354 COLUMBUS AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(650) 525-1843APN: 027-152-320NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA3.02EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSNORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"24'-0"sidesetback42'-0"4'-0"sidesetback+90.24 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ WEST P.L.-1'-9" (REF.)8'-5" PLATE HT.45.00° 12'-0" 12'-0"45.00°30'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curbp r o p e r t y l i n e p r o p e r t y l i n e DECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ EAST SIDEDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE @ WEST SIDE834"EAVE OVERHANGBEYOND ENVELOPE(UP TO 2'-0" OVER-HANG ALLOWED)EXTERIOR FACE OFWALL LOCATEDWITHIN D.H.E.ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED12161212SIDINGAS SELECTED,PAINTED1281012125.53121243-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTURE3-COAT STUCCO - ARCHITECTTO SELECT COLOR & TEXTURETIMBER BRACKETFINISH AS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCO SCREENWALL AS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUT6'-0" STAINED WD. FENCE AS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER7'-6" 7'-6" STAINED WD. GATEAS SELECTED+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+90.70 AVG. EXIST. GRADE @ EAST P.L.-1'-4" (REF.)LIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.WOOD CLAD EXTERIORDOOR & TRANSOMASSEMBLY AS SELECTEDSIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/SPACER BAR, TYP.(92.56 + 88.94)2(91.88 + 88.6)2GUARD RAIL SHOWNDASHED (REMOVEDFOR CLARITY)2'-4" X 3'-7" EGRESSWINDOW - WOODEXT. CLAD CASEMENT(EGRESS)2'-0"(EGRESS)8.512101212830'-0" max. building ht. measured from avg. t/curb21'-0"second floor frontsetbackp r o p e r t y l i n e STONE VENEER ATCHIMNEY AS SELECTEDCUT STONE CHIMNEY CAPCHAMFERED CORNERCHIMNEY POT AS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTUREROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED12141031212PLASTER BUTTRESSW/STONE BASE AS SELECTEDSTONE BASE ASSELECTEDROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTUREROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTEDCOPPER GUTTER &DOWNSPOUTIRON GUARDRAIL & PICKETSAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &TEXTUREBASEMENT WINDOWWELL SHOWN DASHED -RE: DETAILS/A4.013-COAT STUCCO SCREENWALL AS SELECTEDSTONE LANDSCAPESTEPS AS SELECTED'LOWER FLOOR'AREA SHOWNWITH HATCHFOUNDATION WALLBEYOND4'-1"+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+92.02 AVG. T/CURB +0'-0" (REF.)+91.83 1sT FLOOR F.F.-0'-2" (REF.)+122.02 MAX. BUILDING HT.+30'-0" (REF.)+101.83 1st FLOOR B/CLG.+9'-10" (REF.)+103.67 2nd FLOOR F.F.+11-8" (REF.)+121.77 T/RIDGE+29'-9" (REF.)DIRECT VENTTHROUGH CHIMNEYLIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.2'-0"21'-0"FIRST floor frontsetback1'-6"BAY PROJECTION4'-0" X 4'-5" EGRESSWINDOW - WOOD EXT.CLAD FRENCH CASEMENTSIMULATED DIVIDED LITEW/ SPACER BAR, TYP.WOOD/COMPOSITEGUARDRAIL & PICKETSAS SELECTED - RE:DETAILS/ A4.01COMBUSTION AIR INTAKE FORBASEMENT MECH. ROOM - LOUVERAS SELECTED & 14 " MESH (EXACT SIZETO BE COORDINATED WITH MECH.)4'-0" X 4'-0" EGRESSWINDOW - WOOD EXT.CLAD FRENCH CASEMENT(EGRESS)(EGRESS)1214 M I C H A E L G. I M B E RA R C H I T E C T111 WEST EL PRADOSAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78212© 2018 Michael G. Imber ArchitectFAX (210) 824-7706(210) 824-7703SASTRY RESIDENCEFEBRUARY 7, 2018CITY PLANNING FYI SUBMITTALOWNER INFORMATION:NAVEEN & SESHU SASTRY1354 COLUMBUS AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010(650) 525-1843APN: 027-152-320NOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONA3.03GARAGE ELEVATIONSGARAGE - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"1GARAGE - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"4GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"3GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"2GARAGE - SECTIONSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"5p r o p e r t y l i n eROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTEDDORMERBEYONDPARGE COAT FLUSHWITH STUCCO3123-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR& FINISHLIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.12712722'-4"14'-1134"SOLID PANEL DOORS2'-0"SOLIDPANELDOORp r o p e r t y l i n e ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED312PROPOSEDGAS METERPROPOSEDELECTRIC METER1271272'-0"ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTEDDORMER W/ WD.LOUVERS - FINISHAS SELECTEDPARGE COAT FLUSHWITH STUCCO127ROOF SHINGLESAS SELECTED3-COAT STUCCOARCHITECT TOSELECT COLOR &FINISH12712712714'-113 4"17'-10"LIGHT FIXTUREAS SELECTED -40 WATTS MAX.HARDIE 4" LAP SIDINGLOUVER PANEL ASSEMBLY312127127ROOF COLLAR TIESLOCATED GARAGE DOORTRACKS, RE: STRUCT.STORAGE ABOVECOLLAR TIESBUILT-UPCURB4"THERMAL INSULATIONIN ROOFSLOPEDORMER WITHCEMENTITIOUS PLANKINFILL AS SELECTED Planting Notes 1. Contractor to verify that all soil is 5" below house stucco line. 2. No mulch shall come within 3" of house stucco line. 3. Soil shall be graded away from building at 2% slope for 5'. L1 Sastry MN 1/25/2018 Sastry.vwx - ProposedSastry ResidenceLandscape Design1354 Columbus Ave.Site Plan Reviewed by: Drawn by: Date: Jenna Bayer Garden Design, Inc. 1954 Old Middlefield Way Suite B Mountain View California 94043 Tel: 650.988.9600 Fax: 650.988.9602 info@jennabayer.com www.jennabayer.com Issued for: Project ID: CAD File: Burlingame, CADescriptionDate#Issue/Revision:Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018Time: 1:37:07 PMFile name: Sastry MN (1).vwx(E) 24"MAGNOLIA 8"WALNUT N55°04'35"W50.02'N34°56'00"E120.00'N55°04'32"W50.02'COLUMBUS AVENUEALLEY4'-0"4'-0"SETBACKSETBACKN34°56'00"E120.00' GAS 3 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 2 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 1 T89 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 6 V9 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 3 S162 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 18 T104 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 3' TALL DRIVE COURT GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPOSED ELEC. METER LOCATIONA L L E YEXIST. JOINT POLE (WITH RISER)EXIST. POWER LINEUP LOW WALLSANITARY SEWER DN +92.23 T.O.C. ELEVATION +91.77 T.O.C. ELEVATION +88.6 ELEVATION +88.84 ELEVATION +92.56 ELEVATION +91.88 ELEVATION PROPOSED SAN. SEWER RECYCLING COMPOST TRASH GATE (E) FENCE (N) FENCE, 6' TALL + 1' TRELLIS 3' HIGH FENCE TO SIDEWALK GATE (2) 24" FENCE PB PB PB LAWN 215 SF GARAGE PATIO STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS DRIVEWAY ENTRY COURT STONE PAVERS ENTRY WALK HOUSE ROOF EAVE TRASH PB (N) GATE, 36" R=12"SIDEWALKFLAGSTONE STEPPINGSTONES 3R@5.5" 2T@11.5" 4R@6" 3T@13" HANDRAIL LANDING GUARD- & HANDRAIL 1R@3" DN PBPB PB PB PBPB PB 1'-9"5'-3"3'-0" R=24" 1 2 3 4 2nd FLOOR BAY PROJECTION (N) 3' TALL STUCCO WALL (MASONRY) (E) HEDGE (N) 36" GATE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PB (N) TALL STUCCO WALL (FRAMED) 2'-11"4'-0"3'-3"20'-11"(E) PLANT WINDOW 14" 21'-0" SETBACK PB 6' TALL(N) BBQ 21'-8" VERIFY ALIGN(N) A/C CONDENSERS ON 1'-6" x 8'-0" CONC. PAD (E) CONC. CURB TO REMAIN (DO NOT DISTURB) EVERGREEN FLOWERING VINES, TBD ~15'-0" on 5' centers 3'-6"DIMENSION TO BE VERIFIED BY SURVEYOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 5'-6" VERIFY band continue? on 24" x 36" Proposed Site Plan Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 L1 0 5 15 25 35 45 FT Areas AREA SQ. FT. HARDSCAPE 2,270 LAWN 240 PLANTING BEDS 1,771 LOT 6,000 Abbreviations AD AREA DRAIN BOW BOTTOM OF WALL CO CLEAN OUT DI DRAIN INLET DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE DS DOWNSPOUT (E)EXISTING EO ELECTRICAL OUTLET EM ELECTRIC METER ETR EXISTING TO REMAIN FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FH FIRE HYDRANT GM GAS METER HB HOSE BIBE L/S LANDSCAPING (N)NEW NIC NOT IN CONTRACT OC ON CENTERS POC-W POINT OF CONNECTION WATERMAIN(P)PROPOSED PB PLANTING BED SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TFS TRANSPLANT FROM SITE TOS TOP OF SLOPE TOSTP TOP OF STEP TOW TOP OF WALL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WM WATER MAIN +100 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION +(100)PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION W SS Gas UNDERGROUND GAS LINE UNDERGROUND SEWER SANITARY LINE UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Plant Schedule Image ID Qty Latin Name Common Name Scheduled Size Remarks T31 2 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE V9 6 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 5 gal T553 2 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora'Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T89 1 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T104 18 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 15 gal S1592 5 Rosa x 'JACtou'Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 5 gal S162 3 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 15 gal on 5' centers Removed Trees (see tree removal plan L0) 5" Podocarpus 6" Podocarpus 6" Walnut 10" Aristocrat Pear Magnolia REPLACEMENT TREE DESIGNATION Legend 1 1 T1996 Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' 'Aristocrat' Callery Pear Tree PLANT TAG PB - PLANTING BED LAWN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PLANT TO REMAIN Staked Tree & Bubbler Irrigation Details N.T.S. 2 L1 Proposed plan3/2/2017Pln Chk Response7/19/201711 1 Location of A/C Condensing Units to be determined 38'-11" Current Location of Wood Fence Return 3'1-1/2"Construction Notes 1. Distance City Sidewalk to Existing Wood Fence Return at neighbor's is 39'11" 2. Distance of Neighbor's house to outside edge of existing concrete curb is 3'1-1/2" 3. New Stucco wall to be completely on property at 1354 Columbus Ave. Burlingame (Owners:Sastrys) 4.Contractor to protect Neighbor's existing planting during construction 5. Contractor to provide tree protection as required by City of Burlingame, along property line 6. Verification of property line prior to construction to be performed, and viewed by Neighbors at 1350 Columbus Ave. Burlingame.Stucco Wall Revs. 01/29/2018 Planting Notes 1. Contractor to verify that all soil is 5" below house stucco line. 2. No mulch shall come within 3" of house stucco line. 3. Soil shall be graded away from building at 2% slope for 5'. L1 Sastry MN 1/25/2018 Sastry.vwx - ProposedSastry ResidenceLandscape Design1354 Columbus Ave.Site Plan Reviewed by: Drawn by: Date: Jenna Bayer Garden Design, Inc. 1954 Old Middlefield Way Suite B Mountain View California 94043 Tel: 650.988.9600 Fax: 650.988.9602 info@jennabayer.com www.jennabayer.com Issued for: Project ID: CAD File: Burlingame, CADescriptionDate#Issue/Revision:Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2018Time: 1:37:07 PMFile name: Sastry MN (1).vwx(E) 24"MAGNOLIA 8"WALNUT N55°04'35"W50.02'N34°56'00"E120.00'N55°04'32"W50.02'COLUMBUS AVENUEALLEY4'-0"4'-0"SETBACKSETBACKN34°56'00"E120.00' GAS 3 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 2 S1592 Rosa x 'JACtou' Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 1 T89 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 6 V9 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T31 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 1 T553 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora' Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 3 S162 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 18 T104 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 3' TALL DRIVE COURT GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPERTY LINE SIDE SETBACK GRATE ABV. WND. WELL PROPOSED ELEC. METER LOCATIONA L L E YEXIST. JOINT POLE (WITH RISER)EXIST. POWER LINEUP LOW WALLSANITARY SEWER DN +92.23 T.O.C. ELEVATION +91.77 T.O.C. ELEVATION +88.6 ELEVATION +88.84 ELEVATION +92.56 ELEVATION +91.88 ELEVATION PROPOSED SAN. SEWER RECYCLING COMPOST TRASH GATE (E) FENCE (N) FENCE, 6' TALL + 1' TRELLIS 3' HIGH FENCE TO SIDEWALK GATE (2) 24" FENCE PB PB PB LAWN 215 SF GARAGE PATIO STONE PAVERS STONE PAVERS DRIVEWAY ENTRY COURT STONE PAVERS ENTRY WALK HOUSE ROOF EAVE TRASH PB (N) GATE, 36" R=12"SIDEWALKFLAGSTONE STEPPINGSTONES 3R@5.5" 2T@11.5" 4R@6" 3T@13" HANDRAIL LANDING GUARD- & HANDRAIL 1R@3" DN PBPB PB PB PBPB PB 1'-9"5'-3"3'-0" R=24" 1 2 3 4 2nd FLOOR BAY PROJECTION (N) 3' TALL STUCCO WALL (MASONRY) (E) HEDGE (N) 36" GATE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE PB (N) TALL STUCCO WALL (FRAMED) 2'-11"4'-0"3'-3"20'-11"(E) PLANT WINDOW 14" 21'-0" SETBACK PB 6' TALL(N) BBQ 21'-8" VERIFY ALIGN(N) A/C CONDENSERS ON 1'-6" x 8'-0" CONC. PAD (E) CONC. CURB TO REMAIN (DO NOT DISTURB) EVERGREEN FLOWERING VINES, TBD ~15'-0" on 5' centers 3'-6"DIMENSION TO BE VERIFIED BY SURVEYOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 5'-6" VERIFY band continue? on 24" x 36" Proposed Site Plan Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" 1 L1 0 5 15 25 35 45 FT Areas AREA SQ. FT. HARDSCAPE 2,270 LAWN 240 PLANTING BEDS 1,771 LOT 6,000 Abbreviations AD AREA DRAIN BOW BOTTOM OF WALL CO CLEAN OUT DI DRAIN INLET DG DECOMPOSED GRANITE DS DOWNSPOUT (E)EXISTING EO ELECTRICAL OUTLET EM ELECTRIC METER ETR EXISTING TO REMAIN FFE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATION FH FIRE HYDRANT GM GAS METER HB HOSE BIBE L/S LANDSCAPING (N)NEW NIC NOT IN CONTRACT OC ON CENTERS POC-W POINT OF CONNECTION WATERMAIN(P)PROPOSED PB PLANTING BED SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE TFS TRANSPLANT FROM SITE TOS TOP OF SLOPE TOSTP TOP OF STEP TOW TOP OF WALL UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WM WATER MAIN +100 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION +(100)PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION W SS Gas UNDERGROUND GAS LINE UNDERGROUND SEWER SANITARY LINE UNDERGROUND WATER LINE Plant Schedule Image ID Qty Latin Name Common Name Scheduled Size Remarks T31 2 Aesculus x carnea Red Horsechestnut 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE V9 6 Clytostoma callistegioides Lavender Trumpet Vine 5 gal T553 2 Lagerstroemia 'Tuscarora'Tuscarora Crape Myrtle 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T89 1 Magnolia x soulangiana Saucer Magnolia 24" box REPLACEMENT TREE T104 18 Podocarpus gracilior Fern Podocarpus 15 gal S1592 5 Rosa x 'JACtou'Midas Touch Tm Hybrid Tea Rose 5 gal S162 3 Tibouchina urvilleana Princess Flower 15 gal on 5' centers Removed Trees (see tree removal plan L0) 5" Podocarpus 6" Podocarpus 6" Walnut 10" Aristocrat Pear Magnolia REPLACEMENT TREE DESIGNATION Legend 1 1 T1996 Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat' 'Aristocrat' Callery Pear Tree PLANT TAG PB - PLANTING BED LAWN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING PLANT TO REMAIN Staked Tree & Bubbler Irrigation Details N.T.S. 2 L1 Proposed plan3/2/2017Pln Chk Response7/19/201711 1 Location of A/C Condensing Units to be determined 38'-11" Current Location of Wood Fence Return 3'1-1/2"Construction Notes 1. Distance City Sidewalk to Existing Wood Fence Return at neighbor's is 39'11" 2. Distance of Neighbor's house to outside edge of existing concrete curb is 3'1-1/2" 3. New Stucco wall to be completely on property at 1354 Columbus Ave. Burlingame (Owners:Sastrys) 4.Contractor to protect Neighbor's existing planting during construction 5. Contractor to provide tree protection as required by City of Burlingame, along property line 6. Verification of property line prior to construction to be performed, and viewed by Neighbors at 1350 Columbus Ave. Burlingame.Stucco Wall Revs. 01/29/2018