Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2017.11.13
CITY O p ipQRATED , Monday, November 13, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda Planning Commission 7:00 PM 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft October 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes b. October 23. 2017 Plannina Commission Meetina Minutes Attachments: Draft October 23, 2017 Meeting Minutes 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers 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 a. 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B, zoned IB - Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit studio) business. (Craig Ranier Gadduang, applicant; Blaise Descollonges, RSS Architecture, architect; 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLC, property owner) (17 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.13.17 City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda November 13, 2017 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. a. 472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 (e) (2). L Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Salima Fassil, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 472 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 472 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 472 Bloomfield Rd - Plans - 11.13.17 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearce Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 b. 1341 Vancouver Avenue. zoned R-1 - Application for Desian Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1341 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1341 Vancouver Ave -Attachments 1341 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda November 13, 2017 521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Patrick R. Gilson. applicant and Droperty owner: Stewart Associates. architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 521 Burlingame Ave - received after documents 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 d. 1304 Mills Avenue . zoned R-1- ADDlication for Desian Review for a first and second sto addition to an existing single-family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1304 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1304 Mills Ave - Attachments 1304 Mills Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 1025 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 300 Airport Boulevard. zoned APN - ADDlication for Amendment of the Desian Review approval of an office/life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner (This item has been continued to the November 27. 2017 meeting) 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda November 13, 2017 a. 133 Pepper Avenue. zoned R-1 - Application for Desian 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 (Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; Jennifer Colvin Trust, property owner) (53 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 133 Pepper Ave - Staff Report 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 1 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 2 133 Pepper Ave - Attachments 3 133 Pepper Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 133 Pepper Ave - Rendering - 11.13.17 b. 1465 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC- Application for Commercial Deign Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new full service restaurant. (Josh Stumpf, Chef & The Butcher, applicant; William Duff Architects, architect; Mengshi Shen, property owner) (30 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1465 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1465 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 C. 619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) - Design Review Studv for a new four-storv. 26-Unit live/work development with retial commercial space on the ground floor, which requires applications for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and Lot Merger (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 619-625 California Dr - Staff Report 619-625 California Dr - Attachments 619-625 California Dr - Plans - 11.13.17 619-625 California Dr - Rendering 1 619-625 California Dr - Rendering 2 City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda November 13, 2017 d. 920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave.. 108 Mvrtle Rd.. 112 Mvrtle Rd.. 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multi Family Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking. (Fore Property Company, applicant; John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G. Ohlund Et Al, Doris J. Mortensen Tr. - property owners; Withee Malcolm Architects LLP, architects) (160 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 920 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 920 Bayswater Ave - 7.10.17 Minutes - Response letter of changes 920 Bayswater Ave - Application Materials 920 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Ltrs from 7.10.17 mtq 920 Bayswater Ave - Neighbor Ltrs for 11.13.17 mtq 920 Bayswater Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting November 6, 2017 a. 1411 De Soto Ave - Review of requested revisions by the Planning Commission to a previously approved Design Review project. Attachments: 1411 De Soto Ave - Memorandum 1411 De Soto Ave - Plans - 11.13.17 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 November 13, 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 November 27, 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. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 111912017 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Present 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent 1 - Gaul 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul a. September 11, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft September 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Sargent abstained from approving the minutes for the September 11th meeting because he was absent from that meeting. b. September 25, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Attachments: Draft September 25, 2017 Meeting Minutes Commissioner Kelly abstained from approving the minutes for the September 25th meeting because he was absent from that meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments on non -agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS a. 1220 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Conditional Use Permits for an accessory structure to have a bathroom, building height exceeding 11-feet above grade, and skylights more than 10-feet above grade. (Patricia and Michael Bader, applicant and City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 property owners; Tim Raduenz, Form+ One, designer) (51 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1220 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1220 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1220 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Commissioner Kelly was recused from this item. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > The Planning Commission is only evaluating the conditional use permits, and not design review, correct? (Hurin: Correct.) > Unclear how the staff report mentions that the FAR is increasing. (Hurin: Assumes existing garage is demolished, so increase is reflective of adding the new detached garage.) > Still under the allowable FAR? (Hurin: Yes.) > Is a sink in a garage is allowed by right? If they wanted to add a sink in the future it would just need a building permit but not Planning Commission approval? (Hurin: Yes, sink would need to be clear of the 10 x 20 parking area. A toilet would require Planning Commission approval.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Randuenz, Form + One, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Are the double doors glass? Usually when people work in their garage they work with the garage door opened. (Randuenz: Garage door will not have glass. Will be a solid door.) > Were other designs for the garage considered? (Randuenz: Considered a traditional garage with the ridge in the center, but it would look different from the house. Also wanted additional storage above with the higher ceiling.) > What is the purpose of the shower? (Randuenz: Don't want to have to go into the house if they are in the back yard. In the future could become an inlaw unit if the City allowed it.) > CUP application states it does not affect neighbors visually. How will it not affect them visually? (Randuenz: Neighbors to the right side would see a square rather than a triangle. They'd see roofing.) > Is matching the house more important than matching the interface with the neighbor? (Randuenz: The interface with the neighbor is more important, and the neighbor does not object. It's a "win -win.') Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Does not see how the design would have less impact on the neighbor compared to other potential designs. Believes an a -frame roof with a ridgeline parallel to the property line would be less impactful and would not require a CUP. > Does not know the history of the house, but not sure it would make it through design review currently. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Commission has been consistent in not been allowing a shower in the garage. Suggests it would be converted into an ADU but could not be done legally because the property would not be able to meet the parking requirement. > The regulations for the roof are intended structures to be further away from the property line as they get taller. > Design may be compatible with the existing house but it is not compatible with adjoining properties in the vicinity. > Feels like a future dwelling unit more than a working garage, from the double doors to the skylight. > Does not accommodate the requirements for the CUP since it creates a visual problem for the neighbors. There was no action on this item since it is a Study Item. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 160 Elm Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling with a detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15331 (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Lauren and Brad Kettmann, property owners) (37 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 160 Elm Ave - Staff Report 160 Elm Ave - Attachments 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull- Historic Resource Study 160 Elm Ave - Page & Turnbull- Protect Analysis 160 Elm Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > None. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > None. There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Commission Discussion: > The changes are appropriate. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul b. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the project architect to get a preview of the revisions. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > None. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Barbara and Terry Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture and landscape architect Stephanie O'Rourke. Commission Questions/Comments: > How tall is the wood -sided surface on the driveway facade? (Pearcy: Estimates a little over 10 feet.) > Would it be possible to move the foundation so the tree could be retained? (Pearcy: It is a tree that deserves a park -like setting. The canopy is 50 feet in diameter. Over time it has outgrown its location. Probably went in at a smaller size. To build with a tree that size it would need a 20 foot setback from the trunk, which would disrupt the consistent street face setbacks. It is difficult to provide landscaping with the root system and shade.) > Any possibility to push the garage back from the fence or lower the massing? (Pearcy: Has added screening trees to the east of the garage along the fence line. Three English laurels are proposed, which are thick canopy trees that grow vertically and retain leaves all year. There are also three existing trees on the neighboring property. The garage is set back 2 feet from the property line, has an 8-foot plate line. Gable is pitch is 6/12 to match the existing house.) > How tall will the laurel trees grow? (Pearcy: Starts in 24-inch boxes, 6-8 feet at planting.)(O'Rourke: Will grow to 15-25 feet.) > How tall will the plantings grow along the driveway? (O'Rourke: About 8 feet.) > Has the gate been pushed back to the point where the existing low landscape wall is? (Pearcy: It is at City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 the transition of the existing brick wall and the existing wood fence.) Public Comments: Iry Holmes, neighbor to the north - 15-foot high building will impose over the yard, compromise view, destroy quality of space. Character of the home will be gone forever. Two of the existing trees in the yard are deciduous so will not provide screening. Simultaneously three new home constructions will be going on around the house, on both sides and the rear. The other two sides are installing new high -quality fences, but these plans do not specify a new fence. Should place a new fence to match the others along the border. Kathy Holmes, neighbor next door to 125 Crescent Avenue - Large garage/workroom will significantly impact privacy and views. Existing Burlingame code falls short of protecting the privacy of its current residences. Current code provides incentives for building bigger homes on smaller lots, and incentives for building detached garages with lots of concrete. Needs more restrictive building codes. Two homes are currently under construction in the vicinity, built virtually to the property line with no regard to the privacy of the neighbors and no green space. Desires protection of privacy, space and views of current homeowners. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Would like to minimize the apparent massing of the structure in the back yard. Suggests the applicant lower the roofline or ridgeline, or move the garage back further from the fence. > The ordinances were crafted with the implementation of design review over 15 years ago. They were very detailed and meant to address the monster homes" that were being built at the time. The current design guidelines are creating some very well -crafted homes. > The proposed garage is 2 feet from the property line, which is a greater setback than typical. > The massing of the proposed garage is like many others that have been approved in the past. > The bathroom in the garage has been removed, landscaping has been added, and the gate has been adjusted. The tree in the front yard is the wrong type of tree for that location and has overgrown the property, and is next to two substantial street trees. > The proposed house is consistent with other well -crafted, nicely -detailed, well-proportioned houses that have been approved based on the application of the design review guidelines. > The community may choose to reconsider the design review guidelines in conjunction with the General Plan Update if desired, but that it is not the subject of this application. > The applicant has addressed everything that was brought up in the prior meeting. > Meets the pattern that the community has adopted. > Only concern is the driveway wall facade, but not critical. > Should add a condition that a new property line be built along the property line. The existing sheds will be taken down. > Have met the neighbors more than half way with the concessions, particularly the elimination of the CUP requests. However the unbroken siding on the north facade is a major concern, as well as eliminating the existing tree in the front. > Believes the garage will have minimal impact on the adjacent back yard, particularly with the ridge sloping away. > Needs to fix the wall on the driveway side. It is too long and tall, and not a good neighbor. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 2 - Terrones, Sargent Nay: 3 - Gum, Kelly, Loftis Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the Action City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Item with direction to: > Revisit the driveway wall; and > Address the fence issue. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Comaroto C. 729 Walnut Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Form + One, applicant and designer; 729 Walnut Avenue LLC, property owner) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 729 Walnut Ave - Staff Report 729 Walnut Ave - Attachments 729 Walnut Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item, noting a prior business relationship with the property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones met with the applicant and designer after the last meeting to clarify some of the comments from the meeting. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form + One Design, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is the window trim overlapping the trim board that comes under the rafters? (Raduenz: It can be slid over. It had been centered on the room.) > It is still very vertical. Has there been consideration to reducing the plate heights to 9 feet on the first floor and 8 on the second? (Raduenz: Amicable, but would prefer keep the first floor as proposed.) > Any potential to work around the double tree - even half of it? (Raduenz: The location of the tree makes the site unusable, it is right in the rear middle of the property.) > Would benefit from reducing the plate heights. There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the changes. > It would benefit from reducing the plate heights. City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: > The plate heights shall be reduced to 9 feet on the first floor and 8 feet on the second floor, to be confirmed by the Planning Commission as an FYI item prior to issuance of a building permit. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Comaroto d. 3016 Alcazar Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for a Condtitional Use Permit for window and plate height for an approved detached accessory dwelling unit. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (e). (Mia Zunni, IwamotoScott Architecture, applicant and architect; Michael Mazza, property owner) (43 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 3016 Alcazar Dr - Staff Report 3016 Alcazar Dr - Attachments 3016 Alcazar Dr - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor to the left at at 3024 Alcazar Drive. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Craig Scott, Mia Zinni and Liam Cook of IwamotoScott Architecture represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Does the owner have an idea of what this could cost? It is an ambitious design, and if it is approved it is expected to be built as proposed. (Scott: The team has a civil engineer, a structural engineer and a builder, and has obtained three estimates. It is not an unknown.) > Has the proposed project been shown to the uphill neighbors? (Zinni: Client notified all neighbors with a letter, and has spoken to those who responded. Said he received an email from the uphill neighbor saying that it sounds like an interesting project.) > The two existing pine trees are being removed. (Scott: Those types of trees have had problems in the vicinity, with large limbs falling off. The project will include two new trees to replace those removed.) > Are the root systems of the large trees keeping the hillside stable? (Scott: There is a soils report and geotech engineer on the team, and they have not brought that up. There is other significant vegetation. Will be building some substantial retaining walls with the project.) > Trees provide screening from the street. Any thoughts to mitigate the apparent increased massing of the house and second unit? (Scott: The structure is so low, that the canopies of existing trees are higher than the roofline and therefore would not provide screening. The hedge and the fence provide dense foliage and the unit will be concealed. This is the most buildable part of the lot, and it would not be possible to build there and retain the trees without damaging the root system.) City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Public Comments: Bonnie Menicucci, 3021 Atwater Drive: Would like to know how the excavation may affect drainiage for any pooling of water? Will it be draining to the houses below? (Kane: Under California law, water cannot drain onto another property. Staff can follow up.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the design - it is complementary to the home and serves as an extension of the hillside. > OK with the plate height. It's mostly about the topography of the lot. > Is well -screened from the neighboring properties. > Highly sculptural, introspective project. It does not do a lot for a town or city in terms of urbanity, but the site does not require it to be so it can be supported here. It is a "backyard" project. > Concern it would be noticable from the street, and whether it would have good interface with the neighbors. > Did not find anything else in the neighborhood that matches the style. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Nay: 1 - Gum Absent: 1 - Gaul e. 121 Humboldt Road, zoned R-1- Application for Conditional Use Permits to legalize an accessory living space with a full bathroom and windows within 10-feet of property line in an existing accessory structure. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (e) (J. Deal Associates, Jerry Deal, applicant and designer; Wei and Shirley Feng, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 121 Humboldt Rd - Staff Report and Attachments 121 Humboldt Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > Is the unit currently occupied, and for how long? (Hurin: Is not aware of the unit being occupied.) > Could it meet the requirements for an ADU? (Hurin: Meets minimum lot size, and parking could be accommodated. It is the applicant's choice not to proceed as an ADU.) > If it is approved, it could be rented out similar to a spare room? (Hurin: Correct.) > Will the window in the rear will be removed? (Hurin: Correct, Condition #3 requires it to be removed.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant. City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Commission Questions/Comments: > None. Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Straightforward. Could be approved as an ADU. > House is significantly below FAR limits. > Commission has had issues with full baths in garages. This is a full bath in an accessory structure, not a garage. There is nothing that would encourage the conversion of the garage into living space - the house already has a full garage. There is not the issue of converting a garage into living space. > As a single story, it fits right into the neighborhood. > Surrounded by multifamily. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve Action Item Mayor Brownrigg asked for a roll call vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul f. 722 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as built changes to a previously approved application for first and second story additions to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (JoAnn Gann, applicant and designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 722 Crosswav Rd - Staff Report 722 Crosswav Rd - Attachments 722 Crosswav Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 Commissioner Gum was recused from this item. Commissioner Kelly took position as chair of the meeting. All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report, There were no questions of staff. Commissioner Kelly opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant, with contractor Bill Buckleman. Commission Questions/Comments: City of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Why was this not built as approved? (Buckleman: Aspects of the house created a domino effect with the various roof elements. It could not be physically built and tied into the lower roof, as well as be structurally supported from the face of a 2 x 4 wall. Just wanted to get it finished and the occupants moved in.) > Why not come in for the changes earlier after discovering the problems? (Buckleman: Has not worked in the City before, did not know. Multiple structural changes inside. Decided to wait until it was finished. Has come up with some ideas that would simulate what was originally approved.) > Was the designer involved after construction started? (Buckleman: Yes. She worked on the revisions to the doors. Understood from Planning staff that it would take 2-3 months to go back to the Planning Commission, and could not leave the job unfinished without a roof that long through the winter.) > Was the designer involved when the issues developed with the structural elements? (Buckleman: Structural engineer was involved in the issues related to the structure. After learning from staff and the designer how long it would take to go back to the commission, determined couldn't stop the construction for that long, particularly since changes kept coming and knew there would be more. The roof was built like an umbrella over the top, then worked from the roof down to keep the rain off of the project. Was concerned first with the structural aspects, and the appearance would be the last thing as changes kept coming up. Planned to bring all the changes together at the end.) > Massing coming off the back is odd. Coming down from the gable where the fascia comes down, then kicks out at a different angle, is there a reason why it couldn't have come down at an angle closer to what was approved? Then the rest of the mass would have been a bigger dormer off of the other roof. (Buckleman: Would have had problems with an egress window. The problems started around the other side of the house. Could not tie into the pitch of the lower roof.) > Confused with the jogs on the floor plans. (Buckleman: The construction follows the structural plans. There are floor beams carrying the walls - followed those walls. The jogs were not shown on the original plans but were shown on the structural engineering plans, and the construction followed the structural plans.) > The originally approved design was simple and elegant, and handled the massing nicely. Have the as-builts been looked at to get closer to the original design? (Gann: The louvered vent was moved down to the other gable since it did not work there, and decided to put a band across to break up the massing.) There were no Public Comments. Commissioner Kelly closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > The original approval was an elegant design, simple and straightforward. Applicant reports they couldn't wait, or be bothered to follow the approved plans. > Would the project be approved as presented now? Probably not. The expectation is that projects should be built as approved. If issues come up, the expectation is for the contractors to come back. > Would not expect the homeowner to manage the construction process, but contractors and designers should know better and manage the process. The contractors and designers need to be held accountable to building to the approved plans. > Difficult to review major changes after the fact. > It appears there may have been some opportunities to come closer to what was approved, in keeping with the aesthetic of the original approval. > Professionals have put the property owner in this position. However the property owner retained the professional and also has responsibility. > The initial design had a simplicity and elegance that was easily approved. > Applicant needs to look at how it can become more in conformance to the initially approved design. Needs to be more than cosmetic changes such as a couple of pieces of new fascia. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Aye: 5 - Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Gum g. 339 Primrose Road, zoned DAC - Application for a Parking Variance to replace an existing personal service use with an office use. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (a). (Home Care Assistance, applicant; John Matthews Architects, Architect; Gisela Scigliano, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 339 Primrose Rd - Staff Report 339 Primrose Rd - Attachments 339 Primrose Rd - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > Was the applicant asked to stop work? (Hurin: Yes, the space was occupied without a permit. A building permit was applied after the fact.) > Do we know how many employees were in the previous use? (Hurin: One or two.) > How long has the in -lieu fee been in place? (Hurin: Since April 2000.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jack Matthews, John Matthews Architects, represented the applicant, with business operator Denise Garrett. Commission Questions/Comments: > Existing floor plan shows there was less office space than retail. (Matthews: Initially were trying to come in as a retail tenant, but long-term wants to have more office space and be an office tenant.) > Is the business a major corporation, or a "mom-and-pop" start-up? (Matthews: They have offices nationwide.)(Garrett: 40 corporate offices across the country, as well as 100+ franchise offices. Always wants to be in a storefront, so seeks retail space.) > 51 % retail/49% office is an interim strategy for current operations? (Matthews: Yes. For long-term needs to be approved as office with a parking variance.) > Would the parking in -lieu fee be a hardship? (Matthews: Went into the application knowing what the potential fee could be.)(Hurin: The fee may be full payment, or could be a prorated faction of a space.) > 5 employees to start, then will rise to 9. Would the number of visitors stay the same? (Matthews: Most of the staff go to the clients' homes. Not a lot of walk-in traffic.) There were no Public Comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > With other downtown properties have been able to accept variances since there is nowhere to build City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 parking. > Can accept the proportional fraction of the fee as mitigation. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve Action Item with the following condition: > Assessment of the fractional in -lieu fee of $23,286.12 as mitigation for the Parking Variance. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 1341 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1341 Vancouver Ave -Staff Report 1341 Vancouver Ave -Attachments 1341 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1334, 1336, 1337, and 1340 Vancouver Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant, with developer/contractor Eric Wong. Commission Questions/Comments: > Why the standing -seam metal roof? (Chu: Wanted to be a bit different. Trend is traditional roof form with some modern materials.) > Will the fencing all the way around the property be rebuilt? The landscape plan does not clarify. ( Chu: Will check.) When talking to the neighbors, should talk about coordination if the fence is being replaced. > Add some taller specimen plants such as nandina for the driveway rather than only low-lying ground cover. > Clarify the window selection. Plans specify Anderson 400 aluminum clad, but that's a vinyl window. Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: City of Burlingame Page 12 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Metal roof would expose a long surface of metal facing the street, would have a significant presence on the street. > Siding above and stucco below feels like a wedding cake, with one thing stacked on top of another thing. > The two side elevations do not look organized, like a rambling farm house that has been added onto over the years. > Could tolerate the rambling farmhouse look if it did not have the stark differentiation between the first and second floors. > Left elevation with shed roof below and and pop -out dormer above is literally a wedding cake. Could have a vertical element that breaks the line between the first and second floor, all one material. > Nicely reminiscent of the existing massing. The new house looks like a mirror image of the existing house if it had a second story added. > Special permit for height is justifiable. The overall house is only 24'-6" from adjacent grade, which is typical for a normal house, and the plate heights are acceptable. Fits into the neighborhood since it is in a low point in the block. > Too much metal roof. Not opposed to the metal roof, but there is too much of it. > Materials on the second floor make it stand out too much, would like to see something softer. > Does not like clashing of the second story materials with the roof. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul b. 305 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family dwelling. (Danny Meredith, applicant; Helen Cook, property owner; Jaime Rapadas, A R Design Group, designer) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 305 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 305 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 305 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > What makes the lot substandard? (Hurin: 50 feet is the minimum for a new lot. Anything less than 50 feet is classified as substandard.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Danny Meredith represented the applicant with designer Jaime Rapadas. Commission Questions/Comments: > (Meredith: are Milgard Montecito windows acceptable?) Commission: The commission has not typically approved vinyl windows, but the applicant may submit a proposal for consideration. In evaluating the window the commission considers the window profile, design details, muntin bars, etc. Providing a City of Burlingame Page 13 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 sample of the window is more helpful than only a cut sheet. > Why a full bath right across from the powder room on the first floor? (Meredith: The family room, great room and office has a full bath. It's just a half bath coming in from the side door. > Porch is minimal - not much more than a stoop. Have options been explored for having a more gracious porch? Can exempt up to 200 square feet from floor area. (Meredith: The distance between the stairs and the corner at the door is not very large. Making the porch larger would shrink the distance.) Public Comments: Eric Haseleu, 233 Channing Road: Back yard abuts the back yard of the subject property. Eager to see the proposed project built. However back of garage comes almost to the fence, with only 1 foot in between. Leaves will get stuck between the fence and the back of the garage, will be hard to paint, and will attract animals. Requests to move the garage forward 1 foot so there is enough space to get between the fence and the back of the garage, to keep the area clean and be able to keep the back of the garage maintained. Rebecca Haseleu, 232 Stanley Road: Shares a property line with the subject property. Neighbor at 315 has same situation with garage almost to property line. Can only maintain the back of the garage by coming into the adjacent yard. Would prefer that the garage be moved further in to provide enough space for someone to maintain it. Otherwise supports the application. Palm tree is right in the middle of the lot, curious whether it could be moved rather than removed. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Palm tree root ball could be 8-10 feet deep, so could be a big undertaking to move it. Does not like to see it go, but it is right in the middle of the property. > Needs some work in massing and detailing. > Left side elevation is stark and flat, needs to be addressed. > Does not have a hierarchy in the windows from the first floor to the second floor. > Rear elevation is flat - could have an eyebrow or porch roof over the french doors. > A more generous porch could help, even if it is something narrow that extends across the front of the house with a turned gable. > Landscaping is shown as bark - would prefer plantings to help soften the driveway wall. There is enough room for some shrubs or bushes. > Coordinate the fencing with the neighbors, in relation to the position of the garage. Could consider stopping the fencing at the garage so that the back of the garage serves as the edge of the yard and can be maintained. > Would benefit from a design review consultation. > Attention should be given to the small windows on first floor, the size of the porch, articulation on left side. > Side gables on the front elevation seem odd. > Would benefit from articulation and detailing. Rear and left elevations are stark, with tall amounts of solid stucco. > All the eaves on the second floor are the same - gives it a "bath tub ring" effect. Could break the line with a dormer or bay to provide relief and bring down the massing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul City of Burlingame Page 14 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 C. 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots (Ed Breur, TRG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke with neighbors Paul Bliss and Matt Traduskis. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.- > Does the average setback include 1025 Capuchino, which is way back on the site? (Hurin: When calculating the average setback, corner lots are excluded as well as the highest and lowest setbacks.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Has a window type been specified? (Grange: Not a specific brand, but it will be aluminum -clad simulated divided lite.) Public Comments: Paul Bliss, 1041 Capuchino Avenue: Parking is the biggest problem on the street. There are a lot of apartments towards the Broadway side of Carmelita, and duplexes all around. Concern that cannot get streets cleaned. People park cars and take ride hailing service to the airport. Likes the project, but is concerned with the parking. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Rendering establishes a nice presence from the street, but the long elevations on the sides look like motels. The version with the clapboard siding looks more palatable than the stucco/file roof version. The elevations are unbroken and the ridge line insistent. They are imposing - wonder if they could be broken up or separated with space in between, or breaking up the second floors with decks to break up the continuity. > Setback variance is supportable in that it forms an edge to the street. > Most of the homes in the neighborhood look like single family homes, whether they are single family or duplexes. These look large from the face, not just the side. Seems like it is trying to squeeze too much into the lot. > Likes that they are both different. > Lot is unique with the river traversing, so can support the variance. City of Burlingame Page 15 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Given there are seven protected trees and five to be removed, thought is if the massing is being broken up perhaps another tree or two could be saved. Chair Gum re -opened the public hearing. > Grange: The palm can remain. Public Works requires all the trees to be removed off the top of the culvert, and half of the trunk of the oak tree is sitting over the culvert. Although seven trees are being removed, 21 are being planted. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to bring the application back on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Terrones 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS No Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Gardiner reported that there will be a General Plan community meeting on October 11th at 7:00 at the recreation center. a. 1601 Sanchez Avenue - FYI for review of an as -built change to a previously approved Design Review project. Attachments: 1601 Sanchez Ave -Memorandum 1601 Sanchez Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 10, 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 October 20, 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. City of Burlingame Page 16 Printed on 111912017 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE Monday, October 23, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Chair Gum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Present 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent 1 - Loftis 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from the discussion of Agenda Item 9a (1355 Laguna Avenue). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON -AGENDA There were no public comments on non -agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no consent calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a. 1357 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Steven F. Baldwin and Therese M. Baldwin TR, property owners) (60 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1357 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1357 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1357 Columbus Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Kelly noted that he reviewed the recording of the study meeting on this item. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Steve Baldwin represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no Commission questions/comments. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the changes that have been made to the project. > There is sufficient justification for the special permit for height given the upsloping lot. > Likes the look of the house. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Loftis b. 1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Scott and Leanne Duong, applicant and property owners; Thomas Biggs, Biggs Group Architecture, architect) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 1411 De Soto Ave. - Staff Report 1411 De Soto Ave. -Attachments 1411 De Soto Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Leann Duong and Thomas Biggs represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Will the windows really have "true" divided lights? (Biggs: yes.) > Will the louvers be simple, rectangular vents? (Biggs: yes.) > On the rendering, the front elevation looks very symmetrical, but on the plans, the overhangs look asymmetrical, why? (Biggs: the overhangs should be the same.) > Will there be no trim around the windows? (Biggs: yes.) > The renderings look very stark as a white house with black trim. (Biggs: trying for a Contemporary Farmhouse aesthetic. The renderings don't really show the contrast in textures between the first and upper floor.) > This is the first home that is being remodeled in the neighborhood; perhaps there is some way to soften the appearance. (Biggs: could perhaps set the windows in a bit.) > With respect to the right elevation, the roofline appears very grand, takes over that side of the home. Is there any way to soften this. (Biggs: if modified the entire look of the front would change. Would move the design away from the design aesthetic. Could look at adjusting the roof slope somewhat.) > Did the architect consider bringing the chimney on the left side up to the roof? (Biggs: the chimney will serve no purpose as the fireplace is being converted to a direct -vent.) > Was delighted to see such a significant change from the original design. > Perhaps something can be done to add more articulation through the use of color. Perhaps something can be done to soften the appearance. (Biggs: feels that the varied finish work and trim will break up the monotony. Offered recessing the windows by perhaps two inches to provide some shadowing that would break up the mass.) > Likes the idea of recessing the windows; would add texture to the building. > The Strawberry Tree shown in the front yard may not grow to be in scale with the remodeled home. Ensure that the landscaping filters the view of the home. (Biggs: the landscape architect can revisit the landscape plan. Trees should match the neighborhood pattern.) > Look at trim near the stucco. Public Comments: Neighbor on the right-hand side: was a second floor deck shown on the prior design removed? Would there be a concern about the deck looking into his yard or into a future second -story bedroom; was this a consideration? (Meeker: there is no guarantee of privacy in any development of this sort. The Commission considers the size of the deck and how it could be used and impact privacy. Can't consider a speculative concept for development of the adjacent property. Commissioner: try to limit the size of second -floor decks and limit them to being off of a bedroom or other similar area so they do not become a major gathering point.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the changes that have been made. Likes the front porch. Would prefer something other than the cable -wire railing on the deck. > Design is significantly improved. Likes the idea of recessing the windows. > Believes the wire railing system works with the design for the deck; consider landscape solutions to address privacy. > Would like the appearance of the project to be softened. > There are still a few items to be addressed; inclined to continue the matter to permit the applicant the City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 opportunity to address outstanding concerns. (Meeker: could these items be addressed through an FYI.) Yes, they could. > Feels that the outstanding issues: recessed windows, trees in the front, can be addressed through an FYI. > Concerned that the applicant may be punished because of the rendering that has been presented. > Feels that the project is approvable. > Concurs with Commissioner's assessment regarding the discussion of second -floor decks. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to approve the application with the additional condition that an FYI shall be submitted showing the recessed windows and revised landscape plan for the front to address the size of the trees. Discussion of Motion: > May help to incorporate an actual chimney on the left -side fireplace. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Loftis C. 852 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and a new detached garage. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer; Rick Lund, property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Attachments: 852 Paloma Ave - Staff Report.pdf 852 Paloma Ave - Attachments 852 Paloma Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse and Shondra Lund represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions of the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 Commission Discussion: > Likes the changes, is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Loftis d. 300 Airport Boulevard, zoned APN - Application for Amendment of the Design Review approval of an office/life science development ("Burlingame Point") (Genzon Investment Group, applicant; Burlingame Point LLC, property owner; Gensler, Architect) (23 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Attachments: 300 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 300 Airport Blvd - Attachments 300 Airport Blvd - Plans - 10.23.17 All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ben Tranel and Amy Tian represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > What is the reason for the substantial increase in the equipment? Will similar changes be made to the other buildings in the future? (Tranel: providing all necessary mechanical equipment for laboratory tenants on the two affected buildings. Is the only change contemplated at this time. Is intended to expand the marketing for these buildings.) > Hopes that the rooftop terraces will not be removed from the remaining two buildings. > Looks like the doors entering Building 3 have changed somewhat. (Tranel: the change was intentional; the doors in the approved application are still centered on the lobby. The "man doors" have been relocated somewhat. Meeker. minor changes of this sort may be approved by staff at the building permit stage.) > Is there an alternative that allows the mechanical equipment to be placed elsewhere without removing the roof decks? (Tranel: if a prospective tenant did not require all of the mechanical equipment, could reconfigure the roof decks accordingly. Have kept the roof terraces on the other two buildings to offset this change.) Public Comments: Patrick Halloran, manages 380-390 Beach Road: wants to make sure that all of the construction activities do not negatively impact the existing buildings on Beach Road. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion: October 23, 2017 > Opposed to removing the amenity solely for a prospective tenant. The terraces promote the type of feel desired in the area. Will be hundreds of employees left without a rooftop deck. > Is there a means of encouraging retention of the terraces in the event that a laboratory tenant is not selected? Is this setting a precedent. (Kane: do not impose conditions that may conflict with the leasing efforts of the building. If another amendment is proposed in the future, it must be considered on its own merits.) > Removal of the terraces does not detract from the public use of the site. There are significant amounts of other open space on the property for the public and employees to use. These areas are not visible from the ground. In favor of application. > Is a small consideration to remove the open space, may in fact promote more activity at ground level. > Wonders how much the terraces will be used given the winds in the area? Can support the application. > Can see both sides of the argument; it is not simply about what you see at ground level, but also what is available to employees on the site. Would the project have been approvable as currently presented? Likely would not have insisted that all buildings have roof decks. Would hate to see further changes of this type. Can support current proposal. > Feels the rooftop decks are special amenities that may be attractive to younger tech workers. > The project as approved sets a precedent for Burlingame of promoting rooftop terraces; would like to see the terraces remain. > There is a certain cache to having the terraces viewable to executives arriving at SFO. > Referenced the large number of roof decks present on buildings in Seattle. Burlingame Point will be seen from the air, want to have the project and the City be recognized for this type of amenity. Wants the roof decks to remain. > Can see that there will be a split vote on this matter, will suggest a continuance. Further noted that making the project successful is based upon the ability to acquire good tenants. Feels uncomfortable with the City inserting itself into this discussion. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Chair Gum, to continue the item to the next regular meeting. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, and Comaroto Nay: 2 - Sargent, and Kelly Absent: 1 - Loftis 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a. 1355 Laguna Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (Joann Gann, applicant and designer; Ryan and Wendy Vance, property owners) (70 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon Attachments: 1355 Laguna Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 1355 Laguna Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Commissioner Comaroto noted that she would recuse herself from the discussion of this item as she owns property within 500-feet of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the property owner. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. - City of Burlingame Page 6 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Joann Gann represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is that a new direct -vent fireplace in the family room that is proposed? (Gann: yes.) > Noted that on the left elevation, far left corner over the small gable above the dining room; when viewed from the rear elevation questioned how the elements appeared on the rear elevation? (Gann: should be shown on the rear elevation.) > Noted the metal roof over the porch area on the left elevation, but when you proceed to the other side of the gable on the family room it changes to composition shingles. (Gann: only the shed roof is metal, all else is composition shingles.) > Will the front porch columns be simple timbers? (Gann: yes, will be stained.) > Is the metal roof standing -seam? (Gann: yes.) > Expressed concern about waterproofing where the two roofing materials meet. > What will be the grid pattern on the doors, also on the left elevation? (Gann: will match window grids.) > Why was the Hardie product chosen for the board and batten siding? Feels the trim with the Hardie product will look awful. (Gann: for maintenance. Can use wood materials.) > Noted that mitering corners with Hardie horizontal siding doesn't work well, but noted that the corners are capped. Felt that wood siding would be better. Note the size of the materials that are being used in the finishing. If Hardie materials are used, please provide some nearby examples where it has been used. > Will all windows in the house be replaced? (Gann: one bathroom window on the rear will remain.) Want to ensure that all materials are cohesive. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Need to have the details fleshed out on the plans. > With respect to the neighbor's concerns regarding light, the design is well within the declining height envelope. > Likes that both street frontages of the home have been designed well. > Nice design; should come back on regular action; wants to see the detailing on the trim and the materials choices for the siding. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Vice Chair Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, and Kelly Absent: 1 - Loftis Recused: 1 - Comaroto b. 521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property City of Burlingame Page 7 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 owner; Stewart Associates, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 521 Burlingame Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff. - There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. John Stewart and Patrick Gilson represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the front elevation, is that a real window centered over the front porch? (Stewart: is a quatrefoil window into the laundry room.) > Has consideration been given to expanding the porch size since the full front -porch exemption hasn't been used? Would add more articulation on the front of the home. (Stewart: can look into this.) > is the stucco coved under the eaves? (Stewart: yes.) > Are the planter boxes wrought -iron? (Stewart: yes.) > Suggested a patio off of the dining room, onto the front porch. > Requested clarification of the plate heights; they are higher than what is normally accepted. ( Stewart: ten feet on the first floor, nine on the second floor.) Consider reducing the plate heights; the neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes, the reduction would help the massing. Gilson: initially wanted to install a basement, but have a significant water problem. Wants to retain the proposed plate heights. Could an arbor be added at the rear? Keylon: this would add to the floor area and is not exempt.) Is there a connection between the basement and the plate heights? (Stewart/Gilson: would have permitted more floor area.) > Thinks the design works well with the neighbors. Suggested lowering the plate heights to allow the design to better fit into the neighborhood. (Stewart: what is the opinion of other Commissioners?) Public Comments: Unidentified Neighbor (across from property on Clarendon): another home was rebuilt several doors down. Feels that the home appears very massive; are a community of non -massive Spanish -style homes. Doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Keep some of the characterisitics of the Burlingables neighborhood that people like. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a well -crafted design that tries to fit into the neighborhood. However, the existing homes are a bit more delicate. Can understand the desire for a ten foot plate height on the first floor, but the nine foot height on the second floor is too much. Must look at the plate heights. > Agrees with lowering the plat heights. The existing homes are smaller, many are split-level in design. City of Burlingame Page 8 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 Has a bit of a concern about the home fitting into the neighborhood. Suggested vaulted ceilings on the second floor with an eight -foot plate height. > Would like something done with the front porch and supports looking at the plate heights. > Wants the second floor plate height reduced. Also wants the porch to be enhanced. > Feels both plate heights should be reviewed, partly for consistency and partly for ensuring the home fits into the neighborhood. Homes in the neighborhood typically have first floor plate heights under nine feet. If the Commission starts to allow the greater plate heights on some houses, will see the request on other applications. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Loftis C. 21 Park Road, zoned BMU - Application for Design Review and Condominium Permit for a new 3-story, 7-unit residential condominium building (Levy Design Partners, applicant and architect; GGH Investment LLC, property owner) (79 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 21 Park Rd - Staff Report 21 Park Rd - Attachments 21 Park Rd - Plans - 10.23.17 All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul spoke to a tenant who lives in the rear building. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > Asked for staff to come up with a review system to be used when considering approval of parking lifts. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Toby Levy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Asked how pedestrians would enter the property from Park Road? Will there be a gate on the driveway? (Levy: pedestrians will enter through an area flanked by comlumns. There will be no gate on the driveway.) > Is the area near the gas meters just a utility space? (Levy: yes.) > With respect to the common open space along El Camino Real; is there anything other than landscaping within this area? (Levy: is a contribution to the character of El Camino Real, but is not an area that would be attractive to residents. This is why private open space areas have been provided.) Would like to see something in the area that would encourage residents to use the area. (Levy: have considered options, including a wall along El Camino Real; can enclose it if the Commission wishes this to be done.) > Feels that the left side of the building could use some softening; was foliage considered in this area? (Levy: can considering installing vine pockets; need to maintain clearance for PG&E.) > There are a lot of very hard materials being used in the exterior finishing; was any thought given to City of Burlingame Page 9 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 including some softer materials? (Levy: some of the decks have wood used on the railings to soften the appearance; the renderings are not showing this correctly.) > Has there been any engagement with the homeowners to the right of the project site. (Levy: haven't approached the neighbors, but considered staffs comments from prior iterations. Meeker: noted that the residents that were previously concerned have viewed the plans at the counter and appear satisfied.) > Where is the delivery truck location? (Levy: showed the location.) Public Comments: Ilia Lubavich, 33 Park Road: fairly happy with the current design. Noted the presence of trees adjacent to the property at 33 Park that help with respect to privacy. What is the exact plan for landscaping in this area; is there a way to keep the trees? Looks like they will be removed. Potentially have an arborist visit 33 Park to see what could be done to maintain privacy. Concerned that the Cobblestone -type driveway will generate more noise than regular driveway materials. Not sure how loud the vehicle stackers will be; wants more information on how this may affect the neighbors. Steve Kraus: this design is a huge improvement. Don't have many objections. Want the privacy concerns to be addressed. Have an arborist look at the situation to see what can be done to protect privacy. Questions of Applicant: > Doesn't notice many existing trees shown on the plans that are to be removed. (Levy: does appear that the trees referenced will be removed, but can look at this area to see what can be done to accommodate retention of the trees. May look at relocating the trash area so that the delivery area can be pulled back to preserve some of the trees. Keylon: noted that the 20-foot backup space for the driveways must be maintained; perhaps landscaping could be added on the adjacent property.) Chair Gum closed the public hearing Commission Discussion: > Huge improvement over prior iteration of the project. > The Hardie siding works in this instance since maintenance will be handled by the homeowners' association and is more appropriate for a multi -family building. > Likes the open space area along El Camino Real; ensure that the gardener for the project maintains this area. > Noted that the delivery services will more likely double park on Park Road for deliveries. > Understands the concern about the removal of the trees; encouraged the neighbors to look at screening options on their property. > Noted the six-foot tall metal mesh fence on the plans, clarified that it wil be a green screen. > Would like the design softened a bit more on the front, in particular, perhaps add more wood. > Likes the window design. > Reach out the neighbors to see if there is something to address their concerns about the trees. > This design is a vast improvement over the prior design; reduced in scale and size. Revisit the privacy concerns of the neighbors. Should move forward to action. > Likes the project. Should not enclose the green space on the El Camino Real side. > Phenominal change to the design. > Look at additional screening on the neighbors' side either on -site or on their property. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 10 Printed on 111912017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 Absent: 1 - Loftis 10. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioners' Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Noted that the City Council recently conducted a discussion regarding the use of Commercial Linkage Fees and Housing Impact Fees. 2209 Ray Drive - FYI for review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Attachments: 2209 Ray Dr - FYI Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:12 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 October 23, 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 November 2, 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. City of Burlingame Page 11 Printed on 111912017 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1 /4 Item No. 7a City of Burlingame Study Item Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance Address: 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit fora commercial fecfeaticn use (CrossFit studio) and Parking Variance. Applicant: Craig Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance APN: 026-302-530 Architect: Blaise Descollonges, RSS Archilecture Lot Area: 52,898 SF Property Owner: 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLG Zoning: IB Bayfront Specific Plan: Office and Warehouse; Bayshore Overlay Area Project History: This application is the result of code enforcement complaints. Prior to operating business at the current location, the applicant opened a CrossFit (commercial recreation) studio at384 Beach Road, zoned APS (Anna Point South), in January 2014. Commercial recreation uses are prohibited in the APS Zoning District (Code Section 25.49.030 (f)}_ Based on a complaint and partial inspection conducted at the site, a Code Enforcement case (#CE14-0109) was opened on December 22, 2014 for operating in a non -permitted zone. A letter (dated January 5, 2015)was sent to the property owner, from the former Code Compliance Officer, to notify them about the violation. In October 2016, the current Code Compliance Officer tookoverthe case_ The applicant made contact with the Planning Division to seek out other site locations within the City that permits commercial recreation uses. Only the 8L (Shoreline Area) Zoning District permits commercial recreation uses by -right. Other zoning d istri cts wh e re commercial recreation is allowed require a Conditional Use Permit, and in many Instances also require a Parking Variance depending on the nature of the site and building. Based on a deadline provided by the Code Compliance Officer, the applicant moved out of 384 Beach Road in December 2016. The Planning Division was notified in early March 2017 that a CrossFit studio was operating al 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB (Inner Bayshore). Based on this complaint, a code enforcement case was opened on March 13: 2017 (#CE17-0026} and a'Notice of Violation' (dated March 13, 2017)was sent to the applicantand property owner. In the IB Zoning District, commercial recreation uses with a Conditional Use Permit are allowed to operate at properties that have frontage on Bayshore Highway (Code Section 25.43.045 (b)(3)). The parcel has frontages on both Bayshore Highway and Stanton Road. On March 16, 2017, the applicant submitted Planning application fees for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance; a completed application to the Planning Commission and plans were submitted on April 13, 2017. O �J chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 1/4 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1 /4 Item No. 7a City of Burlingame Study Item Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance Address: 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit fora commercial fecfeaticn use (CrossFit studio) and Parking Variance. Applicant: Craig Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance APN: 026-302-530 Architect: Blaise Descollonges, RSS Archilecture Lot Area: 52,898 SF Property Owner: 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLG Zoning: IB Bayfront Specific Plan: Office and Warehouse; Bayshore Overlay Area Project History: This application is the result of code enforcement complaints. Prior to operating business at the current location, the applicant opened a CrossFit (commercial recreation) studio at384 Beach Road, zoned APS (Anna Point South), in January 2014. Commercial recreation uses are prohibited in the APS Zoning District (Code Section 25.49.030 (f)}_ Based on a complaint and partial inspection conducted at the site, a Code Enforcement case (#CE14-0109) was opened on December 22, 2014 for operating in a non -permitted zone. A letter (dated January 5, 2015)was sent to the property owner, from the former Code Compliance Officer, to notify them about the violation. In October 2016, the current Code Compliance Officer tookoverthe case_ The applicant made contact with the Planning Division to seek out other site locations within the City that permits commercial recreation uses. Only the 8L (Shoreline Area) Zoning District permits commercial recreation uses by -right. Other zoning d istri cts wh e re commercial recreation is allowed require a Conditional Use Permit, and in many Instances also require a Parking Variance depending on the nature of the site and building. Based on a deadline provided by the Code Compliance Officer, the applicant moved out of 384 Beach Road in December 2016. The Planning Division was notified in early March 2017 that a CrossFit studio was operating al 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB (Inner Bayshore). Based on this complaint, a code enforcement case was opened on March 13: 2017 (#CE17-0026} and a'Notice of Violation' (dated March 13, 2017)was sent to the applicantand property owner. In the IB Zoning District, commercial recreation uses with a Conditional Use Permit are allowed to operate at properties that have frontage on Bayshore Highway (Code Section 25.43.045 (b)(3)). The parcel has frontages on both Bayshore Highway and Stanton Road. On March 16, 2017, the applicant submitted Planning application fees for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance; a completed application to the Planning Commission and plans were submitted on April 13, 2017. O �J chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 2/4 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1 /4 Item No. 7a City of Burlingame Study Item Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance Address: 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit fora commercial fecfeaticn use (CrossFit studio) and Parking Variance. Applicant: Craig Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance APN: 026-302-530 Architect: Blaise Descollonges, RSS Archilecture Lot Area: 52,898 SF Property Owner: 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLG Zoning: IB Bayfront Specific Plan: Office and Warehouse; Bayshore Overlay Area Project History: This application is the result of code enforcement complaints. Prior to operating business at the current location, the applicant opened a CrossFit (commercial recreation) studio at384 Beach Road, zoned APS (Anna Point South), in January 2014. Commercial recreation uses are prohibited in the APS Zoning District (Code Section 25.49.030 (f)}_ Based on a complaint and partial inspection conducted at the site, a Code Enforcement case (#CE14-0109) was opened on December 22, 2014 for operating in a non -permitted zone. A letter (dated January 5, 2015)was sent to the property owner, from the former Code Compliance Officer, to notify them about the violation. In October 2016, the current Code Compliance Officer tookoverthe case_ The applicant made contact with the Planning Division to seek out other site locations within the City that permits commercial recreation uses. Only the 8L (Shoreline Area) Zoning District permits commercial recreation uses by -right. Other zoning d istri cts wh e re commercial recreation is allowed require a Conditional Use Permit, and in many Instances also require a Parking Variance depending on the nature of the site and building. Based on a deadline provided by the Code Compliance Officer, the applicant moved out of 384 Beach Road in December 2016. The Planning Division was notified in early March 2017 that a CrossFit studio was operating al 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB (Inner Bayshore). Based on this complaint, a code enforcement case was opened on March 13: 2017 (#CE17-0026} and a'Notice of Violation' (dated March 13, 2017)was sent to the applicantand property owner. In the IB Zoning District, commercial recreation uses with a Conditional Use Permit are allowed to operate at properties that have frontage on Bayshore Highway (Code Section 25.43.045 (b)(3)). The parcel has frontages on both Bayshore Highway and Stanton Road. On March 16, 2017, the applicant submitted Planning application fees for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance; a completed application to the Planning Commission and plans were submitted on April 13, 2017. O �J chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 3/4 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1 /4 Item No. 7a City of Burlingame Study Item Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance Address: 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit fora commercial fecfeaticn use (CrossFit studio) and Parking Variance. Applicant: Craig Ranier Gadduang, Marvelous Performance APN: 026-302-530 Architect: Blaise Descollonges, RSS Archilecture Lot Area: 52,898 SF Property Owner: 1669 & 1699 Bayshore LLG Zoning: IB Bayfront Specific Plan: Office and Warehouse; Bayshore Overlay Area Project History: This application is the result of code enforcement complaints. Prior to operating business at the current location, the applicant opened a CrossFit (commercial recreation) studio at384 Beach Road, zoned APS (Anna Point South), in January 2014. Commercial recreation uses are prohibited in the APS Zoning District (Code Section 25.49.030 (f)}_ Based on a complaint and partial inspection conducted at the site, a Code Enforcement case (#CE14-0109) was opened on December 22, 2014 for operating in a non -permitted zone. A letter (dated January 5, 2015)was sent to the property owner, from the former Code Compliance Officer, to notify them about the violation. In October 2016, the current Code Compliance Officer tookoverthe case_ The applicant made contact with the Planning Division to seek out other site locations within the City that permits commercial recreation uses. Only the 8L (Shoreline Area) Zoning District permits commercial recreation uses by -right. Other zoning d istri cts wh e re commercial recreation is allowed require a Conditional Use Permit, and in many Instances also require a Parking Variance depending on the nature of the site and building. Based on a deadline provided by the Code Compliance Officer, the applicant moved out of 384 Beach Road in December 2016. The Planning Division was notified in early March 2017 that a CrossFit studio was operating al 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB (Inner Bayshore). Based on this complaint, a code enforcement case was opened on March 13: 2017 (#CE17-0026} and a'Notice of Violation' (dated March 13, 2017)was sent to the applicantand property owner. In the IB Zoning District, commercial recreation uses with a Conditional Use Permit are allowed to operate at properties that have frontage on Bayshore Highway (Code Section 25.43.045 (b)(3)). The parcel has frontages on both Bayshore Highway and Stanton Road. On March 16, 2017, the applicant submitted Planning application fees for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance; a completed application to the Planning Commission and plans were submitted on April 13, 2017. O �J chrome-extension://mhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.html 4/4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME CA 94010 BURLINGAME; , p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: ❑ Design Review E/Variance ISV Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: WAock APPLICANT ` \ Name: 0< � \`wy vcr Q0a6A J0�y\ti Address: to(.Qo City/Statet/Zip: Dn" Uk:�:j CK Phone: Sls-" ©^001 ElParcel #: " ,2c 1 . c '2 ❑ Zoning / Other: ❑% DMOW PROPERTY OWNER Name: o — 9yo1ell, Address: � ? �,` CK. �.^O \ �' Mu,.r SAI City/State/Zip: Phone: ko�;p _e-10\C\— E-mail:���� a Mc,..i�1�\�.35�r�rv��Q.,•c.�r�mail: '�t�i+��5���—Uu �ifher�ci�� C�� ARCHITECTIDESIGNER Name: V5>� Q1 Address:VO�\���� v City/State/Zip: Sq� "L, Phone: E-mail:SS�� Burlingame Business License #: -- � � k II RECEIVED APR 13 2017 M CITY O URLINGAq C-D6-PLANNING DI Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and, lief. j Applicant's signature: Date: r�>� I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. , Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: S:1 HANDOUTSJPC Application. doc Community Development Dept. ■ 501 Primrose Road ■ Burlingame, CA 94010 ■ P:650.558.7250 ■ MA 6 2017 BURLINGAMF, COMMERCIAL APPLICATION rPLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL F BUPLIfV� E 1. Proposed use of the sites►M�n Q�C,� f�N��c�'C \t9� -PLANNING DIV. 2. Days and hours of operationSAM- \I-?M 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type)___ I %.,r1® n v i71 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: - I CDD-PLANK! Hours of Before After Before After Before After Operation 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm Weekdays A- Full-time Part-time Weekends Full-time �- © N A Np� Part time 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: Hours of Operation Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Weekdays Weekends NGAME �G DIV. 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): L-S 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park?c.Nr 8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park? N)Z. \ E!tno•1 fA 0-,C Q.���<<- 9. Present or most recent use of site ��►P/ 10. List other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach a list if more room is needed) t -(7 ChkeJ `� �o 1 v Commercial Application.doc City Of Burlingame Letter Of Explanation Location RCF Fitness, LLC DBA Marvelous Performance 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Burlingame, CA 94010 C� �, ,:. Y Contact u PN 7 Ranier Gadduang 650-515-0707 CITY OF B RLINGAME CD-D-p��", , � 4Ca Div Marvelous Performance is a functional fitness studio offering small group classes and personal training. We are seeking a Conditional Use Permit and Variance Exception to operate our business at 1669 Bayshore Highway. We are seeking to use the aforementioned location for commercial recreation to hold our fitness classes and personal training sessions. While commercial recreation intensifies the use over the previous use of the unit (warehouse storage), we feel we are a good fit for the building and surrounding area for several reasons: Our primary operating hours complement neighboring businesses. A majority of the businesses in the surrounding area operate between the hours of 8AM and 5PM Monday -Friday, with very low activity over the weekend. We offer classes on a set schedule with 80% of our class offerings occurring before 8AM, after 5PM, or on the weekends. The only major class that operates during normal business hours is at noon. Our primary hours of activity helps mitigate traffic and parking issues as our morning clients leave before neighboring businesses open up, and our evening clients arrive shortly after neighboring businesses close for the day. In addition, the fact that we are open very early in the morning, at noon, and very late in the evening enable employees of neighboring business and patrons of local hotels to utilize our services. We have several clients that identify our location and hours of operation as a major selling point for why they have membership with us over other fitness facilities. We teach everyday people how to get in the best shape they've ever been in, and maintain it for the rest of their lives. Our training philosophy is adapted from the CrossFit model, which is emerging as the standard for achieving and maintaining lifelong health and performance. We are not like traditional gyms - they purposely oversell memberships knowing that many of their clients will rarely ever show up. We are not like boot camps and spinning classes - working out too much at these institutions eventually leads to plateau or overuse injuries. We are a new breed of fitness coaches intent on helping people burn fat, build strength, and maximize performance in a safe, systematic manner. We collaborate with other professionals such as physical therapists, doctors, sports coaches, nutritionists, and even Kinesiology professors to find the best methods, resources, and strategies for serving our clients. We're fortunate to have clients that have been with us since the first day we opened our doors for business. We focus on getting results for our customers and always put their needs before our own. We build community. There's something very weird about CrossFit communities, and it's the fact that real friendships are formed within the walls of the gym. Our business exemplifies this notion, as many of our clients hang out socially on the weekends, cultivate professional working relationships, and create lasting bonds that transcend the fitness service that we provide. We are the "happy place" for many of our customers. They come to sweat it out before (or after) a long day of work and know they can count on us for support, enthusiasm, and commitment to their personal success. In addition, through special events and collaborations we are able to help grow and create commerce for other local businesses. I am an ambassador for the local Lululemon and a majority of our clients frequent shops and restaurants that we recommend. It's my hope that we can continue the dialogue to explore how we can best support Burlingame's goal of creating a wonderful living experience for it's residents. It's our goal to contribute in a very meaningful way by providing a world class fitness experience, cultivating a community of model citizens, and supporting local business activity and commerce. City Of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Application Location RCF Fitness, LLC DBA Marvelous Performance 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Ranier Gadduang 650-515-0707 ranier@marvelousperformance.com Application Questions RECFIVED APR 13 2017 CITY Or BURLINGAME CI D-I'LAMYl~ G DW Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Our business is very simple - we operate small group, 60-minute fitness classes from 5AM-7AM, 12PM, and from 5PM-8PM in the evening. Every class is limited in size (clients must reserve their spots ahead of time), and is always led by a high quality certified instructor. Unlike traditional gyms, we use very few machines to operate and a majority of our equipment can be characterized as small and portable. From a public health perspective, we are not conducting any activity that would negatively impact sanitation, sewer and stormwater systems, water supply, or any other facets of public health and safety. From a public safety perspective, we are not conducting any activity that would adversely affect police or fire protection. Traffic flow to and from our facility is predictable since we operate on a strict class schedule outside of normal business hours of 9AM-5PM. In addition, our clients are primarily working professionals between the ages of 25-40 passionate about fitness and possess characteristics of model citizens. We promote fitness and a healthy lifestyle - our clients are a reflection of that standard. From a general welfare standpoint, we are here to do amazing things for the general welfare of the Burlingame community and residents. We help people achieve a level of fitness they never thought possible and our clientele ranges from teens all the way up to senior citizens. Our community is strong, vibrant, and very supportive of one another. We have community events that help promote other local businesses like Lululemon, Philz Coffee, Jougert, Sky High, and other establishments aligned with our core values. From a convenience perspective, we add value to the neighboring businesses by providing a fitness outlet for patrons in the local hotels, as well as those individuals that work at establishments within walking distance of our business. The ability to workout during "lunch -break" and while traveling is a convenience factor that we add for those located nearby. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? We are very complimentary to businesses in the area as our main operating hours are before 8AM and after 5PM. The early morning and late evening hours are "dead -time" for the area and we are able to conduct business activity during those times. As mentioned above, we provide a fitness alternative that wasn't previously available to certain individuals that work in the area. Many people employed in the area are now able to use their time before work, during lunch, or immediately after work to engage with fitness. This is convenient for them as they are able to walk to our business without having to drive. Lastly, our core values - passion, excellence, community - are aligned with the city of Burlingame. We maintain a strong passion for living a healthy lifestyle; strive for excellence in how we operate, serve, and educate our clientele; and promote a strong sense of community inclusive of all populations. We do good things for good people and work to get better at it each and every day. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? There will be no adverse affect on the external aesthetic since we are not modifying the appearance in any way. For internal aesthetic, we are taking a plain warehouse and making it a fun, clean gym to get a great workout. There are no proposed changes to the internal or external structure of the building. The character of the neighborhood will experience a positive change in the early morning and late evening. These are normally hours in which there is zero activity ongoing in the area and we will have a presence during those hours to improve the overall feel and mood of the area during those times. Since our primary operating hours are early morning and late evening, we complement the general uses of the local buildings since they are primarily utilized between 8AM-5PM. City Of Burlingame Variance Application Location RCF Fitness, LLC DBA Marvelous Performance 1669 Bayshore Highway, Unit B Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Ranier Gadduang 650-515-0707 ranier@marvelousperformance.com Application Questions 4 i"_St.- CITY OF BUF UN]GAME CDD-PLANNINGDi`u`, Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The variance we are seeking is for the number of parking spaces allocated to us for our zoned use of the building. We are deeded 12 spots per our lease agreement, and have gained access to use 5 more spots in the front of the building before the hours of 7AM and after 5PM. In addition, we have access to the parking lot across from Stanton Road for use in the evening hours. Lastly, there is ample public parking available along Stanton Road during our main operating hours (before 8AM and after 5PM). Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from denial of the application. Without the parking variance exception, we would not be able to operate our business as we wouldn't receive the necessary approval for the conditional use permit. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. [Taken from Conditional Use Permit Application] Our business is very simple - we operate small group, 60-minute fitness classes from 5AM-7AM, 12PM, and from 5PM-8PM in the evening. Every class is limited in size (clients must reserve their spots ahead of time), and is always led by a high quality certified instructor. Unlike traditional gyms, we use very few machines to operate and a majority of our equipment can be characterized as small and portable. From a public health perspective, we are not conducting any activity that would negatively impact sanitation, sewer and stormwater systems, water supply, or any other facets of public health and safety. From a public safety perspective, we are not conducting any activity that would adversely affect police or fire protection. Traffic flow to and from our facility is predictable since we operate on a strict class schedule outside of normal business hours of 9AM-5PM. In addition, our clients are primarily working professionals between the ages of 25-40, passionate about fitness and possess characteristics of model citizens. We promote fitness and a healthy lifestyle - our clients are a reflection of that standard. From a general welfare standpoint, we are here to do amazing things for the general welfare of the Burlingame community and residents. We help people achieve a level of fitness they never thought possible and our clientele ranges from teens all the way up to senior citizens. Our community is strong, vibrant, and very supportive of one another. We have community events that help promote other local businesses like Lululemon, Philz Coffee, Jougert, Sky High, and other establishments aligned with our core values. From a convenience perspective, we add value to the neighboring businesses by providing a fitness outlet for patrons in the local hotels, as well as those individuals that work at establishments within walking distance of our business. The ability to workout during "lunch -break" and while traveling is a convenience factor that we add for those located nearby. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? [Taken from Conditional Use Permit Application] There will be no adverse affect on the external aesthetic since we are not modifying the appearance in any way. For internal aesthetic, we are taking a plain warehouse and making it a fun, clean gym to get a great workout. There are no proposed changes to the internal or external structure of the building. The character of the neighborhood will experience a positive change in the early morning and late evening. These are normally hours in which there is zero activity ongoing in the area and we will have a presence during those hours to improve the overall feel and mood of the area during those times. Since our primary operating hours are early morning and late evening, we complement the general uses of the local buildings since they are primarily utilized between 8AM-5PM. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD v 1r BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1 to , , ;17 r. 0 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696 3790 �: �<��, —,- „, — www.burlingame.org VIr i'94^;1 , , L 1 1232w+ Site: 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY PUBLIC HEARING The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the NOTICE following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance for a commercial recreation (CrossFit Studio) business at 1669 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY zoned IB. APN 026-302-550 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) 9 Vr�fs 10 loe 10 *44 I + 'Y # • r �r I r ' i 4 } 1669 Bayshore Highway, zoned IB 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.13.17 c �J chrome-extension:Hmhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.htm1 1/3 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.13.17 c �J chrome-extension:Hmhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.htm1 2/3 8/29/2019 17-752 - 1669 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - 11.13.17 ID �J chrome-extension:Hmhjfbmdgcfjbbpaeojofohoefgiehjai/index.htm1 3/3 Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Item PROJECT LOCATION 472 Bloomfield Road City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 472 Bloomfield Road Item No. 7a Consent Calendar Item Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Designer: J. Deal Associates Applicant and Property Owner: Salima Fassil General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-165-190 Lot Area: 6,465.5 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e) (2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. History: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition was originally approved by the Planning Commission on February 22, 2016 (see attached February 22, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes, consent calendar). A building permit was not issued within one year of the Planning Commission effective approval date, therefore the Planning approval for the Design Review expired on March 3, 2016. The applicant is now applying for approval of the same project approved in 2016; there are no changes proposed with this application. Project Description: The existing one-story house with an attached one -car garage contains 1,890 SF of floor area and has two bedrooms. The applicant is proposing a first and second story addition to the main dwelling and to add an attached secondary dwelling unit on the second floor, which would increase the total floor area to 3,166 SF (0.49 FAR), where 3,169 SF (0.49 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project is 3 SF below the maximum allowable floor area. Staff notes that the application includes the addition of a new attached secondary dwelling unit on the second floor of the main dwelling. Per State law, review of the secondary dwelling unit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has reviewed the design of the secondary dwelling unit and has determined that it complies with the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit ordinance requirements (Chapter 25.59). The ordinance includes a number of performance standards, including the requirement that the secondary dwelling unit shall incorporate the same or similar architectural features, building materials and colors as the primary dwelling located on the property. With this application, the number of bedrooms will increase from two to five. Three off-street parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for this project. The existing attached garage will be modified so that two covered parking spaces are provided (18'-9" wide (to stairs) x 19'-4" deep clear interior dimensions provided where 18'-0" x 18'-0" is the minimum required for an existing garage). One uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review 472 Bloomfield Road 472 Bloomfield Road Lot Area: b,4bt).t) Jr mans aate stampea: VCiober Lb, zu-i / EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS .................................................... Front (1st fir): (2nd fir): ........... ......... Side (left): (right): .................................................... Rear (1st fir): (2nd fir): .................................................... Lot Coverage: FAR: # of bedrooms: Off -Street Parking: Height: ................................................. DH Envelope: 15'-2" n/a ................ 5'-6" 5'-0" ' ................................ 46'-6" n/a ................................ 1990 SF 30.7% ................................ 1890 SF 0.29 FAR ................................ 2 1 covered 1 uncovered 15'-8" 20'-0" .................... .............. 8'-l" (to landing) 11'-11" (to addition) 7'-0" (to second floor) .................................................................................... 45'-10" 49'-11" .................................................................................... 2008 SF 31% .................................................................................... 3166 SF 0.49 FAR .................................................................................... 5 (in main dwelling) studio (in 2nd unit) .................................................................................... 2 covered + 1 uncovered (main dwelling) 1 uncovered (2nd unit) .................................................................................... 25'-9" ..................................................................................... complies using dormer enclosure exemption 15'-2" (block average) 20'-0" ...... ........... 7'-0" 2 covered + 1 uncovered (main dwelling) 1 uncovered (2nd unit) ........................................................................................ 30'-0" ......................................................................................... CS 25.26.075 Existing nonconforming left and right side setbacks. 2 (0.32 x 6465.5 SF) + 1100 SF = 3169 SF (0.49 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Pa Design Review 472 Bloomfield Road 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 proposed design is a good transition between the existing multifamily residential buildings and single family dwellings in the neighborhood; that the design, including the detailing and the front porch, provide architectural interest for the exposed frontage of this uniquely shaped property; that the attached garage is an existing condition that is consistent with the pattern in the neighborhood and the proposed new garage door enhances the interface of this element will the street; and that the existing street trees and landscaping and trees on the subject property will help to reducing the mass of the new second story. For these reasons the project may found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 26, 2017, sheets A-1 through A-8, SK-1, GBM and L-1; 2. that the secondary dwelling unit shown on the plans for reference requires separate administrative review, and is not included in this permit; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that 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; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division's November 10, 2016 memo, the Parks Division's November 12, 2015 memo, the Engineering Division's November 30, 2015 memo and the Stormwater Division's November 16, 2015 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 3 Design Review 472 Bloomfield Road 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer Attachments: Letter of Explanation, dated October 26, 2017 February 8, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission from Previous Approval Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo 4 337A Beach Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Tele: 650-697-1370 E-mail: office@,jdealassociates.com Website: www.jdealassociates.com 10-26-2017 To: Planning Department City of Burlingame, CA 94010 Project: Fassil Residence 472 Bloomfield Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Residential Design Studio: Additions / Remodels Custom Home Designs Interior Design / Remodels Energy Conservation / Green We would like to once again apply for a design review permit through the Planning Commission on a project which was previously approved. It has taken longer than expected for the owner to secure a contractor. The owner has now signed a contract with a contractor and hopes that the project can be expedited. Thank you, Jerry Deal Principal J Deal & Associates RE EIVED 0 L-1 T 26 2017 CITYOF BURLINGAME CM -PLANNING DIV. Cityof Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 F I� Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, February 22, 2016 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Salima Fassil, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Chair DeMartini made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the Consent Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - DeMartini, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli Absent: 1 - Loftis City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1013012017 UOMMUNITY UEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEIVIr - 6011 PRIM-RCYISE RKUAU IF DUKLIN E, Cfik 94010 p: 660.668,7260 * f: 660.696.3790 www.bur-lingame.org ADD! I(% -A TWIN ("'IT"w"PI ANN1KJr-vr-nMm1-q-q1tnN —1 . r4 I- - -19 A 14 4 --4 9 2 M W.-29# 41�7g ff M ft %ffqv NW maftr.-W, W &I S a 0= 0 0-11 P M a 1N Type oaf WiTficati.,3101n, J�J 1) vr-cf 10 Design Review 0 Vadance FJ Parcet#-, T"tulso Do rl S^- ^; I PC.%rmi+ 01 Other: L-J U U11 V1 Kal I [slit, L-J ve%.1430 PROIJECT, AADDREcc. 472 &LOOMFIELD ROAD Of— -�,—jjenfa t h, pfojecf APPI ICANT OK to send etectronic copWs of documents H Name: J DEAL ASSOCIATES AddrAess: (Z-1-ityiZE-5tatelzip�- BURLIN(GAMP CA Q-4CHC1 Phone: (0050) 697 -13-70 Pax- 4ffl E�mail, 011 C-e@c,-,,jdi.aalassok-.;kat-ps.i-.oit—i 11 RCHITECTIDESIGNER t &= pfr*CA GCaX,&-- Person m OK to send electronic copies of documents 19 kti:ti—lin, i DIE-kkL :SS OCIATEE S 3 "371 8 , E-AUCH R 0 AYAN D, S U 'IE- A Addrerss: ... . ..... PROP EER TRY OWNER Pr 1-1 0TK to send etectronic copies of docurnenft 9 Name: SALIMA FASSIL I L6 L U fl. U.4;k U ss, BURL1-N1G-iAMH-, C4 Q 0 tag -, 40 1 otoml--y. _--. _ - .. -- , I - - -- V - - � 7�— ", �1 P Phone: "T Iss 1.0 sfa- --,i1@gM2if -QM c-ma" BURLINGAMECA. 94010 City!State/Zip, , 2. L; Phone: k Y6- V)50' 6597 -!"317 10 ZI 111).n.3 �- NOV - 3 LI.33 r- f-ax: CITY01 -UPLINGAME E -m C-t 1 1: offc-u@jdealassociatez->.com CDD-PLANNING DIV * Budlingame Business License #r- 05755 �01% ^V% FJrqt Floor Remodel S Addition, C-Se.cond Floor }efpiy-th thy_K 0 J 1E--- iF-.%TD-1-SCR1PT110N,. 4nd (Studio) Unit above exiSoting attached Garage AFFAIDAWITIVIGNATURE. I herebb' cedUffluEde r pewnal-Ity ev Pfku- 4411-lat the innforrnation gfiv,W-n hemin is true and corre'-.1 to the St,,yff eny ecs -0 te: Applicant's salignature: D-L I arr, aware cf-I Me proposed applfc'aJ von andjliv4reby authloritze the above applicant- to submit t1this applicattion to the r-lannina Qommission. 9QQ Property owners signature: Date; Waft -Mt li I 4Vs--=H g- J ill-C! 19�9- , /-0 i 115 * Ver cation that the project arcNtect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required d ;the 0 Finance Department ai tr* time appilcation to" are paid. 0 Pksase rnark one box abo%,v with an X to indicate 0-ae- contact person for this project SIHandoutskPC App&atjor, -_,,r--B.h8nd0Lt Project Comments Date: November 9, 2015 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3 72 7 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-165-190 Staff Review: November 9, 2015 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2016 then this project must comply with the 2016 California Building Codes. 2) As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non -compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water -conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb 0401- 0450/sb 407 bill 20091011 chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 3) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energV ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 4) Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 5) Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 6) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 9) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on -site parking. 10) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 11)This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2013 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 12)Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been finaled. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 13)Provide a complete demolition plan that includes a legend and indicates existing walls and features to remain, existing walls and features to be demolished, and new walls and features. NOTE: A condition of this project approval is that the Demolition Permit will not be issued and, and no work can begin (including the removal of building components), until a Building Permit has .been issued for the project. The property owner is responsible for assuring that no work is authorized or performed. 14)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 15)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 16) Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. On the elevation drawings specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310. 17)lndicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 18)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 19) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC § 1009. 20)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. Reviewed by: -�""� Date: 11-10-2015 Joe C O 5-558-7270 t/'/ Project Comments Date: November 9, 2015 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 X Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 472 Bloomfield Road., zoned R-I_, APN: 029-165-190 Staff Review: November 9. 2015 1. Landscape to remain the same; no trees proposed for removal; sufficient number of trees exist on property. 2. No further comments Reviewed by: BD Date: 11/12115 Project Comments Date: November 9, 2015 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558- 7204 Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-1, APN: 029-165-190 Staff Review: November 9, 2015 1. e existing sewer lateral traverses across the neighbor's property. Please provide an explanation as to why and if a private easement agreement is in place for the location of the sewer lateral. If not, the sewer lateral shall be relocated and placed within the property. 2. Insert the `Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobaV.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Program%20BM P%20 Plan%20Sheet-June%202014%20Update. pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed by: M. Quan Date: 11/30/15 Project Comments � Date: November 9, 2015 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R-11, APN: 029-165-190 Staff Review: November 9, 2015 1. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably, on a separate full size (2' x 311 or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at http-./fwww.flowstobay.org/Construction Reviewed by: [�J— I UL Date: I)I/Ols- RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 472 Bloomfield Road, Zoned R-1, Salima Fassil, property owner, APN: 029-165-190; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 131" day of November, 2017, by the following vote Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 472 Bloomfield Road Effective November 23, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 26, 2017, sheets A-1 through A-8, SK-1, GBM and L-1; 2. that the secondary dwelling unit shown on the plans for reference requires separate administrative review, and is not included in this permit; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that 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; 5. that the conditions of the Building Division's November 10, 2016 memo, the Parks Division's November 12, 2015 memo, the Engineering Division's November 30, 2015 memo and the Stormwater Division's November 16, 2015 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 472 Bloomfield Road Effective November 23, 2017 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 14. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 t PH: (650) 558-7250 •FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 472 BLOOMFIELD ROAD The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 472 BLOOMFIELD ROAD zoned R-1. APN 029-165-190 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650). 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) IMPAM s • 12 MrsoMr.rffi: 12 5 DODO IE DODO DODO (E) LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (E) FRONT ELEVATION LEGEND EXTERIOR FIN15HE5 (E) —'EXISTING' (N) —NEW' (R) —REPLACEMENT' TOP — TOP OF PLATES TOS — TOP OF SU5FLOOR FF — FINISH FLOOR FV — FOUNDATION VENT DS — DOWNSPOUT RWL — RAINWATER LEADER EE — EMERGENCY EGRESS ■ (N) SG WD STAIR 4 RAILING SEE DET 'A'/A-1, FG — FIXED GLASS SG — SAFETY GLAZING/TEMPERED GLASS CSMT — CASEMENT DH — DOUBLE HUNG AWN —AWNING FD — FRENCH DOOR t43.31' TOP OF RIDGE II EXTERIOR GRADE WOOD POSTS EXTERIOR WALL (SEE ELEVATIONS) GUTTERS 8 DOWNSPOUTS EXTERIOR WOOD SHINGLES OR EQUAL, PAINTED ALUMINUM PREPAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING WITH CORNER TRIM MATERIALS WINDOWS EAVES ALUMIMUN CLAD WOOD WINDOWS EXPOSED EAVES, TO MATCH (E) W/ SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES/ MUNTIN BARS SEE DETAIL 'A'/A-6 TYP, WITH TRIM -SEE DETAIL 'E'/A-1 KNEE BRACE ROOFING WOOD, PAINTED DARK COLOR COMPOSITION SHINGLE SEE DETAIL '57A-6 COMPLY WITH COOL ROOF REQUIREMENTS COLOR PER OWNER'S DIRECTION ENTRY DOOR WOOD -STAINED OR PAINTED EMERGENCY EGRESS REAR FRENCH DOORS I (2) 2/6 x410 ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD DOORS CASEMENT WINDOW CI SEE TYP DETAIL 'E'/A-1 TYPICAL TO WINDOWS) FOR TRIMS/CASING (N) T05 2ND UNIT / 1 r D GRADE 5 D 2ND UNIT (N) TOS (E) TOP 2ND UNIT (E) e D 6, I = 1839 TOS (E) ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL LEFT 61DE 4 METER AVERAGE DHE = 16.50' TOP OF CURS CLOSEST SETBACK POINT = 15.81' a GARAGE REAR CORNER (SEE SITE 4 ROOF PLAN) PROPOSED (N) LEFT 6ILDE ELEVA (N) 2x12 EXTERIOR W AN TION 512 -8 12 F l i. �), IIII ( MIMM mimimrimiml (N)/ (R) WD OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR 512 1 t31.89' TOP OF RIDGE TOP 1 _ +1 M1 W ly /8.39 p TOS I AVERAGE TOP OF CURB = 15.31' EMERGENCY EGRESS (2) 2/rox4/0 CASEMENT WINDOW 2x& EXTERIOR SEE TYP DETAIL 'E'/A-1 GRADE FACIA, TYP FOR TRIMS/CASING EXTERIOR GRADE COMPOSITION WD SCREENED SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP GABLE END VENT SEE 'EXTERIOR FINISH' NOTES EXTERIOR GRADE KNEE BRACE, TYP SHINGLE SIDING, TYP SEE DETAIL 'C'/A-1 SEE 'EXTERIOR FINISH' NOTES _ _ _ _ _ _ +45.81' EMERGENCY EGRESS i P GAXIMUM HEIGH7-� (2) 3/Ox4/0 X 1 CASEMENT WINDOW EXTERIOR GRADE t4331' SEE TYP DETAIL 'E'/A-1 CORNER TRIM, TYP TOP OF RIDGE FOR TRIMS/CASING lxro 12 6'-g" PLANTER STONE VENEER BASE TYP fi'ROPOSED CND IRON WD COLUMN ENTRY DOOR SEE EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE A50VE ' T 1212 s 1 \ r1lillm i OL 7-imi i ri i INN IN �il lmlllm�l 1 n _..mmnr�nr�m SHINGLE SIDING, TYP SEE 'EXTERIOR FINISH' NOTES STONE VENEER BASE TYP T ELEVATION SCALE 1/4" = 1' - 0" SCALE 1/4" = 1' - 0" moo: E TOS 1 r , r TOS -i TOP iii■iii ,, loommil ■EN■M RIGP7 SIDE DHE = 16.69 AVERAGE / TOP OF CURS = 15.81' EMERGENCY EGRESS (2) 3/0x4/6 CASEMENT WINDOW SEE TYP DETAIL 'E'/A-1 FOR TRIMS/CASING REVISIONS BY 0 PLNNG HE 12-04-15 PLNNCx 2 HE 01-15-16 a) L .� cQ32 0 0-y'O2 CCU to •ME ✓T� UYO Q= m 1. 0 .N0mo 032�`- 'O m— C>UOyQN >ma) Q f6 C p7 a)°�L•�CONUOC fn�N33'03C yt: 3 p m.L..O0�NOa U� CL U m a).— a y 70 y 0 Ut COO-C-fO m N +.. U-OOt�Cy(07 Q70 0000 C y y a) m N U O C N ��.ma�ia°i>Q�•�•30 L 0 7 y L y N 2 C 2-.0 y QN p a) TQ C m_OC _°UOU yr L OU y E�O`L O0'7= Me 2a`)3uoi°°jo awo9Nc� ccr N° w U O C y 'O f0 a) a) 0- � p La2N.°3r�rnV Hma=aa03am-o UQ L 0) LL E U 0) O o) (n ca Z (V r n, 1.��t and @ o mL) r� m� o -\ cn J � „n w � VJ � LUE W _ Uz O 4 �JU w@ cn 0 7 @ U �z �w LULuu _Q wz (p m J DATE 01-01-15 SCALE AS NOTED DRAWN HE JOB FA5SIL JOB # SHEET A=5 OF SHEET F-1 c 3 0 0 0 (E) RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE LEGEND (E) —'EXISTING' (N) —'NEW' TOP — TOP OF PLATES TOS — TOP OF SUBFLOOR FF — FINISH FLOOR FV — FOUNDATION VENT DS — DOWNSPOUT RWL — RAINWATER LEADER EE — EMERGENCY EGRESS FG — FIXED GLASS SG — SAFETY GLAZING/TEMPERED GLASS EMERGENCY EGRESS (2) 2/6x4/0 CASEMENT WINDOW SEE TYP DETAIL 'E'/A--i STONE VENEER BASE TYP TYP PROP05ED (N) RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE EXTERIOR FINISHES EXTERIOR WALL (SEE ELEVATIONS) EXTERIOR WOOD SHINGLES OR EQUAL, PAINTED WITH CORNER TRIM WINDOWS ALUMIMUN CLAD WOOD WINDOWS W/ SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES/ MUNTIN BARS TYP, WITH TRIM -SEE DETAIL 'E'/A-1 ROOFING COMPOSITION SHINGLE COMPLY WITH COOL ROOF REQUIREMENTS COLOR PER OWNER'S DIRECTION ENTRY DOOR AINTED V DOORS is) 3 3 1 (E) REAR ELEVATION SCALE GUTTERS 4 DOWNSPOUTS ALUMINUM PREPAINTED TO MATCH SURROUNDING MATERIALS EAVES EXPOSED EAVES, TO MATCH (E) SEE DETAIL 'A'/A-6 KNEE BRACE WOOD, PAINTED DARK COLOR SEE DETAIL '5'/A-(o +45.81' MAXIMUM 14EIGH7 I WE) GRADE BAND ABOVE 1 PROP05ED (N) REAR ELEVATION SCALE I� P DI-IE = 16.50' CLOSEST SETBACK POINT -a GARAGE REAR CORNER (SEE SITE $ ROOF PLAN) REVISIONS BY 0 PLNNG HE 12-04-15 PLNNG 2 HE 01-15-16 a) r c.� OR O CCU y'O + p) E.0 � COL= a) � 30 -0m— Cma) >U a) >Q L-0 C> 2 C y y CCU 0) 0 N O C 0 f/1 U O C -O C +_L O U 7 0+ 5 fnN33.03C ytc 3 p mw00�NOa UJ co m a).. y OR 7� y a) Ut C p Q0-Z6 ink C cc 0— 0-0 a) U C y CC 7 O''OyCa)a)00 Cyy w o O.—�� N U C 0 O T0.ma�iaa)>Q 0 0 L 0 m yL y N C 2 y QNpa)>4:i2 Q`.E —i3OyOU m_OC _OUa)0,0 y2 CU tq ED o O'- L Oa�'� rnm oa�3uiooo cc C C 0 a �O 0 N C O w U O C r N y 'Oma)0 yyO-�p ° L� N•0 3 U Q7U Hma=aa03am•ao w UQ 1-I-1 O m O o) r n, @ o CA r� m� 0 -� cn J � „n w � V J � _ i--- Uz cn JU W @ �z �w JlI u (] z w mJ JU r ca DATE 01-01-15 SCALE AS NOTED DRAWN HE JOB FASSIL JOB # SHEET A=6 OF SHEET 51TE PLAN NOTES d d d d d PUBLIC WORK NOTES (STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM) 1 Replace all defective sidewalks, curbs and gutters where required by the city. All new sidewalk, curbs, & gutters shall be built to City standards. A city encroachment permit is required. T_ SUMP PIT AND SUMP PUMP (W/ COVER 2 Permit is required from engineering department for any street openings, such as sidewalks, curbs ENCLOSURE -IF REQ'D) FOR RAINDRAIN and street pavement. 3 Approved pressure regulator is required for new water service An approved type pressure regulator FROM HOUSE. EXACT LOCATION preceded by an adequate strainer shall be installed and the static pressure reduced to 80 psi or less. TO BE DETERMINED. PROVIDE ELECTRICAL Approved regulators with integral bypasses are acceptable. Each such regulator and strainer shall be PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS - SEE 'RAINWATER 'K'/N-1 accessibly located and shall have the strainer readily accessible for cleaning without removing the COLLECTION NOTES regulator or strainer body or disconnecting the supply piping. All pipe size determinations shall be O_ 4'' SOLID PIPE TO SUMP PIT/ BASIN VIA based on 80% of the reduced pressure when using table 6.5. CPC 608.2 GRAVITY FROM THE HOUSE ROOF DRAIN SEWER & WATER DEPARTMENT ( SEE ELEVATIONS FOR OTHER DOWNSPOUT LOCATIONS) 1 Contact water department for disconnect of water service prior to demolition of dwellings. 2 New 1" (or larger) service OR to be determined by Building Dept. required for fire sprinklers. Need 4'' DIAM SOLID PIPE DISCHARGE PIPE THRU double check value (USC approved). See 'Fire Sprinkler System notes' this sheet. O3 _ FACE OF CURB. SEE 'RAINWATER COLLECTION' and City of Burlingame approved on fire line. NOTES 'K'/N- I 3 Water department to disconnect existing service at City main. 4 Install new sewer lateral as per city sewer dept. specifications Abandon the existing sewer lateral (N) JUNCTION BOX SEE BURLINGAME DPW at the main as per sewer department specs. ®- STD GURB DRAIN DETAIL SHEET 'SWC' 5 All exterior hose bibs shall have approved non -removable backflow prevention devices 6 water service shall be provided with a fullway valve controlling all outlets and installed on the (N) STORM DRAINAGE PIPES THRU' FACE O- discharge side of the water meter as per UPC 605.3 7 Need proper backflow device on irrigation system. Building Division to size, meter and service OF CURB.SEE 'RAINWATER COLLECTION' size. All backflow devices must be tested and togged by a SM County certficated tester. NOTES 'K'/N-1 CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAIN SEE BURL INGAME DPW STD CURB DRAIN 'SWC' All water connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city DETAIL SHEET ' 1 'f ' C, h f ' f All stan ar proce ores an materia specs ication s ontact t e city water epartment or connecrion ees. fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by the builder. NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION PERMIT The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirements to prevent storm water pollution. /6 93 1,1.88' FL BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION ORDINANCE Contractor to provide all information as necessary for the BACKWATER PROTECTION h CERTIFICATION ORDINANCE, #1710. All forms and information is available at the City of 00 Burlingame, Building Division. BMC 15.12.110 These forms must be filled out and approved by the responsible department prior to the granting of a building permit. \ SANITARY SEWER LATERAL The sewer lateral may or may not need to be tested. Testing information can be found on the City of Burlingame website. If tested the sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per SEWER ORDINANCE TEST ORDINACE, # 1329. BMC 15.12.110 Testing information is available at the I Building Department counter. An encroachment permit is required from the public works department whenever the city's portion of the sewer lateral or city cleanout is to be laid and / or connected to the 1 I(o•�6 sewer mains. The Contractor shall obtain evidence of the approval and the date of the approval from the City of Burlingame or the Owner of the property. �LL M I_ cA LL WASTE REDUCTION PLAN The Contractor shall be responsible for preparation of a Waste Reduction Plan as required by the City -- / Nand Burlingame. Contact the Recycling Specialist at the City of Burlingame (650) 558-7271 for forms and guidance. These forms must be filled out and approved by the responsible department prior to the granting of a building permit. (E) STORM WATER (SEE ALSO'RAINWATER COLLECTION' NOTES- SHEET N-1) LAND 5CAfF= No storm waters, underground waters draining from any lot, building, or paved areas shall be allowed ti (SEE AND APING to drain to adjacent properties not shall these waters be connected to the city's sanitary sewer system. Q NOTE , THI SHEET These waters shall all drain to either artificial or natural storm drainage facilities by gravity or AND BEE SWEET L-I pumping regardless of the slope of the property. Municipal code section 18.08.010(i) CE) 30" LANDSCAPING / TREES \ / MAGNOLIA EXISTING LANDCAPE All existing landscaping including lawn fescue to be remain unless being damage during construction TREE \ Ali shall be rehabilitated. Also provide new landscaping at new area for the removal of concrete walkway (EA to match existing landscaping. Q- 0 N -FRUIT P OP T E EXISTING TREES No removal, killing or trimming of trees shall be allowed without permit from the Beautification (E) Commission that are at least 48" in circumference at a point 54" above grade. All existing trees to remain \ 2 NON -FRUIT must be protected during construction by approved methods. \ TREE 0 /7 TREE PROTECTION MEASURES ¢ S The following tree preservation measures apply to all tress to be retained: (N) ADDITION . No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. 16T FLOOR The round under and around the tree canopyarea shall not be altered DS ® f� Trees to be retained shall be irrigated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 2 (E) ADJACENT HIDDEN CONDITIONS (N) RESIDENCE "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of work of the building 2ND FL R permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commision". The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for a any work not graphically illustrated in these plans prior to performing this work. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS LANDING PORCH / / / ///////// / / / / / The Contractor shall be responsible for the Special Inspection and Testing Agreement as provided by the City. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY (HOURS) � 6 , I 1� / j // / // / / // / / / / / // / / 2IQ // / / / / / j 1 No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, alter or repair any building or / IF p�� / j / / / //; structure other than between the following hours. Holidays are the first day of January, the third ? j; Monday of February, the last Monday of May, the fourth day of July, the first Monday of September, the 51 -ON eleventh day of November, the fourth Thursday in November and the twenty-fifth day of December, or if the twenty-fifth day of December falls on a Sunday the following Monday is a holiday. ELECTRICAL { I �I ST FLR (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details) SERVICE PANEL / // 1� / & METER AND I / //// /// 1- Monday through Friday: 7 am to 7 pm GAS METER I �EVEL / 1�� % L �1111��� �1��� �L 3- Sundays and Holidays: 10 m to 6 pm \ 2- Saturdays: 9 am to 6 pin (BELOW) 1 I/�/�/F 1 •1 // Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -city Holidays between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. U_ q� (E) EE Y r N _ r LANDSCAPE 5 r ? (SEE LANDCAPING I� W c>7 NOTES, THIS SHEET I AND SEE SHEET L-I i w � ' (E) SIDEWALK II I I II t15'-8"CE) YY 10'-0'(N) DRIVEWAY WIDTH ' \�QV Q g0 +D ark \ f #476 #472 #468 #464 9 QVOY BLOOMFIELD ROAD LOCATION PLAN MAP TRUE NORTH (E) CURBGUT (E) STREET TREE 5 ADD (N) CONIC TO COMPLY w/ MIN 18'-01, WIDE DRIVEWAY REFERENCE NORTH (N) PORCH 5Q (N) PLANTER _will Z (N) ADDITION 1ST FLOOR Z Q ca 3 111.43' PL (E)2m" SYCAr —STREET TREE PROTECT STREET TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION WATER -CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non -compliant plumbing fixturess to be replaced by water -conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. SSCO The ldw applies toall residential & commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. ?N) PLANTER (E) GRADING PERMIT DS 2 SEWER LATERAL Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. TO BE ABANDONED (E) LANDSCAPE I DEFERRED SUBMITTAL ITEMS (SEE LANDCAPING NOTES, THIS SHEET AND SEE SHEET L-I ❑ (E) WM / (E) SSCO---� SSCO I \/ o (N) / V SEWER LATERAL CONNECTION TO MAIN SEWER UNDER SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED, SEE 'SEWER' NOTES ABOVE AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK AVERAGE TOP OF CURB ADDRESS SETBACK 15.59 + 16.03 / 2 = 15.81' 472 BLOOMFIELD RD — 15'-2" (SUBJECT PROPERTY) MAXIMUM HEIGHT BLOOMFIELD ROAD 468 BLOOMFIELD RD — 15'-2" 1501' + 30' 60' RIGHT OF WAY 464 BLOOMFIELD RD — 15'-2" RIGHT SIDE DHE 16.51 + 16.01/ 2 1 S f T E LA LEFT SIDE DHE SCALE 16.01 + 16.93 / 2 FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1- Automatic Fire Sprinkler system throughout Residence and including the existing carport is REQUIRED - YES Under separate permit- See 'FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM' notes '-'/ N-1 Drawings shall be submitted to Building Department for review and approval. Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation 2- Min V water meter required - see 'Water Department' notes above. TYPICAL DOMESTIC FIRE SYSTEM DETAIL I TO DOMESTIC HOUSE VALVE TO FIRE MAIN CONTROL SYSTEM VALVE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE BRAND AND MODEL NUMBER TESTED AND SUPPLY TO BUILDING CERTIFIED BY A SIZE DETERMINED COUNTY CERTIFIED BY BUILDING DEFT TESTER Note: Schematic of water lateral as shown above: If the fire protection line and domestic water is separate, submit plans for the fire protection underground to the Burlingame Building Department prior to installayions. 3- Provide a backflow prevention device, USC approved double check assembly. General Contractor shall insure the double check valve assembly for fire protection shall be tes and approved by a San Mateo Environmental Health approved contractor prior to scheduling Water Department final inspection. 4- All sprinkler drainage shall be placed into landscaping areas PROJECT INFORMATION PROPERTY OWNER: SALIMA FA551L 4-12 5LOOMFIELD ROAD BURL INGAME, CA S4010 (415) 560-1354 (CELL) sfassil@gmail.com DESIGNER: J DEAL ASSOCIATES 33-1 BEACH RD, SUITE A BURL INGAME, CA 94010 (650) 6g-1-13-10 office@jdealassociates.com SURVEY ENGINEERING: KAVANAGH ENGINEERING -105 CAROLAN AVE BURL INGAI" IE, CA 94010 (650) 5113- Ig44 BUILDING DATA LOT SIZE ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO 6,465.5 x 0.32 + 1,100 ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 6,465.5 x 0.40 FIRST FLOOR (HABITABLE) GARAGE COVERED PORCH EXISTING FLOOR AREA RATIO 1,171 + 400 + (144-100) EXISTING LOT COVERAGE 1,171 + 400 + 144 PROPOSED NEW ADDITION FIRST FLOOR (@ FRONT) COVERED PORCH FIRST FLOOR (@ REAR) SECOND FLOOR SECOND UNIT MAIN UNIT COVERED PORCH (@ 2ND UNIT) STAIR (@ 2ND UNIT) NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO 1,171+400+113+194+324+963 NEW LOT COVERAGE 1,171+400+113+194+55+26+46 DRAWING INDEX A-1 — SITE PLAN, NOTES A-2 — EXISTING 1ST FLOOR PLAN A-3 — NEW 1ST FIRST FLOOR PLAN A-4 — NEW SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-5 — (E) / (N) FRONT & LEFT SIDE ELEVATIONS A-6 — (E) / (N) REAR & RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONS A-7 — BUILDING SECTION, DETAILS SF — SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS SK-1 — SURVEY DIAGRAM GBM — GREEN BUILDING MEASURES L-1 — LANDSCAPING PLAN � 01"i LANDSCAPING: GOMERY DESIGN 1205 CABRILLO AVENUE BURL INGAME, CA S4010 (65(0) 140-4640 6,465.5 SF 3,168.96 SF 2,586.2 SF 1,171 SF 400 SF 144 SF 1,615 SF 1,715 SF 113 SF 55 SF 194 SF 324 SF > 1,287 SF 963 SF 26 SF 46 SF 3,165 SF 2,004 SF All work shall be done in accordance with the applicable National & local codes and ordinances. California Building Code 2013 California Residential Code 2013 (where applicable) California Mechanical Code 2013 California Plumbing Code 2013 California Electrical Code 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards 2013 City of Burlingame Municipal Ordinances CONSTRUCTION TYPE Dwelling Type VB Garage Type VB BUILDING OCCUPANCY GROUPS R-3 / U REVISIONS BY PLNNG HE 12-04-15 PLNNG 2 HE 01-15-16 a) w 0_ w z L_ O CD N O 00=>, c._ o.3L o a)= ui'm0p�0-0LU mE �Y`o— 0.3-0 =.- U) 0—.03� 5..> >,E -O 0= C > 0 0 N-00 t m>-mN(6 N O_ NON mLa E> (6C O) 'O 2'0 0,55 N .� C .0C0._.L C 0 3 0 2 vim�33aCC'f0c'a.5 O �O N y 9 Q S � �M>tt o a>'. 0.0 V a) CCN9?20 j0 V1 N 2O_.0.- NOC �� C W=C0a�vcvimCC ID �.N. _Z N O 2 U fA N NQ `OOTD CO old .0 w��.�w�a,0 N@�O2A CE .N O ?01 O j 39UE:C ���oa�(D Y1 C aI'� +-' t C D. V O 3ao�� O.r000 (p�TN N C CO""O7 'O f6 N OONOrp p O.O O C� C U OIU OTO3: Co L C �8a'oQo�aM-E0 LU UQ W l--L LU tu 0 ) LIL F_ U 0) O o) �f1 CID Z cv .� 't m d @E m° r� (P o >n CZ �) J � „n w � VJ � W UZ 4 O � JU W V J IU 7:3 U �z �w LLI U Q wz �� mJ JU r (K c` i [(1 DATE 01-01-15 SCALE AS NOTED DRAWN HE JOB FASSIL JOB # SHEET A=1 OF SHEET EXISTING LANDSCAPING Fassil Residence —472 Bloomfield Road, Burlingame Plant Type Tree Svmhnl Botaniral Name Common Name Size Quantity Location TREES Trident Ma le Acer buer erianum Trident —Maple 2" Cali er 1 Citystreet tree C Citrus species Citrus tree 1"-2" caliper 1 Back yard Fig Ficus carica Fig Tree 3" caliper 1 Side and K Fortunella species Kumquat tree 1 "-2" caliper 1 Backyard MG Magnolia grandiflora Southern Ma nolia 30" caliper 1 Back yard Apples Malus species Apple Tree 4"-6" caliper 9 Back and Olive Olea euro aea Olive tree 10" caliper 1 Front and Sycamore Platanus acerifolia Sycamore 20" caliper 1 City street tree PU Punica granatum Pomegranate 3" caliper 1 Back yand Peach Prunus ersica Peach Tree 3" caliper 2 Back and N Prunus persica nucipersica Nectarine 4'-6" caliper 1 Back yard Pears P rus species Pear Tree 2"-3" cali er 3 Side yard TALL SHRUBS /nctudes redominant s ecies C Camellias . Camellia Varies 2'- T tall Back yard Z Phormium tenax New Zealand Flax 6' tall and wide Front yard BP Strelitizia re inae Bird of Paradise 6' tall and wide Side and front ards MEDIUM SHRUBS Includes oreclorrunant s ecies Grasses Pennisetum setaceum Pu Ie Fountain Grass 4'-5' tall and wide Front and MO Pittos orum tobira Japanese Mock oran e 5' tall and T wide Front yard LOW SHRUBS Includes redominant species Lilies Hemerocallis cultivars Dav Lilies V-2' tall and wide Back yard R Rosa cultivars Roses 2'-3' tall and wide Front and back yards Rosemary Rosmarinus officinalis Rose ma 2'-3' tall and wide Front and PERENNIALS tncludes redominant s ecies Fescue Fesfuca lauca Blue Fescue V tall and wide Front yard Herbs Herbs Potted and lanted herbs 1' tail and wide Back and Sae Salvia ele ans Pineapple Sae 2'-3' tall and wide Back yard Sae Salvia leucantha Mexican Sae 2'-3' tall and wide Front yard Sae Other Salvias cies Sa es 2'-3' tall and wide Front and back yards Ve etables Vegetables Ve etable beds varies Back yard VINES Includes predominants ecies B Bougainvillea species Bougainvillea 6' tall and wide Back yand fence J Jasminum of anthum Jasmine Stall and wide Side and fence PV Passifiors species Passion Vine 8' tall and wide Back yard fence IVA SUCCULENTS Includes predominant species - A Aloespecies Aloe P-2' tall and wide Back and E Echeveria s ecies Echeveria 1'-2' tall and wide Back and : NOTES: Gomery Design - December, 2015 Z 1. There is no lawn or sod on this property. It is predominantly drought tolerant plant species in the front yard, and fruit and vegetable gardens in the back. s '. 2. The planting list is conceptual and is not fully detailed but shows the trees and major shrub types. There were no drainage issues identified by the homeowner. 3. The planting list was derived from on -site review and discussions with the homeowner. Gamely Design is not a professional surveyor or arborist, and these plans are intended as an approximation of actual site conditions and shall be used as a guide for existing conditions. 4. The plan is diagrammatic and meant to convey the locations of the predominant existing plants. It is not fully detailed and it is the responsibility of the owner to verify, select, and resolve all construction dimensions, techniques and methods during any future installation process. i Yp� f T %� t ,A1 1 �, `/ t S ~ A 8` Nq' el7a of PATS Pasg'-18N Wiwi � p G 1 repep 6 G } MR. °�� r43 li gn4 - it EXISTING LANDSCAPING SCALE 1/8" = 1'-01, 'A T IT- 13M �r }-ram 9 i 6 > Wood 7-0) ' pT 1,t�fo - € Y AI, 1 Ord 00 C d- � � I 0 0 'L O M M U CD L 4- �rm0 V U v E 0 0 w/ m 1 ® , CD z 00IN it 4 �^ O VJ 0 r) W �dN LANDSCAPING PLAN Job: Fassil Date: December, 2015 Scale: As noted Sheet L - 1 Sheet 1 of 1 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 125 Crescent Avenue Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicants and Property Owners: Terry and Barbara Freethy APN: 028-293-080 Architect: Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture Lot Area: 8,207 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017. The results of the evaluation concluded that it is not eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under any criteria. October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Action Meeting: At the Planning Commission action meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission voted to continue this item on the regular action calendar with direction to revisit the design of the fagade along the North Elevation and address the fencing issue along the right side property line (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped October 24, 2017, in response to the Commission's comments. Please refer to the letter and revised plans for a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the action meeting. Project Description: This proposal includes demolishing the existing two-story house and attached garage and building a new, two-story house with a detached garage. The floor area will be 4,074 SF (0.496 FAR) where the zoning code allows a maximum of 4,126 SF (0.502 FAR). The proposed project is 52 SF below the maximum allowed FAR, including the front porch exemption. With this project, there will be four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. There is one covered parking space (10' x 20' clear interior dimensions) in the proposed detached garage and one uncovered parking space in the driveway leading to the garage. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. In addition to a one -car garage, the accessory structure will contain a workshop/storage area (permitted). The proposed storage area within the detached garage is permitted as long as it does not exceed 10% of the area of the house (154 SF proposed where 345 SF is allowed). Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue An existing protected size Cedar tree (36-inch diameter) located at the front of the lot will be removed as part of the project. A Protected Tree Removal Permit was approved by the Parks Division and will become effective only after Planning Commission approval is granted for the project (see attached). There is one existing landscape tree that will remain and the applicant proposes to add three additional 24-inch box landscape trees throughout the site. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). 125 Crescent Avenue Lot Area: 8,207 SF Plans date stamped: October 24, 2017 Proposed Allowed/Req'd SETBACKS .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... Front (1st fir): 27'-5'/2' 27'-5'/2" (is the block average) (2nd fir): ...................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31'-5'/z' 27'-5'/2" (is the block average) Side (left):: 5'-0" 5'-0" (right): .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... 10'-01, 5'-011 Rear (1st fir): 62'-2" 15'-0" (2nd flr): ...................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 63'-8" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2793 SF 3283 SF 34% 40% .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... FAR: 4074 SF 4126 SF' 0.496 FAR 0.502 FAR ...................................................................................................:........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ # of bedrooms: ..................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... 4 --- Off -Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ..................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................................... (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building Height: 27'-01' 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 8,207 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 4,126 SF (0.50 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on August 28, 2017, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached August 28, 2017PIanning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter dated September 18, 2017, and revised plans date stamped September 26, 2017, for responses to the Commission's comments and a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. PA Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue Planning staff would note that the Conditional Use Permits previously requested for a toilet/shower and window within 10'-0" of the rear property line in an accessory structure have been eliminated with the removal of the full bathroom in the detached garage. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring a front covered porch, a combination of cement plaster and vertical wood siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, composition shingle roofing, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 24, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and 1-2; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect 4 Design Review 125 Crescent Avenue Attachments: October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter and Attachments, dated October 24, 2017 Diagram Submitted by Project Architect, date stamped October 10, 2017 Letter Submitted by Kathy and Iry Holmes, dated October 6, 2017 August 28, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated September 18, 2017 Diagrams and Photographs Submitted by Iry Holmes, date stamped August 28, 2017 Email Submitted by Iry and Kathy Holmes, dated August 25, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated May 30, 2017 Tree Removal Permit, dated July 7, 2017 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 13, 2017 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated March 31, 2017 5 'CITY D� i yOY PORATFD , Tuesday, October 10, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers b. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is. Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Section 15303 (a). (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 125 Crescent Ave - Staff Report 125 Crescent Ave - Attachments 125 Crescent Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item as she lives within 500 feet of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones had a conversation with the project architect to get a preview of the revisions. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: > None. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Barbara and Terry Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy, Mark Pearcy Architecture and landscape architect Stephanie O'Rourke. Commission Questions/Comments: > How tall is the wood -sided surface on the driveway facade? (Pearcy: Estimates a little over 10 feet.) > Would it be possible to move the foundation so the tree could be retained? (Pearcy: It is a tree that deserves a park -like setting. The canopy is 50 feet in diameter. Over time it has outgrown its location. Probably went in at a smaller size. To build with a tree that size it would need a 20 foot setback from the trunk, which would disrupt the consistent street face setbacks. It is difficult to provide landscaping with the root system and shade.) > Any possibility to push the garage back from the fence or lower the massing? (Pearcy: Has added screening trees to the east of the garage along the fence line. Three English laurels are proposed, which are thick canopy trees that grow vertically and retain leaves all year. There are also three existing trees on the neighboring property. The garage is set back 2 feet from the property line, has an 8-foot plate line. Gable is pitch is 6/12 to match the existing house.) > How tall will the laurel trees grow? (Pearcy: Starts in 24-inch boxes, 6-8 feet at planting.)(O'Rourke: Will grow to 15-25 feet.) > How tall will the plantings grow along the driveway? (O'Rourke: About 8 feet.) > Has the gate been pushed back to the point where the existing low landscape wall is? (Pearcy: It is at the transition of the existing brick wall and the existing wood fence.) City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1013112017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 Public Comments: Iry Holmes, neighbor to the north - 15-foot high building will impose over the yard, compromise view, destroy quality of space. Character of the home will be gone forever. Two of the existing trees in the yard are deciduous so will not provide screening. Simultaneously three new home constructions will be going on around the house, on both sides and the rear. The other two sides are installing new high -quality fences, but these plans do not specify a new fence. Should place a new fence to match the others along the border. Kathy Holmes, neighbor next door to 125 Crescent Avenue - Large garage/workroom will significantly impact privacy and views. Existing Burlingame code falls short of protecting the privacy of its current residences. Current code provides incentives for building bigger homes on smaller lots, and incentives for building detached garages with lots of concrete. Needs more restrictive building codes. Two homes are currently under construction in the vicinity, built virtually to the property line with no regard to the privacy of the neighbors and no green space. Desires protection of privacy, space and views of current homeowners. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Would like to minimize the apparent massing of the structure in the back yard. Suggests the applicant lower the roofline or ridgeline, or move the garage back further from the fence. > The ordinances were crafted with the implementation of design review over 15 years ago. They were very detailed and meant to address the "monster homes" that were being built at the time. The current design guidelines are creating some very well -crafted homes. > The proposed garage is 2 feet from the property line, which is a greater setback than typical. > The massing of the proposed garage is like many others that have been approved in the past. > The bathroom in the garage has been removed, landscaping has been added, and the gate has been adjusted. The tree in the front yard is the wrong type of tree for that location and has overgrown the property, and is next to two substantial street trees. > The proposed house is consistent with other well -crafted, nicely -detailed, well-proportioned houses that have been approved based on the application of the design review guidelines. > The community may choose to reconsider the design review guidelines in conjunction with the General Plan Update if desired, but that it is not the subject of this application. > The applicant has addressed everything that was brought up in the prior meeting. > Meets the pattern that the community has adopted. > Only concern is the driveway wall facade, but not critical. > Should add a condition that a new property line be built along the property line. The existing sheds will be taken down. > Have met the neighbors more than half way with the concessions, particularly the elimination of the CUP requests. However the unbroken siding on the north facade is a major concern, as well as eliminating the existing tree in the front. > Believes the garage will have minimal impact on the adjacent back yard, particularly with the ridge sloping away. > Needs to fix the wall on the driveway side. It is too long and tall, and not a good neighbor. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the Action Item. The motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 2 - Terrones, Sargent Nay: 3 - Gum, Kelly, Loftis Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to continue the Action Item with direction to: City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1013112017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Revisit the driveway wall; and > Address the fence issue. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 1013112017 The following are responses to Planning Commission comments from the October I Oth,2017 meeting. Project: Freefhy Residence H u V u Project Address: 125 Crescent Way OCT 2 4 2017 Project Scope: New residence and detached garage. Date: October 24, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME North Side of Residence CDD-PLANNING DIV Due to concern that the two main level projections on the north elevation may be too tall and that this side of the building could benefit from more detail, we have made the following revisions: I Lowered the main level projection roofs by 2'-0". With this change the undersides of the projection rafter fails will be about 10'-4" above the driveway surface (previously 12f-411). 2. Changed the stained vertical wood siding to painted horizontal wood siding (stained alternate). We feel that the horizontal orientation of the siding will have a subtler look with less perceived height. 3. Added a window at the eastern main level projection. Please note that we also added 3 windows prior to the last meeting (2 at the family room and I at the master bedroom). 4. Added a planter box under the upper level, center window. Please see the updated elevations and perspective views for revisions. We have also included the original north elevation (Sheet A5, dated'7/13/17) for reference. Wood Fence at Northern Property Line At our last Planning Commission Meeting, it was mentioned during public comments that the wood fence along the northern property line could be replaced as part of the project. Please note that this vertical board fence with lattice fop was designed and built by the northern neighbor. It is relatively new and looks great. Also, the fence is not connected to the shed that will be removed, as previously assumed. We feel rebuilding this fence would be unnecessary and wasteful. Please see the attached photos showing fence condition. We hope you agree that these revisions improve the project. If you have any questions regarding the above responses or any other questions about the design, please call Mark Pearcy at 650.348.1509. Views showing condition of existing wood fence. 0- -W vy,r •+-- Northwest corner of shed, showing fence is not attached to shed. EXISTING WOOD FENCE AT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE REG-- 1b Crescent Avenue �s 10/25/17 OCT 2 4 Z017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV KEYNOTES % I COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD SIDING, STAINED. UPPER LEVEL 61.08' 4 STONE. 5 WOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. (o PANELED WOOD DOOR, PAINTED. DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST ENt 1 (,X& OUTRIGGER, PAJNTED, I OF RESIDENCE 8 2XI* RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. DECLINING HIEIGHT EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. ENVELOPE AT EAST EM OF RESIDENCE s.S" WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. WOOD COLUMN, PAINTED, 12 WOOD BRACKET, PAINTED. 13 DOWNSPOUT. RADE NMTH SIC tage WINDOW f DOOR TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO BE r,.W WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO BE 2.6' WIDE. TRIM AT CEMENT PLASTER WALL& TO 5E PAINTED. TRIM AT WOOD SIDING WALLS TO BE STAINED. ALL TRIM TO BE WOOD, 1 ) I Is RECEIVEE") OCT 2 4 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CIDD-PLANNING DIV. Y) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 310' HEIGHT LIMT S2 AT GABLE 1,191 EXISTING j&ISADF, BOUT ID H SE DECK AYE TOP OF CURB 52.1-1 CfiorVF�t Ion MARK PEARCY A R C H I T E C T U RE 1650 Barrollhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1 509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com z Uj � U WL 0 LL- - z > < LU < Z UJ C:) OD -- C6 < Uj Q Z W Uj I�CLr) cy- Z U. co < Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 CIty Comments 7/13/17 SHEET TFLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 114'=1'-O" AS --v n 4 VIEW FROM SW CORNER OF RESIDENCE AT 129 CRESCENT AVE. WITHOUT PROPOSED SCREEN TREES IV Rr:Cg: O'2017 CITYOF 'AWE M, D C9 Z:� VIEW FROM SW CORNER OF RESIDENCE AT 129 CRESCENT AVE. WITH PROPOSED SCREEN TREES 10.10.17 pc meeting Item 8b 125 Crescent Avenue page 1 of 3 October 6, 2017 Mr. Kevin Gardiner Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame CA 94010 emails sent to kgardiner@burlingame.org and Planning/Commissioners@burlingame.org Dear Mr. Gardiner and Burlingame Planning Commissioners, COMMUNICATION' RF:CEI i-'ED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RE l' Eur" OCT 10 M? CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the revised 125 Crescent Avenue plan as homeowners of the adjacent property at 129 Crescent Avenue. Our previous Burlingame Planning Commission letter, dated August 25, 2017, remains unchanged relative to our strong objection to the detached garage. We are opposed to both in its proximity to our lot line and large 15' height. At the August 28, 2017 public hearing the Planning Commission asked the 125 Crescent owners to consider two specific detached garage recommendations: • Reducing the height of the garage/workroom to 12' vs. the 15' proposed, and • Moving the garage/workroom off the proposed 2' lot line, further into the 125 Crescent owners property. Following the hearing, the Architect emailed us new drawings. We emailed back our strong protest to the same garage height and lot line proximity. But these objections have not been regarded. Our objections are grounded on the fact this new large structure significantly impacts our primary view and privacy, and therefore the value of our home. The new 125 Crescent garage/workroom plan is still huge at 15' high x 20' wide, and they have not moved the building any further away from our property. Additionally the proposed landscaping does not adequately shield this large structure. The revised 125 Crescent plan states the current and proposed trees will obscure the garage view from us. This is not the case. You see from the attached picture below, a 15' x 20' garage/workroom two feet from our property line will be very visible to us. For perspective, I sit at our kitchen island working on my computer every day looking at this view. It is a beautiful view filled with trees. If the proposed large garage/workshop is approved, my daily view will be one of their large garage and people coming and going from the garage/workroom. Their plan also states our current three backyard trees will obscure this view. This is not the case. As you can see from the picture below, our trees are set far back on our property with high branches, so they will block little. Our tree branches, which might slightly filter some of the garage/workshop, will likely be cut off to fit the 15' garage. The new cement driveway requires tearing down their full, large tree (which you see in this picture) to fit in the garage. And the smaller proposed three laurel trees likely won't obscure this large garage for several years. 10.10.17 pc meeting Item 8b 125 Crescent Avenue page 2 of 3 r1111W UNICAIJON RECEIV6'10 AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT R EIt tit ' 0 C T 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Current view from kitchen window at 129 Crescent Avenue. No garage. Same view with proposed 15 ' x 20' garage/workshop, 2 feet off lot line. Note: 3 proposed Laurel trees are missing, but will not obscure this large garage. 10.10.17 pc meeting Item 8b 125 Crescent Avenue page 3 of 3 Given that this proposed building is not only a garage but also a workspace, we would expect neighbors to be coming and going from this structure. As previously stated in our August 25th letter, and notated below, we ask you to consider our Privacy and Respect for neighbors existing conditions and utilization. 1. "Privacy a. We ask you to consider the goals outlined on pg. 24 of the NDG, specifically: "Homeowner privacy is achieved by sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways buildings and components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines." "Privacy can be most readily achieved by creating a sense of separation at property lines." "Elements such as screening and creative spatial organization can help enhance..." "Design Professionals should consider the existing situation in neighboring yards and respect it in their designs." There is no attempt (and per the NDG there should be) to place the detached garage away from the property line to address all of the concerns listed above, to "support separation at the property line". We ask that our privacy be respected and that separation at the property line be supported. 2. "Respect of Neighbors Existing Conditions and Utilization" a. We ask you to consider and honor the goals outlined in the Design Review Criteria on pg. 28 of the NDG, namely: "Respect the neighbors existing condition and utilization. Design... to maintain existing qualities ......... Utilize architectural and landscape elements to create real or apparent boundaries between adjacent occupied spaces." As mentioned above, the proposed detached "garage" apartment design/location does NOT "respect our existing condition" nor does it "maintain existing qualities". Further the proposal does NOT "utilize architectural and landscape elements to create... boundaries between adjacent spaces". We ask that our existing condition be respected, and our existing qualities be maintained. " We thank the Planning Commission for previously offering suggestions regarding the proposed accessory dwelling unit. We appreciate the City Planning Codes intent to watch over the current Burlingame residents from invasive new construction. You are the people who have the power to protect us — and all long-time Burlingame residents - from the impact of new construction overbuilding and encroaching on our existing homes. Finally, we ask you to further consider protecting us from the tall garage/workroom to be built just two feet from our property line. Sincerely, Kathy and Iry Holmes RECEIVED Owners of 129 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 j� �s OCT 10 2017 COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME AFTER PREPARATION CDD-PLANNING DIV. OF STAFF REPORT CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 aPORATE Monday, August 28, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers a. 125 Crescent Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage and Conditional Use Permits for location of window and for a shower and toilet in the detached garage (Terry and Barbara Freethy, applicants and property owners; Mark Pearcy Architecture, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Terrones spoke with the owner at 129 Crescent Avenue in order to access the rear yard. Commissioner Loftis spoke with the owner of 129 Crescent Avenue. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the owner of 1575 Newlands Avenue. Commissioner Gum spoke with the owners to the left and right of the subject property. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > One of the letters was from a neighbor regarding the existing property having a second dwelling unit. Is that permissible under the Municipal Code? (Hurin: The current code allows for secondary dwelling units. However an application for this property has not been received. There are many existing units in Burlingame so can't determine whether this one would be legal or not, but under the current code a second dwelling unit could be legalized or added to an existing home as long as it complies with the criteria in the code.) > Would a second unit be required to have parking? (Hurin: One parking space would be required unless the property is located within 1/2 mile of a train station, in which case it would not need additional parking.) > Would the parking space be required to be covered or could it be uncovered? (Hurin: It may be uncovered.) > Is this property within 1/2 mile of the train station? (Hurin: It is just within the 1/2 mile radius, so parking would not be required.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Terry and Barbara Freethy represented the applicant, with architect Mark Pearcy. Commission Questions/Comments: > What are the plans for the detached garage? (Mark Freethy: It is a garage with a work room on the side.) > Are there plans to use it as a dwelling unit? (Mark Freethy: No.) > What is the purpose for the shower in the garage? (Mark Freethy: Clean-up when coming in from the back yard. Saw dust clean-up, sweat clean-up when coming back from a bike ride. Convenience without having to come into the house.)(Pearcy: The owner is retired and does a lot of home improvement City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 projects.) > Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (Mark Freethy: The neighbors were provided with pictures of what is planned, but there have not been discussions.) > The lower walls on the driveway side seem blank. Any thought to windows on either side of the fireplace? The driveway wall is stark, and will be visible from the street. (Pearcy: Thought was to respect the privacy of the neighbors. The wall is on the north side so there is not a lot of potential for light. It has been broken up with two wall planes and three materials. The stained wood siding is meant to create a warm and friendly elevation.) > Why the changes in siding? (Pearcy: It's a cement plaster stucco building but if it was all stucco it could look harsh, so there is stained wood siding at logistical points such as the dormers and projections to warm things up. Also stained wood on the front door and garage door.) > Why horizontal siding? (Pearcy: It is stone, not siding. Just two siding types.) > Is the siding board and batten? (Pearcy: Vertical stained wood with a butt joint, center -matched. It will have a warm saw -texture finish that accepts stains.) > Has there been consideration of flipping the garage to lessen impact on the neighbor? (Pearcy: The garage needs to align with the driveway, and are trying to retain the existing deck. The garage has an 8 -foot plate so is low. The new house is further back from the side than the existing house.) > Could the driveway side elevation be pulled in 1 or 2 feet to add some landscaping? It is a new house so could be pulled it in a bit to get planting to soften the ground line. (Pearcy: Needs to have a 9'-6" driveway. It's a challenge on a 50-foot lot to get a center hallway and two rooms on either side. There is more flexibility in length.) > Are the existing brick walls along the side property lines being retained or removed? (Pearcy: On the right-hand side most would be retained but about 30 feet would be replaced behind the gate.) > Could the gate be moved back to retain some of the brick walls and their mature landscaping? (Barbara Freethy: Wants to consider the security aspect and have more land behind the gate. Doesn't want people to be able to climb a low wall into the back yard.) > Simulated divided lite windows? (Pearcy: Yes.) > Landscaping towards the front of the garage to shield the view from the neighbors would be helpful. A hedge would grow taller than the fence. > Could the garage be further from the fence line to provide space for foliage and screening plantings? (Pearcy: Wants to keep the existing deck and patio.) > Has there been thought to keeping the tree in the front? (Pearcy: It is a deodar cedar tree, belongs in a park -like space. Huge canopy - to have enough breathing room the tree would need to be back out of the drip line, 20 or 30 feet. It is park tree and not well suited to this location.) > Has there been consideration to lowering the pitch of the roof of the garage to lessen the apparent mass from the neighbors? (Pearcy: Wants to tie in with the main house, with a 6112 slope. Even a 4112 slope would look mismatched.) > (Mark Freethy: The neighbor sent a letter implying there is an illegal unit in the existing house. The unit was built originally with the house. It is a legal unit, with restrictions. It will be eliminated in the new construction.) Public Comments: Irvin Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Lives on the north side of the property. Submitted a letter. Per design guidelines pages 24 and 28, the project does not respect the conditions and qualities of existing homes, or support separation at the property line, neighboring yard is not respected. Current house has an attached garage and a large footprint; an attached garage can accommodate needs and there are many examples of attached garages on the street. Opposes the detached structure because of its length, height, and proximity. Concern with drainage from roof of garage onto neighboring property. Currently has 45 feet of unobstructed fenceline adjacent with views of trees and vegetation. Proposed garage is 15 feet high, 20 feet across; most attached structures are not as imposing or high. Structure could be flipped or moved back from property line to allow 15-18 feet of adjacency with room for landscaping. Offers suggestions in the letter. Shower, toilet and windows in the garage likely to be a prelude to an occupied dwelling. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 Kathy Holmes, 129 Crescent Avenue - Negative impact of detached garages and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). State Senate Bill 1069 brings Burlingame to a crossroads to maintain the unique small-town character of Burlingame. Tipping point may be subdividing the single family living spaces with ADUs. Other cities seem to be maintaining their land. Should instead explore perimeter, uninhabited areas such as the Bayside instead of subdividing backyards of single family residences. Questions whether the detached garage in the project would be used as an occupied dwelling. ADUs encourage the noncompliant practice of renting out vacation rentals. ADUs mean more cars parked on streets and driving on roads, and more non -property tax -paying households. Mark Gschwind, 1553 Newlands - Shower and toilet in detached garage suggests it is being prepared to be an occupied dwelling. Opposed to adding another unit to the neighborhood. There are parking impacts already. It seems like a nice house, but appears to have an open door to an occupied dwelling. Linette Edison - Lives in the house to the south. There is only a 5-foot side setback, and it is completely paved. Would prefer there be vegetation to help with the water drainage. Opposed to the bathroom in the garage. There are other properties on the street that have been converted over to apartments. City does not need many more apartments, would deteriorate property values. Needs to maintain balance between rental units and single family homes. Mary Streshly - Lives on the south side. Happy neighbors are remodeling. When buying into an R-1 single family, buy into a designated neighborhood for what it is zoned for. Disingenuous to ask cursory question whether the structure will be rented. No way to be promised that it would not happen. Police have been called multiple times to rental nearby. If it is zoned to have units, it is not R-1 - the neighborhoods need to be kept separate. Happy with the remodel, not happy to have rental units on the street. Kerbey Altmann, 1537 Cypress Avenue - More and more giant houses being built. Past opposition to large houses, and large Safeway. Should re -look at standards such as the FAR and lot coverage. Small lots do not need 5,000-6,000 square foot houses. Should revise rules especially for smaller lot sizes in older neighborhoods in order to preserve character. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Handsome design. > Concern the house is pushing out to the edge of the driveway. Even a small amount of landscaping could soften the edge. > With the rest of the detailing a lower slope 4112 or 5112 roof on the garage could still fit with the rest of the house. Could help with the overall height of the structure. > Can't support a full bath in the detached garage. Can understand a toilet and sink to support a workshop, but does not see the logic for the shower. A shower would suggest a closet for clothes, which would then suggest the workshop becomes a bedroom, and then it becomes accessory living space that wasn't part of the original application. > Driveway elevation is stark. Described as warm because it is wood, but it looks like the side of a barn. There is no opportunity for landscaping to soften the edge. If it were pulled back to allow landscaping may not need to do much more work to the facade, otherwise needs to do work so the facade is less stark. > Should show downspouts on the garage as well as the house. > Landscape plan needs help on both property lines. Would help to soften the view from the neighbors. > Cannot support the shower in the garage since it would suggest becoming a living unit in the future. > The bathroom would probably need an ejector pump for the sewage system; should be shown on the plans to indicate whether it would be inside or outside the structure. > Streetside elevation is nice, sad to see the tree go as it is a cornerstone of the lot currently. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 101212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017 > Supports the detached garage, except for the bathroom. One of the main emphases of the design guidelines is the detached garage pattern. Can provide more separation and privacy between neighbors, particularly if the wall along the property line is finished nicely. The proposed development meets that pattern. > Drainage is addressed in the municipal code. Water is required to be controlled on the property and not flow onto neighboring properties. This will be verified during the Building Permit inspection process. > The south and north side elevations are markedly different. Perhaps they could be more similar or less stark. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, and Kelly Recused: 1 - Comaroto City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 101212017 The following are responses to Planning Commission comments from the August 28th,2017 meeting. Project: Freethy Residence Project Address: 125 Crescent Way SEP 20' 20-17 Project Scope: New residence and detached garage. Date: 9/18/17 C11-Y OF BURLINGAME Detached Garage ADD -PLANNING DIV. 1. Due to neighbor concern that a bathroom could lead to a future garage apartment, the Freethys have decided to remove the garage bathroom from the project. The window within 10 feet of the property line has also been removed. See the revised garage floor plan on sheet A3 and south elevation on sheet A6. 2. The neighbors to the north expressed concern that the garage roof would be visible from their backyard. In response to this concern we have added a planting bed (approximately 3' X 18') along the fence line to the east of the garage with 3 evergreen screen trees (English laurels in 24" boxes). These trees are usually 6' to 8' tall at planting and mature to a height of 10' to 18'. It should be noted that 3 mature trees exist on the neighbor's property directly to the north of the proposed garage. These trees range in height from about 15 to 20 feet and overhang the proposed garage location. The combination of the new and existing trees will obscure the neighbor's views of the garage roof. See sheets A 1, Ll and attached photos. 3. We feel the current garage design is the best overall look for the property and neighborhood. Lowering the roof pitch would create a look that would be inconsistent with the main residence (i.e. a 4:12 roof pitch has a bungalow appearance). Please note that the current design is below limits for plate & ridge heights, is held back 2 feet from the property lines and the eastern 6 feet has a lowered ridge (about 12'-6" high). The roof also slopes toward the northern neighbor. These design measures were taken With the neighbor's interests in mind. 4. Garage downspouts were shown on the original drawings. See keynote 9 on sheet A6. North Side of Residence I A few commissioners commented that the north elevation seemed stark and lacked softness. In general, we disagree with these comments and believe that a closer look will show that this is not the case. We are confident that the three stepped wall planes, shed dormers, wall materials (stained wood & cement plaster) and craftsman detailing (e.g. exposed rafter tails, barge rafters, outriggers, wide window trim boards, etc.) result in an elevation that has a level of variety, interest, warmth and detail consistent with other sides of the residence. To illustrate this, please see additional perspective drawings on sheet A8. We will also bring a wood siding sample to the next meeting. In response to commissioner comments we have added taller, more robust plantings in the 3 beds along the north elevation to further soften the elevation (7 Camellias in 15-gallon containers). These shrubs are usually 3' to 5' tall at planting and mature to a height of 8'. See sheets A I and L1. We also added three windows (2 in the family room & 1 in the master bedroom) and relocated a window (in Bedroom 1) for more detail. See elevation 2 on sheet A5 and perspective views on sheets A7 and A8. 2. A commissioner suggested adding gable end detailing on the north elevation for consistency with the other three sides of the building. As illustrated on the drawings, the residence has a clear main gable running east -west along the driveway and a cross gable to south, creating a simple "T" layout. Since a gable end is not associated with the north elevation, adding a gable feature on this side of the building would look out of place and detract from the overall appearance. As noted above (item 1), we feel the updated north elevation is well composed and neighbor friendly. 3. In response to a neighbor comment, the drawings have been revised to show the low brick wall along the north-eastern property line remaining, in its entirety. The driveway gate will be moved to the west to the transition of the existing brick wall and existing wood fence. See sheet A 1. South Side of Residence A planter bed has been added near the center of the south elevation to help soften this side of the building. The planter contains 2 New Zealand Christmas bushes. These shrubs are usually 3' tall at planting and mature to a height of 6'. See sheet U. If you have any questions regarding the above responses, please call Mark Pearcy at 650-348-1509. 3 EXISTING NEIGHBOR TREES NEAR PROPERTY LINE. APPROX. 15' TO 2U TALL �y • V'� � ^ -� � • N :.?Ti• �'..S - 7y, , •J �r R7�s �i3r- Yi ` ��i yati "/Z�'C� �.f'.�1 - � ' �' ;`. ••�. •s X��O ,•' 1, �� 1�Iir ����s+ s 6 �,' �:c: � >'',�✓s�"���,- ter- !�. y�" r',"� ��� _ 'M' y:' _�� � • ,.•.-'Y� - r •�... �. >!.- f•c'* ;, �/��� .y�� 1. .� ,` ; .�, . " �� '�`1�l?'at. '_. tea• .. .1� ft��r , M1. IAAL r_ Y j�/ ��i�'+ . `i7�� � ,.+.`T�^ C�% "y^ -TY '1• ivy. Y ',�'� .2'vi � � �".���� G��, :+•y . � ���� � fit-', •- n jyt;,` - �. {.Sy«��'1NS.'.j1;.. }�[ ! Fi �'� �.� ti '� a•: M� . •.'t tC•ti , j �� + t `ir .. -.•�+-.r,1.�•. �+,_ hj y`' •.����-�rf��k.`. c._ p�'°t�,�' a -. ` � �a�- _ �+•9 Ct`... - � �F,�.,V,�~�� �`r. •s l 11• APPROXIMATE FRONT (EAST) WALL OF DETACHED GARAGE I • 1'I I NMI ' EXISTING SHED (see site plan) 125 CRESCENT AVENUE Rear yard looking northwest showing existing trees near proposed detached garage PHOTO 1 OF 2 f : IL C, FENCE Lvd ❑ c�?� BATH d"! � i I I i GARAGE WORKSHOP/ J STORAGE I ' iaxe rnv�o i GARAGE ROOF PLAN SCALE I/hl'd N r - I ❑ I I � 1 I BATH I I I I II I I II I I WORKSHOP/ II GARAGE I STORAGE II I II P I I II I 4--L 1 I I I I I I I GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4'=1' )*N- Z �d ROOF PLAN tcnte 1/h11a P I � •� 3 � N9,#Cr/ AUG 2 8 2017 CITY OF l.;JRUW01.till L CDD-PLANNING DIV. 1AARK PEARCT ARCHITECTURE C 16500orrot�A A� 9a�Gpune, C1010 ssaue.lsos US Q Z�� O Z O >Q US F U � w w ti Q Buz W U � � z � ome City C-91 7/13/17 SH%Tmr= ROOF PLAN & GARAGE PLANS SCALE 1/tal•d A3 NOTES 1-ALLTREE95RW MSTAMuWMOMK� W1111MS ALLTREESAGRACE —BMTREESTOBEE MGLESiERiVARIETY WIM .YYitVLI=tL-- L PXWQI 101 IR TREE M ANMNn LA� a J& B-IMMAR comb, - PLANTING PLAN w w Z LLI w wom z w IL July 13.2017 scale 118 paper size 24x36 Ll 1 S cN�er 15 h�-5h rov;�. + Unn N[ C¢SS / t SOUTH ELEVATION I 1/ra-v 3 NORTH ELEVATION /. -e' N„�y�eCQSs CK Ct ARCHITECTURE CTURE 16SO Borrodhel Avenue Bu6rgo , CA 94010 650.348.1509 T/ rvnvpsovryocaaeclw...an 2 EAST ELEVATION CuMS ,� Drop �rtQ• f n.�-e• t — will d wnt aw v%t ^lo s z W Q' =1O Z� Z J W Q U vrLu Wo W :�iQ N¢ >" w 0 ,;r U Z o U:,- 04 7 z 73 •- �1 WE5T ELEVATION o„m, �• '•F v.•q-e• v..a. sawn QYComre•n ]/1]/n KEYNOTES u..e•v�w.r awe w,x. ] �'+�t PU>TEA PAMm 4 PNFIm wXD OOR+; PaMm 5 �M nP/Mm b pve nvice •atiM P/Nf® D �b tice CtYo nat PaHfm. 9 oWaSPM stw Me WINDOW f DOOR TRIM GARAGE MR— ? `A"`�`im, wi sew,=R °o°Ooo1!°" o EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE VC-1- A6 �� KEYNOTES caposn¢N E"..'-RORxG,TiPY.AL ] �18rtPWiRF PA>BED 5 Waco �.5re5m 6 PAIFIEO OK.'o OCb2 P4M®. t A>u PAN1Hx 0 e RARE •<raA PAEnm 9 [>wa5m wAE1ER iati PAenID IB » eLE RI0.9 timt PAEn® 11 RR.sv ta++ri PAME9. 12 YOCO BRMCET, P<MIEO 13 OCRW!OUI WINDOW a DOOR TRIM ce is-� <: >IwSm omcws ro PAMFD l�Arl AT aal'O yw rma l�+o eE BALL llbl ro eE tlxa i WEST CREAl0 ELEVATION — w•.I-e• 1 �rvcs �r Pose afiae�r -f� v (�'`" k� "vwe u!;5*a' j b a rri or. MARK REARCY ARCHITECTURE 16500—a lAver>\ee Buingane. CA 94010 650.348.1509 ,....o.awarsww.mm h— Ode BWpn R— 5-117 cW cmvR.�> rllanr S.M Tote EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALe Vl— A5 ,/ job'`,. s _�•"'.Yt'.�''+ ��'1 �<++ s���.`�!' '- a.T7_y�irt km IWO 4 c Rr ei /\ y I y�C�J` _J-RYR Blow 0.. dW- Tt �' -- n 1• �4 , RI���°a , • 1 4Y{t1t EM 9 41 08.28.17 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED Item # 9a AFTER PREPARATION 125 Crescent Avenue OF STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 11 RECEIVED AUG 25 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message ----- From: Iry Holmes [mailto:Irv. Holmes(D_challeng edairy.com] Sent: Friday, August 25, 2017 2:24 PM To: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner <kgardiner(a_burlingame.org>; GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissionersAburlingame.orq> Subject: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Mr. Gardiner and Planning Commissioners, Attached is a Letter stating our comments and concerns to the proposed new construction at 125 Crescent Ave. We hope that these will be considered in your deliberations, and we intend to attend the Hearing on Monday evening to present them. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave. Your message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: Neighbors Comments re Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave. on 8-28.pdf Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled, [http://www.challengedairy.com/files/sig-logo.gif] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication, including attachments, is for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain proprietary, confidential and/or privileged information. If any reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately return the message to the sender via return email, and delete all electronic or other copies made. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Challenge Dairy Products, Inc... ^REC IV ED August 25,2017TION COMMUNICA AUG 70'7 OF Mr. Kevin Gardiner --�-- ------ -------� CITY OFBuPUNGAIVIE Burlingame Planning Department CIDID-PLP-MINE-7��\/ SO1Primrose Road, Burlingame 94010 emoUssent to and Re: Adjacent Neighbor Input to Public Hearing for 125 Crescent Ave, Burlingame Dear Mr. Gardiner and Burlingame Commissioners, We (Kathy and Iry Holmes) have lived at 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame for 23 years, adjacent to the proposed site for new home construction at125Crescent Ave. Please know, vvedonot object tothe Freethy family having anice, new home. Respectfully we would like to convey our objection with several aspects of this newly proposed home plan, specifically: 1. The Detached «Garage°Apartment (see attached photos) a. The new design proposes a detached "Garage" Apartment, calling for a Conditional Use Permit for a shower, toilet and 4 sets of windows. As background, the current owners have created and rented an apartment upstairs in their house for we believe 20 + years. Renters have included both couples and singles. VVesuspect the in-house apartment has not been legal due tothe long-standing R'1single-family dwelling zoning. This in -home apartment has aseparate entrance, and likely akitchen. VVehave never lodged aformal complaint, because vvewanted tobe"good ne|ghbos". But xvehave been unhappy with this situation for years. Therefore, if 20 + years is any indicator, we believe the owners of 125 Crescent will likely rent the current proposed detached "'Garage" Apartment given it's proposed size, plumbing, .windows and design. With the square footage and roof elevation, |t|oessentially another mini -house directly next toour backyard, and vvooppose this. b. The proposed "Garage" Apartment drawing place this structure immediately next to our backyard, with virtually no separation or privacy, 2 feet from our lot line, c. This imposing, dominant structure will significantly alter and destroy the visual quality of our primary living space and kitchen. VVewill look atthis mini -house all day long, because the "Garage" Apartmentsight line is immediately outside our kitchen window and eating area, No 7-foot proposed fence or foliage will hide this wide, tall and "in your face" edifice. This dominant structure will compromise the current sight line and peaceful feel we have worked years toplant and maintain inour lovely backyard, d. Renters of the proposed "Garage" Apartment can ONLY access their apartment alongside our dining room and living room windows and backyard patio, Therefore several times aday they will walk beside our home space. This would become a source of unnecessary/unwanted activity, noise and adisruption ofour privacy. e. The new tenants would NOT likely use dedicated space for their car(a), given the "'gated" driveway single -car design. Therefore street parking would be required. Our 125 Crescent neighbors current garage has only been used for storage and never a car in our 23 years of 1 residence. Therefore, one could legitimately conclude their proposed "garage" would be used for housing people and not a car. Recommendations L Move the detached "garage" apartment to the LEFT SIDE of the property at 125 Crescent. The neighbors to the left of 125 Crescent already have a detached garage on their property. Therefore two detached garages would be next to each other, not disrupting privacy, space or views. Additionally, there is no gas meter in front of 125 Crescent, and the tree on the street side could be replaced with a more attractive tree, accommodating a left side driveway. There is no current right or left side pattern to the homes on Crescent Avenue. The current owners of 125 Crescent have some hardscape they have poured in the last two years on the left side of their yard. But we respectfully suggest, since it was just poured recently, it can possibly be replaced to the right to help maintain their neighbor's privacy. OR ii. Move the "garage" apartment to the middle rear of the backyard at 125 Crescent. If the owners want a large "garage" apartment, then it seems more appropriate for the owners to be able to view this structure, versus imposing this structure on our backyard privacy and views. OR ill. Re -configure the garage "apartment" to an attached garage, consistent with 125 Crescent's current structure and the designs of approximately 50% of the garages on Crescent Avenue. (Page 20 in NDG,) Note: Several photos are also attached of very attractive attached and set -back garages throughout Burlingame. Page 22 in NDG, provides notations for "Low Impact Attached Garages. "There are examples of attached garages which do not dominate the front of the residence." 2. Privacy (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider the goals outlined on pg. 24 of the NDG, specifically: "Homeowner privacy is achieved by sensitive placement of buildings and landscaping and by the ways buildings and components are orchestrated to support separation at property lines," "Privacy can be most readily achieved by creating a sense of separation at property lines." "Elements such as screening and creative spatial organization can help enhance..." "Design Professionals should consider the existing situation in neighboring yards and res ect it in their designs." There is no attempt (and per the NDG there should be) to place the detached garage away from the property line to address all of the concerns listed above, to "support separation at the property line". We ask that our privacy be respected and that separation at the property line be supported. 3. "Respect of Neighbors Existing Conditions and Utilization" (see attached photos) a. We ask you to consider and honor the goals outlined in the Design Review Criteria on pg. 28 of the NDG, namely: "Respect the neighbors existing condition and utilization, Design... to maintain existing qualities......... Utilize architectural and landscape elements to create real or apparent boundaries between adjacent occupied spaces." As mentioned above, the proposed detached "garage" apartment design/location does NOT "respect our existing 2 irl OF G� aRLNGAMI c condition" nor does it "maintain existing qualities". Further the proposal does NOT "utilize architectural and landscape elements to create... boundaries between adjacent spaces". We ask that our existing condition be respected, and our existing qualities be maintained. Recommendation See Recommendation in point I above. In addition to altering the "Garage" Apartment we ask for consideration of potentially enhancing the architectural and landscape elements on the north/right side of the house. The proposed design feels mostly like a wooden flat structure with little window coverage. In contrast, the view of our house from our neighbor's right side is an attractive one, we believe. The right side of our house is lined by large picture windows and attractive foliage planted along the entire side of our house. We have worked hard to maintain lovely landscaping throughout the entire side of 125 Crescent Avenue's views. We would be most grateful for the same consideration. b. We appreciate the visual freedom of low fences in most neighbors' front side -yards throughout Burlingame. This creates the imagery of uncluttered, open space. The proposed new design of a 7-foot fence, which extends an additional 20 feet alongside the right of our home, creates an imposing barrier in the front of the neighborhood. It detracts from the current foliage we've planted. Foliage intended to inspire a natural, attractive property line. The current, low, creeping fig covered brick fence is a more pleasing view and attractive fence for the neighborhood, versus the proposed 7 foot high fence extension from its current location. Recommendation Enhance the beauty of the right side of 125 Crescent with more interesting architecture, windows, landscaping, and maintaining the current low, brick fence where it is currently placed. Do not allow for a 7-foot fence until the current break midway through the lot line. Lastly, we wonder if you would indulge us in a philosophical side bar ................ We moved to Burlingame 23 years ago from San Francisco. We left behind a dense, non -family oriented, concrete filled, expensive area in search of a small, quaint town with low density, green spaces, family atmosphere and a spirit of community. We have been long-term, active supporters of our small-town Burlingame. We have and continue to participate in boy -scouting, our church community, our schools and by serving the poor and marginalized. We understand now there are significant pressures on Burlingame government to. enlarge our quaint town. These housing shortage demands also have tax -based interests and incentives. Several in Burlingame government told us "there are federal and state mandates. People want to move to California. There is pressure to build more. To build apartments in the middle of homes." But we honestly ask if this housing shortage, and the increased prices and new developments are doing more to serve the rich coming to and changing our special gem of a town, than to serve the existing hard-working members of Burlingame. Therefore, we ask philosophically and with complete sincerity: What is in the best interest and fairness to the current residents, supporters and volunteers that make up the community of Burlingame? How much do we want to tarnish our charming little gem by over -crowding it? How much does building apartments in the backs of homes alter our precious family -oriented neighborhoods. How much 3 "E C A U G 2 5 2 CITY OF 01,URUNGAME does encouraging more concrete in the form of driveways and "detached garages" take away green space and backyards in the interest of satiating a never-ending "housing shortage"? Mow much do we want to saddle Burlingame with the headaches and density of mixed -use properties in the middle of downtown to satisfy a housing shortage. The housing seekers will keep coming. The demand will not stop. But when will more building be too much in Burlingame? When will the long-time Burlingame community supporters and volunteering home owners pack up their tents and move on in search of that quaint small town they yearned for in the beginning? What will this little gem of a town look like in 10 years? Will we have controlled the insatiable development giant, or will development have slayed us? Do we have the strength, courage and zeal to protect Burlingame from over -growth for our families for generations to come? We thank you far your service, and for indulging us in this philosophical side -note. Respectfully, Iry and Kathy Holmes 129 Crescent Ave., Burlingame 4 t AUl G CITY CAP BUi •1-NUGAME CDD-PLANNING DI ,r� �� r., ��� �� .�' �t �`''t'2+' �_ - .i, ..1�.,:1� �., . ��� is k�u ,f ., t ' �`" _ .�j ,� S ?� � - ,.� . �r "� ;� �:_. � ,+� T,L#y�!-� ;�, �� .:. .•and s'�+'ri ,,�q _ _ � *� �� ���; � , �- a y � � � 1 :f.t .. _;�!" � r; ` t � � 'r . �: �.• r•- i1 F. • � _ i f. � -� _•:- � _ �� . . K y°. ..� ': . .a' 1. � a'.j :•: �ti -. :, ALL ' Y 31 �` .y►f w t x -- b r' I�fffi � a MdAt ♦ •. 1, Or, n> �• •�Fr4.':! 1�1 •� � p: •�-_MA •\ C'• � .Its• � - ` .{I1.�'�{! ?V Ilk je 1't .s JG3 YiURLINGAM E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 9 f: 650.696.3790 - www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review 0 Variance 0 Parcel #: Conditional Use Permit 0 Special Permit 11 Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS:- 11--9 � APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: "4 Name: Address: 12-9 Address: City/State/Zip: 'T-44-44nty/State/Zip: Phone. 09 Phone: E-mail: pmaJ C1411 All E-mail: ARCH ITECTMES IG N ER Name: ECEIVED Address: City/State/Zip: elor 91 JUN - 1 2017 Phone: (,_"p4_C0 -4 A)- - CITY OF 13URLINGAME E-mail:2 nz_� 1�0 z CDD-PLANNING DIV --------------------- Burlingame Business License (� � Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action... (initials of Arch itect]Desig ner) PROJECT DESCRtPTION: r C I r 2) ak _ 4! - AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: �SaA iks: P row r-� 6N_J A-4/r Date: I am aware of the proposed applicatio ancll, r by aut rite th -above-applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature Date: Date submitted: S: IHANDOUTSIPC Application. doc Terry and Barbara Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA Date: May 30,2017 Letter of Explanation JUN - 1 2017 CI'rY OF BURLINGAME CIDD-PLANNING DtV. About us We are Barbara and Terry Freethy. We bought our home at 125 Crescent in 1985 just in time for our wedding. We were excited to live in Burlingame as Terry had grown up in the city, attending St. Catherine's Elementary School and graduating from Burlingame High School, Barbara grew up in Southern California but fell in love with her husband and Burlingame in the early 80's. We have lived in our home for 32 years and raised two children there, Logan and Kristen Freethy, who attended elementary, middle school and high school in Burlingame. We love the Burlingame Park neighborhood, but we have outgrown our home and the outdated floor plan of a house built in 1929. We believe a new house would not only improve our lifestyle but would also be a great asset to our charming neighborhood. About our plans Our proposed home has an inviting front porch, entry and living room facing Crescent Avenue and Pershing Park, with a great room located adjacent to the backyard. We plan to have a master suite and 2 bedrooms on the upper level, with a guest bedroom on the main floor that could function as a master bedroom in the future. We have chosen to build a 4-bedroom home in the event that one of our children decides to live here and raise a family. Our proposed home uses craftsman building forms that will integrate beautifully with our Burlingame Park area. The major building forms are a simple two-story gable with a perpendicular cross gable. A pattern of shed dormers, step -backs and projections add a degree of variety and interest without detracting from the overall concept. The street elevation is composed of a vertical, two-story gable element on the right with the contrasting horizontal forms of the front porch, shed dormer and cross gable on the left. The same forms are revealed at the rear elevation with a different interpretation. The side elevations are stepped back more than required by declining height envelopes to allow daylighting and privacy at side yards while maintaining a nice level of architectural interest. It should be noted that the proposed residence is less imposing on the neighbors than the existing building. Exterior detailing will include features common to craftsman homes in the Burlingame Park area such as wide trim boards, barge rafters, exposed wood beams & columns, brackets, exposed rafter tails, trellis elements, g(idded windows, paneled doors, etc. The predominant exterior wall material will be painted cement plaster, softened by stained wood siding at the shed dormers, projections on the north side, and near the front door. The front entry door and garage door will also be stained wood. The front porch floor and column bases will be stone. Our front yard is currently dominated by an oversized and poorly located Deodar Cedar. We plan to remove this tree and have reviewed the process with Bob Disco at the Parks Department. Removal of this tree will allow us to locate our new home in a reasonable way that is consistent with other homes in our neighborhood and also develop a more attractive front yard. Our proposed front yard has a similar layout to our existing yard but with many enhancements that will make it much more attractive and inviting. For example, a new, curved stone entry walk will lead visitors between a pair of low stone columns and through a landscaped area to front porch. An existing brick curb that borders the yard on the sidewalk and driveway sides will be replaced by a stone curb. Areas that are currently brick paving along the sidewalk and planter strip will be replaced with plantings. The driveway will remain on the north side of the property and our plan is to reuse the existing pavers for our new driveway, partly to reduce off -haul during demolition. We also plan to keep the low brick walls that are located along the side property lines in out front yard. In our backyard, we're proposing a detached one -car garage with an additional area that will be used for a workshop or storage. Adjacent to this area we'd like to include a bathroom with shower. Terry has worked as a carpenter in the past and enjoys home improvement projects. The work area will provide a great space for his projects and the bathroom will provide the perfect place for him to clean up before going into the house. One of Terry's past projects is the backyard deck that has been integrated into the new house design. We also plan to keep an existing patio area to the west of the deck. Aside from the new garage and driveway, new work in the backyard will be minimal. We are very excited about our proposed project and think it will be a great addition to our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. 7 Since Terry and Barbara Freethy City e of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame: Ave., Burlingame, CA 940,10 BURLINGAME phone.: (650) 558-73*30 a fax:. (650) 696-7216 .gborba@burliLigamQ-qr July*7, 2017 Terry Freethy 125 'Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA. 940,10 Dear Terry, I reviewed, your request for the removal of the Cedar tree.in front of the house at 125 Crescent Avenue and based on the information you have provided, I have made the following determination: This Cedar is growlng*3V from the existing house and causing damage to the foundation and exterior stucco. With the proposed building improvements to the property,, the roots from this tree will need to. be cut to accommodate the new foundation causing this tree to become unstable. The permit will. be Issued after the Planning Commission has approved the, project. Therefore, I intend to issue a perm.itfor the removal of the Cedar tree. The tree is s0iectto the provisions of the Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 11.06 060(d)(1), (1) The condition of the tree(s) with respect to disease, danger of failing; proximity to existing or proposed structures, yards, driveways and other trees; and interference with public -services; Replacement with one 24-inch box -standard single stem size land5cd etree( . no fruit or nut will be required to be planted anywhere on P a I . t the. private property as defined in Section 11-06-090. If you agree with the conditions, pleases #n the ei7closedp6rmita dreturninthe self-addressed envelope byJulyi9i.2017. Adjacent property owner(s) at the -address(s) listed below are also receiving v ng notification of this decision. Appeals to this decision or any of its. conditions or findings, must be filed I.Awritingto our office byMy19,2.017as provided-inSettion 11.06.080 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Btirfingarne Municipal Code Chapter 11,06). The permit will be issued on October 25, 2016 if no appeal has been i date., received by thatda. , . - Sincerely, IC 7_11 13ab Disco Park Superintenclent/CitY Arbo.rist Enclosure CC: Prop" Owner 112 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 940.10 Property Owner 1569 Newlands Avenue .Burlingame, CA 94010 Property Owner Property Owner Property. Owner Property Owner 117 Crescent. Avenue 121 Crescent Avenue 129 Crescent Avenue 133 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 940I0 Burlingame; CA 94010 Burlingame, CA 940*10 Burlingame, CA 94010 11W PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION _P Parks &.Recreation Department 85OBuriiiigai.*zeAveirrie,Burlingame, CA 94010 Date'-�(650) 558-7330 The undersignedowner of the property at: Address; VIE? — hereby for a permit to rem . ove or prune . more than 1/3 Ye canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species-, Circumference:, Location on Property Work to be Performed:. Removal Trim .More Than 1/3 of the CrONVII Reason Work is Necessary, . ... .... . .. � I. Is this Tree .Removal.Request Part of B t YES uilding Project?" NO Note:.A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(8) on the property most. be submitted along With $7.5 00 to: of Burlingame. Additional documentation ittayk re d'*t support. tehioval, 4 .:City required`to Attach all Ex Reportfrom y documentation you may have. ample: an Independent Arborlst, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern fir eithbors etc.).. Owner (Print) Phone �nC Address r Email 661q (if different than above) ---------------------- r ------ — ---------------- —'----ram --------- — ---- -------------- -------- PERMIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. ZLIIJPaytnentMethod This permit allows the a .47Q_�7S713 applicant t to remove or prune the: above listed tree(s) in accordance; with the provisions of the. Urban Reforestation. and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Cha ter 1.1.06), si thii. perm'.... . h licant gnin it the app. acknowledges receiEt of a copy off Chapter 11.06 and agrees to c with it lister[ omp: y with its provisions an all conditions sted below; -and that all appeals, aveexpfTPdorbeeVqsQlved,fi SIGNATURE CITY A CONDITIONS: 24 - ' box inch size landscape tree(s) (110fruit or nut trees) will be required quired and maybe planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter IL06.090.(b)(5),payment of $ 700for each tree into the tree replacementfundwill be:required. NO replacement(s) required. C no a . Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 A W lei? re lov 1(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT.* Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES. 1 DATE COMPLETED This work should be done b site qualified treef rofes*ionals and a copy of this perinit must be available at the job s te '1 at all times when ten work is beingperf6rined, 08l2oisreviseti RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 Crescent Avenue Zoned R-1. Terry and Barbara Freethy, property owners, APN: 028-293-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 24, 2017 sheets Al through A8, L1, and L2; that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6, that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review. 125 Crescent Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the . PUBLIC HEARING following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, NOTICE 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 125 CRESCENT AVENUE zoned R-l. APN 028-293-080 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) City of Burlinge A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject applications) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) •� [ S s 1'�` 4 1 5 d 0 �` w NI i. 0 3 ... ; $ t S46 �- ��. ISOl IS y54 Br 77��L���• 4 r +�: o Is y S 7'5 - 1� , �S. TssS 1560 Iss5 rn{s a0 >53 op- 4 4+ s' ^� •' r56r56, 1,56S Al 7 � bz r r 4 S 7 nA h. N MIL df Z [ i 4 ol E 7 A �l a `v �' d • f i' 1E l W -- '�i i � 1 5 r. ��y' • t is State of California —The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code Primary # HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 13 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: ❑Not for Publication ❑ Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 125 Crescent Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-293-080 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 125 Crescent Avenue is a two-story residence with a one-story portion at the front and a two -and -one -half -story portion at the rear. It is located in the Burlingame Park neighborhood on an 8,300 square -foot rectangular parcel on the west side of Crescent Avenue, between Barroilhet Avenue on the south and Howard Avenue on the north (Figure 1). The vernacular residence features Spanish and Gothic Revival elements and a rectilinear plan. It was constructed in 1929 and the architect and/or builder is unknown. The wood -framed, stucco -clad residence is set back on the lot, allowing for a deep front lawn, and sits on a poured concrete foundation. The main and contiguous rear volumes are capped with flat roofs, while a rear one-story extension is capped with a shed roof. Windows primarily feature wood casings and wood frames with wood sashes and muntins. A driveway on the east side of the property extends from the street to an attached one -car garage located at the rear northwest side of the residence at the ground story. A gable -roofed concrete masonry unit (CMU) shed is situated at the far northwest corner of the parcel. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull on March 13, 2017, unless otherwise noted. (See Continuation Sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: ❑ Building ❑Structure ❑Object ❑Site ❑District ❑Element of District ❑Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary fagade, March 13, 2017 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ❑ historic 1929 (original building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: Terry Freethy 125 Crescent Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: 3/31 /2017 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None *Attachments: ❑None ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map ❑ Continuation Sheet ❑ Building, Structure, and Object Record ❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock Art Record ❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 2 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 31, 2017 0 Continuation 21Update *P3a. Description: (continued) The primary facade of 125 Crescent Avenue features a main one-story volume that faces northeast onto Crescent Avenue and a setback two -and -one -half -story volume towards the rear (Figures 1 to 2b). The left (south) portion of the one-story fagade features three tall and narrow ten-lite windows, each terminating in a Gothic -style pointed arch with decorative wood muntins; the center window rises slightly higher than the other two windows. The right (north) side of the one-story fagade features a stucco -clad chimney that projects out a few feet and is flanked by two windows of a similar style, which both align with the taller center window on the left side. These windows also feature planted wrought -iron flower boxes. The chimney tapers slightly and extends above the roof line about six feet. A decorative wrought -iron grille is centered on the northeast plane of the chimney, which is inset within a narrow, arched niche and aligns with the top of the windows. The one-story primary fagade terminates at a flat parapet (Figures 3 to 4). The two -and -one -half -story volume at the rear south and west sides of the residence contains two fagades facing Crescent Avenue, which extend above the primary volume's roof, and appear to each feature a pair of single -hung wood -sash windows, similar to others observed at the side and rear facades of the house; these windows are not visible from the street, but are shown in the three-dimensional aerial photograph (Figure 2a). Figure 1. Current aerial photograph of 125 Crescent Avenue (outlined in orange). Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Z Figure 2a. 3D aerial perspective of 125 Crescent Avenue (indicated with arrow), looking northwest at primary facade. Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. S Figure 2b. 3D aerial perspective of 125 Crescent Avenue (indicated with arrow) shown to better depict the rear volumes. Source: Google Maps, 2017. Edited by Page & Turnbull. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 0 Continuation 0 Update Figure 3. Left (south) portion of primary fagade. Figure 4. Right (north) portion of primary fagade. The northwest fagade of the subject building contains three bays, two of which are projecting at the center and right (west) sides (Figures 5 to 8). The left (east) side bay features a Gothic -style arched window followed by a small partial -height arched window with a projecting wood sill. The elevated front entry of the residence is located in the northeast -facing plane of the projecting second bay. The wood -paneled door is also arched and has Gothic -style hardware and an arched viewer behind a decorative wrought -iron grille. The entry is accessed by six stone -paved steps that lead to a small landing and stone threshold. A wrought -iron railing aligns with the northeast -facing plane of the second bay on the right side. The second bay's northeast -facing plane features from left (east) to right (west), a semi -circular, tri-partite 12-lite window with wood muntins, followed by a partial -height, single -hung wood window, and a clerestory greenhouse window. The northeast -facing plane of the projecting third bay contains a wood -paneled single car garage door at the ground story beneath a decorative iron grille. The second story features a centered single -hung, eight -over -eight window with a wrought -iron balconette. A louvered wood vent sits beneath a flat parapet, which extends the length of the northwest fagade. A full -height wood gate at the eastern corner of the projecting third bay provides access to a narrow side passage and the backyard. The northwest -facing plane of the third bay features two single -hung wood -sash windows with ogee lugs — one at the ground story and one at the second story, which sits slightly further east. The northwest facade steps down to a single story at the far right (west) side (Figures 9 to 10). Figure 5. Left side of northwest fagade, first bay, showing raised entry. Figure 6. Primary entrance. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 0 Continuation 0 Update Figure 7. Northwest fagade, showing three bays (center and right bays are projecting) and garage, looking west. II-- J ICI F� Figure 8. Detail of second bay semi -circular window. i Figure 9. Northwest fagade, third bay, looking east Figure 10. Northwest fagade, third bay, and one-story towards gate. extension at rear northwest corner, looking east. The rear (southwest) facade is comprised of four discernible bays: far -left, center -left, center -right, and far -right. The far -left -side bay features a projecting one-story portion at the ground story (an in-law apartment), which contains a sliding, fully -glazed vinyl - framed door leading to a rear stone -paved patio. The second story of the far -left side features a centered pair of single -hung wood - sash windows. A louvered wood vent sits beneath the flat parapet, which extends along all portions of the rear (southwest) fagade. The southeast -facing plane of the far -left bay features a horizontally -oriented sliding wood -sash window with an inset screen. The second story contains a single -hung window, similar to the windows on the southwest -facing plane (Figures 11 to 12). The center -left bay projects out about six feet in front of the center -right bay. The center -left bay's southwest -facing plane features two pairs of eight -over -eight single -hung windows on the ground and second stories. The southeast -facing plane's ground story contains a fully -glazed, 20-lite wood -framed double door, recessed a few feet beneath the second story, which features a single - hung, six -over -six wood -sash window. The center -right bay features a steel -sash sliding window with steel muntins behind the lites and an inset screen at the ground story (Figures 13 to 17). The far right -side bay contains a wood paneled -door at the ground story and a single -hung, wood -sash window at the second story of the northwest -facing plane. The rear door is accessed via an elevated wood deck (three wood steps from ground level) and two additional wood steps to a narrow wood landing adjacent to the door and parallel to the southwest fagade. The southwest -facing plane of the far -right bay features a single -hung, wood -sash window centered at the ground story and a pair of single -hung, wood -sash windows at the second story with inset screens (Figures 17 to 18). As shown in the perspective aerial photograph, the rear of the residence contains a two-story volume on the north side (as previously described) and a two -and -one -half -story L-shaped volume on the south side, which extends a half -story above the center of the building (Figure 2b). The north and west -facing planes of this portion feature four single -hung windows, which look out over the roof of the two-story rear volume, and are not visible from the backyard. DPR 523L >tate of California —The Resources Agency Primary # )EPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # :ONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 0 Continuation ❑x Update Figure 11. Rear (southwest) fagade, left (north) side. '1 M =I Figure 13. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side at ground floor. r Figure 12. Left side, south -facing plane. F-1 Figure 14. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side detail of windows at second floor. Figure 15. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side south -facing plane, ground story. DPR 523L Figure 16. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -left side south -facing plane, second story. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 0 Continuation 0 Update 0111111111111001 Figure 17. Rear (southwest) fagade, center -right and right side, ground story. Figure 18. Rear (southwest) fagade, right (south) side. The southeast fagade of the residence faces a narrow passageway that leads from the front to the rear yard, accessed via a gate at the northeast corner of the fagade. At the left (west) side, the fagade features a slightly projecting bay window, which extends from the ground level to the roof. Each plane of the volume features single -hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs. The center bay of the fagade features two pairs of single -hung windows at the ground and second stories, respectively. The right (east) side contains a narrow, arched window, similar to those of the primary and northwest fagades, at the ground story (Figures 19 to 20). Figure 19. Southeast fagade, looking east at gate. Figure 20. Southeast fagade, looking west at gate. A gable -roofed, concrete masonry unit (CMU) shed sits at the rear northwest corner of the parcel, featuring a fixed wood -frame window, a solid wood door, and wood siding on the south -facing plane (Figure 21). The subject lot features deep front and rear lawns, mature trees and perimeter planting beds. The front lawn is bounded by a brick retaining wall with a low iron railing at the east side. Low brick walls also bound the property at the north and south property lines, which transition to tall wood fences at the wood gates on both sides. A stone -paved driveway on the north side of the property extends from Crescent Avenue to the house's attached garage (Figure 22). The rear yard features a stone patio that spans the width of the lot adjacent to the residence. A raised wood deck (three to four feet) with wood railings is constructed adjacent to the south side of the rear (southwest) fagade and extends to the center -left bay with access stairs leading to the deck on the west and north sides (Figure 23). A stone path leads from the rear patio to the rear double doors of the far -left bay. The stone patio extends nearly to the western property line with portions of grass, mature trees, and planting beds along the perimeter (Figure 24). Wood fencing bounds the property along the northwest, southwest, and southeast property lines. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 13 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 24, 2017 0 Continuation ❑x Update Figure 21. Rear shed. Figure 23. Rear yard at deck, looking northwest. Figure 22. Driveway, looking southwest. Figure 24. Rear yard at patio, looking northwest. The surrounding neighborhood is strictly residential, with mostly one- and two-story homes. The properties immediately south and north of 125 Crescent Avenue are one- and two-story homes, respectively. Directly across from the subject property is Pershing Park, which fills a large portion of that block (Figure 25 and 26). Figure 25. Pershing Park across Crescent Avenue. Figure 26. Crescent Avenue looking north. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 8 of 13 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue B1. Historic name: 125 Crescent Avenue B2. Common name: 125 Crescent Avenue B3. Original Use: Single -Family Residence B4. Present use: Single -Family Residence *135. Architectural Style: Vernacular with Spanish and Gothic Revival elements *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Based on an original building permit, 125 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1929 by an unknown architect (Figure 27). A building permit indicates that a rear addition, likely at the second story, was constructed by owner, Stuart E. Brown, in 1946. A Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map from 1949 confirms the original massing and footprint of the building, as well as the second story addition (dashed in the Sanborn map). The next depiction of the subject building is a plan sketch attached to an appraisal report from 1952. It is described as a "two-story building with a basement and garage, a 7'x9' porch, and a two-story bay window." Generally the footprint appears as it does today, except for additions at the center -left bay and at the rear of the attached garage. Other permitted alterations include reroofing of the in-law apartment in 1982 and interior alterations and a bathroom remodel in 1986. In 1989, plans were submitted for a second story rear addition to convert a studio apartment to a fourth bedroom. A confusing note was found in the Historic Society files from April 1992, which reads, "House [at 125 Crescent Street] has been demolished — new structure going up — foundations and framing up and sheathing." Either the indicated address was incorrect or the note was pertaining to the new rear construction, which likely occurred a few years following the permit drawing submittal. Unpermitted exterior alterations to the building were observed to include the single -story rear extension at the far -left bay (in-law apartment), one ground story window at the rear far -right bay with replaced aluminum sash, a fully -glazed double door, and a wood -paneled door, also both at the rear. The detached rear shed is not depicted on either the 1949 map or 1952 sketch, and its construction date is unknown. The residence's stucco cladding is in decent condition and was also likely refinished recently. The following building permits are on file at the Burlingame Building Department: Permit # Date Owner Description 1607 Aril 1929 L.H. Stevenson Original building permit. Electrical contractor: Meansser Plumber: Dubienthal E930 June 1946 S. Earl Brown, Rear addition. Builder: WF Tourtelotte $1000 1-83 1982 Velia Leoni Reroofing of in-law unit 0-966 June 1986 Terry Freethy Bathroom remodel and basement sheet rock, interior alterations Variance May 1989 Terry Freethy Planning approved variance for parking and side yard setback for a second story addition (Plans submitted in April 1989). Description on variance: "[Rear section] had been a studio apartment and will be converted to a fourth bedroom; the property shall be used for 1 dwelling unit in the future. E13-0003 2003 Terry Freethy Roof tip with solar *137. Moved? ❑x No ❑x Yes QJnknown Date: Original Location: *138. Related Features: No B9a. Architect: Architect unknown b. Builder: Unknown *1310. Significance: Theme N/A Area Burlingame Park Period of Significance N/A Property Type Single Family Residential Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) See Continuation Sheet. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *1312. References: See Page 13 1313. Remarks: None *1314. Evaluator: Cassie Rogg, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: March 31, 2017 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 31, 2017 x❑ Continuation ElUpdate *1310. Significance: (continued) Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi -rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small- scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake and Fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of the San Mateo Rancho. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the property following Burlingame's death, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan "centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents."' The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.2 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was subdivided in 1905, through the early -twentieth-century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are variations of the Craftsman style or of different revival styles (often altered). 125 Crescent Avenue An original building permit confirms that 125 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1929 by an unknown architect, though the electrical and plumbing contractors are noted (Figure 27). It is possible that the original owner, L.H. Stevenson, was a developer - builder, but no further information was found about him. The earliest depiction of the property is a Sanborn map last updated in 1949, which likely reflects the main residence's original footprint, as well as the 1946 second story addition shown with dashed lines (Figure 28). The rear of the house was altered in the early 1950s and a single -story extension was also added at an unknown later date. One historic photograph of the property's primary facade was found dating from c. 1960, which portrays the facade and site landscaping generally as they exist today, except for the paving material appears to have been replaced. Based on site observation, two rear doors and a window have been replaced. Overall, the residence is in decent condition, but the shed is in poor condition. ' Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. 2 Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park" (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 13 *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Date March 31, 2017 0 Continuation DUpdate Plumb ng Perrnit No;d Contract r..,lrt-v.s!,{�` -L-.... Lot _f�, Hlock �d No. Fixtures. -.,.../[......,. Ice INSPECTION -' tr 'st i seweA rlNn4 Cost...../�•./i/' rte 1.5— . OyncrGL Electric permit No.... 5F,587 .. Address ..... - ...,, RunUer Contractor.. 141 2tcLti ., _ [I,dd/rez tJ�6 /l _ .. LiChts..,. 4... Sw... L. `f4 . Pg.2 I? Date hlt pectivn... LJIdl Fee. G �.. .. ...... ..... .._. ....... .,. ... .... _., -.,, Fixture Permit No.... Contractor.,...LiFurw•f�rt!././ No. F xt resF T. ...::... -..... ....., Date Inspection.. L ... Figure 27. Original Building Permit. Source: Burlingame Building Department. J. 7-1 i rr -p l `. -11 � k .I Figure 28. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (March 1921 — November 1949). Property outlined in orange. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 29. Appraisal document sketch, 1952. Residence outlined in orange. 1946 second story addition shaded yellow, c.1950 additions shaded blue. Source: Burlingame Building Department. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 30. 125 Crescent Avenue, primary fagade c.1960. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 13 Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date March 31, 2017 ❑O Continuation ElUpdate B10. Significance (cont'd): Owner and Occupant History Research has identified three long-term owners of 125 Crescent Avenue. Though L. H. Stevenson is indicated as the owner on the original building permit, he likely sold the property to Stuart Earl Brown shortly after the house was constructed, based on the city directory listing in 1930. Stuart resided there with his wife, Hazel, until 1961 and worked as an accountant at the Dollar SS Company, an international steamship shipping company. Hazel participated in and occasionally hosted meetings for the Burlingame Business and Professional Women's Club for several years. The property was unlisted in city directories for a few years until 1965 when it was sold to Angelo G. Leoni, who resided there with his wife, Velia. The Italian natives had immigrated to Burlingame around 1950 and had three children. Angelo worked as a janitor in Burlingame and passed away in 1980. Velia lived at the subject property until her death in 1982. No further information was found regarding their lives or occupations. In 1985, Terrence and Barbara (Beharry) Freethy purchased the subject property and moved in shortly after marrying. Terrence graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School and was admitted to the State Bar of California in 1997, though he is not currently practicing. Barbara Freethy, a graduate of UC Santa Barbara, began working in public relations before launching her writing career as a Romance novelist, publishing her first book in 1990 under the pseudonym Kristina Logan (a combination of the names of her children, Kristen and Logan). Barbara has written over 52 novels to date and has been published by Harper Collins, Penguin, and Simon & Schuster. She has had recent major success selling e-books through Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In 2011, she started a self -publishing business, Fog City Publishing, and in 2012, her novel, Summer Secrets, hit #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List. Barbara has won several awards for her romance and women -specific fiction, including the Romantic Times Reviewers Choice Award and the Romance Writers of America RITA Award for Best Contemporary in 1997 and 2013. In 2014, she had sold 4.5 million copies on Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP), making her the highest -selling KDP author that year and one of the most successful self -publishing authors ever. Terrence and Barbara still reside at 125 Crescent Avenue. The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 125 Crescent Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and other available resources.3 Year(s) of Ownership Name(s) of Owners (known owners in bold) Occupation 1929 L.H. Stevenson Ori final short-term owner, occupation unknown 1930-1961 Stuart Earl Brown (Hazel D.) Stuart an accountant at Dollar SS Co. 1965-1982 Angelo G. Leoni (Velia) Angelo a janitor in Burlingame 1985- Present Terrence Freethy (Barbara) Terry a lawyer, Barbara a Romance novelist Evaluation (Significance): The property at 125 Crescent Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file, affiliated with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan area, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 125 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A/California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The house was constructed in 1929, during a major wave of development of the Burlingame Park subdivision. However, the property does not retain strong significance within this context. The property does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for the National Register or California Register. Therefore, it does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. 125 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B/California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The first long-term owner, Stuart Brown and his wife, Hazel, lived at the property for 31 years, but little additional information was uncovered about them that would indicate significant contributions to history. The second long- term owners were Angelo Leoni and his wife, Velia, who resided at 125 Crescent Avenue for 17 years, and similarly, little additional information was discovered that indicated significant contributions to the local community or broader history. The third and current long-term owner -residents are Terry and Barbara Freethy (since 1985). Barbara continues to be an acclaimed best-selling author and self -publisher of romance and women -focused fiction. Though she likely has and continues to write at home, it cannot be said at this time that the subject building is particularly representative of her life or associated with her career to the extent that the 3 Known owners are those who were specified either in city directories, permits or assessor records as homeowners. City directories did not consistently specify who was a homeowner versus a resident or renter, so it is possible that all names listed in the table above were homeowners. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 13 *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Date March 31, 2017 ❑O Continuation 21Update subject building would be considered significant under Criterion B/2. Furthermore, 125 Crescent Avenue cannot be said to meet Criterion Consideration G (Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years) as there is not yet significant historical perspective to determine exceptional importance. Therefore, at this time, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. 125 Crescent Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register Criterion C/California Register Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The main portion of the house and garage appear original from 1929. At least two major permitted rear additions were constructed in 1946 and c.1989, though it is likely another rear addition was constructed in the early 1950s. There are also unpermitted replacement rear doors and at least one rear window with replaced vinyl sash. Though electrical and plumbing contractors were listed on the original building permit, the original architect is unknown. As no architect is known to have been involved, the building cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. Despite retaining likely original features at the primary (northeast), northwest, and southeast fagades, including arched and semi -circular doors and windows, stucco siding, wrought -iron balconettes and grilles, the building's massing has been significantly altered at the rear. Further, the building is vernacular with Spanish and Gothic Revival elements, does not possess high artistic values, and does not appear to be a particularly strong representation of any architectural style such that it would rise to the level of individual significance. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register Criterion D/California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the residence at 125 Crescent Avenue for eligibility under Criterion D/4 is beyond the scope of this report. Conclusion The residence at 125 Crescent Avenue was constructed in 1929 during the major wave of development in the subdivision of Burlingame Park. The flat -roofed, two -and -one -half -story vernacular residence exhibits Spanish and Gothic Revival architectural style design features and appears generally unaltered on the primary (northeast) and side (northwest and southeast) fagades. The building is rectilinear in plan with at least one unpermitted and two permitted rear additions. Two doors and at least one window at the rear (southwest) fagade have been replaced. The detached rear shed was constructed at an unknown date. No significant events are associated with the property. The Brown family were the first long-term owner -occupants of the property, but do not appear to have made a significant contribution to history in association with the property. The Freethy family are the second and current long-term owner -occupants, and although Barbara Freethy is notable in the fields of self -publishing and the Romance genre of fiction, it remains too early to appreciate the extent of her professional contribution to history such that the property would be considered significant in association. The building does not embody the work of a master, exemplify an architectural style or building type, or possess high artistic style to a degree that it would be individually eligible. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to the building, meaning that it was "Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation.114 This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early -twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park and surroundings neighborhoods as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district. 4 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 13 *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *1312. References: 1949 Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map. Ancestry.com. Resource Name or # 125 Crescent Avenue *Date March 31, 2017 ❑O Continuation 21Update Barbara Freethy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara Freethy Accessed March 29, Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 125 Crescent Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories, 1929-1982. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan." February 19, 2008. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. Fajardo, Liz. Inspection, "Secretes of a Romance Novelist." January 1998. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003 Palo Alto Times. Obituary, "Angelo G. Leoni." March 31, 1980. "Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame." July 26, 1982 San Mateo County Assessor Grantor -Grantee Index. Self -Publishing Review (SPR), "Self -Publishing Success Story: Barbara Freethy." August 14, 2014. http://www.selfpublishingreview.com/2014/08/self-publishing-success-story-barbara-freethv/ Accessed March 29, 2017. Water Tap Record. 125 Crescent Avenue, Lot 8, Block 7. April 24, 1929. DPR 523L �i VIEW FROM CRESCENT AVENUE, LOOKING SOUTHWEST (front yard landscaping not shown) VIEW LOOKING EAST VIEW FROM CRESCENT AVENUE, LOOKING NORTHWEST (front yard landscaping not shown) VIEW LOOKING NORTHEAST MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com 3 Z W ry =)p 7 LU J QU zw00 w o UQC�) V) LI � 1� 1 lJ 00 ZN U — O Liz N � m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: PERSPECTIVE VIEWS SCALE: NO SCALE &TI VIEW LOOKING SOUTHEAST VIEW LOOKING TOWARD GARAGE FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER OF NORTHERN NEIGHBOR'S RESIDENCE (WITH PROPOSED SCREEN TREES) VIEW FROM STREET LOOKING SOUTHWEST VIEW LOOKING NORTH (GARAGE ON LEFT) MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com z LLJ rV :Dp Z LU J >Q QU zwCD L.0 :E o U Q c' 011 L U 1� N lJ co Z N UJ� LOrz N :D Q m Q Issue Date PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: PERSPECTIVE VIEWS OF NORTH SIDE SCALE: NO SCALE KEYNOTES 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD SIDING, PAINTED (STAINED ALTERNATE). STONE. OWOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. 51MULATED DIVIDED LITES. OPANELED WOOD DOOR, STAINED (PAINTED ALTERNATE). 6Xro OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. $ 2X10 RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. 9 EXP05ED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. 10 5.5"" WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. 11 WOOD COLUMN, PAINTED. 12 WOOD 5RACKET, PAINTED. 13 DOWNSPOUT. 14 WOOD PLANTER 50X, PAINTED. WINDOW f DOOR TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO 5E 5.5" WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO 5E 2.5" WIDE. TRIM TO 5E WOOD AND PAINTED (STAINED AT ALTERNATE SIDING). TRELLIS, PAINTED EXISTING DECK 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-0" 30' HEIGHT LIMIT I— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — T —I 52.13' I I I I I I RIDGE AT GABLE 6:12 I I 19.15' I-IG I AAL 1'ifiIVV1�F�IL, I- ,&NIIN I CV EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-0" M-rw v CD 6:12 PROPOSED GAS METER LOCATION 2.65:12 I In PLATE AT GABLE rLA i t I DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST END OF RESIDENCE I I m DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT EAST END OF RESIDENCE I AVE GRADE NORTH SIDE 54.5(o AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE 19.15' AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13, MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com F� LU 1121:� :::)p Z LL LU J QU Z LU CD CD LU :E o U Q �' °' lJ LU 1� CV � C6 ZN UJc) Lr) Q::� Z N :D OL: m Q Issue v CD 6:12 PROPOSED GAS METER LOCATION 2.65:12 I In PLATE AT GABLE rLA i t I DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST END OF RESIDENCE I I m DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT EAST END OF RESIDENCE I AVE GRADE NORTH SIDE 54.5(o AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE 19.15' AVE TOP OF CURS 52.13, MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com F� LU 1121:� :::)p Z LL LU J QU Z LU CD CD LU :E o U Q �' °' lJ LU 1� CV � C6 ZN UJc) Lr) Q::� Z N :D OL: m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7113117 PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" FA 2 iMI&MVIA KEYNOTES 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD SIDING, PAINTED (STAINED ALTERNATE). STONE. 5 WOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES. PANELED WOOD DOOR, STAINED (PAINTED ALTERNATE). 6X(o OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. 2XIO RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. 5.5 WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. WOOD COLUMN, PAINTED. WOOD BRACKET, PAINTED. DOWNSPOUT. WOOD PLANTER BOX, PAINTED. WINDOW f DOOR TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO 5E 5.5" WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO 5E 2.5" WIDE. TRIM TO 5E WOOD AND PAINTED (STAINED AT ALTERNATE SIDING). j UPPER LEVEL 61.e5' DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT WEST ENE OF RESIDENCE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AT EAST ENE OF RESIDENCE 54.56 r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I � I I I I WEST (REAR) ELEVATION NORTH (DRIVEWAY) ELEVATION 30" HEIGHT LIMIT 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE 19.15" PLATE AT GABLE 6' PLATE AT DORMER UPPER 61 ea PLATE MAIN LEVEL 51.6 AVE GRADE SOUTH SIDE 54.62" ` DECK 11I v� DECAVE TOP OF CUR5 52.13 RIDGE AT GABLE m N MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com Z LU 0/ =)p Z L.L LU J Q QU Z LU 00 LU O UQcy") c) N LU� 1� 1 lJ 00 ZN U-0 L Z N � � m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" 3 SOUTH ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-0" NORTH ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-O" z EAST ELEVATION WEEI ion WEST ELEVATION 1 /4"=1-9" KEYNOTES 15' HEIGHT LIMIT 10.0fo" — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3E 1 COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYPICAL 2 CEMENT PLASTER. PAINTED. 3 WOOD WINDOW/DOOR WITH ALUMINUM CLADDING. SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES. 14 PANELED WOOD DOOR, STAINED (PAINTED ALTERNATE). 5 roX(o OUTRIGGER, PAINTED. ro 2X10 RAKE FASCIA, PAINTED. I EXPOSED RAFTER TAIL, PAINTED. 5 5.5" WIDE WOOD TRIM, PAINTED. 9 DOWN5POUT. WINDOW f DOOR. TRIM TRIM AT LARGER WINDOWS (AND DOORS) TO 5E 5.5" WIDE. TRIM AT SMALLER WINDOWS TO 5E 2.5" WIDE. TRIM TO 5E WOOD AND PAINTED. :)PERTY LINE STING FENCE m OR AT ,T 55.15' OR AT ,T 55.5 in LOUDEST ADJACENT GRADE 55.06' MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com 3 Z w ry =) 0 Z w J > Q QU zw00 LU o UQcy') LI lJ� 1� CV 00 ZN U-0 Lr)rz N =) n. m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: GARAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" GARAGE ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1 /4''=1 '-0" "�cN �) BE 1-HOUR :SI5TANT ROOF PLAN N SCALE: 1 /4"=1 '-0" 2 MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com W U z W 0 H W w M W W w LL Q Z w0:� z � LU Q � � U z <w< o Ly < o � r�^ N LU V z 006 U L'r) z N 1IL: m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7113117 PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: ROOF PLAN & GARAGE PLANS SCALE: 1 /4"=1'-0'' A3 3 PROJECT NOTES 1. PURSUANT WITH BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.110, CONSTRUCTION HOURS ARE: • WEEKDAYS: 7:00 AM TO Tee PM • SATURDAYS: 9:00 AM TO 6:00 PM • SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED • WORK IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON -CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 5:00 PM. 2. ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST 5UM5IT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED ON THE JOB COPY OF THE PLANS, PRIOR TO PERFORMING THE WORK. 3. A SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION IS REQUIRED WHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PLAN REVIEW. A DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT. 4. IF A GRADING PERMIT IS REQUIRED, IT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMMTN OF PUBLIC WORKS. 5. A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PLAN SHALL BE DESIGNED AND SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. THE SUBMITTAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 6. ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINES PER CRC TABLE 302.1(1) AND 302.1(2). ROOF EAVES SHALL BE 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2- AND 5- FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IN A BUILDING WITHOUT AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER GRG TABLE 302.10. ROOF EAVES SHALL BE I -HOUR FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN 2' AND 3' FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IN A BUILDING WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER CRC TABLE 302.1(2). 1. EXTERIOR WALLS LESS THAN 5' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANT RATED CONSTRUCTION IN A BUILDING WITHOUT AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER GRG TABLE 302.1(1). EXTERIOR WALLS LESS THAN 3' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION IN A BUILDING WITH AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM PER GRG TABLE 302.1(2). NATURAL LIGHT AND VENTILATION (CRC R303) ROOM FLOOR AREA GLAZING AREA REQUIRED (a% FA) GLAZING AREA PROVIDED OPENING AREA REQUIRED (4% FA) OPENING AREA PROVIDED LIVING 234 15.1 (00 9.4 30 GUEST BEDROOM 215 11.4 21 8.1 18 KITCHEN/DINING 340 21.2 60 13.6 14 FAMILY 320 25.6 15 12.5 30 BEDROOM 1 1 &1 12.5 33 6.4 24 BEDROOM 2 114 13.9 22 6.9 14 OFFICE NOOK Iro 6.1 1 ro 3.0 15 MASTER BEDRM 213 Ile 1 44 1 8.5 1 28 SITE: PLAN KEYNOTES OEXISTING TREE TO REMAIN. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR MORE INFORMATION. OEXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED. OEXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN. APPROX. l' HIGH WITH ]'HIGH LATTICE TOP. ONEW STONE CURB TO REPLACE EXISTING BRICK CURB. 12"+/- HIGH. ONEW STONE COLUMN, 3' +/- HIGH (4' +/- HIGH ON SIDEWALK SIDE). ONEW STONE WALK. IMPERVIOUS. SLOPE TOWARDS VEGETATED AREAS, TYPICAL. ONEW STONE OR PRECAST CONCRETE STEPS WITH METAL HANDRAIL. ONEW CONCRETE WALK. IMPERVIOUS. SLOPE TOWARDS VEGETATED AREAS, TYPICAL. O(E) WALK TO REMAIN. PAVERS. IMPERVIOUS. SITE: PLAN NOTES I. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR TREE, PLANTING AND IRRIGATION INFORMATION. 2. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO: (I) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE. (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL. (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS. (4) ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND WORK IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 3. ALL HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (COLUMNS, FENCES, ETC.) SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN PROPERTY LINES. 4. ROOF RUNOFF TO BE DIRECTED TO VEGETATED AREAS WHERE PRACTICAL AND WILL NOT CREATE POTENTIAL FOUNDATION ISSUES. 5ro.14' Esj 3 (E) BRICK WALL TO REMAIN. 3' +/- HIGH. REMOVE (E) IRONWORK. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 /8"=1 '-0" kN N 100 U+ 52.84' (E) WATER METER (E) STREET TREE F- I 5,-0„ SIDE 51.25' 533C N ro (E) PATIO TO REMAIN. IMPERVIOUS 15' REAR SETBACK 20 REAR S T13Ac.� (SECONDFLOOR) (E) PLANTER TO REMAIN (E) DECK TO REMAIN. PERVIOUS. f- ---- + 5(o.3(o' I I I I I I � I PROPOSED GARAGE I I a I I 2 I 0 - - - - - - - -� I I I I I - EXTENT OF (E) DECK I I NEW TRELLIS r- I I I I I ° I I r- _ ------ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I L- - - - - - - J I NEW DECK EXTENSION+/- IN PROPOSED RESIDENCE >u .:Q z I N (LTL LU _ NEW GATE. MATCH - - J ,,,-NEW ADJACENT FENCE I .4 LU m I W • PROPOSED GAS Iw LU 9 I`n Q METER LOCATION I W :3W > 0 (L I MIX I WL I I z Q I I -7 I PORCH --------------- - - - - - - - - - ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ V SII 7.4(o FRONT SETBAC 2 S. �- ---------- -- 54.0 S36p14'14 E SIDEWALK --------- T ----T I I Giz�s 'ANT AV F-NUF- 112 52.15' W 3 NEIGHBOR TREES NEAR PROP LINE. APPROX. DRIPLINES. 15' TO 20' +/- HEIGHTS NEW PLANTER � SCREEN TREES. SEE SHEET L1. 9'X20' UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE D (E) RESIDENCE, TO BE REMOVED. NEW PLANTINGS. SEE SHEET LI FOR MORE INFO. (E) BRICK WALL TO REMAIN. 3' +/- HIGH PROPOSED ELECTRICAL METER LOCATION NEW PLANTINGS. SEE SHEET LI FOR MORE INFO. 52.61' (E) CURB CUT, 13'-6" +/- WIDE (E) SANITARY SEWER GLEAN -OUT (E) STREET TREE PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 125 CRESCENT AVENUE PROPERTY OWNERS: TERRY i BARBARA FREETHY APN: 028-293-080 PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDES THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE AND DETACHED GARAGE. SEE DRAWINGS FOR DETAILED PROJECT SCOPE. GODS INFORMATION OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-3/U CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B CODES: • 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL GORE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA GREEN STANDARDS CODE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE • 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 201 �o CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE • 2e16 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE ZONING INFORMATION ZONE: R-1 SITE AREA: 8207 SF, BASED ON SURVEY SETBACKS FRONT, FIRST FLOOR: 21.46%545ED ON BLOCK AVERAGE FRONT, SECOND FLOOR: 21.46' SIDE, FIRST FLOOR: 5-e- SIDE, SECOND FLOOR: SEE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE REAR, FIRST FLOOR: REAR, SECOND FLOOR: 20'-0" LOT COVERAGE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 40% X 8207 SF= 3252.5 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: • RESIDENCE SF • FRONT PORCH O'HANG 152 SF • REAR TRELLIS 115 SF • GARAGE 468 SF • TOTAL 2795 SF (487.5 SF UNDER) FLOOR AREA RATIO ALLOWABLE F.A.R.: .32 X 820l + 1500 SF= 4126.24 SF PROPOSED F.A.R.: • RESIDENCE, MAIN LEVEL 1967 SF • MAIN LEVEL, UNDER STAIR 25 SF • RESIDENCE, UPPER LEVEL 1455 SF • REAR TRELLIS Ila SF • GARAGE 468 SF • TOTAL 4096 SF (30.24 SF UNDER) F.A.R. NOTES: 1. PORTIONS OF THE STAIR OVER 12 FEET HIGH ARE COUNTED TWICE. 2. ACCESSIBLE ATTIC AREAS OVER 5 FEET HIGH ARE INCLUDED IN UPPER LEVEL CALCULATIONS. BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOWABLE 30'-0"ABOVE AVE. TOP OF CURB (82.13') PROPOSED: 21'-0" DHE DEPARTURE PT., NORTH SIDE: 54.56' DHE DEPARTURE PT., SOUTH SIDE: 54.62' PARKING 1 COVERED (Ie'X20') AND 1 UNCOVERED (9'X20') REQUIRED FOR A FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL Ai SITE PLAN AND PROJECT INFORMATION A2 FLOOR PLANS A3 ROOF PLAN AND GARAGE PLANS A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A6 GARAGE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Al PERSPECTIVE VIEWS AS PERSPECTIVE VIEWS OF NORTH SIDE LANDSCAPE Li LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 IRRIGATION PLAN SURVEY PROPERTY SURVEY MARK PEARCY ARCHITECTURE 1650 Barroilhet Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.348.1509 www.pearcyarchitecture.com W Q U z Z ::D O LJJ Z IL 0 LU J to Q U LU z o LLl <LLJ < o V LU (D N U z 00 o W Lr) J Z o_ CV U m Q Issue Date Design Review 5/30/17 City Comments 7/13/17 PC Comments 9/18/17 PC Comments 10/24/17 SHEET TITLE: SITE PLAN & PROJECT INFORMATION SCALE: 1 /8"=V-0" Al PLANT LEGEND STEPHANIE O'ROURKE 1345 HOWARD AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 (650) 347-2499 TREES 1 .LAGERSTROMERIA TUSCARORA STD. CREPE MYRTLE LOW 24" BOX-1 2.OLEA ' SWAN HILL' STD. FRU ITLESS OLIVE LOW 24" BOX- 1 3.CERCIS FOREST PANSY HEART REDBUD TREE STD. LOW 24" BOX -1 SHRUBS 4.ANIGOZANTHOS DWARF RED KANGAROO PAW 5.BERBERRIS PYGMY DWARF BARBERRY 6.DAPHNE ODORA VAR.DAPHNE 7.LAVENDER 'HIDCOTE' LAVENDER 8.METEROSIDEROS EXCELSA VAR. NEW ZEALAND CHRISTAMS BUSH 9.NANDINA'GULF STREAM' NANDINA 10.OLEA'LITTLE OLLIE' OLIVE BUSH 1 1 .SCAVEOLA MAUVE CLUSTERS FAIRY FAN FLW 12.TULBAGHIA SILVER SOCIETY GARLIC BLVD. 12.TULBAGHIA SILVER SOCIETY GARLIC A r% r% A ri LOW 1 GALLON-9 LOW -5 GALLON-4 Low 5 GALLON -I LOW- 1 GALLON-4 Low 5 GALLON-1 1 Low 5 GALLON-1 1 Low 5 GALLON-8 Low- 1 GALLON-6 Low-1 GALLON-22 (E) LOW 1 GALLON- 17 12.TULBAGHIA SILVER SOCIETY GARLIC LOW 1 GALLON-5 13. CAMELLIA JAPONICA DEBUTANTE DBL. CAMELLIA LOW 15 GAL-6 14. CHOISYA TERNATA MEXICAN ORANGE Low 5 GAL-3 1 5.PRUNUS LAUROCERASUS STD. ENGLISH LAUREL TREE LOW 24" -3 NOTES 1. ALL TREES SHOULD BE STAKED WITH TWO STAKES -WITH-TIE-S- ■ !JOUS Tr&ILITIILIG SPACING VARIES SEE PLANE SCHEDULE SHEET L-1I3 NOTES+ 1. CLEANLY PRUNE ALL DAMAGED BRANCHES_ 2. TREE SHALL HAVE STRAIGHT TRUNK AND BE PLUMB AFTER SETTLEMENT. CONTRATOR SHALL ADJUST AS REQUIRED OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 3. ALL TREES SHALL BE FLOODED TWICE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF PLANTING_ TREE SHALL BEAR SAME RELATION TO FINISH GRADE AS TO NURSERY EXISTING GRADE. DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE. 3- HIGH EARTH SAUCER AROUND TREE PIT 3' MULCH MAX. HOLD BACK MULCH FROM TRUNK OF TREE SCARIFY EDGES OF TREE PIT UNTIE ALL ROPES AND REMOVE ALL POLYBURLAP. ROLL JUTE BACK _T3 FROM TOP OF BALL PRIOR TO BADKFU NG. BACKFILL WITH UPLAND PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED PLANTING MIK; COMPACTED TO 927E UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE BEAR SAME FINISH GRADE AS TO SDI ARE. GRADE. DO NOT NOTES: 1. CLEANLY PRUNE ALL DAMAGED BRANCH ES- 2. TREE SHALL IaAVE STRAIGHT TRUNK AND BE PLUMB AFTER SETTLEMENT. CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST AS REQUIRED OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER 3. ALL TREES SHALL BE FLOODED TWICE V TTHIN 24 HOURS OF PLAITING_ TREE SHALL BEAR SAME RELATION TO FINISH GRADE AS TO NURSERY EXISTING GRADE. DO NOT COVER ROOT FLARE. 4- HIGH CONTINUOUS EARTH SAUCER - T - MUL H FROV%UNK1W TREE 1 BACK SCARIFY EDGES OF TREE PIT ' BAGKFILL WITH UPLAND PLANTING SDIL AS SPECIFIED EQ. TO ROOT UNTIE ALL ROPES AND REMOVE ALL POLYBURLAP. ROLL JUTE BACK -1 3 FROM ROQTBALL E - TOP OF BALL PRIOR TO BACKFlWWNG_ DIA. TYP PLANTING MIX; COMPACTED TO 92X UNDISTURBED OR COMPACTED SUBGRADE EVERGREEN IF S Cl LE: NTS SPACING VARIES. SEE PLANT SCHEDULE SHEET L-16 , NOTE: 1. FOR BROADLEAF FLOOD PLAIN AND HIGH MARSH, SEED AREA IN ADDITION TO INSTALLING PLUGS. SEE SPEC 02952 UPLAND SEEDING AND SPEC 02953 WETLAND S2 DING. INL H SHRUB �HERBACEOUS PLANT BASE OF PLUGS FOR WETLAND PLANTING. ----�_ -- -- —^ �- — UNTIE ALL ROPES AND - FINISH GRADE WITH ``REMOVE ALL WIRE BASKETS MIGROTOPOGRAPHY UP TO 3" �_---- -* 1- -- -- OR CONTAINERS. ROLL JUTE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL BACK 1 3 FROM TOP OF BALL PRIOR BACKFILLING_ i MATTING IN HIGH MARSH AREAS -. EXCAVATE EACH SHRUB -._ � — ... ONLY INDIVIDUALLY TO REQUIRED DEPTH ! 12' WETLAND OR UPLAND AND BACKFILL WITH UPLAND i PLAITING SOIL PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED. j = . -• EXISTING SUBGRADE UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 49 LIVE STAKE. TYP. FLAT TOP END. PAINTED BY COLOR ACCORDING TO SPECIES LATERAL BUD —..—.. PROPOSED GRADE ■I x W J ri 45' TAPERED BUTT END LIE�TA�KE� S f;pLE: NTS PLANTING PLAN rW V Z W Q (n W x W W x LL W d U I~ W Z � w U w Z x J U !Y tv m September 18, 2017 scale 1 /8 paper size 24x36 SHRUB P1 ANTING HERE �EOLJ-R PLANT P1 UG-q L1 S C.€sLE: NTS S C Qd-E: NTS Item No. 8b Regular Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1341 Vancouver Avenue City g of Burlingame Item No. 8b Design Review and Special Permit Regular Action Item Address: 1341 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for anew, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Chu Design Associates Property Owner: Victory Village 2004 LLC General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-151-120 Lot Area: 6,015 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-story house and detached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,318 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,340 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including 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 (14'-4" x 20'-4" clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Permit for the overall building height as measured from the average top of curb level along Vancouver Avenue to the highest roof ridge (33'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is allowed with a Special Permit). Planning staff would note that the finished floor of the house is 9'-4" above the average top of curb (see Proposed Front Elevation on sheet A.4). The area of the roof that extends above 30'-0" is at the center peak of the house. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for anew, two-story single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and ■ Special Permit for building height between 30 and 36 feet (33'-11" proposed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). This space intentionally left blank. Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue 1341 Vancouver Avenue LOT Area: o,u l o Jr mans aate siampea: UCioDer Z t , zu I t PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st fir): 22'-5" 22'-5" (block average) (2nd fir): .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28'-5" 22'-5" (block average) Side (left): 10'-0" 4'-0" (right): .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st fir): 34'-6'/z" 15-0' (2nd fir): .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2177 SF 2406 SF 36.1 % 40% .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... FAR: 3318 SF 3340 SF' 0.55 FAR 0.55 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (14'-4" x 20'-4'/2" clear interior) (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................:......................................................................................................... Building Height: 33'-11 " 2 30'41 ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... DH Envelope: complies —window enclosure CS 25.26.075 exemption along right side (0.32 x 6015 SF) + 1100 SF + 315 SF = 3340 SF (0.55 FAR) 2 Special Permit required for building height (33'-11" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a letter and revised plans dated October 27, 2017, in response to the Commission's comments. Please refer to the letter and revised plans for a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. 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; 1►� Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring a front covered porch, stucco siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, wood trim, composition shingle roofing, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings: That because the subject property slopes up from the street with a difference of approximately 9'-4" between the average top of curb and finish floor of the house and the building height is measured from the average top of curb elevation, it results in an overall taller roof height and causes the roof of the house to extend to 33'-11" above average top of curb level; that the encroachment above the 30' height limit is comprised of a pitched roof at the center peak of the house with minimal impact to the appearance of bulk and mass, the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct public hearing on the application, and consider public testimonyand 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 clearlyforthe record. Atthe public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 27, 2017 sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, 1-1.1 and L2.1; 2. that anychanges to building materials, exteriorfin ishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount ortype of hardscape materials shall be subjectto Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 3 Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes ordumpsters forthe construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to complywith all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that priorto issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted bythe Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; anypartial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE METDURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIORTO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that priorto scheduling thefoundation inspection, a licensed surveyorshall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certifythe firstfloor elevation of the newstructure(s) based on the elevation atthe top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification thatthe architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident atframing, such as window locations and bays, are builtas shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted tothe Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that priorto scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyorshall shootthe heightof the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verifythat the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 4 Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner Attachments: October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated October 27, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo k Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 1341 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 1341 Vancouver Ave - Staff Report 1341 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1341 Vancouver Ave - Plans - 10.10.17 All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke to the neighbors at 1334, 1336, 1337, and 1340 Vancouver Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant, with developer/contractor Eric Wong. Commission Questions/Comments: > Why the standing -seam metal roof? (Chu: Wanted to be a bit different. Trend is traditional roof form with some modern materials.) > Will the fencing all the way around the property be rebuilt? The landscape plan does not clarify. (Chu: Will check.) When talking to the neighbors, should talk about coordination if the fence is being replaced. > Add some taller specimen plants such as nandina for the driveway rather than only low-lying ground cover. > Clarify the window selection. Plans specify Anderson 400 aluminum clad, but that's a vinyl window. Public Comments: None. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Metal roof would expose a long surface of metal facing the street, would have a significant presence on the street. > Siding above and stucco below feels like a wedding cake, with one thing stacked on top of another thing. > The two side elevations do not look organized, like a rambling farm house that has been added onto over the years. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 1013112017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 > Could tolerate the rambling farmhouse look if it did not have the stark differentiation between the first and second floors. > Left elevation with shed roof below and and pop -out dormer above is literally a wedding cake. Could have a vertical element that breaks the line between the first and second floor, all one material. > Nicely reminiscent of the existing massing. The new house looks like a mirror image of the existing house if it had a second story added. > Special permit for height is justifiable. The overall house is only 24'-6" from adjacent grade, which is typical for a normal house, and the plate heights are acceptable. Fits into the neighborhood since it is in a low point in the block. > Too much metal roof. Not opposed to the metal roof, but there is too much of it. > Materials on the second floor make it stand out too much, would like to see something softer. > Does not like clashing of the second story materials with the roof. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 1013112017 HomA D sign & Engineering October 27, 2017 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: New residence at 1341 Vancouver Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Planning Commissioner: E C ' -- " r- D ., E s �V 0 C' T 3 0 20 17 Per your design review comments, we have made the following changes to the new proposed two story residence at 1341 Vancouver Ave., Burlingame. l . The roof over the staircase and living room has been redesign. 2. Roof material has been changed to composition shingle. 3. Removal of wood siding at second floor, stucco is now proposed to match first floor. 4. Removal of "cake layer" exterior on left side elevation. 5. Fence height revised to match with landscape plan. Please see site and landscape plan. 6. More landscaping added along the driveway fence (left side property line) and left side of the proposed residence. Please see landscape plan. Thank you for your time in reviewing the revised plan. Sincerely, James Chu Chu Design 55 West 43rd Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Phone: (650)345-9286 Fax: (650)345-9287 Kim. �tusxt�tr+�nr�� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: W Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit M Special Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT Name: CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES City/State/Zip: E-mail: james@chudesign.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: JAMES CHU Address: 55 W. 43RD AVE. City/State/Zip: SAN MATEO, CA 94403 E-mail: james@chudesign.com Burlingame Business License #: 22634 ❑ Parcel #: ❑ Zoning / Other: PROPERTY OWNER Name: RAYMOND WONT' City/State/Zip: Phone: (415) 310-6916 0 2,71—t 51 — 92,0 .! BOX 16695 E-mail: raywong5677@gmail.com JUL. -- 7 2017 CITY OF EURLIRGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. is (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE W/ DETACHED GARAGE AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I h by certify un r penalty of perjury that the information given he ein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and b ief. r ' t ` Applicant's signature: Date: u 1 am aware of the prop 11ed Jn and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: 7/7/17 Date submitted: _1` 1 - 17 S: �NANDOUTS�PC Application. doc City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org CITY OF BUR I,INGAME > SPECIAL PEAPPLIC RIYIIT ATION. Ju CITY OF BURUNGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. - 7 2017 The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. The proposed new two-story modern farm house inspired residence with single car -detached garage is consistent with existing detached garage and surrounding properties that have similar garage patterns, mass, and scale on the "west" side of Burlingame neighborhood. Due to the up sloped condition (8 to 10feet difference in elevation between front & rear property line), the special permit is required to allow the building height to exceed 30 feet from average top of the curb but still within 36'-0" max. allowable height 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exteriorfinish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood The proposed modern farm house dwelling is located within a variety of styles neighborhood. The low pitch metal roof, combination of stucco/stone/wood siding material, and front porch are all consistent with this style and it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed single-family residence with detached garage is consistent with City Design Review Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for the building height (Special permit). 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Three (3) 7" trees will be removed with new landscaping proposed for the entire lot. SPECHRMIRM RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two story single family house and a detached garage at 1341 Vancouver Avenue, Zoned R-1, Victory Village 2004 LLC, property owner, APN: 027- 151-120; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of November, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption,. Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 27, 2017 sheets A.1 through A.6, N.1, 1-1.1 and 1-2.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIORTO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 1341 Vancouver Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME r COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD n0-0P0S I RQIS-UL.ASS NlAiL BURLINGAME, CA 94010 111121 + PH: (650) 558-7250 e FAX: (650) 69679a , www.burlingame.org Site: 1341 VANCOUVER AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1341 VANCOUVER AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 027-151-120 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlinaame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ELASHTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING EXTED AS NOTED SLOPE METAL FLASHING WITH DRIP EXTEND 4" MIN ABOVE CEDAR WOOD TRIM PER ELEVATION WINDOW FRAME HEAD WINDOW FRAME SEALANT WOOD TRIM PER ELEVATION ELASHTOMERIC SHEET WATERPROOFING EXTED AS NOTED SILL TYP. HEAD + SILL DETAIL SCALE: 1n l'—On GYP, BD, HEADER PER PLAN DBL 2x SILL 2x BLOCKING OMIT AT PLYWD.SHEARWALL GYP, BD, I TOP OF RIDGE EL. +12458 ri TOP PLATE IN MAIN FLOOR EL. +100.00 TOP OF RIDGE EL. +12458 TOP PLATE 7-1 UPPER FLOOR PLATE LEVEL MAIN FLOOR EL. +100.00 D.H.E. 98.60 = 100.60+96.6 2 0 O �O F— I I J IC'-0'1 SIDE SETBACK WOOD LATTICE VENT, TYP. 6x WOOD TYP, ROOF PITCH OUTRIGGERS, TYP, 12 5 ILI, 11 SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. STUCCO, TYP. STONE ADHERED VENEER, TYP. 6x WOOD OUTRIGGERS, TYP. 900.- 1, WOOD ENTRY DOOR W/ WOOD TRIM E GLASS OPAQUE, PAINTED. FROl N 1 1-jL1-i V r-1 1 lkillil SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" WOOD LATTICE TYP ROOF PITCH VENT, TYP. 12 5 .. ........... COMPOSITION SHINGLE, TYP. 2 STUCCO, TYP, IL-1 LEGEND EE = EMERGENCY EGRESS Now SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED L— DIRECT VENT FIREPLACE STUCCO, TYP. 12" WOOD BAND ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD STONE ADHERED DIRECT VENT CASEMENT WINDOW W/ WOOD VENEER, TYP- 4x WOOD THRU CHIMNEY, TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. WOOD RAILING 8 HORIZONTAL STUCCO FINISH BALUSTER TRIM, TYP. RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=V-0" REVISIONS BY 9% 1N7 0 PU PLA0/118/.17 0 PU [� 7t Z a ococ v 0 3 -2 °4 W �� �z 8� t C-5 2 z 03 z �Q 0 ��:D ocw� �10 CIS O U �� N 03 cd 51 ( 110 cn 4 CIS o "c:j >~ H 3 4:4, > ccel W N � w�W 00 DATE: JUKE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A.4 OF SHEETS TOP OF RIDGE EL_ +12458 I Ji TOP PLATE IRV MAIN FLOOR EL. +I00DO TOP OF RIDGE EL_ +12458 TOP PLATE UPPER FLOOR PLATE LEVEL MAIN FLOOR EL. +I00-00 c!� 6x WOOD OUTRIGGERS, TYP. DIRECT VENT THRU CHIMNEY, STUCCO FINISH TYP. ROOF PITCH WOOD LATTICE 12 5 VENT, TYP. FE] COMPOSITION SHINGLE, TYP. �JILI STUCCO, TYP. — 12" WOOD BAND - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - I 6x WOOD L WOOD FRENCH SLIGHT FIXTURE, 40 CORBELS SLIDING DOORS WATTS MAX. REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 6x WOOD TYP. ROOF PITCH 12 OUTRIGGERS, TYP. COMPOSITION 5 SHINGLE, TYP. ±11H i FI D \1E i SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W1 WOOD TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP. WOOD LATTICE VENT, TYP. (ox WOOD OUTRIGGERS, TYP. STUCCO, TYP. LIGHT FIXTURE, 40 12" WOOD BAND 51MULATED TRUE DIVIDED WATTS MAX. ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW W1 WOOD STUCCO, TYP. TRIM, DUAL GLAZING TYP_ LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" STUCCO, TYP. 1--\' E G STONE ADHERED VENEER, TYP. LEGEND EE = EMERGENCY EGRESS REVISIONS BY 9% 1N7 0 PU PLA0/118/.17 0 PU [� 7t O Z W Z j ocooc 0 3 CIO -2 �z 'S' a8 Z o Q A w 9b Q 0 o cw U ,o CIS gi cd 110 CIS o 3 cdj=Lo c� C!to o w U r7 F- 3 4 > W� �N � w�W 00 Q�v � �i>M-1 '. DATE: JUKE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A05 OF SHEETS GARAGE 6x WOOD Gil :I FASCIA BD., TYP. HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGS, TYP. - 12 m cs� I cf� STUCCO, TYP. WOOD GARAGE DOOR RAISED PANEL LIGHT FIXTURE, 40 WATTS MAX. FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=11-0" V I wV j I I I. LEFT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" CJ I Ul,-1,-L/, I I r-. REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=11-0" WIJVL/ GIN IN I L/VVI� RIGHT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4"=F-0" 12' SIDE S TBAC o N l'-6" 114011 GARAGE FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4"=11-0" N REVISIONS BY 7t � Z con 0 W Z j 00 ooc � �U V � w M M 0 3 -5 w s W v, Z o 0 a>cq p c w cn Q U0 U ad ,o IJn N w U �., f 3 Acd cn 4 � 3 CD tb .a? o a> ^� aJI F— > It, 41 b--�-I W� �O� O 00 Q�v � DATE: JUKE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A.6 OF SHEETS GENERAL NOTES: I. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR DETAIL INFORMATION 2. MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED FIFTEEN (15) PERCENT AT ANY POINT WITHOUT SPECIAL APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS± SLOPES IN EXCESS OF TWENTY (20) PERCENT SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. TRANSITIONAL SLOPES ARE REQUIRED FOR DRIVEWAYS WHICH EXCEED TEN (10) PERCENT MAXIMUM SLOPE. NO TRANSITIONAL SLOPE SHALL EXTEND INTO A REQUIRED PARKING SPACE. 3- TOPOGRAPHY IS PREPARED BY- W.E.C. k ASSOCIATES 2625 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD %58 BPALO ALTO, CA 94306 TEL. (650) 823-6466 4, A DEMOLITION PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR SIDEWALK, SEWER AND WATER REPLACEMENT 5. REQUIRED PROTECTIVE FENCING MUST BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO DEMO PERMIT ISSUE. 6. SEWER BACKFLOW PROTECTION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED PER ORDINANCE NO,1110. A DRAFT CERTIFICATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE 15SUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. 1, THE SURVEYOR RECOMMENDS THE CITY VERIFY THAT THE PERTINENT RESIDENCES WERE USED IN THE CALCULATION. 8, GARAGE FOOTING SHALL NOT EXTEND INTO ONE FOOT SETBACK WITHOUT A LICENCED SURVEY AND FIELD STAKING REVIEWED BY INSPECTOR 9. NEW WATER METER SHALL NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT MUCH BE LOCATED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR ACCESS BY METER READER. 10. NEW SEWER LINE WITH CLEANOUT FOR NEW HOUSE. CLEANOUT AT SEWER MAIN LINE TO BE IN PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR CITY ACCESS, 11. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE DOUBLE VALE ASSEMBLY FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE TESTED AND APPROVED BY A SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVED CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING WATER DEPARTMENT FINAL. 12. PROVIDE ADEQUATE FIRE FLOW BASED UPON CONSTRUCTION AND SIZE OF BUILDING, SEE UFC APPENDIX IIIA. MINIMUM 500 GPM REQUIRED. SEE TABLE NO. A-I11-A-1. 13. MINIMUM P WATER METER REQUIRED 14, IF BACKWATER PROTECTION IS REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AN ISOMETRIC DIAGRAM OF THE BUILDING SEWER INCLUDING ALL BACKWATER VALVES, RELIEF VALVES, AND ANY SEWER INJECTION SYSTEM DETAILS. CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE ORDINANCE 1110. 15. PROVIDE SURVEY STAKES PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION TO VERIFY LOT LINES, 16, PROVIDE A PRESSURE ABSORBING DEVICES OR APPROVED MECHANICAL DEVICES ARE REQUIRED ON WATER LINES, LOCATED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO QUICK ACTING VALVES, THAT WILL ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM QUICK CLOSING OF QUICK -ACTING VALVES. CPC 5ECTION609.10 POLIC WORK NOTES 4 CONDITIONS: I. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED- • REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE. • PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 6" LATERAL. • ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITYWATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. • ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY. 2_ THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHENEVER THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE SEWER LATERAL OR CITY CLEANOUT IS TO BE LAID AND/OR CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAINS. 3, SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO. I110. 4. ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 5. A SURVEY BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER 15 REQUIRED. THE SURVEY SHALL SHOW HOW THE PROPERTY LINES WERE DETERMINED AND THAT THE PROPERTY COWERS WERE SET WITH SURVEYORS LICENSE NUMBERSON DURABLE MONUMENTS. THIS SURVEY SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ALL COWERS NEED TO BE MAINTAINED OR REINSTALLED BEFORE THE BUILDING FINAL. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION OR RE-ESTABLISHED AT THE END OF THE PROJECT. 6, ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 1. CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING USE SHALL CONFORM TO CONDITIONS AS DESCRIBED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND/OR CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS. 8. THE PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY'C NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS TO PREVENT STORM WATER POLLUTION. 9. NEW DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY WIDENING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHOW DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OPENING TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT DRIVEWAY ON SITE PLAN. II. NO STORM WATERS, UNDERGROUND WATERS DRAINING FROM ANY LOT, BUILDING, OR PAVED AREAS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO DRAIN TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOR SHALL THESE WATERS BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY'S SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. THESE WATERS SHALL ALL DRAIN TO EITHER ARTIFICIAL OR NATURAL STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES BY GRAVITY OR PUMPING REGARDLESS OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY." MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18-08-010 (1). • STORM WATER SHALL BE DRAINED THROUGH A CURB DRAIN OR TO THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SEE CITY STANDARDS FOR CURB DRAIN DESIGN. • FLOOD ZONE 'C' REQUIRES FLOOD ZONE CONFIRMATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF HABITABLE SPACE. • PROVIDE ELEVATIONS TO CONFIRM DRAINAGE AND SITE DESIGN. 12. NEW DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY WIDENING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHOW DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OPENING TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT DRIVEWAY ON SITE PLAN. T,45LE NO. ,4=111=,4=1 FIRE SPRINKLER MINIMUM REQUIRED FIRE FLOW 4 FLOW DURATION 51JILDING5 DOMESTIC WATER MC V LEGEND: WM - WATER METER V - VALVE DCV - DOUBLE CHECK VALVE MCV - MAIN CONTROL VALVE BFD - BACK FLOW PREVENTION DEVICE -W- - WATER LINE 1-1/4" m TYP. I. PROVIDE A BACFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE - U50 APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE DOUBLE CHECK VALVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE TESTED AND APPROVED BY A CAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVED CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING WATER DEPARTMENT FINAL. 3. PROVIDE ADEQUATE FIRE FLOW BASED UPON CONSTRUCTION AND SIZE OF BUILDING, SEE UFC APPENDIX IIIA. 5GHE�IAT I G UJA NOT TO SCALE DRAINAGE NOTES: ATERAL LIN RAINWATER COLLECTION ALL NEW ROOF RAINWATER SHALL BE COLLECTED BY MEANS OF GALVANIZED METAL GUTTERS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, LOCATED AT THE EAVES. PAINT TO MATCH COLOR SCHEME OF RESIDENCE. GUTTER SHALL LEAD TO 2" X 4" RECTANGULAR METAL DOWNSPOUTS OR DOWNSPOUTS TO MATCH EXISTING AND/OR COPPER RAINWATER LEADER DOWNSPOUTS SHALL TERMINATE BELOW GRADE TO A PERIMETER 4" DIAMETER ABS SOLID DRAINPIPE. RUN 4" DIAMETER (OR SIZE AS NOTED ON SITE PLAN) SOLID PIPE THROUGH FACE OF CURB SO THAT WATER WILL EMPTY INTO THE STREET GUTTER SYSTEM. SLOPE ALL PIPES FOR ADEQUATE DRAINAGE. INSURE THAT THE LOCATION CHOSEN FOR THE PIPE TO GO THROUGH THE FACE OF CURB IS ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE WATER FROM THE SITE TO A CITY MAINTAINED WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES THE WATER MAY FLOW TO THE STREET BY GRAVITY METHOD PROVIDED THERE IS SUFFICIENT GRADE TO INSURE FLOW TO THE STREET GUTTER AND THAT WATER DOES NOT FLOW ONTO ADJOINING PROPERTIES. SUMP PUMP MAY BE REQUIRED (SEE SITE PLAN) IF THE GRAVITY METHOD OF DRAINAGE CANNOT BE USED, PROVIDE A SUMP PUMP OF ADEQUATE SIZE TO CARRY ALL WATER THROUGH A 2" DIAMETER ABS PIPE THROUGH THE FACE OF THE CURB SO THAT THE WATER WILL EMPTY INTO THE GUTTER SYSTEM. INSURE THAT THE LOCATION CHOSEN FOR THE PIPE TO GO THROUGH THE FACE OF CURB IS ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE WATER FROM THE SITE TO A CITY MAINTAINED WATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. PROVIDE A BACKFLOW PREVENTER/DEVICE AT A LOCATION NEAR THE TERMINATION OF THE SOLID PIPE THROUGH THE FACE OF CURB AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT RAINWATER FROM THE GUTTER SYSTEM ENTERING THE SUMP PUMP SYSTEM. SUMP PUMP AT A MINIMUM SHALL BE A 1/4 HP AUTOMATIC SUBMERSIBLE SUMP PUMP WITH PERFORMANCES AS LISTED BELOW (MINIMUM). INSTALL AS PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. DISCHARGE FEET OF HEAD 5 10 15 PERFORMANCE (GALLONS PER HOUR) 2280 1620 660 SUMP PIT- INSTALL PUMP IN SUMP PIT (CATCH BASIN) WITH THE MINIMUM CLEARANCES AND DEPTHS AS PER MANUFACTURER SPECIFICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. FIRE NOTES: CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN SEPARATE FIRE SPRINKLER PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11.04.030 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE. THE MINIMUM SIZE SERVICE FOR FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL CONFORMS TO NFPA 13 OR 13R IS 2". FOR NFPA 13D SYSTEMS THE MINIMUM SIZE IS P FIRE SPRINKLER SHOP DRAWINGS ARE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THE BURLINGAME FIRE DEPARTMENT AT 1399 ROLLINS ROAD, BURLINGAME ONLY AFTER FIRE SPRINKLER UNDERGROUNDS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BURLINGAME BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE MEASURES TO AVOID EROSION OR SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE SITE AND FLOWING INTO THE STREET, CURB OR GUTTER (USE STRAW WADDLES) 2. REPLACE DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER AND/OR SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE. A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED, 3. THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHENEVER THE CITY'$ PORTION OF THE SEWER LATERAL OR CITY CLEANOUT IS TO BE LAID AND/OR CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAINS. 4. NEW DRIVEWAY OR DRIVEWAY WIDENING MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER SHOW DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY OPENING TO THE CLOSEST ADJACENT DRIVEWAY ON SITE PLAN. 5, A PROPERTY SURVEY IS REQUIRED IF ANY PART OF PERMANENT STRUCTURE INCLUDING FOOTING IS WITHIN 12" OF PROPERTY LINE. FIRE AREA {square feet} FIRE FLOW (gallons FLOW DURATION X 0.0929 for m2 miperre) {Fou(s] Type f-F.R. _ II-F.R.1 Type II One-HR. III One-HR.1 Type IV-H.T, V-0ne-Hr.1 Type II-N II-Ni Type V-N1 x 3.785 for Urnin. D-22,700 D-12,700 0-8,200 0-5,900 0-3,600 1,500 22,701-30,200 12,701-17,000 8,201-10,900 5,901-7,900 3,6014,800 1,750 30,201-38,700 17,001-21,800 10,901-12,900 7,901-9.800 4,801-6,200 2,000 38,701-48.300 21,801-24,200 12,9D7-17,400 9,8D7-12,600 6,201-7,700 2,250 48.30159,000 24.201-33.200 17.401-21.300 12.601-15.400 7.701-9,400 2.500 59.001-70,900 33,201-39,700 21,301-25,500 15.401-18.400 9,401-11,300 2,750 70.901.83,700 39.701-47,100 26.501-30.100 18.401-21.800 11.301-13.400 3,000 83,701-97,700 47,101-54,900 30,101-5,200 21,801-25,900 13,401-15,600 3,250 3 97,701-112,700 54,901-63,400 35,201-40,600 25,901-29,300 15,601-18.000 3,500 112,701-128.700 83,401-72,400 40,601-46,400 29,301-33,500 18,001-20.800 3.750 128,701-145.900 72.401-82.100 46.401-52,500 33.501-37.900 20.661-23,300 4,000 145,901-164,200 82.101-92,400 52,501-6%100 37,901-42,700 23.301-26.300 41250 164,201-1;83,400 92,401-103,100 59,101f6,000 42,701-47,700 26.301-29.300 4,500 183,401-203,700 103,101-114,600 66,001-73,300 47,701-53,000 29,301-32,600 4,750 2D.3,701-225,200 114,601-126,700 73.301.81,100 53.001-58.600 32,601-36.000 5.000 225,201-247.700 126.701-139,400 81.101.89,200 58.601-65.400 36,001-39.800 5.250 247.701-271.200 139.401-152.600 89,201-97.700 65.401-70.600 39.601.43.400 5,500 271.201-296.900 152,601-166,500 97,701-106.500 70.601-77.000 43.401.47,400 5,750 295,901-Greater 166,801-Greater 106,501-115,800 77,001-83,700 47,401-51,500 6,000 4 " 115,801-125,500 83,701-90,600 51,501-55.700 6,250 " 125.501-135.500 90.601-97.900 55.701-60.200 6.500 " 135.501-145.800 97.901-106.800 60.201-64.800 6.750 " 145.801-156,700 106.801-113.200 64,801-69,600 7,000 " 166,701-167,900 113,201-121,300 69.601-74.600 7,250 " 167,901-179,400 121,301-129,600 74,601-79,800 7,500 " 179,401-191,400 129,601-138,300 79,801-85,100 7,750 " 191,401-Greater 128,301-Greater 85,101-Greater 8.000 NOTE - 1'-0" SIDE SETBACK (E) GARAGE TO BE REMOVED (E) ASPHALT PATH TO BE REMOVED NOTE- 1, EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN 5 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED AS A 1-HR FIRE RESISTIVE ASSEMBLY. 20T.GBC-1 TABLE 602, 2, ROOF EAVES WILL 1-491 PROJECT WITHIN 2 1 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. I (N)1'-0" SOLID WOOD FENCING I I I ADJACENT NEIGHBOR I I (N) UNIT PAVERS(( (E) BRICK CURB TO BE REMOVED I (E) BRICK PORCH' TO BE REMOVEDI 11 F� w � U Z ua 0 m 1V 96.6(D (2)9"BIRCH 0 Tel20.C. / A REMOVE / REPLACE UTILITIES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, (4) ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT -OF -WAY - LTA 1'-0" REAR SETBACK M LAWN \ z I- / A I A I I � I T�I..... . .....=... .......... / - ...................... ..........[ ......1.....1. . I ......... I............................... .. .............. .............. .. .. . .. .. .. .......L ... :_........ ............................................ .. ...............:......:................................... . I. . I ..........1 ............. ............................... j-- ........................ ... IF L� L J :. :NE RE I . NGE ................. ..I... ..... ...: ...............l........ ...................... I :::.. ........................................................ :I:..... ::. :: .. ............ .............. ...... . ......�......... ......................� :.::.::::.:.:::.:... 102 7YP.:::::::.:::.::::::::::::.:I::. .:.:::.:.:::.::: .......................................................................... I' ... ... .....::::I::::: ....................................................... .;.............:...............:.:...:.:...:.:...:.......... : ...... . . ... - - - "r 0 1/2 ...:.:...:...1........................1 ...I ........... .............. I:: 1 IDE BAC _ ..... 1 L I .......................... ... ..:........:: I .: .::: .: .::: .::1 M I :::::... ...... I ....... .r . L I I❑ .......:.:.....:.:.. ..... C ..:.:.....:.:... . .... .: C �I L L� -�- �--- -- II❑ I - ---�--- ----j 1 %Ba in m 95 LAWN N z 95 50 I ® � LAWN N55 0 _ 50.02' II � 1 3"TREE :I WAY OACH NCOUVER (E) SIDEWALK MAX. 36" HT STONE WALL AVENUE AE (N) 4" SEWER LATERAL TO CITY CLEANOUT PER CITY STDS. 100.18 (E) CONCRETE TO BE REMOVED -(E) CONCRETE PATH TO BE REMOVED F r-J (E) RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED (E) ASPHALT PAD TO BE REMOVED I 95.11 ADJACENT NEIGHBOR I BUILDING SETBACK ADDRESS: SETBACK: 1 1311 21 A' 1321 252' LLI _ 0 1325 252' r z 1329 23.1' 1333 22.5' 1331 163' 0 - F341-(SITEr - - 23.1' z 1345 213' LLI LL 1349 (SITE) 21.8' 1353 225 1351 23.0' 1361 243' 1369 24.9' 1313 18.9' 1311 222' 1383 22.1' AVERAGE SETBACK = 22.4' (501 R/W) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SCALE: 1/8'=1'-0" N REVISIONS BY 9% 1N7 0 PU PLAO/118/.17 0 PU L. [� 7t O ' O rTl Oc wu a� a> CIS 3 -� : o a> �z co,� w .8 CZ) z z o t7 m Z o 9b o 3 .u� 0 G W t> �:D Q >~ -o xCIS U ,o o U -8 o w Q" o o 0 c's 110 >~ 3 o cm.. - H 3 >4 C3 W W� �Q 00 DATE: JUKE 2017 SCALE: AS NOTED DRAWN: PU JOB: SHEET NO. A.2 OF SHEETS TO" PERIMETER WOOD FENCE NTS BATTER ANGLE on o0o vooT non MAX HE STACKED STC 8x10 TO 12x' BASE STONE 1i COMPACTED SUBGRADE STONE WALL DRY -STACK NTS c6 PT )ST ANCHOR NISH GRADE :. FOOTING STEEL VERT IFORCEMENT v CROSSBARS GARDEN COMPOST BIN — BARK CHIPS n u Garage 0 Lawn J. O 0 -( I SOLID WOOD FENCE 7' HIGH P I CONCRETE UNIT 2 . PAVER DRIVEWAY �VAFII UNIT PAVER —� DRIVEWAY LAVASS GREWIA HEMER i NANDOM I i GEL SEM I b, ADJACENT N NEIGHBOR '..° u.a..!4.a. E I ALL Y H E UNIT PAVER -� L DRIVEWAY _- i E: ❑C -- ❑ T H FENCE> — — — - 4' H FENCE 2 1; �6��6���• 1joisirllisili� ME t ,� �m I�1�� �i1ME10 ��1111 Lawn Lawn Ic1:0IJ21��1 r=OYMA\:111:1 HEMER CONCRETE PATIO LAV ASS SOLID WOOD FENCE 7' HIGH ADJACENT NEIGHBOR STEPPING STONES V—^�I`L `STONE WALL q HEUCH CONCRETE 3'HIGH EXISTING GRASS 2 STEPS KOE BIP STRIP TO REMAIN VANCOUVER AVENUE Planting Plan - O N T H FENCE 4' H FENCE BUXUS Plant List No. Botanical Name Common Name Qt ' Size Plant Type BET PEN Betula pendula European White Birch 1 24" Box Dec. Tree GIN BIL Gingko biloba Maidenhair Tree 1 24" Box Dec. Tree CITRUS Citrus - Orange Orange Tree' 1 24" Box Fruit Tree ALY HUE Alyogyne hue elli Blue Hibiscus 5 Gal Ev n Shrub ARIST Aristida purpurea Three Awn Grass 1 Gal Clumping Grass V. 'Atro ur urea' BUXUS Buxus micro h lla japonica Green Beauty 1 Gal Ev n Shrub 'Green Beauty' Boxwood 5 Gal Ev n Shrub EUP RIG Eu horbia ri ida Gopher Spurge 1 Gal Clumping Grass GREW Grewia occidentalis Lavender Starflower 15 Gal Espalier Ev n HEMER Hemerocallis'Yellow' Daylily 1 Gal Ev nShrub HEUCH Heuchera "Opal' Opal Coral Bells 1 Gal Perennial ESCA RUB Escallonia rubra Red Escallonia 1 Gal Ev n Shrub LAV ASS Lavatera assur entifolia Tree Mallow 5 Gal Ev n Shrub LOROP Loro etalum'Razzleberri' Chinese Loro etalum 5 Gal Ev. Shrub/ small PHOR Phormium 'Pink Stripe' Flax 1 5 Gal Ev n Shrub PIT TOB Pittos orum tobira Variegated Japanese 5 Gal Evan Shrub TUL VIO Tulbha is violaoea Society Garlic 1 Gal Perennial NAN DOM Nandina domestica Heavenly Bamboo 5 Gal Ev n Shrub GEL SEM Gelsemium sem ervirens Carolina Jasmine 5 Gal Ev n Vine BIG CAR Bi nonia ca reolata Cross Vine 15 Gal Ev n Vine Tangerine Beauty' Note: Contractor to verify quantities PLANTING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION PRIOR TO EXCAVATION AND GRADING. 2. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE CLEARED OF WEEDS AND OTHER DEBRIS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY WITH THE OWNER WHICH EXISTING PLANTS ARE TO REMAIN. EXISTING PLANTS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH OWNER PRIOR TO REMOVAL. ALL IVY IN PROJECT AREA SHALL BE REMOVED; IVY SHALL BE SPRAYED WITH HERBICIDE TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO REMOVAL. 3. SOIL TESTING SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR, AND PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED LABORATORY. A COPY OF THE REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS AND FERTILIZATION SHALL REFLECT THE NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIED PLANT SPECIES. 4. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS SUCH AS LITTER, BROKEN CLAY POTS, AND OTHER FOREIGN MATERIAL. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONTENT: REDWOOD NITRIFIED COMPOST 40%, COARSE SAND 30%, BLACK TOPSOIL 30%. S. PLANT HOLES SHALL BE DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE CONTAINER (generally). THE WALLS AND BASES OF PLANT HOLES SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLES SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH THE FOLLOWING MIXTURE: 80%TO 20% IMPORTED SOIL TO EXISTING SOIL. 6. SOIL BERMS SHALL BE FORMED AROUND ALL PLANTS 1 GALLON SIZE AND LARGER. BASINS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH A 3" LAYER OF BARK CHIPS, MINIMUM OF V IN SIZE. PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A THREE INCH LAYER OF BARK CHIPS. 7. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE FERTILIZED. FERTILIZER SHALL BE COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE TYPE, AGRIFORM OR EQUIVALENT. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. RESIDUAL WEED PRE -EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR. APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 8. TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIAMETER POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE -EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. Bruce A. Chan Landscape Architect CA Lic. # 002324 923 Arguello Street, Suite 200 Redwood City, California 94063 Tel (650)346-7645 Fax (650)367-8139 Email: bacla@sbcglobal.net Landscape Architecture Environmental Design Site planning TITLE Landscape Plan REVISIONS Date Notes 1 09-7-17 Add street tree, modify notes to fence height 2 10-24-17 Modify shrubs n dnveway PROJECT#: DATE: 07-5-17 ,z M 0 } 9 6 6 10 11 24 16 16 ID II H M ffi 9] 9 b b A' b SHEET #: L 1"1 17 lk f City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 521 Burlingame Avenue Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Patrick R. Gilson Architect: Stewart Associates General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 029-254-010 Lot Area: 5,811 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing split-level house and attached garage to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. The proposed house and garage will have a total floor area of 3,028 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,040 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch exemption). The new single family dwelling 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 (12'-0" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review for anew, two-story single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)). 521 Burlingame Avenue Lot Area: 5,811 SF Plans date stamped: November 1, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................... Front (1st fir): 15'-2" 15-2" (block average) (2nd fir): ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................... 20'-0" 20'-0" Side (exterior— 1st fir): 9'-6" to bay window 7'-6" (exterior— 2"d fir): average of 13'-6" average of 12'-0" (interior): .............................................. ........................................................................................................................................, 9'-7" 6'-0" ... ......... ........... .......................................................... Rear (1st fir): 30'-0" 15'-0" (2nd fir): ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................... 46'-0" 20'-011 Lot Coverage: 2034 SF 2324 SF 35% 40% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:..................................................................................................................................... FAR: 3028 SF 3040 SF' 0.52 FAR 0.52 FAR (0.32 x 5811 SF) + 900 SF + 280 SF = 3040 SF (0.52 FAR) Design Review 521 Burlingame Avenue 521 Burlingame Avenue Lot Area: 5,611 Sr Plans date stamped: November 1, 2U1 f PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED # of bedrooms: 1 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 1 covered (12' x 20' clear interior) (10' x 20' clear interior) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') ......................................................................................................................................... ... ......... ......... ......... ............ Building Height: 28'-0" 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission had several suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission asked the applicant to consider enlarging the front porch and lowering the plate heights on each floor. The applicant submitted a response letter dated October 31, 2017, and revised plans date stamped November 1, 2017, in response to the Commission's comments. Please refer to the letter and revised plans for a detailed summary of changes made to the project since the design review study meeting. 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: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring a front covered porch, stucco siding, articulated first and second floor walls, aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, horizontal wood trim elements, cast stone windows sills, barrel tile roofing, decorative Spanish ceramic tiles, decorative clay pipe rake vents, and a combination of hip and gable roofs is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan incorporates plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy and compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. K Design Review 521 Burlingame Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct public hearing on the application, and consider public testimonyand 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 clearlyforthe record. Atthe public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 1, 2017 sheets Al through A6, 3D, L1.0 and 1-2.0; 2. that anychanges to building materials, exteriorfinishes, windows, architectural features, roof heightorpitch, and amount ortype of hardscape materials shall be subjectto Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes ordumpsters forthe construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and anygrading orearth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to complywith all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that priorto issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modifiedto include a coversheet listing all conditionsof approval adopted bythe Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; anypartial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE METDURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIORTO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that priorto scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyorshall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certifythe firstfloor elevation of the newstructure(s) based on the elevation atthe top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 3 Design Review 521 Burlingame Avenue 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification thatthe architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident atframing, such as window locations and bays, are builtas shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that priorto scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyorshall shootthe heightof the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verifythat the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property owner Stewart Associates, architect Attachments: October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated October 31, 2017 Email Submitted by Margaret Farney, dated October 21, 2017 Email Submitted by David Harris, dated October 22, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Project Explanation Letter, dated August 22, 2017 Planning Commission Resolutions (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo 4 Cityof Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 F I� Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission Monday, October 23, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers b. 521 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (Patrick R. Gilson, applicant and property owner; Stewart Associates, architect) (56 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Attachments: 521 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 521 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 521 Burlinaame Ave - Plans - 10.23.17 Commissioner Comaroto returned the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff There were no questions of staff. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. John Stewart and Patrick Gilson represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the front elevation, is that a real window centered over the front porch? (Stewart: is a quatrefoil window into the laundry room.) > Has consideration been given to expanding the porch size since the full front -porch exemption hasn't been used? Would add more articulation on the front of the home. (Stewart: can look into this.) > is the stucco coved under the eaves? (Stewart: yes.) > Are the planter boxes wrought -iron? (Stewart: yes.) > Suggested a patio off of the dining room, onto the front porch. > Requested clarification of the plate heights; they are higher than what is normally accepted. ( Stewart: ten feet on the first floor, nine on the second floor.) Consider reducing the plate heights; the neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes, the reduction would help the massing. Gilson: initially wanted to install a basement, but have a significant water problem. Wants to retain the proposed plate heights. Could an arbor be added at the rear? Keylon: this would add to the floor area and is not exempt.) Is there a connection between the basement and the plate heights? (Stewart/Gilson: would have permitted more floor area.) > Thinks the design works well with the neighbors. Suggested lowering the plate heights to allow the design to better fit into the neighborhood. (Stewart: what is the opinion of other Commissioners?) Public Comments: Unidentified Neighbor (across from property on Clarendon): another home was rebuilt several doors down. City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111612017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft October 23, 2017 Feels that the home appears very massive; are a community of non -massive Spanish -style homes. Doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Keep some of the characterisitics of the Burlingables neighborhood that people like. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Is a well -crafted design that tries to fit into the neighborhood. However, the existing homes are a bit more delicate. Can understand the desire for a ten foot plate height on the first floor, but the nine foot height on the second floor is too much. Must look at the plate heights. > Agrees with lowering the plat heights. The existing homes are smaller, many are split-level in design. Has a bit of a concern about the home fitting into the neighborhood. Suggested vaulted ceilings on the second floor with an eight -foot plate height. > Would like something done with the front porch and supports looking at the plate heights. > Wants the second floor plate height reduced. Also wants the porch to be enhanced. > Feels both plate heights should be reviewed, partly for consistency and partly for ensuring the home fits into the neighborhood. Homes in the neighborhood typically have first floor plate heights under nine feet. If the Commission starts to allow the greater plate heights on some houses, will see the request on other applications. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Regular Action calendar when ready for action. Chair Gum called for a voice vote and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Loftis City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111612017 __-- _ __ ■■ STEWART ■■ ASSOCIATES RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS October 31,2017 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Attn: Planning Commissioners RE: 521 Burlingame Ave. Dear Commissioners: IF14i Y%t:.3C. ids.5@::k V E wu` N O V -1 2017 C,'IT Y � �F BURLINGAME ar,';'DD-P .,ANI' !NG Dill. Thank you for your review of this project at your October 23 meeting. I reviewed the tape and found there were several items suggested by you to be addressed before resubmitting the design: • It was suggested that we extend the entry porch to the right to terminate at the front right corner. We have extended the porch to the right as suggested and modified it to be an arcade along the front fagade. In order to balance this feature we lowered the roof slightly so it wasn't so dominant. The Quatrefoil window above the entry door felt too small now that the roof had been lowered. We thickened the wall and added an angled detail to the stucco to help take up the extra space and highlight this window. • There was a question about what the detail below the rake tile at the roofs is. They are going to be projections in the stucco. I have enclosed a picture to illustrate the detail. • The suggestion was made by several board members to consider lowering the plate height of the Upper floor or Both Floors. We lowered the 2nd Floor plate to 8'-Q" except at the Upper Hall/Laundry. This lowers the bulk of the building without compromising the high in the hallway and also adds a break at the roofline of the Front and Rear Elevations. In addition to addressing your suggestions we took the time to add more detail to the building and make changes to improve and better present the design. • In order to better demonstrate the design we added 3x rafter tails to the drawings. The house we designed that is under construction on Clark Drive in San Mateo has these and they turned out fantastic. We think these details are important to show and add to the overall feel of the design. • After reviewing the site grading in more detail, we raised the house 6" to allow ourselves a little more clearance to grade. This combined with the lowering of the plate height still results in a net reduction in the overall height of the eaves and will allow us to build up the grade slightly for the required slope' away from the building. • We changed the Living Room window to a large picture window that more closely resembles the windows you see on most of the homes'in--the neighborhood. This wall is also thickened with an angled detail to help highlight this window. • Lowered Living Room floor 1'-0" to help give the house some character. 1351 Laurel Street • San Carlos, CA 94070 • phone: 650.591.8283 fax: 650.591.9578 www.stewartassocaia.com • stewartassocaia@aol.com • Pulled Living Room fireplace into the building so that it contacts the upper wall. Having this be engaged with the upper floor reduces the bulk on the left side of the building and turns the Chimney Cap so it faces forward instead of sideways. • Pulled Family Room fireplace into the building so that we have enough room for cabinets on either side for AV components. • Straightened bay window so it is a box bay, the roof was really tricky on this and we think this accomplishes the same goal without being too complex. • We changed the Clarendon side fence from a six foot redwood and lattice fence to a four foot tall stucco wall. We looked around the neighborhood and this is more in context with what other corner homes have done. We were concerned that the previously proposed fence would unnecessarily constrict the sidewalk and street and would not be received well by the neighbors. • Added new perspective drawings that better demonstrate the design from eye level. We are hopeful that the design changes will address your comments and concerns. We appreciate the feedback and think that the changes have added something to an already good design. We are very proud of this design and hope you will approve it at your next meeting. Sincerely, John L. Stewart AIA Cc: Patrick Gilson Enclo: Picture of eave detail V r_ _ia u Wi Al Item #9b From: Margaret Farney <mfarney52@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2017 5:36 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: Burlingame Planning Dept Subject: 521 Burlingame Ave Planning Dept, CO`MUAMA!�i''U1VICATICN R IV AFTER PREpARATIt�1V' OFSTARPREpoRr I am writing to voice my concern with an aspect of the proposed project at 521 Burlingame Ave. I would like to see the garage and driveway not moved to Clarendon Rd. The existing house had a driveway on Burlingame Ave for 80+ years with no issues about the traffic or busyness of that street. One of the charms of Clarendon Rd is that it is a quiet street with not a lot of traffic. We would like to see it stay that way and see no reason to move the driveway from Burlingame Ave to Clarendon Rd. Thank You, Margaret Farney 220 Clarendon Rd R E ( E I V E D CITY OF BURLINGA E-E CIDD-PUkN1 ING DIV. CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner From: David Harris <davidharris1223@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2017 4:16 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: Proposed design for new home at 521 Burlingame Avenue To the Planning Commission:: I'm writing to express my concerns about plans for the new home at 521 Burlingame Avenue, at the corner of Clarendon. My primary objection is the size, massing and height of the house. Although these all may be in compliance with planning regulations, the proposed dimensions of this home will, like so many other new homes in Burlingame, overwhelm the homes around it. As you know, another new house approved last year by the Planning Commission was recently built at 223 Clarendon, on the west side of the street between Howard and Burlingame avenues. It also overwhelms the houses around it in terms of its height, massing and Tudor design. While it's clear the design of the 521 Burlingame Avenue home does a much better job of fitting in the with the neighborhood, two homes of this size on the same block will further contribute to the deterioration of the unique character of the block, which has numerous Hammer houses from the 1930s with Mediterranean design features. Members of the Planning Commission acknowledged the distinctive look of this block during public review sessions for the 223 Clarendon home. I understand the builder has gone through considerable effort to come up with a design that will be acceptable to the neighborhood, which I greatly appreciate. In my view, it's just too big relative to the homes around it. Sincerely, David Harris 600 Howard (corner of Clarendon) COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT R"ECEIVED CITY OF 13i, RLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. IJ�y1i7L:IlV.C�iAiA� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: 5( Design Review ❑ Variance Ef Parcel #: 029-254-010 171 Conditional (Jse Permit ❑ Special Permit 5( Zoning / Other: I'-1 PROJECT ADDRESS: 521 BURLINGAME AVENUE APPLICANT Name: 521 BURLINGAME AVE LLC Address: 1731 ADRIAN RD #13 City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Phone: 650-440-2204 E-mail: patrickgilson@gmail.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: STEWART ASSOCIATES Address: 1351 LAUREL ST City/State/Zip: SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 Phone: 650-591-8283 E-mail: john@stewartassocaia.com Burlingame Business License #: 26167 PROPERTY OWNER Name: 521 BURLINGAME AVE LLC Address: 1731 ADRIAN RD #13 City/State/Zip: BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Phone: 650-440-2204 E-mail: patrickgilson@gmail.com RECEI`J�D AUG 2 3 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: ODD-Iw'L ANNmIO DID I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. JLS (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: DEMOLITION OF (E) ONE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE; (N) TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE W/ (N) DETACHED ONE -CAR GARAGE; (N) LANDSCAPING AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. % Applicant's signature: Date: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Y owners9 Property ' signature: Date: gA7)n Date submitted: 0123117 S: �HANDOUTSJPC Application, doc ME STEWART ■■ ■■ ASSOCIATES ■■ RESIDENTIAL ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIORS August 22, 2017 Planning Commission 4'Ir Z D CommunityDevelopment Department RE(,,,' p.: :v: 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94040 AUG 2 3 ' tj 17 RE: Planning Commission Submittal for 521 Burlingame Avenue CITY 01P_ B RIA- AME CDD- LANW,40 DIV. Dear Commission Members: The project we are submitting for your review is a new two-story, single-family residence with a new detached one -car garage at 521 Burlingame Avenue. The project sits at the corner of Burlingame Avenue and Clarendon Road, with the front entry facing Burlingame Avenue. The surrounding neighborhood is predominantly Mediterranean with some Ranch style homes, so our project was designed in the Spanish Revival style to blend in with the predominant architectural tapestry. Custom details such as scalloped roof rake, accent window, tiles and pony walls, as well as wood corbels and wrought iron planter boxes add a level of refinement. Since our project is a corner lot, we paid special attention to the articulation of massing on both sides of street frontage. The first -floor setback facing Clarendon Road was pushed back to 12 feet from the property line, even though the code allows for 7.5 feet, and the second floor was pushed back even further to 14.5 feet. Additional architectural elements such as covered porch, bay window, cantilever and recessed walls break up the massing even further, which also help to bring the house down to human scale. A modest detached one -car garage at the rear of the property provides the necessary off- street parking, while the new driveway was moved to the Clarendon Road side to avoid adding traffic to the busier Burlingame Avenue. All in all, we are confident this new home will be a positive addition to the surrounding neighborhood as well as the city of Burlingame. Sincerely, John L. Stewart, AIA 1351 Laurel Street • San Carlos, CA 94070 • phone: 650 s 591.8283 fax: 650 + 591.9578 www.stewartassocaia.com • stewartassocaia@aol.com RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two story single family house and detached garage at 521 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned R-1, Patrick R. Gilson, property owner, APN: 029-254-010; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13t" day of November, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 521 Burlingame Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 1, 2017 sheets Al through A6, 1-1.0 and L2.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIORTO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 521 Burlingame Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. r, BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD neoP0�" BURLINGAME, CA 94010 .i 11103120,17 ir n 11 1 A 0 i PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) www.burlingame.org 696 37�9Q���� V!,' � ���'�"� .�maa�a� ygzas aasyra p..' � P� � d ZIP 9 i �- . � a � 1 t 112Aq11 .. Site: 521 BURLINGAME AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 521 BURLINGAME AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 029-254-010 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlin_g_ ame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) 521 Burlingame Avenue, R-1 11.13.17 PC Meeting COMMUNICATION RECEIVED Item 7c AFTER PREPARATION 521 Burlingame Avenue OFSTAFFREPORT Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED NOV 08 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Jane Woolley[mailto:sarahjanewoolleyCa)yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 9:15 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Subject: 521 Burlingame Ave new build Hi Ruben, Could you pass this on to the planning commissioners? Many thanks, Jane Woolley Dear Planning Commission, I would like to let you know that I support the planned new build at 521 Burlingame Ave. Patrick Gilson has done a wonderful job on our home at 223 Clarendon and I know he will build a beautiful and quality home at 521. Additionally, I hope the commission will approve his planned 10 ft ceilings, as that height is beautiful in any home. I understand there are concerns about the massing of the home. However, considering there are several three-story homes on the 200 block of Clarendon and another three-story home on the 500 block of Burlingame Ave, it seems the 10 ft height ceilings won't cause the home to be anomalous with the surrounding structures. Thank you, Jane Woolley 223 Clarendon Rd 11.13.17 PC Meeting COMMUNICATION RECEIVED Item 8c AFTER PREPARATION 521 Burlingame Avenue OF STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED NOV 09 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. -----Original Message ----- From: Diane Sibille [mailto:sibilledl3@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2017 3:55 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Subject: 521 Burlingame Ave We wish to express our complete support for the design and construction of the subject house. We believe this home will be a perfect fit for our neighborhood and will certainly add value to other homes in the vicinity. We have no objection to the garage facing Clarendon as all three corner homes on our block were built that way. Richard and Diane Sibille 219 Clarendon Rd Burlingame, CA 94010 VIEW FROM BURLINGAME AVE. VIEW FROM CLARENDON ROAD VIEW FROM BURLINGAME AVE. m W Q U co W W ■s • ■ ■ ■ A , , W z W Q LIJ W Q (.) 2i U z < W W (.9 0 Z -- Q Cn J o W O� z 0�Z - m J O W�C N D ZLO m Date 10/31 /17 Scale Drawn JSS Job 1731 Sheet 3D Of Sheets TYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS: 2-PIECE BARREL TILE ROOF RAKE TILE W/ SCALLOP DETAIL DECORATIVE CLAY PIPE RAKE VENT SHAPED STUCCO CHIMNEY CAP ALUMINUM CLAD WOOD WINDOW W/ SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDED LITES 3-COAT CEMENT PLASTER, PAINT CAST STONE WINDOW SILL ROUND COPPER DOWNSPOUT, PRE-PATINAED DECORATIVE SPANISH CERAMIC TILE ' ■ I ■ zo 460 ■ r I ■ `r AVG1 G LIVING RO I CUSTOM SOLID WOOD DOOR, STAIN WROUGHT IRON HANDRAIL, PAINT FRONT ELEVATION LOUVERED DOOR, PAINT LEFT SIDE ELEVATION RIDGE 46.21 UPPER LEVEL PL. 40.08� \ �50 r` \ \ UPPER LE MAIN LEVEL PL. 0 MAIN LE %CG. T.O.C." 19.26 AVG GR UPPER LEVEL PL. 40.08 00 UPPER LEVEL 32bO iv MAIN LEVEL PL. 30.83 I MAIN LEVEL On -7c o LIVING ROOM —ACG. T.O.C. 18.82 0 0 M m W Q U co W W ■s ■ ■ a ■ ■ y W z Lu I. LJ LLI (.) 2i U z < LU LLj (.9 Z (1) J Lu O� z 0� Z 3:00 j 0� LU 9r� ZLO Date 10/31 /17 Scale 1 /4" = 1' - 0" Drawn ML Job 1731 Sheet A4 Of Sheets ii i IN REAR ELEVATION 46.21 RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION HALF ROUND COPPER GUTTER WROUGHT IRON PLANTER BOX, PAINT WROUGHT IRON EXTERIOR LIGHT oil oil oil I i I 8X DECORATIVE WOOD CORBEL, PAINT 2X WOOD BELLY BAND, PAINT UPPER LEVEL PL. 60 ER LEVEL , 32.0(i� _EVEL PL - 30.83 N LEVEL 20.75 T.O.C. 18.82 18.95 AVG GR UPPER LEVEL PL. 40.08 UPPER— LEVEL 32.00 iv MAIN LEVEL PL. r 30.83 MAIN LEVEL 20 75 'ACG. T.O.C. 18.82 m W Q U co W W ■s � f ■ a y LLI z Lu I. LJ LLI (.) 2i U z < LLJ Lu (.D Z (1) J Luo� z 0� Z (n j LU ZLO 00 Date 10/31 /17 Scale 1 /4" = 1'-0" Drawn JSS Job 1731 Sheet A5 Of Sheets RAKE TILE W/ SCALLOP DETAIL TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE — EXTERIOR LIGHT TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE 12 \ 4 31.62 12 4 RIDGE 31.62 GARAGE PL N O CUSTOM SECTIONAL - � O GARAGE DOOR, PAINT o 1 FRONT ELEVATION 31.62 LEFT ELEVATION 31.62 REAR ELEVATION 31.62 GARAGE F.F. 19.75 HALF ROUND COPPER GUTTER TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE BARREL TILE TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE ALUM. CLAD WOOD WINDOW TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE 3-COAT CEMENT PLASTER PAINTED TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE GARAGE PL , 28.75 O I CAST STONE SILL TO MATCH -H—MAIN HOUSE GARAGE F.F. 19.7E GARAGE PL GARAGE F.F. 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL ASSEMBLY FLOOR PLAN D.S. CLASS W ROOF ASSEMBLY W/ BARREL TILE TO MATCH MAIN HOUSE N_ L_ ROOF PLAN A&-] RIGHT ELEVATION GARAGE PLANS SCALE:1/4"=1'0" 0 2 4 8 m W Q U co W W ■s • ■ ■ - W D z W Q LIJ W Q (.) 2i U z < W W (.9 0 Z (1) J o W O� z 0� Z 3:00 j 0� W� N D ZLO m Date 10/31 /17 Scale 1 /4" = V-0" Drawn ML Job 1731 Sheet A6 Of Sheets V r_ _ia u Wi Al SHEET INDEX Al SITE PLAN A2 FLOOR PLANS A3 ROOF PLAN A4 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A6 GARAGE PLANS 3D 3D PERSPECTIVES GENERAL NOTES 1. RULES AND REGULATIONS ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND SHALL BE PER INDUSTRY STANDARDS. 2. NEGOTIATED CONTRACT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR A NEGOTIATED CONTRACT BETWEEN THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR. NOT ALL CONDITIONS AND DETAILS ARE SHOWN. IT SHALL BE THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO SELECT ALL FINISHES AND FIXTURES. 3. OWNERSHIP OF DRAWINGS THESE DOCUMENTS ARE THE PROPERTY OF STEWART ASSOCIATES AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE EXCEPT AS APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT. 4. EXISTING CONDITIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE SITE AND EXISTING STRUCTURES TO DETERMINE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. NO EXTRA COMPENSATION SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO DISCOVER CONDITIONS THAT ARE VISIBLE WHICH AFFECT THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK. 5. COORDINATION OF WORK THE LIMITS OF THE WORK ARE ESTABLISHED BY THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING TRADES PEOPLE WITHIN THESE LIMITS. 6. EXAMINATION OF PLANS THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL EXAMINE ALL SYSTEMS AND DETERMINE EXTENT OF WORK REQUIRED. THESE SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BID.. 7. DESIGN DATA OCCUPANCY GROUP: R-31 U TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-B 8. CODES ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING CODES: 2016 CBC, 2016 CMC, 2015 CPC. 2016 CEC, 2016 CEEC, 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN, 2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2018 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE AND ALL OTHER APPLICABLE CODES, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. i / DEMOLISH (E) WOOD FENCE N49030'06"E 58.10' Y 20.00' m� Q) cwn v (N GARAGE ' APRON EWAY • En J _ m (N) CONC DRIVEWAY CD CD (E) CONIC. PAD TO I N LL • BE DEMOLISHED z z (N) EM N 24" TREE I � � I 'I (N) PAVER WALKWAY I I I (E) TREE TO REMAIN, TYP. `I I I I O SSCO o 'I C) I I DINI 4'H STUCCO WALL U) Lu / o . I (N) PAVER PATIO I/ CV E) RESIDENCE E DEMOLISHED CD co B C) U) I I o SEWER LINE, SEE SURVEY FOR MORE INFO. 0 = x � • I 14.00' - U) I,I o z o C:) I Z LINE OF UPPER LEVEL ' UNITS (N RESIDENCE I 8.60' I 12' - 0" 9.60' 2ND FL SETBACK 21"TREE O 6' - 0" 1ST FL O S.B. Y SIDE S.B. I \ 111.50' Q I I� o Q z o Z; O U) COV. PORCH I '" 0 (N) GM U LL] } DN Y \ Q I � (N) WOOD GATE � I m Y J U)C) _j Q U 00 N LL (V H- (N) PAVER WALKWAY o J I (E) CONC. WALKWAY !� U , TO BE DEMOLISHED (E) DRIVEWAY TOcn BE DEMOLISHED � I N49030'00"E 51jrl0' (N) CONC. SIDEWALK TOP OF CURB ELEV. II 18" TREE PER SURVEY � I 0 � I 17.87 � � 18.61 (N) CONC. GUTTER BURLINGAME AVENUE (70' R/W) NOTE: 1. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND SURVEY FOR ADDITIONAL SITE INFORMATION. 2. GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, SHALL BE OBTAINED FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. SITE PLAN SCALE: 1 /8"=1'0" 024 8 PLANNING DATA GENERAL A. P. N. ZONING LOT AREA HEIGHT LIMIT MAX. ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 40% LOT AREA ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA HOUSE 32% LOT AREA + 900 SF DETACHED GARAGE 029-254-010 R-1 5811 SF 30 FT 2324 SF 2760 SF UP TO 350 SF !�350 SF SETBACKS 1ST/2ND FRONT 15'2"/20' FT SIDE - INTERIOR 6'/DHE* FT SIDE - EXTERIOR 7'6"/12' FT REAR 15'/20' FT *DHE-DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE PROPOSED LOT COV. MAIN RESIDENCE 1651 SF COV. PORCH 85 SF DETACHED GARAGE 280 SF TOTAL 2016 SF PROPOSED FLOOR AREA MAIN LEVEL 1651 SF UPPER LEVEL 1108 SF HOUSE TOTAL 2759 SF GARAGE 280 SF GRAND TOTAL 3039 SF LOCATION MAP 9 a n 09 '80101 1 li YI r 0e �r o ,Lr'L01 .05 ,L,Z51 @ 61 a� 5t L5} xn ,za'rst r'i � 9 11 ,os wi ,os'LSI -- .95 LS .0 "1 FLIS ,OS D/ n nC/ ^2L .Ss as ,vs ry 3AV SITE � .OL'LSI Z SI EY de 0 Q s X e 52 h ❑ OL75r ,OL'+5 AS . c AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK ADDRESS NO. FRONT SETBACK 505 15'-0" 509 15'-2" 511 15'-1" 515 15'-4" AVERAGE 15'-2" BURLINGAMEN TE AS OF OCTOBER 19, 2016, THE WORKING HOURS HAVE CHANGED AS FOLLOWS CONSTRUCTION HOURS WEEKDAYS: 8:OOAM - 7:OOPM SATURDAYS: 9:OOAM - 6:OOPM SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS. *COSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON -CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:OOAM AND 5:OOPM. m Lu Q 0 U U) Lu 0 Lu ■s • a ■ • y w D z Lu Q w LLI (.) 2i U z < LLJ Lu (D 0 Z -- Q C/) J Lu O� z L N ZLO M Date 10/31 /17 Scale 1 /8" = V-0" Drawn ML Job 1731 Sheet A 1 Of Sheets REVISIONS — x x W/ GRAVEL 5TEPPINGOIN 5 �N) FI REFIT 20" TALL *NATURAL GAS 15 *SET FLUSH W/ LAWN WOOD PLU5 1 211 - LATTICE FENCING ADJACENT RESIDENCE (N) EVERGREEN PRIVACY SHRUBS — x PAW EL (N) (N) 0-0" STUCCO I 1 FENCE PANEL *MATCH HOUSE INCLUDING 0-0" WOOD PEDESTRIAN GATE I � (E) 12 ADJACENT DRIVEWAY (N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY SPECS * REQUIRES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (N) DROUGHT TOLERANT INM VIM GROUNDCOVER ❑ X X X - (N) LAWN X X X X (N) \ GARAGE (N) ELECTRICAL / METER - (N) 0-0" 50LID WOOD PLUS 1 2" LATTICE FENCING X X X - L E�E • �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIri�lllNliiil►► I�I�II■II lil`Ir��� !Lj■.1 ■I�I�II ■I\�I■I■II 11■I■I■I■ 14 14 2 14 14 15 12 15 --- — — — — —— E t 15/ --- &_ I • 6 15 6 I 2 15 1 2 — 15 2 2 i GI 3 24"LIQUID 2 C,3ss 3 O 2 GI 3 - 3 \ 2 R (N) 3' TALL 55Q / • W 2 COUNTERTOP W/ (N) GRAVEL G" 5ACK5PLA5H PATH 15 V° STORAGE BELOW 2 TRVERGREEN 2EE 15 I I 15 • 1 II I 6 RESIDENCE , 15 I I � 7 15 7 15 I I (N) 5T NE \ _ORC 15 (N) 5TEPPINGI 0 I 15 15\ STONES �� \��fl///7 2 �` �` I ■■■■III � 1 i �bh1Vs ■��■ �J� ■■■ LAWN LAWN •. • - -=E (E) UTILITY (N) STEPPING --/ METERS STONES *SAND SET B U RBI N GAM E 70' R.O.W. L. (N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY APRON *INSTALL PER CITY 5TD5 / SPECS *REQUIRES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT (N) 4'-0" STUCCO FENCE W/ WOOD GATE *MATCH HOUSE (E) LIQUIDAMBAR STREET TREES TO REMAIN NOTE: (E) STREET TREES MAY NOT BE CUT, TRIMMED OR REMOVED WITHOUT CITY PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM PARKS DEFT. C) Q O L,Z (N) DROUGHT TOLERANT GROUNDCOVER (N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER CITY SPECS * REQUIRES ENCROACHMENT PERMIT z O C) z> LJ o / 22 J U (N) 4'-0" STUCCO FENCE W/ WOOD GATES *MATCH HOUSE � STREET TRUIDAER ES A TO REMAIN NOTE: (E) STREET TREES AVENUE MAY NOT BE CUT, TRIMMED OR REMOVED WITHOUT CITY PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM PARKS DEFT PLANT L15r 1 10/3 11 J 7 GIL50N U=5IDENCF, 521 BUIZLINGAME AVE 5YM 5CIENTiriC NAME GOMMON NAME CITY I SIZE I rp,0WH WUCDL5 ' TREES A Aces- rubrum Red Maple I 3G" SOX FAST M B 5yaeru5 romanzoffianum Queen Palm 1 24" SOX MOD. L C Laurus no5ili5 'Saratoga' (5td) Grecian Laurel 4 24" BOX MOD. L 5H RU135 1 PEREN N IAL5 Hemerocalh5 'Dwarf Red Daylily l 3 I GAL MOD. M 2 Amgo7antho5 `Dwarf €led` Kangaroo Paw l5 1 GAL FA5T L 3 Aeonlum arboreum Aeonwm 2 5 GAL MOD. L 4 Rona 'Flowering Carpet' Groundcover Rose 7 2 GAL MOD. M 5 Fe5tuca ovina var. glauca Blue Pe5cue - I GAL M01). L G Rosa 'lceberg' lceberg Rose 7 5 GAL FAST M 7 Ro5marin u5 officinali5 'Tuscan Blue' Rosemary 4 J 5 GAL FAST L 8 Pieri5 Japonica 'Mt Fire' Japanese Pieri5 3 J 5 GAL SLOW M 9 Olea europaea 'Montra' Little 011ie Dwarf Olive 10 5 GAL SLOW L J O 5trelitzia nucolai Giant Bird of Paradise 2 5 GAL MOD. N J 1 Loropetalum chinense Fringe Flower G J 5 GAL MOD. L J 2 Agave attenuata Fox Tail Aeave 10 5 GAL MOD. L J 3 Alyogyne hueagehi Blue 1-libi5cu5 - 5 GAL FA5T L J 4 Phormium 'Yellow Wave' Yeilow Wave Flax 10 5 GAL MOD. L J 5 Pittosporum tenuifolium Plttosporum 42 5 GAL MOD. M VI N E5 V- I CIYtoStoma calli5te(3101de5 Violet Trumpet Vine 5 15 GAL MOE). M V-2 Bougainvillea 'San Diego` Bougainvillea I J 5 GAL MOD. L V-3 Trachelospermum Ja5manoide5 (staked) Star Jasmine 10 5 GAL MOD. M GROUNDCOVER5 G- I Festuca rubs Red Pe5cue B25 5f ROLL5 MOD. L G RA55 Native Mow Free Blend, Defta 6fuegra55 Co. (BDQ) 637--8873 O 5f ROLL5 SLOW - L LAWN Bolero PIuS Blend, Defter 51uegran5 Co. (300) 637-&873 78G sf ROLL5 BLOW - H `lawn not incfud-od in calculation, wee area cafe TOTAL QTY: 153 L VL CITY: G3 4 1 .2% VL O 5f o qty L 5G5 5f G3 aty M 808 5f 90 qty NONJUKIF IRRIGATED AREA: 1.373 H 0 5f 0 qty GENERALNOTE5 I . CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE PROPOSED WORK PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ON 51TE ALL GRADES, PROPERTY LINES, EA5EMENT5, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, 51TE IMPROVEMENTS, WATERPROOFING AND UNDERGROUND PIPING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR D15CREPANCIE5 BETWEEN THE PLANS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. ALL DISCREPANCIES OR PROBLEMATIC 51TE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, 3. WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY 15 SUBJECT TO INSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO WORK WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. TH15 WORK MAY INCLUDE LANDSCAPING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NEW CURB DRAINS, AND PARKING STRIP. 4. FINISHED GRADES SHALL PROVIDE P051TIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM STRUCTURES AND SHALL BE PROPERLY INSTALLED TO PREVENT ANY STANDING WATER. ALL HARD5CAPE SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM GRADE OF 2% UNLE55 NOTED OTHERWISE. JUTE MESH EROSION CONTROL NETTING SHALL BE USED ON ALL 3:1 OR GREATER SLOPES * STAKED APPROPRIATELY. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR EXISTING TREES BY INSTALLING TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE TREES A5 CL05E A5 P05515LE TO THE DRIPLINE. IN THE EVENT THAT TREE ROOTS OVER G" ARE DISCOVERED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHOULD BE CONTACTED. G. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL, � OTHER ENGINEERING DRAWINGS / DOCUMENTS FOR WORK IN RELEVANT AREAS. 7. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY MAKE 51TE OB5ERVATION5 DURING CONSTRUCTION BUT SHALL NOT BE UTILIZED TO SUPERVISE CONSTRUCTION ON51TE, PLANTING NOTES I . LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT AND 50D QUANTITIES PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID FOR WORK. 2, ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST STANDARDS OF NURSERY STOCK, PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN NURSERY t LANDSCAPE A550CIATION. 3. PLANT MATERIAL CANNOT BE GUARANTEED A5 DEER RESISTANT DUE TO CHANGING HABITS OF DEER. 4. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE COVERED WITH A LAYER OF BARK MULCH TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 2 INCHES, WITH A CHIP 51ZE OF NO LE55 THAN ONE INCH. A 2 INCH LAYER OF GREENWA5TE MULCH UNDER THE BARK MULCH 15 RECOMMENDED. 5. 501L AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED A5 NECESSARY. 501L AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. 501L AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS. G. PLANTING HOLE5 SHALL GENERALLY BE 2x - 3x THE 51ZE OF THE ROOT BALL. THE WALLS AND BA5E5 OF PLANT HOLE5 SHALL BE SCARIFIED. HOLE5 SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH 5% ORGANIC COMP05T * 95% EXISTING 501L. PLANTING HOLE5 OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL 5HOULD BE INOCULATED WITH MYCORRHIZAL FUNGI, PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECS. 7. TREE5 SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRE55URE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR 5TRAP5 FORMING A FIGURE -EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE. 8. RESIDUAL WEED PRE -EMERGENT SHALL BE APPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR A5 NECESSARY, APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCORDING TO MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS, 9. LAWN SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 25%. ALL TURF AREAS SHALL BE FERTILIZED AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'_0" N O T E r CD N r 0 M�rNN U *-.WMM - .p N N pUCOCO cc U '•' L m k U m u_E co co a� Y E U i L cr CD U D CD C� U Ego mob O �p,NDSCgp�, L D c 1p�' 9Z n \TF DF73 A 9���/ Q z LU � U� J zu� LU LLJ 0 0 - z cf) � LU CE w z < OCTOBER 31, 2017 TITLE: LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NO: Item No. 8d Regular Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 1304 Mills Avenue Item No. 8d Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1304 Mills Avenue Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Melina Copass APN: 026-071-100 Property Owner: Matt and Lauren Fleming Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property contains a single story, two bedroom house with 1,566 SF (0.26 FAR) of floor area. The proposal includes a first floor addition at the rear and a second floor addition. With the proposed project the total floor area would increase to 2,938 SF (0.48 FAR) where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The overall building height would increase from 19'-3" to 29'-8" as measured from the average top of curb. There is an existing 572 SF detached garage located along the left side property line. In 1993 the Planning Commission approved a Special Permit and Setback Variances for two office spaces behind the garage. These rooms are still used as offices. The applicant is proposing to remove the front 3-feet of the garage/office structure to provide the 4-foot separation between the rear addition and the accessory structure as required by C.S. 25.60.01(e). There would be approximately 34 SF removed from the accessory structure resulting in a 538 SF accessory structure. In order to meet the code required covered parking space depth of 20', the rear wall of the garage would be moved towards the back and would reduce the size of the front office space by 3-feet. The number of bedrooms would increase from two to four. The code requires two on -site parking spaces, one of which must be covered (10' x 20') and one uncovered (9' x 20'). There would be one covered code complying space located in the attached garage and one uncovered space is provided in the driveway. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Staff would note that questions have come up at previous Planning Commission meetings with regard to parking requirements for accessory living spaces in detached structures. The Building Division reviews all detached structures proposed for habitable space to insure compliance with requirements of the California Building Code, including fire and exiting requirements for rooms potentially used as sleeping rooms. Additional parking is not required by the Burlingame Municipal Code for these residential uses that are considered accessory to the main dwelling. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2)). Design Review 1304 Mills Avenue 1304 Mills Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: October 18, 2017 ORIGINAL REVISED EXISTING PROPOSAL PROPOSAL ALLOWED/REQ'D 8/17/17 plans 10/18/17 plans SETBACKS Front (1st fir): 18'-8" No change No change block averagel9'-3" (2nd fir): N/A 25'-1" 25'-9" 20'-0" or block average Side (left): 15'-10" 15-10" addition 15'-6" addition 4'-0" (right): 7'-3" 7'-3" addition 7'-2" addition 4'-0" Rear (1st fir): 54'-0" 47'-0" 46'-0" 15'-0" (2nd fir): N/A 47"-0" 48"-0" 20'-0" Lot 1,657 SF 1,896 SF 1,896 SF 2,400 SF Coverage: 27.6% 31.5% 31.5% 40% FAR: 1,566 SF 2,922 SF 2,938 SF 3,420 SF' 0.26 FAR 0.48 FAR 0.48 FAR 0.57 FAR # of 2 4 4 --- bedrooms: Off -Street 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered 1 covered Parking: (10' x 20') (10' x 20') (10' x 20') (10' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Building 19'-3" 28'-11" 29'-8" 30'-0" Height: DHEnvelope: N/A Complies Complies C.S.25.26.075 ' (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF +400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering, and Stormwater Divisions. Staff notes that the applicant has applied for a tree removal permit from the Parks Division for the cedar located in the front yard, however the application is pending. The tree being removed or remaining would not impact the proposed addition and therefore the Planning Commission can reviewthis Design Review application regardless of the outcome of the tree removal application. Study Meeting, September 11, 2017: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 11, 2017, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and referred the application to a design review consultant (September 11, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes attached). The following is a summary of the Planning Commission comments: • Like change toward Craftsman style; • Design appears very boxy, Massing needs more work. • Left elevation is very sheer; Right looks like a wedding cake 2 Design Review 1304 Mills Avenue • Need justification for the higher plate height on the second floor; • Need more articulation on the second floor; • Like the detailing of the windows and stone base; and • Concerned about the location of the fence, a survey should be prepared. After working with the design review consultant, the project architect revised the plans. The main changes include: • Roof pitch steepened, changed from 4:12 to 6:12; • Second floor plate height reduced from 9-feet to 8-feet; • Stairwell de-emphasized; • Articulation added to side elevations; and • Survey revised (see attached) and site plans corrected accordingly. Based on the revisions, the design review consultant feels that the project has been revised to address the Planning Commission's comments and concerns. Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission, along with the Design Reviewer's recommendation. Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project deisgners to review the proposal and go over the Planning Commission's comments from the September 11, 2017 Design Review Study Meeting. The major changes to the plans since the study meeting include incorporating gables on the sides of the house and reducing the second floor plate height reduced by 1-foot. The design review consultant notes that there is no predominant style in the neighborhood but that many of the existing bungalows have been remodeled in the area with second stories added. The proposed addition will reflect the style of the original home and it aligns with the styles of the surrounding neighborhood. The mass and bulk of the addition has been reduced with the addition of gables on each side to help articulate the building. In addition, the second -floor plate height has been lowered by 1-foot. The proposed materials include horizontal wood siding, stone water table, wood brackets, and wood shingles on the gable ends will be compatible with the character of the existing house as well as the neighborhood. The design reviewer's analysis and recommendation, dated October 23, 2017, is attached for a detailed review of the project. The project designer has provided a narrative of the changes made to the plans, dated November 1, 2017, which is provided as an attachment. 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: 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 of the addition, featuring gable roofs, asphalt shingle roofing, horizontal wood siding, and a stone veneer water table is compatible with the variety of styles that define the character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition is well articulated with gables on the sides to reduce the mass and bulk. The addition has been integrated in with the existing house and for these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Design Review 1304 Mills Avenue Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 18, 2017, sheets Al.1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division's August 21, 2017 and July 7, 2017 memos, the Parks Division's July 17, 2017 memo, the Engineering Division's July 52, 2017 memo, the Fire Division's September 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017 memos and the Stormwater Division's July 13, 2017 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; n Design Review 1304 Mills Avenue 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Melina Copass, Melinamade Interiors, applicant and designer Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owner Attachments: September 11, 2017 Planning Commission Study Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated October 18, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Staff Comments Design Reviewer's Recommendation — dated October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo 5 CityINGAME HALL of Burlingame B501 PRIMROSE ROAD g 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, September 11, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 1304 Mills Avenue , zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling. (Melina Copass, applicant and designer; Matt and Lauren Fleming, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Commissioner Comaroto returned to the dais. All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Loftis, Gaul and Gum spoke to the neighbor at the right at 1300 Mills Avenue. Chair Gum also spoke to the neighbor on the left. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff > Noted that the reference to the attached garage in the staff report should be changed to detached garage. Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Kiki Durphy represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > On the left elevation, regarding the full-length window in the stairwell, has the property owner spoken with the neighbors to see if they have concerns with this window? (Durphy: no. But knows that the neighbors have seen the plan. There are some trees on this side that are maturing.) > The window on the far left on the left elevation, is there any reason why it has a different divided light pattern? (Durphy: the window size prevents the divided lights from being the same as other windows. > Has a survey been prepared for the property? (Durphy: a full survey was not prepared; based upon spot elevations. Didnt set corners.) Would like to have clarification regarding the placement of the fence and the neighbor's garage. > Is there a plan for a tree to replace the one that is to be removed? (Durphy: working with the Parks Department regarding the issue, but there are lots of other trees on the property.) Finalize the Parks Department's requirements before returning to the Commission. > Any thought given to providing more detailing to add variety to the right elevation; looks like a layer cake. Craftsman style homes usually have more detailing. (Durphy: added varied materials, including water table and stone veneer. Gables on that side would not work with the declining height envelope.) > What is the head height of the windows on the second floor; how does this relate to the nine -foot plate height? If the plate height were reduced, could still maintain the proper gable articulation. Feels top-heavy as designed. (Durphy: is problematic with the declining height envelope. Want to provide tray ceilings on the second floor.) > Why are the front porch steps off -center? (Durphy: centered on the gable. The porch and the front door are existing.) Public Comments: City of Burlingame Page i Printed on 111212017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 11, 2017 There were no public comments. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Applauds the desire to move toward Craftsman styling. However, the design appears very boxy; both floor plans are very similar. The left hand elevation is very sheer, the right looks like a wedding cake. Good candidate for a design review consultant. > There might be better justification for the higher plate height on the second floor if there was better articulation on the second floor. > Likes the detailing of the windows. > Likes the stone base for the house. > Massing needs more work. > Concerned about the location of the fence; a survey should be prepared. Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the application to a design review consultant. Discussion of Motion: > Ensure that the concerns of the Commission as expressed in the discussion are provided to the design review consultant. Chair Gum called for a voice vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Gum, Gaul, Terrones, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Sargent city of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 11/2/2017 November 1, 2017 Planning Commission Design Review City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 1304 Mills Ave. Dear Planning Commissioners, Thank you for reviewing this proposal for a second story addition at 1304 Mills Ave. From the hearing on September 11t", the comments about the design of the remodel have been addressed: The roof pitch has been steepened to provide a larger distance between the peak of the gables & the top of the windows. This allows for the overall plate height of the second floor to be reduced from 9'-0" to 8'-0 while still maintaining the material transition which aids in breaking up their size. The stairwell was deemphasized by cantilevering parts of the upper floor. This articulation also helped break up the sheerness of both left and right elevation. Our licensed surveyor located the house to the property lines & these dimensions are now revised on the site plan. I feel these revisions will greatly improve upon the character of the house. I hope you like the improvements that have been made and look forward to hearing your comments at the next hearing. Sincerely, Melina Copass MelinaMade Residental Design + Interiors �ICI'D OCT i 8 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. N 36'45'00" E 15.66 iei � 00 16� O <� N LOT 13 APPROX. RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT RIDGE: 42.1 %a BO K 4 MAP. BLOCK 1 15.60 GARAGE 1 15.54x LOT 12 DECK �0 ow n ,17.95 .. I N 15.43 W ^ M O CONCRETE ER 15'14 RESIDENCE 15.1 a 15.11 7l 15.5' NOTES LOT LINES SHOWN ARE RESOLVED ' PER MONUMENTS TIED IN FROM 46 ' 37 ILLS 32 15.92 ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON NAVD 88 DATUM U O Z p w w O o N O I 3 i� LOT 11 15.36 14.92 7.2' l I w 14.84 FF WOOD I O 14.84 x 18.27 p 1 4.86 15.02 7.91 PORCH Lc) 14.73 14.72 N N r vj z 14.56 4.76 N 14.32 x 14.89 I S 36'45'00" W 50.00' _ 12.6CONCRETE 12.7s WALK89 12.86 -12.80 -12.68 rn' rn l M w cal0 APPROX. I RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT '\STANDARD CONCRETE MILLS A VENUE CURB AND GUTTER [54' WIDE] BOUNDARY SURVEY WITH SPOT ELEVATIONS 1304 MILLS AVENUE SCALE PAGE 1"=16' 1OF`1 CITY OF EO COUNTYLINGAME DATE JOB BGT LAND SURVEYING SAN MATEO COUNTY 1206 nlMateo cn Ba 02 (55oj212.103o CALIFORNIA 10/2017 17-035 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.568.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org 11 APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: XDesign Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: 4 �-' _ (� I 11 C; ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1304 Mills Ave. APPLICANT Name: Melina Copass Address: 515 EdgemarAve. City/StatefZip: Pacifica, CA 94044 Phone: 650-392-4100 PROPERTY OWNER Name: M 9, L4(je__e� �--Iem /n)Cy Address: 1304 Mills Ave City/State2ip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: E-mail: mm@melinamadeinteriors.com E-mail: ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Melina Copses Address: 515 Edgemar Ave. City/Statefzip: Pacifica, CA 94044 Phone: 650-392-4100 E-mail: mm@melinamadeinteriors.00m t8' E D JUN 2 9 2017 f o' CITY OF 9URLiNGAME Burlingame Business License#: /���ui� ! CDD-PLANNINGDIV Authorization to Reproduce Protect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the Ctty's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) second story addition to an existing 1 story, single family home - adding 2 bedrooms, 2 baths. (N) addition to first floor for family room. IGtchen, guest bath, dining room remodel. Moving ex(sfing steps at front porch from side to front of porch. Pushing garage back (removing space out of accessory structure behind). AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and bell ff. /�i n, I{/ , / Applicant's signature: '" Y VV�- ,(A , �/IAL Date: L I2 — I am aware of the proposed application and hereby andl orize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: CV Date: (OT2201 4-C� Date submitted: U[ l l 51HAvooursiacAWYcoWn.dW Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Fire sprinkler system is required in both the residence and accessory structure. prior to Fire approval. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. 2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 4. If an electronic gate crosses the driveway, provide a Knox key switch connected to the gate to allow for fire department emergency access. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 9/5117 650-558-7617 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Fire sprinkler system is required in both the residence and accessory structure. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Provide a 1-inch water meter or size to accommodate sprinkler system flow demand. 2. Provide a backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — A schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building permit plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate fire sprinklers shall be installed under a separate deferred fire permit, approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. 4. If an electronic gate crosses the driveway, provide a Knox key switch connected to the gate to allow for fire department emergency access. Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 7/6/17 650-58-7617 ITY Project Address: Description: From: Project Comments - Planning Application 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 13) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 14) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 15) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: August 21, 2017 650 558-7270 Project Address Description: Project Comments - Planning Application 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Rick Caro I II Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 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. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2016 then this project must comply with the 2016 California Building Codes. 2) As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non -compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water -conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http_//www.leginfo.ca.gov/nub/09- 10/bill/sen/sb 0401-0450/sb 407 bill 20091011 chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 3) Place the following information on the first page of the plans. Note: As of October 19, 2016, the working hours have changed as follows. "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 4) This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2016 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 5) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 6) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 7) On the plans show that all openings in exterior walls, both protected and unprotected, will comply with 2016 CBC, Table 705.8. Provide a table or chart that specifies 1) the openings allowed and; 2) the size and percentage of the openings proposed. 8) RESIDENTIAL: Rooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. On the elevation drawinPs specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows. 2016 California Residential Code 2016 CRC § R310 or CBC 1030. Make sure to state whether the window is a casement, single -hung, double -hung or slider. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2016 CRC R311.7.8 or 2016 CBC §1011.11 10) Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 11) Specify on the plans whether the fireplace is a gas or solid wood -burning device. If the fireplace is a solid wood -burning device clearly state on the plans that the fireplace will meet all requirements as a U.S.EPA Phase II certified wood -burning device. 12) If the fireplace is a solid wood -burning device then specify on the plans that the fireplace chimney will terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the building within ten feet or will be retrofit with a fireplace insert (not a log lighter.) 2016 CRC § 1003.9 or 2016 CBC 2113.9 18.10.100 Appendix C, Figure C amended —Exit terminals of mechanical draft and direct -vent venting systems. The Figure in Appendix C of the 2016 California Residential Code is amended by adding the following note: Note: Where the property line is less than ten (10) feet from the exit terminal of any newly installed or replacement high efficiency mechanical equipment the pipe size of the final ten (10) feet of any terminal must be increased to three inches (3 ") or, as an alternative, manufacturer -approved baffles must be installed. (Ord. 1856 § 7, (2010); Ord. 1889 § 8, (2013)) The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 13) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 14) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: July 7, 2017 650 558-7270 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolvn.critz(a)veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: July 13, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 low I Project Comments - I Project Address: 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. No existing tree over 48 inches in circumference at 54 inches form base of tree may be removed without a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Division. Permit for removal of Cedar tree has denied pending structural report on condition of foundation as per Park Division letter sent July 12, 2017. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: BD Date: 7.17.17 650.558.7333 bdisco@burlingame.org Project Comments — Planning Application Project Address: 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. On the proposed plan, please show the location of all proposed locations for utilities (PG&E, water, sewer, and sewer cleanout). 2. Please be aware that the property is located in the Special Flood Zone. Attached spot survey indicates that the property is above the BFE of 14'. Prior to building permit signoff, the owner must provide a copy of a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) by FEMA, indicating that the property first floor is above the BFE. 3. No further comments The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should 64�:Ware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 3. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 4. Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 8. A property survey is required if any part of permanent structure including footing is within 12" of property line. The property boundary survey is necessary to prevent construction crossing property lines into adjacent property. Install four permanent and durable property corner markers. The property corners need to be protected and maintained throughout construction and will be checked by City Inspector. If any construction does oceur oveg property, the contractor will need to make all corrections to the satisfaction of the City Inspector. Any disturbed property corners will be replaced by the project prior to final inspection. 9. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Program%20BMP%20PIan%20Sheet- June%202014%20UPdate.pdf4overlav-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/24/17 650-558-7245 CITY O Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1304 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-071-110 Description: Request for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling with a detached garage. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. On the proposed plan, please show the location of all proposed locations for utilities (PG&E, water, sewer, and sewer cleanout). 2. Please be aware that the property is located in the Special Flood Zone. Attached spot survey indicates that the property is above the BFE of 14'. Prior to building permit signoff, the owner must provide a copy of a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) by FEMA, indicating that the property first floor is above the BFE. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 3. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 4. Replace damaged and displaced curb, gutter and/or sidewalk fronting site. 5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 8. A property survey is required if any part of permanent structure including footing is within 12" of property line. The property boundary survey is necessary to prevent construction crossing property lines into adjacent property. Install four permanent and durable property corner markers. The property corners need to be protected and maintained throughout construction and will be checked by City Inspector. If any construction does occur over property, the contractor will need to make all corrections to the satisfaction of the City Inspector. Any disturbed property corners will be replaced by the project prior to final inspection. 9. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/default/files/Countywide` o20Program%20BMP%20PIan%20Sheet- June%202014%20Uodate.odf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 7/5/17 650-558-7245 Property Owner: Applicant Name: Designer. ProjectAddress: Planner: Date of Review: Design Guidelines: Design Review Comments City of Burlingame Matt & Lauren Fleming Melina Copass Melina Copass 1304 Mills Avenue Catherine Keylon 23 October 2017 1. COMPATABILITY OF THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WITH THAT OF THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. There seem to be no predominate styles in the neighborhood. Many of the single story homes or bungalows have been remodeled over the years adding a second story with an exterior of cement plaster, wood siding or shingles. The proposed house will reflect the style of the original home incorporating wood windows using classic wood with simulated true divided lite and incorporate the existing shingles. 2. RESPECT FOR THE PARKING AND GARAGE PATTERNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Most of the homes on the block have detached garages, as does this residence. 3. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CONSISTENCY AND MASS AND BULK OF STRUCTURES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. The originally proposed structure went straight up at the perimeter walls. Although there was some nice detailing, the structure was quite boxy. In order to reduce the large bulk of a two story structure, the designers have incorporated gables on each side of the house, thus articulating the side elevations. The designers have also reduced the massing by lowering the plate height for the second floor from 9'-0" to 8'-0". The proposed house will incorporate a variety of materials to reduce the massing of the structure. The proposed home will have wood shingled siding for the first floor and at the eaves of the second floor; utilize wood windows with simulated true divided lites while the base of the house will be lined in stone. 4. INTERFACE OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WITH THE STRUCTURES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. The adjacent house to the west, 1308 Mills, is a very large two story shingled residence. There will be no impact on the structure, as there are approximately 20'-0" between the two homes. The home to the East, 1300 Mills, is a single story wood structure with a driveway adjacent to the proposed addition. The twenty-three feet between the structures should minimize any effect on the 1300 Mills. 5. LANDSCAPING AND ITS PROPORTION TO MASS AND BULK OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS. There are two maple tree proposed in the front yard; unfortunately, they will not replace the large Cedar tree which is proposed to be removed. There are small trees at the side yards which provide separation between the neighbors. 6. IN THE CASE OF AN ADDITION, COMPATABILITY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AS REMODELED. As noted in item #3, many of the original elements of single story structure will be incorporated in the proposed two story structure. Adding the gables at each side elevation articulates the entire structure. The attention to detail with the brackets, wood siding at the second floor and the shingles in the gables, the stone below the water table are all attractive design elements. COMMENTS: The designers followed the direction set by the Planning Commission which led to this final design. I believe each of the P.C.'s comments have been addressed. Catherin J.M.gm7eyer RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been Review for a first and second floor addition to a 110; and application has been made for Design >ingle-family dwelling at 1304 Mills Avenue, WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13'h day of November, 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1304 Mills Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 18, 2017, sheets A1.1 through A4.1; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Building Division's August 21, 2017 and July 7, 2017 memos, the Parks Division's July 17, 2017 memo, the Engineering Division's July 52, 2017 memo, the Fire Division's September 5, 2017 and July 6, 2017 memos and the Stormwater Division's July 13, 2017 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1304 Mills Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BuR4iN�?ME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD =.o "P' 'I .• BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1304 MILLS AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1304 MILLS AVENUE zoned R-1. APN 026-071-110 Mailed: November 3, 2011 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) t ♦ L rp br n v CC B ! t� rra Orbr Y. B L !aL qA ! °r ! s!b /- PA - .Boer eb JL ' Df� ! A ,Alt eti D ca � . 0 wry Ir ^ C _ o j p s• soli n�' A.►` ' ^ °r Z y n Db O •A yy �`O °j h .wry "_ y Bb �• r... *E w i n 0 0 lb lb n n ^wry ,' h � '� � ^♦ ' 1. n nary n ^^ 4 1 err 9 °! 19 6 n 9 LL B T f r SL + r ti srrs 9.1 A \1 y P LL410, ^^ w np 0 OSr "y �!� L ^ y wP Bo a s[ \ n n ryyy , PL - G> C O �J D f 6r �� k F, W Y col) tb = s n, z CO) O O 1 W _ { I_ 00 _ - � l low < et F .z t [[ FI t "oil f r ui CD i S W � i � _ z >� I z , rn rn �,� �,� ]pllilllllU �` � IIIIIIIIIIII I"!1 d ���� 11111 I1111 IN IIII IIIII .IIII ; '� � �':� Illllill C �. 00 c yIle- 92 4+' Q CD ;, tv CD cCDo C P O 2=ue-a CD °z z lfiTIl0A DE$!N I; t:'���lCATlflM �LEMINOR PESID�NCF 0 rA aaoa= x ^ "sam m T H 0 U (n m _ 1204 MILLS / V �I 39�' 0 o o °m z H D�s� — _CD Oaax Gam' n n Z X QU�LINC�.M�, Cam. 94010 ��t w Co. M, � ��r, � m � r m > > O 3„mfn .r ..4 r H g.�3 «» i fe7 � n y�� n H n Y r n I =�oa�cr- Cp &S//yy u��� O o � m A FEEML o omHU) O �g32 er � A Z O c.n qg-.g o ffil 8411VOW1833 q96 AqL CO) a V 'p c6 rn r rn m rn in v, a 0 O �m N O x y CO)�, v u + C) Cn u T 4t. ILEllcz UU ❑D L aDci a n_ OI I ITFFFFI.O � D � O❑o� a 2'-6" MAX. lo m_ z G� D o rn m v x m 0 cy m rn 0 77 7� 0 if: rn Xl A O zol 7'-6. L. p rn rn p Ul 1 -0 N < Ir < p o > (E) ± 19'-1q" HIGHEST RIDGE / _ 8 _4. rn 8_O rn rn 4. 2a'-84" H15HE5T RIDGE N m 14'-0" m T Z7 O Z v O z .0 m z = O o O O O ;;IJ S m n cn - O � c D m m z ;;a z m cn + D F: � Z O G� N m z m D :* 70 T m D -n r m O S D m mm 0 u � �u ± CP n Or o m D 1 m m O z m W O cz O m � D D m D_ rn o z r < 4 rn kp -n r 4 4 0 TOP OF CURB TO P.P. cn o g 4 C � CD zz n y y0� O O n r z m O � O D D ZJ D D m m m m 0 z o o/ m o 0 m O O - :O Zu 00 m Zu 0O 0 X cn O 0 z U � c z O D i m 0 rn O d rn rn r rn D O m �13 24'-84 HI6HE5T RIDGE T-6" , m a� w 0 2 m y a n D z m D z m D z m D z m m p p p y r C i Z7 D m W (n = r W 70 n M m i � cf) o cn m _w 0 m z G� O O rn rn a O rn x rn N D m Cl rn 4. N ul D rn \ r < "HUN" 2gn�or$ _ Ni —Ni Flaming residence -ear=s 1304 Mills Ave. oo�-�mma moR ogS°lls Burlingame,aX CA 14010 3ne�mi �v�oc3o o aS 3.Q= CUP' 3aaa z rRm FR �+[�t[�t30A flE�l6� ���7��tC�T10M w 0 #J � d 3 3 a � O A (n °�oarn'n ❑ aCA'0 0 ',OM — a">30.0 rr� �O A� �e0 �ODy^G OO-AAa�Oy Q T • so 0 rn lU O 3 CO) a V C6 ki cn z Fy C7 °z n 0 O _ I �I O O CO) a V 0 4�. w N 0 N n 0 itl (E) ± 8'-4" (E) ± 19'-14" HIGHEST RIDGE 91UN" 25nIoN a agm°a Flaming residence -ear=s 1304 Mills Ave. Ra gm m�R o- fli o°�S Burlingame, CA 14010 �a av X �v�oc3o o ugl, �gRo'"g 3'a 3a 7 a :N =I iu �+�t[�t30A flE�l6� ���7��lC�TlOM w DO 41 zz 0 d arcr • CD 3 1 , ° 9 OAcn�N ° , o am a -� a(OA0(OD cnND3— Qe0 pDyo° OO-AA03Oy Q 54 T • D- A rn lU O 3 D .;u m m o � c = c� vn m o N aw m z � I Z N O O � D W m a? D x_ � N O ;;a o :74 Z _ F 0 CJt :'ERTY LINE 7 cn 'S O Ci7 C y _� I� CD cn D n rn�D�rn rn�rn7o�� uj < c O cn --1 0 ■ O C rn rn zrnc�nOSZ° d CD O m G) m a z z m 0 D GO =_ � D N z m O m �_ > m —j � o O m _ O m z n > O = m D W m Q m V7 2 v -0 m sq � O m � p (E) ± 8'-0" 2 m (E) ± 11'-1" I=LFMINC PESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVF, QUPLINC�ME, Cam, 94010 i r JUL MW PROPERTY CRgkftCATlON � eR rm 4 f , C, YV -,j 4 CO ra o mes U. J S 5� r" 4 � � lei T ,, ^>cn cfl :D pm"z H v�0z> z ;o-mH7 ' I n�rC7 iA>DpO O O Fi () Amz 1 FEW E LEN LEN D Cn (D L Cn Gt� L 41 w N y a y Z �J All O c• 03 crr � rn ru o Uj oll oA� 0 N r X Vt I !Z p > -- nl r<n > � O �rn Fn prn0`. -�rnuor"U IM �Ilz ��rn r <DOrnL r rn a�—s � ss O - cv r rn Zt r<ri Y O gL z A �- 3 �IQ� II Ay _L _u —w r O rn rn Sri n O p v► /� cr N r + - � r- y 0 KS U; D 0<OD /Z-1 z OD 0 Orn -a F u)rx rnX �r��pr, 0r<C% Oz�O0 z�0 0X10 r �o rn0 O rn rn e im oeleem AEML 0 eel it J I• � ®"•�,!� 1!" k't f A-C" I ® g I -ti 0 Gale! iu�" Ok, 19 ftmli i as ,M . s 3 i r AME AKOM J 0 ol tr i a itie -� t�lcalca a a �IAi�ica - r� -(Ile 00 Ole !l y 6 f t � I rk 11 It _-__- r i i a is[lob i i® r aC aal000ae , a� i •o ~'I bi seer e I®� a ®®® I -fir- �"T E a � gyp I I T[,, W I} '~�i � Ur �' O ~ Ir Syr s� o m w d z Ui C� n a� i •o ~'I bi seer e I®� a ®®® I -fir- �"T E a � gyp I I T[,, W I} '~�i � Ur �' O ~ Ir Syr s� o m w d z Ui C� n O .-r rri O 1 � O Iv rnD rn � O x X O c r z rn O rn 20' PROPERTY LINE 4' SIDE SETBACK o � t1 ��-YI-t� y� D z I � z�� ' Q j I 2� I = I = I I 0 0 Uj C A= rn C� ' X� (J) � Z � ' _ Ui �� Apt ��� 3r� rn� �� �� �1 J,�cz F0mAz rCCA �r-r� cn �M crn �r�ii �'�-n rn jU3 C�ccn -nm U3 Q 3�� �CU3n -D z 21UJ� �p�tD D C rz20 (JIZ 0 /� C/-t1 L 7r-� z,�Crn-� (J� rn-0 Qz r r� z� CASs yprn �p0 Z: 0> rD rn O�rn= rnrZ: � U,z� Dz ( m CJrn (l- rn- n 7< UiO� zz pp C� �U'pp p3pDQ Cl �pzr� zrn �1 �1 -i prn �z0 �� zz DO �p C�m=J O L � N ni z �� �� ��� z�0 �1• L D z rn pz �rc�rn Xp U,ry c o rn p �1 Cli Cl � z� z �� Ci p 0 �, �, �_ z p r c� �� DD Dz ��� 0_ rnp �Z1 D �� rriM: rri cyrrn0 �c� rrnr 03r rz �� �� OO Ul -irn -0�1 00rnr�jr° rn0 �rn�- UC_T rr" 3 0 �� -i �� z� rnz< Vz�r rn20 A� � T�= ���cx� �p>Oc :z zz3 > rn0 Ul �U' -0 im OOr �� M �r� zrn �jarrrrCp U'>��1 CJ=� �n r3 ZJL D �Z1z Cl �Z 3� 0 ICJ ZQ MST_ i-rzrrr D� D(-D 0rn� 3y� y rn z >� 0�1� ��C> DD zr n -zU,z � (s)zy0 zU' Q zrn rn z cPC� zrn -0 3zQ �p -r - U' U'CC--- ° U' p� > U 3 rn O z rn rn 3 rn p7 p p 3-, -i— nA z D 3> U, n� o 0 �1 z ZI �1 rn -1 20 D z �1 r z rn ( r 3-0 p O z u y rnm �c�r rn(n z D°gyp cC7 n�- ° r z > y rr"r- p0{ ��� sc p > �Z�� �z�rOM r �OC� (j)yn �� rn zz �D0 x =j rn 0��rn �cOi�pC�c1)rn D DrrnQ Dr�rn Z1 rn rn rn D rn- D r 3 O N 3 D rn °= z� z3� �CJJ z O r-�cpc �Oz3D� � � rn-(1 Oa.O D a-i Al pr U'pz crn �rn rn �r r-2020 �ni zr-y z ��r -10� r {� Cpzrn 21� rn ��rnrn Cu0p-1rnz ° (3 rnDC� �1 OO �� rn ��� 7tp1° �1 G rn �� nc1�pD� r�nZ� �r o rn5E zrn zrn r�rt�� �z ° t�t� �I CpC� �r�Cp zsi� rnUr z� ,�z D CJ Q p 3 �CJrn7C pc�rjp� O ran nrrnc 0�10 �■ 0 r ni rn Q3 Q U� O 20rnA �Zl0 zr °OFn Fn;u3 �Iz�I z� �� �D ��z �z yin Nrn-1(3 �OQ (1CA p-yz O n 0U' ° �'z -1 °moo rn rn r m =i p�20 7: A:K:K aro0 zrn> rn -ir �� rn rrn Cl° rn ;"' �� r" O �rn�� N�"'z�p 7< rn r0-n :z: rn �1 = (1 — p c @ (� A z D-(1 zrnrnrn k4--rz yX rnr >� 3 rD r Cp-i-Q rc �yZtrn �yX�i° r000 arc ICJ rn pD cz�1 �p rn �I =zZtrn Cur�DD r-00 CQ-z O z z z 0� rCl3 0 3 0 rn� �Q Cr��tc 5-7-0 OrnrFn �,0p y D y� Drn Q - z rn L rn0{� rC3X m rn33rn >� �r O r Zl> z �c �� zC1' �0 z rn p D C� >- cz �CJJ Or Clp� rn� ��rrn zrnp�D c O��C�O CA ?C D �X zy rn �rn O r00p C13o7-10 z OQ t.�QCJ O < rn rn 0 0 < 0 Vm 3� � rn z z z� 3 p z p 0 z(p rn N z z0 p rn rn rtt� 70 _ Z1 z (D -i Drn crn�_ -o c0 C� y� �y Drn �'� CA z �Dcp �zzzU r >20 0zrn CJ �c z �U' r" rnz D� C� p��Uz p�p�Czil 0 �3r— rClO rn � 0 0 y � z z_ p 20 O cn O - ZI D rn ry y °_j rn z {rn -� rn� O �t ��0 --a M C7 21CN OOr U) �� rn-n 0z Op K 20 rn OCrn� ���rno-44 rnC7 y00 > Oz rn rn D 20 rn ' �► n 3 rn z_ 20 D O{ �r rtr -cI On z zrD rn rn Urn Urn rnrn zz pUJCprn ����� O ND �10�1 43 rn 0 D� �1� �� 0 rrntt r=rt 33�rn rn°rnz0 _j 0Z:(s)) o CA rn3 rn� Cps CJ m z>rn� N00�rnrn O N6 D� rn z� �z rr►3 D Vz - ;u-0 �pMp� O >z ��� 3 y �r �� -i� z 0 U'rn <zr yrnrnz �� rn�r z z -i> rn �U'z rn Z: > z- c� p D �O rn 20 rn m r 20:z(zjl� Orn _XM �z 3 �rn rrnn �� 7Cp rn z�Cp�rn U'0 QUt� rn p z U3 prn�_ rnp z z 0 rn 3 O I O N �1�D�►rn rnrn SNrn�-- o�rnDO <rq rnC�zz �ONXI� DD�x► M�rn NOrn rn 0 rn 0 Drn 07/ its. O O � �D r > < K] rn �� r 120' PROPERTY LINE r c Q �> �Z DD Z� Q nLo T O n N z� O A O rn c > rn J rn �> I �rnI c (D rn� I o z � IF Irnr � rn rn I� I� Ir" IT w 0 7� 1 (E) ± 55'-O" rn NI_ Sk fJ rnD uo �)X N � O ri Jot D rn 00 rnrn w w w w 110 N W N N IV X O O Z ZmOm m cm � ;o 0 v O G) m= t0/) mcn -0 -0 m-0 m-0 m -v m -v m -v -0-0 r -v cn n O mOmD D r0 zm ;u ;u xX xX x X x X x X XX D� O� D<�� 50 Oc my < r-o O O �O �nO to O c� O Fn O OO Z O m m ��m� �m r ; 0 0 00 Z O Z O Z O Z O Z O O O (1) m r m m m 0 G) Z cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn cn 0 0 0 0 v < rn mm Om Orn O m O m O m mrn D -� z X-0mo 0 v 0 v v v � v r v � v m v m v v v -0 v �►1• C) O v c� C) O D OO Off_ -r m� X m r� cn -n m D O Off" m m < nDD =O �m m z X 0 0 m� D < m0 cn cn O m _ X X �= m� m�-i z X Oo Och D O O O z D -� G)G) � mrn r m m -a z„ Z X� m 0 mm <m Drn < m m r v y vn00 �, m .. Cb v m 0 D O 0> D z z 0; <O z0 z O - O� � �� z0 z z �r v Or z z z �z y m zD D w --Icn Z Z r cn O OO W N OO 0 N t s Lj � I I o I I to c D ........... < N N W W W W W W m m N O O O N O 0 0 070000N000-Ph.00 N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. N. O m _0 DDDDDDDDDDD -n o O ...................... Z cn oo CD oo ao 00 00 0o ao N O �r O m cnoiflc�iroww�o�' D -ION-4QQWW-ION N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 4�60004�11`00IQ IIPIIII* N I I N N N N N N t° DDDDDD O N N < < < < < < y.. II .. .. .. .. .. O j (o(D N N 00 00 O CO t0 O " 00 00 O in b W 000(J1NN _ C6 o 0 m--dmm z(m r O 0 O p ou m D ,) D N Q -n � r N m O x m O v 0 O m m v D D � D 0 r D 2 D _ �' Cn q z .. sv cncn O O .. CD z CD .. � O O O W N (A O O H7 _h H1 aaRmA _lies 5tm I<�11'Il�t3011 ii 9E l6� CsRvifICr<T10M m >< 9 m r 5A _n ye c R m� «. r [min tij � 3 ii"1 12. so 3a von} ay� 7.r m n3ceo mar E7 ' i3mre 3aaa _�PpR E�f�1l:?3A01 �011��1�l1�03� p����l� O m v r O D m D D D O D X x x z O n C_ O m D r 0 X 0 c > m °° v D � cmn O ^ N c \ `. O 810O :-' oo ^I• o C m O pC D W mLo N 0 m� 0C/) �m W N O o m z-1 O o O CD D= N z N CD O CD O-4 CDD O O —h —h —h s O �' (Q < O CD m Cli x D N C� O ;;a a _ Z G� Ui d CD 3 a 3 rn� �01ACD (ny� FE — e cD O 0-:3m0 °moo 0- a�A�e cu N yo -n o "I 3.0 0> y 00t. 0t. D_ A O c� D 2 C7 N C� D r m 0 CO) a y a CO) a ti O O C4 tb n ICJ a (E) ± 21'-62" amD1rn �y�DO D_ jarnrnrn O S� O p p r FJ FJ F-1 I F--1 I I LJ I I LJ I JJ I I JJ 20'-0" orn CLEAR MIN. Xo III 41 IIIII LJ �rn LJ I D II I I I I III J rn LJ LJ C 20'-42" 27'-102" a rn (3 D 03 (R3§A rnrn?rnui D DA077K rn Dp zn CO) a (E) t 40'-10J" Ornz ztiz p -nn z z �O i5 o -tea -, _ r�3 3 O z r rn v D =Z� O z� O O O cn O O T V cn:ao" O O ^ T� 1 V rD CD H U N" nyo aagm°a 4.N3o^c R9=om. o� �o 3 c I M av an~"^ I^0�3'0 sg 3.v� 3gRo^o �a3 � m LeminG R2SID2nceCD 12)0LI MILLS BVS. BUFF-incCB B�1010 m N m N N rn -a -� C�PZ zn nl rn N-n OQ OXI= O-i Mrn rnz Mn0 Dy DQ) D zr zrn zrn II�It[�t30A 9E 16� Ian I tCA7101 w D.? r t t m [/� -n mC, � e CO #J � �0l1��1�l1�03� p�I��Q E�011;?3A01 d C3 a � � .09; A O 6 CD °__,oarn'° S' D3 — r-,.o ( D D p yo ° 0 0 Oy Q 4A" T • D- O rn lU O 3 O I I� 0 D .Z7 TI m o � c = 0 v) m o N -0 m ;;a m z � I Z N O O � D W m a? D x_ � N O ;;a o � Z _ F 15.667 I x ie\ 00 1 " = 16 ' N </I LOT 13 APPROX. RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT RIDGE: 42.1 N 3 166QD " 0E 5096 '' T WOOD FENCE BOCK 4 MAP BLOCK 1 16.06 x THRESH 15.60 GARAGE 15.54 x LOT 12 -15.46 15.31 ,• we F-NOTE; LOT LINES SHOWN ARE RESOLVED PER MONUMENTS TIED IN FROM 37 LLS 32 15.92 ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED UPON NAVD 88 DATUM oLLI C� 0 L0 w O O o N 0I r 0 LOT 11 15.36 I 1 15.34 115.20 15.50 15.39 ECK 1 � ]17- 95000 N 15.4018.49 I��E THRESHOLD 15.43 o o CONCRETE RESIDENCE 1s.1a w U 15.16 ? I 14.92 Z w 15.11 M 7.2' I - 0 15.5' w c� 0 0I w O 14.84 FF WOOD I 0 O 14.84 x 18.27 14.86 Lr) 15.02 rr) 17.91 PORCH to � 14.73 14.72 Z in cn r 14.57 j x 14.56 14.76 N 14.32 x 14.89 S 36°45'00" W 50.00' 1312 291 12.9 12.89 12.89 12.75 CONCRETE WALK 12.86 12.86 12.80 12.68 12.54 12.53 12.42 12.35 12. .89 1218 12.11 1206 12.04 APPROX.1 RESIDENCE FOOTPRINT L,iloo (D DO %STANDARD CONCRETE MILLS AVENUE CURB AND GUTTER [54' WIDE] BOUNDARY SURVEY WITH SPOT ELEVATIONS 1304 MILLS AVENUE SCALE PAGE 1 "=16' 1 OF 1 - CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE JOB SOT LAND SURVEYING SAN MATEO COUNTY 1206 S. Amphlett Blvd., Suite 3 San Mateo, CA94402 (650)212-1030 CALIFORNIA 1 0 201 7 17-035 Item No. 8e City of Burlingame Regular Action Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Variances Address: 1025 Capuchino Avenue and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for Re-emerging Lots, Design Review and Front Setback Variances for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each lot and a detached garage on one lot. Applicant and Architect: TRG Architects Property Owner: Kurt Steil General Plan: Medium Density Residential Adjacent Development: Duplex and single-family dwellings. APN: 026-214-050 Lot Area: 9,275 SF (1025 Capuchino Avenue) 9,092 SF (1029 Capuchino Avenue) Zoning: R-2 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units. Current Use: Two detached units on one parcel consisting of two legal lots; (A total of 2 residential units on the site) Proposed Use: Duplex dwelling on each re-emerging lot; (A total of 2 duplexes or a total of 4 residential units on the site that was formerly one parcel) Allowable Use: Duplex and single-family dwellings Site Description: The site on Capuchino Avenue is a single, 18,367 SF parcel that consists of two legally subdivided lots that are roughly rectangular in shape. Lot 5 is located on the right side of the parcel and will be assigned the address of 1029 Capuchino Avenue. Lot 6 is on the left side of the parcel and will be assigned the address of 1025 Capuchino Avenue. There are several structures on the existing parcel, including two single-family residences and a detached garage. Two of these structures extend across the existing lot line between Lots 5 and 6, resulting in the de facto merging of the two lots. There is an existing underground culvert that runs across the parcel, extending from the front left (Northeast) corner of 1025 Capuchino Avenue to the rear, right (Southwest) corner of 1029 Capuchino Avenue. There is a ten foot Public Utilities Easement running across the rear of site, extending over both existing lots. Per the requirements of the Public Works Division, no permanent structures may be erected over the culvert or the easement. There are a total of 7 protected size trees on the parcel: 4 protected size trees on 1029 Capuchino (Lot 5), including 2 redwoods, 1 cedar and 1 cypress all at the rear of the lot; and 3 protected size trees on 1025 Capuchino (Lot 6), including 2 coast live oaks and 1 palm at the front of the lot. Conditional Use Permit: Code Section 25.26.030(e) requires a Conditional Use Permit application for the demolition of a residential structure or an accessory structure thereto, which structure is built over or across two (2) or more legally subdivided lots, and the construction of a structure upon one or more of said lots. The applicant has submitted the required Conditional Use Permit form (attached) for the demolition of the existing structures on the site. Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Project Summary: The applicant is proposing to demolish all of the existing structures on the site and build two new, two-story duplex units on the re-emerging lots. Each building consists of two attached units (a total of two units on each lot) and an attached garage, however each building will have a different exterior design style, roof forms, and architectural features. A detached two - car garage is also proposed in the rear of the lot at 1029 Capuchino Avenue (Lot 5). Front Setback Variances: The applicant is requesting three front setback variances for the proposed new buildings. The existing average front setback for the block is 34'-11" and the proposed development must comply with this setback both the first and second floors. The applicant is requesting two front setback variances to the duplex proposed at 1029 Capuchino Avenue (Lot 5). The proposed setback to the first floor is 15 feet and the proposed setback to the second floor is 19 feet. The applicant is requesting one front setback variance to the duplex proposed at 1025 Capuchino Avenue (Lot 6). The proposed setback to the first floor is 30'-10". The applicant notes in the variance request forms (attached) that the configuration of the buildings on the lot is restricted by several factors unique to the site, including the PUE at the rear of the lot, the existing protected size redwoods at the rear of the lot, and the underground culvert that traverses both lots. Off -Street Parking: The code requires 2.5 off-street parking spaces for each four or five -bedroom unit. There are a total of 5 parking spaces required for each re-emerging lot, and 4 of these parking spaces must be covered. The two units in the proposed duplex at 1029 Capuchino Avenue each have four bedrooms: 1 guest bedroom/denon the first floor and 3 bedrooms on the second floor of each unit. The 4 covered parking spaces for the site are provided in the attached two -car garage between the units and the in the detached two -car garage at the rear, left side of the lot. The fifth required parking space is uncovered and is located in the widened paving area in front of the detached garage and in tandem with the right covered parking space. The two units on the proposed duplex at 1025 Capuchino Avenue each have five bedrooms: 1 guest bedroom/den on the first floor and 4 bedrooms on the second floor of each unit. The 4 covered parking spaces for the site are provided in two attached two -car garages between the units. The fifth space is uncovered and is located to the left of the driveway at the side of Unit A. The project is in compliance with the off-street parking requirements. Vehicular ingress and egress to the garages will be by way of a driveway located along the right side of Lot 5 and along the left side of Lot 6. Landscaping: The existing site contains a total of 7 protected size trees, 5 of which are proposed to be removed. The two existing protected size redwood trees at the rear of 1029 Capuchino (Lot 5) are proposed to be remain. The applicant has submitted protected size tree removal permits to the City Arborist (see attached). The City Arborist requires that the permits be revised to reflect the location of the trees to be removed according to each re-emerging lot. A complete arborist report for the site will be required to address the protected size trees that will be removed and protection measures for those trees that will remain. Proposed landscaping and hardscaping throughout both sites is shown on sheets L1.0. The proposed landscaping for the project complies with the on -site reforestation requirements. Two existing street trees (liquidambar) will be removed in the planter strip right-of-way and will be replaced with two new red maple trees as required by the Parks Division. 2 Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Please refer to the development table on the following pages for project compliance of each building with the R-2 zoning regulations. Planning staff would note that there is no floor area ratio regulation for the R-2 zone. The applicant is requesting the following applications: Design Review for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each re-emerging lot (C.S. 25.27.045); Variances for three proposed front setbacks (C.S. 25.27.071(b); and Conditional Use Permit for two re-emerging lots (C.S.25.26.030 (e)). 1025 Capuchino (Lot 6) LOT. mrea: y,zfo or Plans date stamped: October 30, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (15' fir): 30'-10" 34'-11" (is the block average) (2"d fir): 40'-8" 34'-11" Side (left): 4-0" .......... 4'-0" (right) ....... ......... ........... 5'-6" 4'-0" ... ........ Rear (11' fir): 15'-7 " .................... 15'-0" (2nd fir) 15 7 ....... 15'-0" .. .................... Lot Coverage: 3,681 SF 3,683 SF ....... 39.9% 40% Building Height: ... ,., .......... 29'-4" 30'-0" Declining Height ........... ... complies ......... ............ ......... ........ CS 25.27.075 Envelope: Off -Street Parking ..... 5 total spaces 5 total spaces 4 covered 4 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') 80% covered 180% covered ' Front setback variance requested for the first floor (30'-10" proposed where 34'-1 V is required). This space intentionally left blank. 3 Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue 1029 Capuchino (Lot 5) Lot Hrea: a,vuA ar Plans date stamped: October 30, 2017 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS .... .......... Front 15t fir): ( ... 15'-011' .......... ........ ... ..................... . 34'-11" (Is the block average) nd (2 fir): ......... ._.... 19'-0" 2 .. 34'-11" Side left) , ....... 9 -6 ....I ............. 4 -0' (right) ....... ........ ...... 4'-0" 4'-0" ....... (........ ) Rear 11' fir): 39'-7 " ......".. .......... 15-0" .. (2nd fir) 45' 1 " ......... 15'-0 ........... .......,. Lot Coverage; 3,625 SF .......... ..................... 3,637 SF ........... ............ ........... 39.9% ............ 40% Building Height; ....... .... .. 29'-8" .......... .... ... ...................... 30'-0" Declining Height complies ....................... ......... ... ........ CS 25,27.075 Envelope; Off -Street Parking. 5 total spaces 5 total spaces 4 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 80% covered 4 covered (10'-0" x 20'-0" each space) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 80% covered Front setback variance requested for the first floor (16-0" proposed where 34'-11" is required). 2 Front setback variance requested for the second floor (19'-0" proposed where 34'-11" is required). Staff Comments: Applicant is working to address remaining comments from the Parks and Public Works Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on October 10, 2017, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the regular action calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached October 10, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped October 30, 2017, to address the Planning Commission's questions and comments. Listed below are the Commission's comments and responses by the applicant. 1. Can the duplexes be broken up in to two separate buildings to reduce the massing at the side elevations? • Code restrictions combined with the easement and the culvert that traverse both lots prevent the proposed development from being broken into two separate buildings. A design cannot be developed that meets the required 20-foot setback between buildings and the required 20-foot rear setback and at the same time keeps all permanent structures outside of the footprint of the culvert. Fl Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue 2. The side elevation facing adjacent property at 1025 Capuchino Avenue (duplex with the stucco design), is very long and unbroken; what can be done to improve the massing and variation on this elevation? • A row of pittosporum hedges is proposed along the length of the left side setback for 1025 Capuchino Avenue. These shrubs are evergreen and will extend above the proposed fence to provide variation and screening along that elevation. In addition, along the left elevation for 1025 Capuchino Avenue a window has been added to the blank wall on the first floor and stained wood trim has been added to the doors on this first floor wall. 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: 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 Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: At the October 10, 2017 Design Review Study meeting the Planning Commission noted that the proposed Craftsman and Spanish style duplexes will fit in well with the existing styles of the original residences in the neighborhood. The two different architectural styles of the duplexes, along with the driveways separating each property, help to break up the massing of two new structures when viewed from the street. The attached garage areas are set well back from the street and, along with the long driveway for each property, combine to create consistency with the garage and parking pattern in the neighborhood. Although the size of the lots combined with the building restrictions of the existing culvert and the easement on the lots prevents the duplexes from having a design with two separate buildings, the proposed varied roof line at 1029 Capuchino Avenue and the proposed landscaping at 1025 Capuchino Avenue help to reduce the impacts of the new structures on the neighboring properties. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Conditional Use Permit Findings: The re-emerging lots are of similar size and configuration to the existing lots on the rest of the block. The proposed residential duplexes are consistent with the residential pattern in the neighborhood. And the multi -family residential use proposed on each lot is consistent with the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue low -density residential land use designation in the General Plan. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's Conditional Use Permit criteria Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Front Setbacks): That the existing average front setback for the block is skewed by a couple of extremely deep setbacks, where the proposed front setbacks for each duplex are more reflective of the typical setback on the block. That the proposed front setbacks, though they do not meet the calculated average of the block, are much greater than the code required setback on a standard lot. The extraordinary circumstances on these lots include the easement at the rear of the lots and the culvert that traverses each lot, and these circumstances result in restricting the development on each lot so that structures must be placed closer to the front property line. That by retaining the existing protected -size redwood trees at the rear of 1029 Capuchino Avenue, the buildable area for the residence is restricted to an area that is closer the front property line. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's Variance criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 30, 2017, sheets A0.0 through A4.1, L-1 through L-2.5 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; and including aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Parks Division's August 3, 2017 memo and the Engineering Division's September 27, 2017 memo shall be met; Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Page 2 5. that the Landscape plan shall include notes detailing tree protection measures for the redwood trees at the rear of 1029 Capuchino Avenue and shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and that these protection measures shall be installed and inspected by a Certified Arborist and this inspection shall be documented and submitted to the Planning and Parks Divisions; that if the duplex is demolished or the front setback envelope changed at a later date, the front setback variances granted for that duplex with this project approval, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. 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; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10, 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; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 7 Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Erika Lewit Senior Planner Attachments: • Applicant's Response to Commission's comments • Minutes from October 10, 2017 Design Review Study meeting • Letter from neighbor (Received After item date stamped October 10, 2017) • Application to the Planning Commission • Conditional Use Permit form (1) • Variance forms (3) • Protected tree removal permits (6 total permits and trees removed, 3 for each re-emerging lot) • Arborist Report, date stamped October 30, 2017 • Staff Comments • Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 13, 2017 • Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) • Aerial Photo f3 October 30, 2017 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Ave. Dear Commissioner, You first reviewed this proposal as a study item on October 10a`. We have reviewed the Planning Commission comments from that meeting, and have made some adjustments. We'd also like to provide additional insight about the lots. One comment received was that many of the two residence properties in the area have 2 separate buildings on them rather than 1 larger building. We had initially investigated such a design, but found the following; • R2 lots less than 150' deep do not allow 2 structures. While our lot has greater depth than that, the winding culvert on both lots makes them live like lots that are certainly less than 150' deep. • There is a required 20' space between 2 separate structures. • There is a required 20' rear yard for the back structure. Given the unique constraints, the 2 structure strategy doesn't work. We did make changes to the proposed project however, mostly in response to comments about the left side wall at 1025. We will be illustrating these at the meeting, but they include; • Addition of additional windows, window details, added wood siding, additional offsets etc... • New, full length screening along the left side of 1025. • Refined front porch and detailing for 1029. We hope you like the revisions and look forward to the meeting to discuss the project. Thank You, Randy Grange AIA LEED AP CITY O Ne City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Tuesday, October 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers C. 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2 - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots (Ed Breur, TRIG Architects, applicant and designer; Kurt Steil, property owner) (70 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Attachments: 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1025 and 1029 Caouchino Ave - Attachments 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Ave - Plans - 10 10 17 Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gum spoke with neighbors Paul Bliss and Matt Traduskis. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.. > Does the average setback include 1025 Capuchino, which is way back on the site? (Hurin: When calculating the average setback, corner lots are excluded as well as the highest and lowest setbacks.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Has a window type been specified? (Grange: Not a specific brand, but it will be aluminum -clad simulated divided lite.) Public Comments: Paul Bliss, 1041 Capuchino Avenue: Parking is the biggest problem on the street. There are a lot of apartments towards the Broadway side of Carmelite, and duplexes all around. Concern that cannot get streets cleaned. People park cars and take ride hailing service to the airport. Likes the project, but is concerned with the parking. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Rendering establishes a nice presence from the street, but the long elevations on the sides look like motels. The version with. the clapboard siding looks more palatable than the stucco/tile roof version. The City of Bur ingame Page 1 Printed on 11/7/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes October 10, 2017 elevations are unbroken and the ridge line insistent. They are imposing - wonder if they could be broken up or separated with space in between, or breaking up the second floors with decks to break up the continuity. > Setback variance is supportable in that it forms an edge to the street. > Most of the homes in the neighborhood look like single family homes, whether they are single family or duplexes. These look large from the face, not just the side. Seems like it is trying to squeeze too much into the lot. > Likes that they are both different. > Lot is unique with the river traversing, so can support the variance. > Given there are seven protected trees and five to be removed, thought is if the massing is being broken up perhaps another tree or two could be saved. Chair Gum re -opened the public hearing. > Grange: The palm can remain. Public Works requires all the trees to be removed off the top of the culvert, and half of the trunk of the oak tree is sitting over the culvert. Although seven trees are being removed, 21 are being planted. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to bring the application back on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Gum, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto Absent: 1 - Gaul Recused: 1 - Terrones City o/Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111712017 10.10.17 PC Meeting Item 9c 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Ave. Page 1 of 1 -----Original Message ----- From: Roberta rmailto:2robertaaCaDgmail.coml Sent: Monday, October 09, 2017 11:14 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: re: proposed duplexes at 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Dr. COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED OCT 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. Directly across the street from the two properties is a triplex at 1020 Capuchino Drive. This triplex is owned by my mother, Mary Alexander, who unfortunately has Altzheimer's disease. The rents from the triplex pay for about 2/3 of her annual care. Her care will be affected by the construction of these monster duplexes. The current occupant of the front unit has a schedule where he sleeps mornings. The occupants of the middle unit have a newborn who needs naps. These renters will not be able to deal with construction noise. They'll move. Prospective tenants will not want to live across the street from the extended construction. These mega -duplexes - more than 6,000 sq. ft. each! - will take a long time to build. I know there is nothing you can do to stop this. I just wanted to let you know one of the ramifications of this proposal. Sincerely, Roberta Alexander p.s. Three points: 1) Thanks for demanding off street parking on new construction. 2) Are the heritage trees being cut down? 3) Why on earth would a developer plan a Spanish Colonial house next door to a New England Cottage? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD * BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Lr7( Design Review ❑✓ Variance ❑ ✓ Conditional Use Permit 0 Special Permit ❑ PROJECT ADDRESS: 1029 CapucWmo Avenue ® Please indicate the contact person for this project APPLICANT project contact person❑✓ OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: MichaelLojo Address: City/State/Zip: 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Phone: 650-579-5762 Fax: 650-579-0115 E-mail: michael@trgarch.com ARCH ITECTlDESIGNER project contact pension OK to send electronic copies of documents Name: Randy Grange Address: City/State/Zip: Phone: 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 650-579-5762 Fax: 650-579-0115 E-mail: randy@trgarch.com ttf Burlingame Business License #:14562 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Newt -story duplex residence Parcel Other: 026-214-050 PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ✓ OK to send electronic copies of documents ✓ Name: Kurt Steil Address: City/State/Zip. 891 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94011 Phone: 650-400-5520 Fax: E-mail: kurtsteil@gmail.com DEC 2 2 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: 12/22/16 I am aware of the proposed application an hereby #thodzg the�above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: 12/22/16 Date submitted: 12/22116 rt Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. 0 Please mark one box above with an X to indicate the contact person for this project. S..wandouts\PC Application 2008-e handout September 19, 2017 Attachment D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1025 & 1029 Capuchino SEP 21 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. a. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property in the vicinity... The proposed use remains residential. The conditional use permit is only required because there are 2 structures on site, to be removed, that straddle the lot line between the reemerging lots. b. The proposed use will be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Pans and Zoning Code. The proposed use is exactly as specified in the zoning code. The conditional use permit is only required because there are 2 structures on site, to be removed, that straddle the lot line between the reemerging lots. c. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. The proposed use is the use specified by the zoning code. The mass bulk and character of the project are residential. The conditional use permit is only required because there are 2 structures on site, to be removed, that straddle the lot line between the reemerging lots 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice s 650.579.0115 fax • admin@trgarch.com RECEIVED SE? 2 i 2017 September 19, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Attachment C VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 1025 Capuchino There are extraordinary circumstances surrounding this property. This particular block has a few wildly deep front setbacks that skew the block average beyond the intent of the design guidelines. The majority of the block has more typical front setbacks: 24', 24', 23', 23', 20'. The intent of the Design Guidelines, and block averaging, is to even the houses up in a range such as that. The proposed 31'-10" setback is closer to that range, and the actual pattern of the block, than the theoretically required 34'-11". Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent "lining up of houses" along the street. In fact, bringing the structure closer to 24', as described above, would actually be closer to the neighborhood pattern, but this is not possible due to the underground culvert. Enforcing an additional 3' of front setback would serve no purpose and have no benefit to the neighborhood. Incidentally, with the system of block averaging, the block average changes with every new project. Once completed, this project would realign the block average to 28'-11", still large for a typical Burlingame block, but less than that being proposed, and closer to creating a consistent line along the block. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed front setback is greater than the existing house setback. Public health and safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no code issues with this proposal. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. This project will help to better align the houses along the street. The mass has been articulated with wall offsets and one story roof lines. 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice 9 650.579.0115 fax 9 admin@trgarch.com RECENED sEP 21 2017 September 19, 2017 CITY OF BURUNGAME Attachment A CDD-PLANNING DIV. VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 1029 Capuchino a. The existing house, to be removed, has a 10' front setback; this proposal improves the setback situation. This property also has extraordinary conditions that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity; There is a 10' wide underground culvert that snakes its way through the site. That snaking line dictates that not only must the proposed footprint take on a unique configuration, but that there are severe limitations on the ability to push the proposed structure further back on the site. The proposed second floor setback meets the City minimum requirements, but also technically requires a variance. Aesthetically, the second floor makes sense as proposed; to meet the 34'-11" foot block average would be at odds with the design guidelines. b. Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent "lining up of houses" along the street. The 34'-11" average for this block is due to the extraordinarily deep setbacks of a couple of structures on the block, and is much deeper than a typical front setback average. The existing structure, to be removed, is even further forward than the proposed structure, so the existing situation is being improved. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed front setback is greater than the existing house setback. Public health and safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no code issues with this proposal. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. As stated above, the existing building is situated at a smaller front setback, so this proposal will be an improvement. The mass has been articulated with wall offsets and one story roof lines. 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 9 650.579.5762 voice • 650.579.0115 fax • admin@trgarch.com RECEIVED SEP 21 2017 September 19, 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Attachment B VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK 2"d FLOOR 1029 Capuchino The existing house, to be removed, has a 10' front setback; this proposal improves the setback situation. This property also has extraordinary conditions that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity; There is a 10' wide underground culvert that snakes its way through the site. That snaking line dictates that not only must the proposed footprint take on a unique configuration, but that there are severe limitations on the ability to push the proposed structure further back on the site. The second floor setback, therefore, also requires a variance to the block average. Aesthetically, the second floor makes sense as proposed. To meet the 34'-11" foot block average, one would need to offset it 20' back from the first floor. That makes designing and integrated second level nearly impossible, and would be at odds with the design guidelines. Denial of the variance would cause unnecessary hardship. Clearly, the intent of the system of averaging setbacks is to establish a consistent "lining up of houses" along the street. The 34'-11" average for this block is due to the extraordinarily deep setbacks of a couple of structures on the block, and is much deeper than a typical front setback average. The existing structure, to be removed, is even further forward than the proposed structure, so the existing situation is being improved. And if the proposed first floor setback is approved, there would be no advantage in denying the proposed second floor setback. c. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. There are no proposed changes that would impact public health, safety, or convenience. The proposed front setback is greater than the existing house setback. Public health and safety are generally the purview of the building codes, and there are no code issues with this proposal. d. The proposed project will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. As stated above, the existing building is situated at a smaller front setback, so this proposal will be an improvement. The mass has been articulated with wall offsets and one story roof lines. 1014 Howard Ave, San Mateo, CA 94401 • 650.579.5762 voice • 650.579.0115 fax • admin@trgarch.com `""' PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL Ov*i FILIM INICA r MF PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 O (650) 558-7330 Date: ' The undersigd ed owr r of the property at: Address: _ _ coo, � ® tok��f `�" hereby applies far a` crmit to remove or prune ore than 1 /3 of the canopy of the follow Location on Property _ Work to be Performed: Removal_ Trim More Than 1/3 of the OCT 3 0 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. A tree(s): N Reason Work is Necessary: is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES NO t Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (E.vaniple: Report from an independent Arborist, pictures ofdanaged structures, letters of concern. from neighbors, etc.). Owner (Print) 5V_ Phone, 5 t/ �ll.�0 (if different than above) PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 1 1.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions an all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. if conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a cop of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. osl2otsrevised ,•�"� PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 O '^ r (650) 558-7330 Date: 7G/ The undersigned ow'nn/er{/o��f�the pro erty at: N //JJ�-4v, hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than Location on Property Work to be Performed: Removal_ C. n Reason Work is Necessary: t Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? OCT s 0 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. canopy of the following protected tree(s): More Than 173 of the Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern fr lit) eigbbors, etc.). Owner (Print) _ L/ Phone Address Email (if d&rent than above) PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONL Y Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (uo fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacentent(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali�ted tree professionals and a ca y of this permit must be available at the job site at a!1 times when work is being performed. owmrevised �ti PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL °RLINGAMF PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 Date: The undersig ed ow er of the property at: Address O ZoC-,ALA -tk�o_ � hereby applies for a permit to remove or p e more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following Location on Property Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES _b<�� NO. OCT 3 0 % 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV, tree(s): Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removaL Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report firom an hidependent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern f om neighbors, etc.). �y� 7 Owner (Print) _ %4 Lr Phone G�0• 6W Address Email (if different than above) PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST _ CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nett trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted dine as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali/ted free professionals and a co y of this permit trust be available at the job site at all tines when work is being performed. o8/2oi5revised The hereby Location on Property _ Work to be Performed: PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 of the property at: 0 C T 3 0 2.017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. IliGlCOMN to /dry L to rcmovc or prune m e than 1 /3 of the canopy of the following protected trcc(s): r_ _ � t � /,* More Than 1/3 of Reason Work is Necessary: !2m Y� 7M� 1 "f. is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES y��NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Repor i fr om an Independent Arborist, pictures ofdamaged .structures, letters ofconcernfrnrneghbors,etc.). �( / AM Owner (Print) �i� Phone (D50 a viW (if different than above) Email PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 1 1.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORiST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacementfund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. • Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali/ted tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all tinees wlretr work is beingperformed. 08/2015revised PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Parks A Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 r 04,0 : (650) 558-7330 Date: The undersigikd ownerlof the property at: /► �� � Adrlrnee• ( /'/ ?,esa1 l l�L)l�! IAMI;;% hereby applies fora permit to Location on Property I Work to be Performed: Reason Work is Necessary: or prune more than 1 /3 of the canopy of the Trim More Than 1/3 of Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? OCT 30 %0'11 CITY OF BURLINGAME -GBB-P4z4NNING DIV. // Note: A photograph of the trec(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures ol'damaged structures, letters of concern fr nt n ighbors, etc.). �y� n Owner (Print) _ ��q L Phone 10 Qom/ ' SS ICJ —�- Address (if different than above) PERMIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 1 1.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when renuoval(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali/ted tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at all times w/ten work is being performed moi5revised """; PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL Mi riURllNywMF. i PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7330 Date: bsO The undersigned own the property Address: f /o�f %at: e ��f� ��^,� � �j ���� 1 LW 1 l�/�� 4C A ! nf'�/ A` V hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune m&e than 1/3 of the canopy of the follow Location on Property _ Work to be Performed: Circumference: Trim More Than 1/3 of the OCT 3 0 M7 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Ito Reason Work is Necessary: - yyy G jn� �� ' Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES_ NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.). Owner (Print) _ A V Phone &' SYZd (if different than above) PERMIT - FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(S) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 1 1.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - itch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of S 700for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quailJred tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at aU times when work is beitrg performed. oarzosrevised Kielty Arborist Services LLC Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 March 11, 2017 Mr. Kurt Steil 891 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 1029 Capuchino, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Steil, As requested on Thursday, March 8, 2017, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. A new home and landscape is planned for this site and a survey of the trees will be required. A tree protection plan will be included as required by the city of Burlingame. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was not climbed for this inspection. Each tree in was located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. RECE1%0 OCT 3 0 'T17 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 1029 Capuchin/3/11/17 Survey: (2) Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments 1 Liquidambar 9.8 60 35/25 Good vigor, fair form, in 30 inch wide (Liquidambar styracii lua) planting strip. 2 Liquidambar 22.4 40 45/40 Good vigor, poor form, severe decay at base. (Liquidambar siyraciflua) 3 Apple 7.9 35 (Malus pumila) 4 Plum 10.8 55 (Prunus eerasifera) 5 Monterey cypress 16.4 15 (Cupressus macrocarpa) 6 Apple 9.0 45 (Malus pumila) 7 Incense cedar 26.1 50 (Calocedrus deccurans) 8 Redwood 38.4 45 (Sequoia sempervirens) 9 Redwood 45.2 70 (Sequoia sempervirens) 10 Liquidambar 15.9 60 (Liquidambar styraciva) 11 Canary Island palm 25.1 60 (Phoenix canariensis) 12 Plum 11.8 45 (Prunus spp) 13 Bay laurel 5.7 50 (Umbellularia californica) 14 Coast live oak 16.4 50 (Quercus agrifolia) 15/15 Good vigor, poor form, severe decay in trunk. 15/20 Fair vigor, fair form, codominant at 3 feet. 45/15 Poor vigor poor form codominant at 8 feet, nearly dead. 20/15 Good vigor, poor form, topped. 45/35 Fair vigor, fair form, leans southeast. 75/30 Good vigor, poor form, topped by utilities. 65/40 Good vigor, good form, makes a good screen. 40/35 Good vigor, fair form, multi leader at 8 feet, 40/30 Good vigor, fair form, poor location. 20/15 Good vigor, poor form, multi leader at 1 foot with a split crotch. 20/15 Fair vigor, poor -fair form, suppressed. 45/35 Good vigor, poor form, trunk bends south. 1029 Capuchin/3/11/17 (3) Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments 15 Coast live oak 24.4-16.4 50 50/45 Good vigor, poor form, codominant at (Quercus agrifolia) 1 foot with a poor crotch. 16 Pear 8.1 40 20/15 Good vigor, poor form, topped, decay. (Pyrus spp) 17 Oleander multi 45 15115 Good vigor, poor form, multi leader. (Oleander spp) 18 Yucca 10.2 55 20/20 Good vigor, poor form, leans north. (Yucca spp) 19 Apricot 6.8 50 25/15 Good vigor, poor form, codominant at (Prunus mume) 3 feet. 20 Apricot 7.8 40 10/10 Fair vigor, poor form, topped. (Prunus mume) Summary The trees on site are a mix of native oaks and several species of imported trees. The oaks on site are in poor -fair condition with poor form. The location of the oalc is poor and the trees will be removed to facilitate construction. The poorly formed oaks will be replaced at the time of landscaping. The imported trees consist of several mature fruit trees which will be removed. The large incense cedar 47 will be removed as the tree has a severe lean and is poorly located. The large palm will also be removed. One street tree, liquidambar #2 has severe decay at the base and has become an immediate hazard. The street tree should be replaced. The following tree protection plan will help to reduce impacts to the retained trees: 1029 Capuchin/3/11/17 (3) Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for the protection zones should be 4 foot tall orange plastic type supported by metal poles pounded into the ground. The support poles should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out". No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips. Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. Trenches should be bacicfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers of burlap or straw wattle and Icept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below. Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. Some irrigation may be required during the winter months depending on the seasonal rainfall. During the summer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 times a month. During the fall and winter 1 time a month should suffice. Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A Description: Project Comments - Planning Application 1025 & 1029 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-2, APN: 026-214-050 Request for Design Review for two new, two-story duplex, new detached garage, Special Permit for an attached garage, Conditional Use Permit for Re-emerging lot, and Front Setback Variance. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: I An AGnuratg Inngtlen and depth af the outside edges .de..t'f'erl , sides, and bottem) of the bG)( Gulvert must be pothG!pd and ' a Si - lamIt exact d rnpRsinAg from o-AsOdA edge Of bG)( GWIvert to edge af propGaed bu sing fGHRdatiOR at all 190atiORS WhPrA therein is leee the.. 10 f f {' 3. Tharp s a sox feat (40') publiG 61t lity easprngRt at, the rear of the property. Please be awaFe that Re permaRORt strUGt61Fe6 4. OR the prGpe6ed plan, please show the lonat nR mf all prnpGsed IaGatiGns fe. A I tiRS. Thig RGI GA9 PGRE, water seFV!Ge, wateF meter, water baGkfInvr PFPVARtAr assembly 6aRitaFy sewer, and SPY'AF AlPaRG It 5 Show h.. ..dwy of the I....... I r4 an I.- rfGGape plan. Please Femave any exstiRg tFees and prope6ed trees that are plaRted an top of the box GuIvAi4 PleasA direct any-exGess 6. This project is over 10,000sf. The developer must construct permeant stormwater treatment measures on -site. No additional storm runoff will be allowed from post construction site. More information can be found at: http://www.flowstobav_org/newdevelopmerit. Please show how this will be achieved. Though the planning applications are separate, the approval is for both duplexes. As this is one project, the rules of c3 requirements must be followed. 7. Please dimension the preposed driveway apprGaGh an the site plan. 8. The survey does not label the existing storm drain inlet on Capuchino. With the removal of the existing driveway approach, please show the replacement of the inlet cover when curb/gutter is replaced. 9. Please provide a copy of the title report for review. Not in receipt of title report. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Submit CCTV of the existing condition and post -construction condition of the inside condition of the box culvert for review. a. Video of existing conditions must be submitted prior to issuance of Building Permit. b. Video of post -construction conditions must be submitted prior to final of Building Permit. 2. The box culvert within private boundaries is the responsibly of the property owner. Any work done to the box culvert requires review and approval by the City of Burlingame and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 3. If existing sewer lateral is 4-in and the proposed is larger, the sewer lateral must be upsized to the main. It is the applicant's responsibility to upsize the sewer lateral to the main. 4. Show the location of down spouts for the entire proposed roof. Show stormwater drainage system and connection of new downspouts to drainage or retention system. 5. The survey plan must show that the property lines are determined and that the property corners are set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be attached to the construction plans. All property corners shall be maintained during construction or reestablished at the end of the project. 6. No aboveground permanent future is allowed beyond property line. Show on site plan the property line on Capuchino Avenue is approximately 9.9-feet measured from face of curb. 7. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 8. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710, 9. (1) Replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right-of-way. An encroachment per is required. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. 10. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type ll" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 + PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1025 & 1029 CAPUCHINO AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for a Conditional Use Permit for re-emerging lots, Design Review and front setback Variances for two new duplex residential units on two separate lots at 1025 & 1029 CAPUCHINO AVENUE zoned R-2. APN 026-214.050 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCES RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review, Conditional Use Permit. and Variances for construction of a new, two-story duplex on each re-emerging lot at 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue. zoned R-2 Kurt Steil property owner, APN: 026-214-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on November 13, 2017, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303 (b), which states that construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures including a duplex or similar multi -family residential structure totaling no more than four dwelling units is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption applies to apartment, duplexes and similar structures designed for not more than six dwelling units, is hereby approved. Said Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 131" day of November. 2017 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 30, 2017, sheets A0.0 through A4.1, L-1 through L-2.5 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; and including aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Parks Division's August 3, 2017 memo and the Engineering Division's September 27, 2017 memo shall be met; 5. that the Landscape plan shall include notes detailing tree protection measures for the redwood trees at the rear of 1029 Capuchino Avenue and shall be reviewed and approved by the Parks Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit; and that these protection measures shall be installed and inspected by a Certified Arborist and this inspection shall be documented and submitted to the Planning and Parks Divisions; 6. that if the duplex is demolished or the front setback envelope changed at a later date, the front setback variances granted for that duplex with this project approval, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 7. 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; that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of construction plans shall approval adopted by the remain a part of all se Compliance with all con not be modified or chan Council on appeal; a building permit for construction of the project, the project be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall is of approved plans throughout the construction process. ditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall ged without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, and Variances 1025 and 1029 Capuchino Avenue Effective November 27, 2017 Page 2 10. 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; 11. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2016 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16, 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. .,...q - .... ui LLI A i W I.f1 � s • N O 04 +� � � wa � � ` • � � tom. 'r.. •''`,':M ,'_. ,�,,,;," Y,-.,+.y , , .. // :." PP Or "�,� �. � , ., • INIIUII rror— vmcftwm� Ow, .,,a. , ,ram i'►.�. �. .j r 11_I_LLL___I—J____L- _. I LLULLL_Ll_I.J--- L�_ll LlitIL1_L1_I_L_I_/1.1T I 'j I GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/I6" = l'-tl' I/8' = 1'-O' 3 16' = I'-0" t 4 = ll. 3/1" - Itd' 1' = I'-O' Yj% ZY s 2 SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8' = 1'-D" t i 3" = c- ' IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"x24" , IT IS A REDUCED PRINT- SCALE ACCORDINGLY :TREET SETBACtS i009 1013 2-1' �-I' 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, California 94401 ICI? IO:t '3 1_5- fax 650.679.0115 ph: 650 679 5762 !0- 73?' E-Mailadmin@hgamh com 025 165 0_9 10, Architect: sE4_«rq 1033 23..' 1031 56.5' eA IO•II 20 jr,Rpxoomx. GRPxGE � a /E. 5ETBAGI: 54.5.4 /1 of E%o Wl) .tT 9FOr CA11� Consultani(s)� Project. 1025 1029 Capuchin Avenue I Burlingame, CA Owner(s) Mr. Kurt Steil Sheet Contents. SITE PLAN Rt rt G RAP RAPHIC SCALES: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1/g" = t'-0" 3/I6" = 1'-0" 5TAINED W000 TRIM CLAD ,IJOD W'.NCO S -- - - — (1025 Capuchin) LEFT SIDE ELEVATION EGRESS WINDOW CHART SCALE . 3/16" . 1'-D' WINDOW NET CLEAR HEIGHT d WIDTH 1 31" X 45112" 2 31" X 62112" (1025 Capuchin) FRONT ELEVATION 1 SCALE a 3116" 2 0 L IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"N24', IT IS A REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY F 1014 H—d Amm San Malec, Callfomie gd401 fax; 650,570.0115 ph: 650.579.5762 E.MRI6 admin@trgarchmm Archlle0k SFy ARCW �.NANNOIVN �' *I cziui �* u1 nrlonl .'�.r vtp.F d' e CAF1F J ,iOP Jr RJJr nexdmax Agryn.-t oannurtivub�wquv�.r*^v=,n �n�N vR-ynrc xd�u..u..vo-utMve+o-m� ml^ ,r.� wtn»d METAL LHn-L+'Ev GAP �ni�xnaM rtin de .w.rr.�.•.Nw .•vn"uMvnu.m,m�. .T-LF PLATE _ COnSRltenf(5): 1 . •.EGOND FLODR ti ' Protect: 1025 CAPUCHIN AIE. !LC 1029 Capuchin Avenue I Burlingame, CA Owner(s): Mr. Xurf Steil Sheet Conlents: FRONT ELEVATION aA. TiLE LEFT SIDE ELEVATION IRJN R4iLiNJ (1025 Capuchina) PLATE tOD W'NDOW5 _ stucco SELOND rLfAJR ; ? u,N As Nma yr __ - -- _ `k CnaM1y: I NG )IAv107- EC RArTER 6ux %ANNINGSLaMITTAI 4v T I T9 �UN I o 6W Eir 6 ti� t - flR1NIN Eti»[ AM m GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/16" - 11-0" 3/4" - V-D' I A REDUCED PRINT - SCALE ACCORDINGLY EGRESS WINDOW CHART NET CLEAR HEIGHT & WIDTH 1...579.0115 150.579.5762 vo ow UAII [no MM No, go, \ \ / 0 5' S0' 0 5' 25' 0 1' S' 10' IS 0 1' S 10' 12' 0 1' 4' 0 1' 3' 0 1' 2' 0 1' r �IIII I I I I I I I I IIIII I I I I1I I I I I I I I I III III I'I'I I I I I I I I I" PTHls sxftT is Nor 36"Q4",I . - ..— ..— .- .. _- AaFl11V'Wl Qatar-V.PAfftlar. n - me �■ L■■ ■ ■■ f■■ I ■■ ■■ .. IN _ I� Sol ■■■■ 11 •■ ■■ •■.■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■' ■■' ■■ .I■ ■ �� �� �� IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII ■■ ■■ ■r /_- _� 11 __ 'IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIINei I, � . EGRESS WINDOW CHART WINDOW NET CLEAR HEIGHT &WIDTH 1 31' X 501/2' 2 31' X 4512" 3 31"X561/2" L Ts' 9TArtaEo cEDA1t 91NWAI SIDING --� CDPP. SIIIIYaIB PAINTED FETAL &ITT92 PAINTED WWD PARTED cauou nNNs +fi.91' VE titAOE (1029 Capuchin) LEFT SIDE ELEVATION scALE = sns• - r-o� L 50' HEIGHT LIMIT hiGP OF POOF —CONP, 5HIt✓Bl8 � — 2X PAINTED FACE IMARD — _ hTaP OF PIAiE — s1AINHl CEDAR Y 9151DM6 — COPPf3C 61414Ei' CAP c — PAINTED t'IDOD SABLE Vw D' A66 SF.OND Fll.'OR T iSTOP OP IE M 71(PAINIED YIWD � COPo'ER 80AA0 —!' PRINTED HOOD unD rIDOD wtscvs STAl1FD CEDAR 9HN9.E 9roIN6 FF . ,yy� FnBT FLOOR VE SRAOE � — 1 (1029 Capuchin) FRONT ELEVATION ' SCALE Is 311r as 1'-R 101411-11 Avenue San Mateo, Calfomla 94401 fax: 650.579.0115 ph: 650,579.5762 E-Malt ad,*@b atch... Architect r.w.roasry � sm tav ys � or cnu1� Consultant(s): Project 1029 1029 Capuchin Avenue Burlingame, CA Ovmer(s): I Mr. Kurt Steil Sheet Contents: FRONT ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION (1029 Capuchin) A3.1 r L IIIII I I I I I I I I I IIIIII I I I I I.I I I I I I ICI I GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/16' . r-O" 1/9" - I'-V 16" -W. 1/4" = 1'-0" 3/a' . 1'-0" EGRESS WINDOW CHART WINDOW NET CLEAR HEIGHT &WIDTH 1 31' X 501/2" 2 31"X451/? 3 31" X 561/2" 2X PAINTED WAND 2X PAINTED HODD FRIEZE BOARD D' A66� l (1029 Capuchin) RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 4 scs1E xa snr . ILO' -( 4 WE Vis 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, CalforNe 94401 f.. 650.579.0115 ph: 650.579.5762 E-Malk adWn@4ach.com � rpsN * cnzn L ofW OF Gum ,m.minpmw ...igammmnNrtvmam.a me»nns .e �.✓'eo�mmw�a .�manhn,..w.bee�d Consultant(s): v VA t Pm)ecL' 1029 CAPUCH/NO 1029 Capuchin Avenue I Burlingame, CA Owner(s): Mr. Kurt Steil Sheet Contents: _ WEV 5NINSLES REAR ELEVATION — _ I PAiNT®r*TN_ TOP OF RCDF - - - RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION (1029 Capuchin) wnER _ TS'Aff PAINTED HETAL _ h7oP OF TtA1E S e 0.5 Ne1E0 DDMEPCUT A65 — — STNHD OEDAR 5HNRE SIDIHS _—y�SEOOMD BOOR — xT/JPDF RATE ��� Y P—Nmn PtAxxmG9l01mRu �^' h om bp. RES.mWnu nro aaNi I PF..rt: '�FIRsr FHooR YUXMMOCONIlSpNaR REVRIDN p 1-, _ w5.ao�tnv_E. rna (1029 Capuchin) REAR ELEVATION 3 scue= snr .1 r A3.2 J r L IIIIII I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I h. I I I III I I I l nl I I I I I I I .... ......... j7 I GRAPHIC SCALES; 1116" . 1'-0" 1/8" = 1'-0" 3/16" =110" 1/4" = 1'-0" 3/4" - 1'-0" 1" = 1'-0" DET. GARAGE HOOF PLAN Ease _ evrTm poyorAw e �I■� 11■1■■■11■1■■■11■1■■■11■1■■■11■1■■ ■II IY 1■i I■■11■1■■■11■1■■■11 ■11 III■■■I■11■■■1■11■■■1■11■■■1■11■■■11 :�■11 ■ 1;-�1 ■■ ■1■11■■■1■11■■■1■1 �. :l!In I■nn■■■nu■■■nn■■■■nm■nm m n i_ I n■■■nn■■■nn■■1 ■■I■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■ II■ 11 ■11 ■■ ■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■ 1■111■■■■1■1■■■■1■1■■■■1■1■■■■1■1■■■■I i■I■ 1■■ 1■1■1■■■■1■1■■■■1■ ■■ 11■1■■■11■1■■■11■1■■■11■1■■■11■1■■1STARW STAMED CEDAR ■■ �:��:� ■1■■■■I.I�GI :���■11 III■■■1■11■■■1■11■■■1■11■■■1■11■■�!!SHIMiSUESI INSil■ 1■■1■1■■■■1■1■■■■1■1■■■■1■1■■iil■11 1■111 . II■.____.JI■■■■1 ■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■ I,II■ 11 I■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■■■1■■1■ 1�1�1��■�1�1��■�1�1��■�1�1��■�1�1��■�I 1�1� l�■�1�1��■�1�1��■�1■1��■■1■ REAR ELEVATION 6 SCALE -1/4' - r-M LEFT SIDE ELEVATION 4 SCALE a114'-ra RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION 5 SCALE - 114• - 110' �trl■11■■■1■11■■■i■Il Is D:_ �I■■■Poru.mmo..uouu.EMEuom11■■l�x 1m1 a ■- ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ -■I,_ ILL 1 ■■ no ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■oil I J111 1��� IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII 11PlIl - ::1 1 IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36"#4" , IT IS A REDUCED PRINT- SCALE ACCORDINGLY 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, Ca0[amla 94401 tax 660.679.0115 Pc. 650.579.6762 E-Mall: admin&garch.wm Architect z Project 1029 1029 Capuchin Avenue I Burlingame, CA Ovmer(s): Mr. Kurt Steil Sheet Contents: DETACHED GARAGE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS (1029 Capuchin) A2.3 J ADJACENT aCp vN)EeaVEYEEN N sn,Ne u ..r„NE RESIDENCE vF k} 1 / W) ?L EN IN.' M () () ._.. .-.. () kA _ (N) -A",;F PAI'n PAf L4NC INc; 'AiEt ro .1 ..r, �.-y.F x�---•._: =,..•rc" -�.�s...- __3_r� iN(N) ) N� - [T. a s { 1 / (N) R(;KFF F FF 'ti r E 1147 ••I `iN) (t) A _ FVFKE,KFFn kFF I, (N) �L�,) IrAUFFR TREE', i GRAVEL N - (N) [ R) I! TIC s � E REV WEL' "EK _ �t A - REN•�R GRIVIC4E T `IFKANr _.,(- DI Alc ?fc.::. KEr.,)Kr v - x SEATING RESIDENCE LOT (N) :Rd1Nf+'7VFR �(r I AREA % I � I A RESIDENCE _•iF t, z .. y y� , PQ EE RENa,VEC' may_ 4r L(N) W (N) GbNCkTTpy Y' t� (N ! n,� 1 • ( > GARAGE UNIT PAVER54_ C�OIJQRE y - II v'''✓,r+ DRJVENrAY7�..- - --- �I--- - - ,UNITf; I/ER' 1 ,I:--, Q IA , 1 • D �- N i'•' )N kE VFW �W1AY 1 FK . D. — �_.. _ - ` V.yE-VE .I. N.2 7. t.r FlT 1 pr�J EVERGkEENI ...�� i ; -- _ _ t s I R � � V NFi- ,r< � O Iv VrNk N z L rZq �I GmnIC uN�t — (N) �H�r�vwt_ M) ` $ PAVER7JWEWAY M 57dNE ., I GcjNCRET ) N`) i f PATIIJ7 -UNIi pAViER IL3' f 6t `4 9'b...'��j a :� _ I (, j� u - DRiIVtWAY { ) TII - (N) - N)STI'7NE >\jj a •f 17 rd-' ),L ! •6 P^'I, I I a f'I /+• I r , LAWN 7 ,. (N) 12 7" r (N) (E) r AMPFK TKFF' RESIDENCE lyd 7 W)-r.. I REMAIN L RESIDENCE IiF/FFN INr; - GARAGE GARAGE rJ LOT LAWN t FR'RF1'AR/ Et ".Ar. (N) � Mi �NFG INr � •F� ! a EK ,.v rE, / .;:. STONE W kEi,, Au-_kf F "'FWALK PATIO (v);,knve: (N GRAVE FR Y „f-1 U s %r ' I A' .•. , n rr ,7.)r s :ae. r a y7 W, (N) (v) ; , '[ N)�K~RFF�I (N) -4r E PLANT LIST w rIY W s x "ENr N(; W ?L' GAIE �' VA :'x'rIF.:,,F W Or FFN INC; Plni NkbrDrNCE, IOev10e!r C�nIGNWO AVE FL[. Ii Ari'rE 0 Ptl' 7.A iV;f TRC[9 p k I- 1i MY M J VL • ry A .,,nm?hr n' 1Hn l{vrn.e Made - I - - �. ♦� ai6 v " p • !EXISTING TREE LIST 1025/ 1029 CAFUCMINO AVE BURLINGAMe CA TWO lOT9 p n A({ !d PS A I 1 I gf�,r. -=� nn. - ar, w =n'1.r +;Inns Rfw+.¢ � -- 4oMVfrd nWw vx rack I.(xxAfCe�._ ' "- - -I r�.Iqudambx etyraaAw Sweet Cwm io 9Av[ LOT G_ _ ..- .._... f. 'BMRU05 / PCRCNNIAL9 - -__ _. illgwdafnbar styric'K -__ Sweet Gum. �_. REMOVE .__ IAT G PrlatTree F.•r,Twr M1ay... •,.,..„rror +..Ir.,,.r<+w :la .KI 5 IPrvtepp. .. 8' MEMOVIC .-__LOTG - —_- a Prumereraslrera Clx Ha I...11 RinlOv[ ! -LOT ISMnFI f I fC 5 MI n P n " nr Y 4FIa._. At t yA Snitl +. 'trn 5 !Zupreeeu5 macroc,1 'i danterey cyprees I G- Remove . i.. .. LOT.0 .' .� - .,rem -7*gym _— •- � I. IPnat 'Prot Tree 9' RENIOVC LOT G- ��--_-''`AT"F'�NPT WLI PE. ;I rn,rrr..tuks,l :f,•.'if 4 R .t4lr,ny.x.rk naP,rr.lr nffG rF'�f'Y r. .a I agv rb .• <.•K N R;f '. 7 ICalexe rva dealrrens '.Inrrnee eclar 26' Remove 10T 6 5 Seq"s semperMrene Cwst d S& SAVE LOT .E.rtierl-.r'.<Ffe_..Pu nE a^.fFe ",rnely fF r.. e.r.ralir=•nary'+. r"zrn,r,nrnf-m x." r nrt r�r.r vrnr 'n ,.Y„u `nr >Fr. a, r, n. er Hr+, � 5tr r u- -,�-„ Gr I - � equola eempennrene Ar .SAVE LOT G kr✓ rdrew. u. Ifss rn. r u E a'f , n av a r. f ra aif e f P . rry mf rur e. n ', a er fr.n, rr ram fF , F f �+� �� � • rrt n. n .. .n - F •E Uf ,k � - , n 5 ♦ rEer (N T E '� ,�•,...�d.tT'yr�-'- -rrT� - - --`-� 101 qEe bx Styr wSwed Gum IC' SAVE LOT :ra.•. wsa.e rva.r .• Z,, exNlmu . n.1 - c1 . ti nm"wl=sn u I tl 1. 1»'.f• Lry ,ry L ryfr.r sne PE � 1nF rfr�y, Frk , xfr �'+++, •wr•'(.n. .: wl' ai II f penl: caru•lenae Canary aim_ 25'REMO2 LOTS n kn e¢r Ilrc fCr f s, If ra sift rrr r.l.e lff nv as n,f •re+ r k+ yk ,. evf r LL 12 IPr~ epp Flowenny Plum 12' Remove LOT 9 =I u•rn..ee.+E.P ..x. u , ..E rEr 01 13 i/mbcllularu caNiyamca .. Califorina Bay Lauren- { _ 6• Remove - Lo :. M,..,, fln.;T ,k -- er•f -L1 - .___,_-_.... _ - _._. .- ___. ...-... _ 0 t - 14 'i�±111trCUa nfdu GQaek LIVe Oak r IG' REMOVE L0T 5 ^ "urn yX, rL`I£>• Ifn4 P f V :IH-C, a'r rel riff 'r� '=V Lrr - w eE nt ...r :• __--—_ — _ -___-_ n(nK�"aIt P�S,.ak b..l 5 IPE lfr"1ry kdr 'pff f "L Ft ""C r.C'_.L .-,E"n4 (ir Er yr, .r ,erE cr. ... LL�[�'l!'narlE-4 —Alu. VtU 'I 1 ..7 _ .._ --.. ____ - _ _f _ ry, 'vf t1.rY 4Y k'PI'-n" I "f uRh 1L IH ,. rrnJ .InM:. •.Y 5 Ciuereue rrldla 'Ca st Lwe�ak "-. ._ _`n' .. Remove LOTS _.._ ,f r, secs r f a,. f. ra a, �I r u'. m rc+ .a Ire •e n . a: G Nnyrin eR Pea C" Re0.fOVCtOT 5 I^'Renum o(emder ----- _. -(NesnajF 5� � Irff+ If v♦ra '+ I*..s>Ixf rFf.len ,- III fv.r f•.r ne.f Pf ,r. +•m +'n r. .._ ,, .n'.I, 'f (.. r .f ,"r. .^�� �+'+f. lf•r )- ..-__— •a"g, .._— -T x�.'''�+C':/ _ RRC[MMVE ' .. tAT_ 5 _ cfr r'•• :r11,111,11,a 1e 1f-1e-xn ea.+rr 11,11 OVEFrwPp LOTS nFf, ulur:rff,-e nE f,. fcn•P.�n. a.'=-r.w y_•„e mM ( t 20 fPfvlt app. Pnut rrec D" RCAdOVC LOTS u.nr+w •r.w,r.- uFt r ... • n GROUNOCOVCR:S ---- - --- _ e'n..nil fr , , n ,._ _.ert f �.n.. L �.:e ._ na , r..e. ,.�. �r. �: LANDSCAPE PLAN IE) IF2C . NEMT, ,P r 7 (N) TREE`' 9e•' (30X 1 3 I' "MIFACiC TRPtG'_TIH• �r-t.LLalw�� n1 _ -9 -±�_ rn U(Y. ✓7 IE.�yC PYMVvrU�Nl Pfe nia — SCALE / — 11 OII 1.A1.LfxN_ 1 1 _ — _ .. ---.._ . ps nr+•c, .+ (. _., e,irii� .' - se d a 7 -- TOTAL iN) TReeO: 21 �� ■ MMMEMM7M a "® U L U N Q CIO C.0 ^^,, Cn W-M ttS U E i' a,. b• F ,4 7^19 M Z g W p W3 OIr Z J 5 7 G co W Q Xp w ? _j j a a U 0� W z L1.0 � � ,� W' i f { 1 � e' at .. r � ""' tp' 5 �'� � 4r + # � .. �}xi�.�t � �'� � i � zC � { c� �� fivV � f e Y. .d�.. �'G, � r i { � It.tT �,,2E� V I �= - ' sni ., � �x' i.. .� Yn T '�' u•) J /� �.��'[ � � r _ ' .{C ..�S t.r c-� — 16�� W IVLti�Rz- s. � '� ' � �.. T: m_ Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permits, and Conditional Use Permit Address: 133 Pepper Avenue Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Design Review for a basement, first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling, Special Permits for basement ceiling height and exits, and a Conditional Use Permit for glazed openings in an approved detached accessory dwelling unit. Applicant and Architect: Randy Grange, TRG Architects Property Owners: Jennifer Colvin and Eric Klein General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 028-274-020 Lot Area; 21,855 SF Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The property has an existing two-story house, detached two -car garage, and detached pool house. The applicant is proposing to relocate the original house to the left side of the property and slightly closer to the front property line. The applicant also proposes a two-story addition with a basement at the right side of the relocated existing residence. The existing pool house at the rear, left side of the property will be demolished and replaced with a new accessory dwelling unit (ADU) that meets all of the requirements for administrative approval. With the proposed additions and replaced structures, the on -site floor area will increase from 4,780 SF (0.22 FAR) to 8,223 SF (0.38 FAR), where 8,494 SF (0.39 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed basement is located beneath the proposed two-story addition at the right side of the house. The applicant is requesting Special Permits for a basement ceiling height greater than 6'/2 feet (9'-4" ceiling height proposed) and for a direct exit from a basement (a single direct exit to the rear yard is proposed). The proposed detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear, left side of the property, meets all of the requirements for administrative approval, including minimum lot size, maximum unit size, and required parking. However, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for three windows that will be within ten feet of a property line; there are two glazed openings within ten feet of the rear property line and one glazed opening within ten feet of the left side property line. With this application, the number of bedrooms will be increasing from five to eight bedrooms. A total of three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required for a house containing five or more bedrooms. The proposed ADU requires one uncovered parking space that can be provided in tandem with one other parking space. The existing detached garage has interior dimensions of 18' x 20' and is considered to provide two covered parking spaces. There are two uncovered parking spaces in the paved area in front of the detached garage and with a total of four proposed parking spaces on site, this project meets the code requirements for parking. There are fourteen protected size trees on site and seven of these are proposed to be removed. The applicant has submitted an Arborist Report to provide a tree inventory and assessment. The report and seven tree removal permits were submitted to the City Arborist and are currently being reviewed. A total of ten new landscape trees are proposed on site and five new landscape trees are proposed in the right of way. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and plate heights for an addition that exceed 9 feet (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (2) and (4)); and Special Permits for a basement with a ceiling height greater than 6'/2 feet and for a basement with a direct exit (C.S. 25.26.035 (f) (g)); and Design Review, Special Permits, and Conditional Use Permit 133 Pepper Avenue • Conditional Use Permit for an accessory structure with glazed openings within ten feet of a property line (C.S. 25.60.010 (i)). Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 3 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 5, 2017 (attached). The results of the evaluation concluded that 133 Pepper Avenue is eligible for individual listing on the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture). The evaluation notes that "133 Pepper Avenue appears to be one of the most intact and earliest examples of Tudor Revival residences in the neighborhood." Page & Turnbull prepared an analysis of the potential impacts of the addition as originally proposed under the Secretary of the Interior's Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and pursuant to CEQA, dated August 30, 2017 (see attached Proposed Project Analysis). The results of the analysis concluded that "the proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and was determined to fully comply with seven of the ten Standards. Although the property would still retain several of its character -defining features, the proposed new construction will significantly alter the property's original setting and environment such that the historic integrity of the resource will be compromised. As proposed, the project only partially complies with Standards 2 and 9 and does not comply with Standard 10 of the Rehabilitation Standards. Therefore, the proposed design will likely result in project -specific impacts, and it does appear that the project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource as defined by CEQA." The applicant has revised the plans to incorporate, several of the Recommendations made in the Analysis to improve compliance with the Standards. The Recommendations, the revisions, and a further discussion of the remaining identified impacts follows in the next section of the Staff Report. Proposed Project Analysis for the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation: The Proposed Project Analysis prepared by Page & Turnbull notes that the project complies with seven of the ten Standards. The Analysis concludes that the project partially complies with Standards 2 and 9 and does not comply with Standard 10: • Rehabilitation Standard 2 (Analysis concludes partial compliance): The historic character ofa property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the property will be avoided. • Rehabilitation Standard 9 (Analysis concludes partial compliance): Newadditions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. • Rehabilitation Standard 10 (Analysis concludes non-compliance): New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. There were three Project Improvement Recommendations suggested which would reduce potential impacts to historical resources to less than significant under CEQA. In some cases, the applicant/architect disagreed with Design Review, Special Permits, and Conditional Use Permit 133 Pepper Avenue the findings of compliance or felt the Project Improvement Recommendation was not necessary. In particular, the applicant/architect does not support the determination that the relocation of the existing house on the property and the proposed setback of the addition, permanently alters the original setting of the historic resource. As the leady agency, the Planning Division will need to determine if the project causes a significant impact and which recommendations should be incorporated. Based on the proposed changes, the Planning Division determined that the project plans were revised adequately to incorporate the recommended improvements and reduce potential impacts to historical resources to less than significant under CEQA. However, the Planning Commission may request additional changes for consideration. Project Improvement Recommendation #1 (refer to Page 15 of the Analysis and the November 5, 2017 letter of explanation from the applicant/architect) Page & Turnbull appreciates that the proposed design respects and retains the majority of character -defining materials and architectural features of the historic resource. The relocation of the residence and the proposed two-story addition will unavoidably impact the resource's original setting and thus will compromise the property's overall historic integrity. In order to reduce these impacts, Page & Turnbull suggest a greater setback of the primary fagade of the residence's main volume. Shifting the addition back, potentially to align with the northeast plane of the chimney (approximately 12 feet), would help to maintain the primacy of the historic resource. This recommended change would improve compliance with Standard 2. The dining room of the addition was made transparent to increase the appearance of setback and prominence for the addition in relation to the existing house; and Applicant/architect feels the proposed setback difference between the existing residence and the proposed addition of 5'-7" to the first floor and 13'-7" to the second floor, in addition to the existing and proposed landscape screening from the street, maintains the primacy of the historic resource so that the recommended increased setbacks are not necessary. Project Improvement Recommendation #2 (refer to Page 16 of the Analysis and the November 5, 2017 letter of explanation from the applicant/architect) While the project proposes materials, proportions, and style that are clearly contemporary, it appears that more formal design cues could be taken from the historic features of the original building and interpreted at the addition (i.e. steep angles, curved eaves, arched opening, diamond muntins, chimney, raised batten siding) to strengthen the relationship and dialogue between old and new. For instance, new fully glazed windows could potentially feature more lites or consistent vertical orientations and proportions in reference to the Tudor style. At the projecting circulation volumes, integrate the pattern of the Corten steel paneling or the design of the openings and overall volumes, which are clearly differentiated as new features, but do not appear at this point to also be particularly compatible with the existing resource. These recommended changes would improve compliance with Standard 9. • The proposed window patterns and paneling for the addition, while distinct from the features of the original house so as to preserve the character of the original structure, have been altered in proportion to be more compatible with the materials of the existing house. Project Improvement Recommendation #3 (refer to Page 16 of the Analysis and the November 5, 2017 letter of explanation from the applicant/architect) Especially at locations where windows and doors will be removed at the sides and rear of the existing residence, Page & Turnbull would suggest that these new doors and windows consistently reference either the adjacent existing windows with wood frames and a differentiate mullion pattern (like the window currently proposed at the rear ground story of the rear fagade), or match the design of the addition's single or dual-lite windows with metal 3 Design Review, Special Permits, and Conditional Use Permit 133 Pepper Avenue frames (like the second story window at right of the chimney). This recommended condition would improve compliance with Standard 9. M The replacement window grids have been revised as recommended. 133 Pepper Avenue SETBACKS I ... ......... . .. -.........1.,. Front (1st fir): (2nd fir): Side (left): (right): Rear (1st fir): (2nd fir): Lot Coverage: FloorArea Ratio: rians uate Siam ea: Uctober 21, 2017 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED 74'-0" 58'-8" to relocated residence 64'-3" to new addition 74'-0" 37'-3" 20'-l" 80'-4" 8U-4" 3,228 SF 14.8% 4,780 SF 0.22 FAR 58'-8" to relocated residence 72'-3" to new addition 13�-F' T-0" 64'-3" 85'-3" .............. .................. ... 5,067 SF 23% .... .............. 8,223 SF 0.38 FAR 7,259 SF in main dwelling 56'-6" is the block average 56-61' # of 5 8 bedrooms: . .............. Off -Street . . ........... .......... . ... 2 covered .......... . ........ ..................... 2 covered Parking: (18' x 20' clear interior (18' x 20' clear interior for for existing) No change existing) 2 uncovered 2 uncovered (1 for main (18' x 20') dwelling, 1 for ADIJ) .......... ..... . . (18' x 20') Building No Change to existing Height: 30'-10" highest ridge 30'-0" ........ 26'-4" to addition DH Envelope: ... . ...... .. .. . . .. . . .. .. .. .. . .. .. n/a ............ . . . ... .. complies . ........ - .................. ... CS 25.26.075 EI Design Review, Special Permits, and Conditional Use Permit 133 Pepper Avenue EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED (0.32 x 21,855 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 8,494 SF (0.39 FAR). z Special Permits required for basement ceiling height and a direct exit from a basement. Existing nonconforming height (30'-10" exists where there is no Special permit for the height between 30-36 feet; this regulation was not in place when the original house was built 4 Conditional Use Permit required for glazed openings in an accessory structure that are within ten feet of a property line. Staff Comments: See attached memos from the Parks, Engineering, and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is appropriate. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020, a-c): (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; 5 Design Review, Special Permits, and Conditional Use Permit 133 Pepper Avenue (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, applicant and architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications (2) Conditional Use Permit Application (1) Applicant's Letter of Explanation (in response to the Project Analysis) Arborist Report, date stamped October 21, 2017 Tree Removal Permit Applications (7) Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo Separate Attachments: Proposed Project Analysis, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August, 2017 Historical Resource Evaluation, prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated January 5, 2017 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org 11 APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: C4 Design Review ❑ Variance DQ Conditional Use Permit [A Special Permit PROJECT ADDRESS: 133 Pepper Avenue APPLICANT Name: Randy Grange Address: 1014 Howard Avenue City/State/Zip: San Mateo CA 94401 Phone: (650)579-5762 E-mail: carlos@trgarch.com ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Randy Grange Address: 1014 Howard Avenue City/State/Zip: San Mateo CA 94401 Phone: (650)579-5762 E-mail: carlos@trgarch.com Burlingame Business License #: 14562 ❑ Parcel#: 028-274-020 ❑ Zoning / Other: R1 PROPERTY OWNER Name: Jennifer Colvin and Eric Klein Address: 415 Burlingame Avenue City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 548-5390 E-mail: eric96k@me.com RECEN JUN 3 0 2017 CITY D-PLANNING D vE C Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Relocation of existing residence, two story addition with basement, new Second Unit, and new landscaping throughout AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I he eby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and b li Applicant's signature: V Date: 6/30/ ZO l `( 1 am aware of the proposed application and hereby auth rize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: A Date: 6/30/2`017 Date submitted: S:IHANDOUTSI PCApplicction.doc City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Ce i \ I' I � Q t g� i BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATIOPREC LWA JUN 3 0 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME D -PLAN !r' DiV. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's r ` mance�Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. Special permit being requested ceiling height greater than 6-1/2 feet in basement. The proposed project is an addition to an existing two story residence. In order to keep the addition as low to the ground and subordinate to the existing building as possible, a few program spaces are being provided in the addition's basement. The spaces in the proposed basement include an exercise room, theater, and wine room. The property also has a very large front setback and the proposed basement allows the project's footprint to remain compact and allow for more yard space on the property 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The existing building is a historic structure, and the proposed addition is being kept subordinate and located back from the front of the existing building. We have been working with the City's historic consultant to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. The addition references the existing building in material colors and texture, and will recede in the front facade. The proposed addition has a significantly lower roof line than the existing building, and the usable basement helps to achieve the massing and location of the addition. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed project is consistent with the existing pattern in the neighborhood in terms of massing and configuration for the building and accessory structures. The existing historical 2 car garage is being kept in place and is roughly adjacent to a neighboring garage at the rear of the property. The proposed addition and basement will be screened from adjacent buildings through landscaping. The massing of the addition allows for generous screening and landscaping throughout the site. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. One tree Is being removed within the footprint of the new structure. We are working with the Parks department to possibly remove some other trees on the property, principally some large Eucalyptus in the front of the lot, and will replace them with new trees as required if removal is approved. sPECPERM.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore CITY OF BURLINGAME BI/RLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION I ED 3 0 2017 CITY OF URLINGAME NNING DIV. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics ofthe new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. Special permit being requested for direct exit exterior stair from basement. The proposed project is an addition to an existing two story residence. In order to keep the addition as low to the ground and subordinate to the existing building as possible, a few program spaces are being provided in the addition's basement. The Owners wish to provide a safe exit from the spaces being provided in the basement, as their children will be using the spaces. The property also has a very large front setback and the proposed basement allows the project's footprint to remain compact and allow for more yard space on the property 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The proposed exterior exit stair will be screened by landscaping and not visible from the street. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed addition, basement, and exterior exit stair will be screened from adjacent buildings through landscaping. The massing of the addition allows for generous screening and landscaping throughout the site. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees are being removed to accommodate the proposed exterior exit stair. SPECPERMTRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ame.or t0 •^,JP ('�v�Q-, C. c. cce 5 s Satvu.ci y-c- ��, cirr c A � BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. CUP being requested for windows within 10' of property line for proposed Second Unit. New second unit being placed in current location of existing guest house. The proposed location is at the rear of the lot, behind an existing detached garage. There is a neighboring garage to the left side (southeast) of the property, and to the rear (southwest) there is a retaining wall, fence and dense vegetation that will conceal views of the proposed building. One small window is proposed at kitchen sink facing the left side of the property and an adjacent garage, and two windows are being proposed in the second unit bedroom facing the rear of the property where there is existing fencing and vegetation providing privacy. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed second unit is at the rear of the lot, and not more than 28 feet in width or depth. The only item to be addressed as a CUP is the inclusion of windows within 10' of property lines. R I1"ifEa JUN 3 0 2017 CITY OF Bt MANI;aAME CDD-PLAyiN':NC Div. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The project is in an area of the City that contains large lots. The predominant pattern is for lots to contain several accessory buildings and large main residences. The proposed second unit is replacing an existing guest house of similar size in a back corner of the lot that has adjacent neighboring accessory structures adjacent to it. The proposed second unit is being kept low to the ground and will match the architecture of the proposed Main House Addition. CUPFRM November 5, 2017 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 133 Pepper Ave. Dear Commissioner, Attached is a design proposal for 133 Pepper Ave. This home underwent the historic review process typical within this neighborhood. The city's consultant, Page & Turnbull found the home to have potential historic value based on the architecture. We communicated regularly with Page & Turnbull throughout the design process, obtaining their feedback along the way. In their final report, they had comments about 3 of the 10 "Rehabilitation Standards", and provided related recommendations. The comments mention the moving of the original house on site, which during the design process was acknowledged Page & Turnbull as unavoidable. Moving forward, we revised the plans based on the recommendations within the final report, but the revised design was not reviewed by Page & Turnbull. At the Planning Commission meeting, we will present the design as reviewed by Page and Turnbull for your reference. Following is a description of the changes made. • Recommendation #1: create more setback for the addition. We made the dining room transparent, such that the solid mass starts significantly further back. • Recommendation #2: Window grids and steel paneling. We changed all the windows around in the addition to bring down the scale in line with the existing house, and simplified the steel panel patterns. • Recommendation #3: Replacement window grids at original house. We revised these window grids as recommended. We look forward to presenting our project and hearing your comments. Sincerely, Randy Grange AIA LEED AP Kielty Arborist Services LLC Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 July 5, 2017 Mr. Michael Callan 1233 Oak Street San Mateo, CA 94402 Site: 133 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Callan, ■ OCT 21 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. As requested on Friday, June 30, 2017, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. A new landscape is proposed for this site and your concern for the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection. The trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The height of the trees was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. 133 Pepper Ave 7/5/17 (2) Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SPComments 1 Privet 8"x4 40 20/15 Poor vigor, poor form, multi leader at 3 feet, (Ligustrum japonicum) suppressed, abundance of dead wood. 2P Blue gum 36"x3 45 (Eucalyptus globulusj growth from topping cuts. 3P Blue gum 39.9 45 (Eucalyptus globulus) decay from 4P Blue gum 60.9 45 (Eucalyptus globulus) decay from 5 Oleander 6"x5 60 (Nerium oleander) 6P Bay 15.3 70 (Umbellularia californica) 7P Cherry plum 16.8 30 (Prunus eerasifera) for 8 Cherry plum 8.2 30 (Prunus cerasifera) for 9 Hawthorn 5.9-6.5-4.3-5.1 60 (Crataeguslaevigata) 75/40 Fair vigor, poor form, multi leader near base, topped at 35 feet, sprout topping cuts, decay from Proposed for removal 75/35 Fair vigor, poor form, topped at 35 feet, sprout growth from topping cuts, topping cuts. Proposed for removal 75/35 Fair vigor, poor form, topped at 30 feet, sprout growth from topping cuts, topping cuts. Proposed for removal 15/12 Good vigor, fair form, showy shrub. 35/25 Good vigor, fair form, good screen. 20/15 Poor vigor, poor form, suppressed, in decline, decay on trunk. Proposed removal 20/12 Poor vigor, poor form, suppressed, in decline, decay on trunk. Proposed removal 20/15 Fair vigor, poor form, decayed leaders, suppressed. Proposed for removal 1 OP Corkscrew willow 15est 55 35/35 Good vigor, fair form, on property line. (Salix babylonica'Tortuosa') 11P Redwood 45110 50 125/40 Fair to poor vigor, poor form, multi leader at (Sequoia sempervirens) base, poor union at base no symptoms of included bark present, top drought stressed. 12 Black acacia 11.4 45 (Acacia melanoxylon) removal 133 Pepper Ave 7/5/17 Survey: Tree# Species 13P Silk oak (Grevillea robusta) 35/15 Fair vigor, poor form, suppressed, poor invasive species. Proposed for (3) DBH CON HT/SPComments 19.3 40 45/30 Poor vigor, fair form, abundance of die back and dead wood in canopy, in decline. Proposed for removal 14 Privet 11.3-6.5 65 (Ligustrum japonicum) 15P Brush cherry 15.7 45 (Syzygium australe) 16P Green ash 28.5 (Fraxinus uhdei) 25/20 Good vigor, fair form. Proposed for removal 40/15 Fair vigor, poor form, topped, decayed. 40 40/20 Fair vigor, poor form, codominant at 10 feet with poor union, topped leaders. Proposed for removal 17P Brush cherry 11.9-16.2 45 (Syzygium australe) 18P Brush cherry 15.9-12.1-10.9 40 (Syzygium australe) 19P Monterey pine 38.1 50 (Pinus radiata) Proposed for 20P Brush cherry 30.1 45 (Syzygium australe) A Privet 6.0 55 (Ligustrum japonicum) 40/20 Fair vigor, fair form, poor species. 40/20 Poor vigor, poor form, topped in past, in decline. 90/45 Fair to poor vigor, fair form, minor die back in canopy, pine pitch canker. removal 40/25 Fair vigor, poor form, topped in past. 20/15 Fair vigor, fair form, minor die back in canopy. Proposed for removal B Privet 611x2 55 20/15 Fair vigor, fair form, minor die back in (Ligustrum japonicum) canopy.- C Privet 9.0 55 20/15 Fair vigor, fair form, minor die back in (Ligustrum japonicum) canopy. Proposed for removal D Privet 5.0-7.0 55 20/15 Fair vigor, fair form, minor die back in (Ligustrum japonicum) canopy. Proposed for removal P-Indicates protected tree by city ordinance Showing top of Redwood tree looking stressed (4) Summary: The trees on site are a mainly imported trees with one native bay tree surveyed. Many of the trees are in poor condition due to poor past maintenance and poor species selections. A new landscape is planned for this site and some of the trees are proposed for removal. Large redwood tree #11 could likely be improved with some maintenance. Redwood trees in their native habitat receive water year around by means of coastal fog. This area of Burlingame greatly differs from the redwood trees native habitat. Summer rainfall or fog is rare in this area of Burlingame. That said in order to keep redwood trees healthy in this area human intervention by mean of heavy irrigation is a must. A mature redwood is capable of using 500 gallons of water in one day. It is highly likely that the cause of the tree looking stressed is related to the tree not receiving any supplemental irrigation. A large area of the trees root zone is covered by hardscapes that makes irrigation to the trees root zone impossible. It is recommended to provide supplemental irrigation for this tree anywhere possible within 30 feet of the tree. Redwood tree 411 is also codominant at its base, with 3 large separate leaders. It is recommended to install a cable between the 3 leaders at a height of two thirds of the tree's height. This will offer extra support to the poor union at the base of the tree. Showing topping cuts All trees 15 inches or larger in diameter are protected trees in the town of Burlingame. Blue gum eucalyptus trees 92-4 are located in front of the home near the street. These trees offer some good screening for the property. All of these eucalyptus trees are in poor condition because of the past maintenance to the trees. The eucalyptus trees have been topped at 35 feet. Topping trees is never reconnnended as it leads to hazardous conditions. The growth following a topping cut consist of sprout like growth with many new limbs. These sprouts do not develop proper branch to trunk unions and have a high risk of failure in normal weather situations. Also the area where the topping cut took place usually will decay over time as the cut is too large to heal. The sprouts are now large 40 foot long limbs. A limb failure of this magnitude could be catastrophic. As a result these trees are recommended for removal as no mitigation measures would be expected to reduce the risk of failure. 133 Pepper Ave 7/5/17 (5) Cherry plum tree 97 is proposed for removal. This tree has grown in heavily suppressed conditions. Decay was located on the trunk of this tree. The trees vigor is in significant decline. No mitigations would be expected to improve the trees health, therefore removal is recommended. Silk oak tree 413 is in poor condition. This tree is exhibiting a large amount of die back and . dead wood in its canopy. Due to its poor health the tree is recommended to be removed as it is not expected to improve. boarder lining on being a poor were observed in the canopy pitch canker was also observed Monterey pine trees have been throughout the Bay Area as a stress, pine pitch canker, and the Monterey pine trees have a in the landscape. This tree with signs of pine pitch canker. back, is not expected to live Removal is recommended. protection plan will help health of the retained trees on Green ash tree 416 is in poor condition. This tree is codominant at 10 with included bark in the union. Also, all of the limbs have been topped in the past. This tree has a high risk of limb failure due to the poor past maintenance done to the tree. Removal of this tree is recommended as it is a hazardous tree. Showing poor codominant union at 10 feet Monterey pine tree 919 is in fair condition, but tree. Dead limbs of this tree. Pine in the canopy. declining all result of drought bark beetles. Also, short life expectancy being a mature tree and areas of die much longer. The following tree ensure the safety and site. Showing pine tree with pine pitch canker 133 Pepper Ave 7/5/17 (6) Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection fencing Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for protection zones should be 6-foot-tall metal chain link supported by 2-inch diameter poles pounded into the ground. The location for protective fencing should be located just outside then trees driplines when possible or as close to the proposed work as possible when trees driplines encroach on proposed construction areas. No equipment or materials should be stored or cleaned inside protection zones.. Landscape Buffer Where tree protection does not cover the entire root zone of the trees (canopy spread) a landscape buffer consisting of wood chips spread to a depth of six inches shall be placed where foot traffic is expected to be heavy. Plywood shall be placed on top of the wood chips. The landscape buffer will help to reduce compaction to the unprotected root zone. Root Cutting Any roots to be cut should be monitored and documented. Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist may recommend irrigation or fertilizing at that time. Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. All roots over 2 inches in diameter to be cut shall first be exposed for the site arborist to inspect and document. Trenching and Excavation Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason, should be hand dug when beneath the dripline of desired trees. Hand digging and careful placement of pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to desired trees. Trenches should be back filled as soon as possible using native materials and compacted to near original levels. Trenches to be left open with exposed roots shall be covered with burlap and kept moist. Plywood laid over the trench will help to protect roots below. Irrigation Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. All of the imported trees will require normal irrigation. Irrigation should consist of surface flooding, with enough water to wet the entire root zone. if the root zone is traumatized this type of irrigation should be carried out two times per month during the warm dry season. The native bay tree shall not receive irrigation unless its root zone is traumatized. Inspections The site will be inspected after the tree protection measures are installed and before the start of construction. Other inspections will be carried out on an as needed basis. It is the contractors responsibility to contact the site arborist. Call Kevin at 650 515 9783 or David at 650 532 4418 when a site inspection is needed. We can also be reached at lckarbor0476@yahoo.com. This information should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. 133 Pepper Ave 7/5/17 (7) Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty David P. Beckham Certified Arborist WE#0476A Certified Arborist WE#10724A „ PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 6URLIN6AME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11/8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: 133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: Eucalyptus globulus- Blue Gum Circumference: 113” Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Report Tree # Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: Poor Condition- Safety Concerns ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concernfrom neighbors, etc). Owner (Print) Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin (if different than above) Phone (510) 703-0397 PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter IL06 090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. o8nomrevised PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL BURLtNGnME r PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11 /8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address:133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species:Eucalyptus globulus- Blue Gum Circumference: 122" Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Report Tree # 3) Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: Poor Condition- Safety Concerns ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc). Owner (Print)_ Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin Phone (510) 703-0397 Address Email (f different than above) PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali ted tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at al times when work is being performed. o8/2wrevised PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11 /8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address:133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: Eucalyptus globulus- Blue Gum Circumference: 188" Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Report Tree # 4) Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason work is Necessary: Poor Condition- Safety Concerns ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concernfrom neighbors, etc). Owner(Print)_ Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin Phone (510) 703-0397 (if different than above) PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali zed tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at al times when work is being performed. 0812015revised „ PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL RURLINGAME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11/8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address:133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species: Prunus cerasifera- Plum Tree Circumference: 50” Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 1/3 of the Report Tree # 7) Reason Work is Necessary: Poor Condition- Decay/Declining ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc). Owner(Print)_ Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin Phone (510) 703-0397 Address Email (if different than above) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the appplicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required. Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed. BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by qualified tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being perfrmed. o8r2otsr"ised PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 9URLINGAME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 4D 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11 /8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address:133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Grevillea robusta- Silk Oak Circumference: 59" Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Report Tree # 13) Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: Poor Condition- Die Back/Declining ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concernfrom neighbors, etc). Owner(Print)_ Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin Address Email (if different than above) (510) 703-0397 PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacements) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali ed tree professionals and a copy of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. o8aomrevised PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 9URLING�ME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11/8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: Address:133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1 /3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species:Fraxinus uhdei- Green Ash Circumference: 87 Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Report Tree # 16) Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 113 of the Crown Reason work is Necessary: Poor Condition -Declining Health ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concernfrom neighbors, etc). Owner (Print)_ Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin Phone (510) 703-0397 Address Email (if different than above) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Trotection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all conditions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape trees) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090. (b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT. Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali�ted tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at all times when work is being performed. o8nomr"ised PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL 6UR LINGAME PERMIT APPLICATION Parks & Recreation Department 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 11/8/17 (650) 558-7330 The undersigned owner of the property at: 133 Pepper Avenue hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more than 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected tree(s): Species:Pinus radiata- Monterey Pine Tree Circumference: 1191, Location on Property Front of property ( Landscape Plan/Arborist Report Tree # 19) Work to be Performed: Removal X Trim More Than 1/3 of the Crown Reason Work is Necessary: Poor Condition- Pine Pitch Canker ( see arborist report) Is this Tree Removal Request Part of a Building Project? YES X NO Note: A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) on the property must be submitted along with $75.00 to: City of Burlingame. Additional documentation maybe required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from an Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc). Owner(Print)_ Eric Klein & Jennifer Colvin (if different than above) Phone (510) 703-0397 PERMIT — FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Payment Rec. Payment Method This permit allows the applicant to remove or prune the above listed tree(s) in accordance with the provisions of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 11.06). By signing this permit, the applicant acknowledges receipt of a copy of Chapter 11.06, and agrees to comply with its provisions and all condifions listed below; and that all appeals have expired or been resolved. OWNER SIGNATURE CITY ARBORIST CONDITIONS: 24 - inch box size landscape tree(s) (no fruit or nut trees) will be required and may be planted anywhere on the property. If conditions are not met within the allotted time as specified in Chapter 11.06.090.(b)(5), payment of $700 for each tree into the tree replacement fund will be required. NO replacement(s) required Contact the Parks Division at (650) 558-7330 when removal(s) are completed BUILDING PROJECT: Permit ineffective until after Planning Commission review. DATE PERMIT EFFECTIVE PERMIT EXPIRES DATE COMPLETED This work should be done by quali ted tree professionals and a co y of this permit must be available at the job site at al times when work is beingperformed. o8/2oisrewsed Project Address: Project Comments - Planning Application 133 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-274-020 Description: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for basement with ceiling height above 6 feet and a direct exit, and Conditional Use Permit for new accessory structure with a window within 10 feet of property line, to relocate (on -site) an existing two-story house and construct a two-story addition with a basement. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. A remove/replace utilities encroachment permit is required to (1) replace all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, (2) plug all existing sanitary sewer lateral connections and install a new 4" lateral, (3) all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, (4) any other underground utility works within city's right-of-way. 2. fFerA pest censtnuetien site. More be met A note was not found on A0.1 and does not satisfy the requirement. Please show how compliance will be met on the plans. within the public Fight of way. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type III" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 3. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 4. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowsto bay.o rg/sites/defa u It/files/Co u ntywid a %20 Progra m%20BM P%20PIa n%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.odf#overlav-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" 5. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 6. For the construction of the basement, please provide information on groundwater levels during wet and dry seasons. A geotech report to back up assumptions for design criteria for foundation and shoring structural calculations is required. Design of backup generator for the groundwater pumps is required. Waterproofing of the basement will be required to allow for the water table to rise as no continuous groundwater pumping will be allowed. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 10/26/17 650-558-7245 a Proiect Comments - Project Address: 133 Pepper Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 028-274-020 Description: Request for Design Review, Special Permit for basement with ceiling height above 6 feet and a direct exit, and Conditional Use Permit for new accessory structure with a window within 10 feet of property line, to relocate (on -site) an existing two-story house and construct a two-story addition with a basement. From Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Private Protected Tree Removal permit required for removal of all tree larger than 15" in diameter. Contact Parks Division (650,558.7330) for permit. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: BD Date: 11.6.17 650.558.7333 CITY OFBURLINGAME NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 * FAX: (650)596-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 133 PEPPER AVENUE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for basement, first and second story additions to on existing single family dwelling with a detached garage and a Conditional Use Permit for an approved Accessory Dwelling Unit at 133 PEPPER AVENUE zoned R-I. APN 028-274-020 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ,fl Ar 1. Y 1 {4 �',t State of California:— The Resources Agency Primary# -. DEPARTMENT OF.PARKS :AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 15 Resource name(s)ornumber(assignedbyrecorder) 133 Pepper Avenue P1. Other Identifier *P2. Location: ❑Not for Publication ©Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 1999 *c. Address 133 Pepper Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number 028-274-020 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 133 Pepper Avenue is a two-story residence located on the west side of Pepper Avenue, between Ralston and Barroilhet avenues at Chapin Avenue in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. The subject house, a rear garage and cottage, were constructed on this lot in 1924 by builder, W.J. Black with electrical contractor, Victor Lemoge. The lot is rectilinear (roughly 109 feet by 99 feet), and the residence and outbuildings feature wood -frame construction and concrete foundations. A lanai (later enclosed) and a shed - roofed sunroom were added on the northwest side of the house in the late 1930s or early 1940s, and a flat -roofed, single story extension was added on the north side in 1945. The building is clad primarily in stucco with areas of raised batten siding and half- timbering at the second story. All windows feature wood surrounds. 133 Pepper Avenue is capped with a shingled cross gable roof and features slightly overhanging eaves with wood paneled soffits. The rear additions are capped with flat roofs and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. All facades feature a wood panel molding at the underside of the eaves, which also continues across the gable -roofed facades. The residence is oriented approximately 45 degrees off the cardinal directions. (See continuation sheet) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: OO Building ❑Structure []Object ❑Site ❑District ❑Element of District ❑Other None P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary (northeast) facade, December 2, 2016. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ®historic 1924 (Original building permit) *P7. Owner and Address: Jennifer Colvin, 133 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010. *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 *P9. Date Recorded: 12/23/16 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") *Attachments: ❑None ❑Location Map ❑Sketch Map OContinuation Sheet 0Building, Structure, and Object Record OArchaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock ArtRecord OArtifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (list) DPR 523A (1196) *Required information DPR 523L EET *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Primary # HRI'# or# (Assigned by recorder) 133 Pepper Avenue *Date January 5, 2017 O Continuation ❑ Update *P3a. Description: (continued) A gable -roofed wing projects from the left side of the primary (northeast) fagade. The ground story of the wing features a shallow bay window with four fixed arched and multi-lite leaded glass windows (24-lites) on the front -facing plane. The bay projection extends to the ground and the windows rest on a protruding brick ledge atop a stucco -clad base. The angled sides of the projection each contain the repeating arched window motif, but on these planes, the openings are inflled with stucco. A thin molding extends above the openings, and a cornice with dental detailing tops the projection. The gable -roofed second story features a pair of narrow, fixed leaded windows with a diamond grid pattern. The windows are centered on this fagade and flanked symmetrically by half-timbered detailing on the sides and above the windows extending to the gable peak. The south -facing plane of the projecting wing features a similar pair of multi-lite, leaded glass windows as the ground story; however, these windows feature square multi- lite (6-lite) transoms divided from the lower windows by a wide, projecting wood mullion (Figures 7 & 2). The north -facing plane of the projecting wing contains a fully glazed French door featuring diamond-gridded leaded glass and square, multi-lite transoms (6- lites). A half step up to a wood threshold provides access from the house's brick front porch. All windows and the glazed door feature wood surrounds and projecting wood sills. A lantern is mounted to the upper right of the glazed door (Figure 3). The central portion of the primary (northeast) fagade features a band of six full -height fixed, multi-lite windows (24-lites) topped with arched multi-lite transoms (6-lites). As on the projecting wing, wood mullions divide the windows from the transoms. To the right of these windows is another gable -roofed wing projecting a couple feet out from the main plane of the primary fagade. This portion contains a Baroque -style wood paneled front door, which is topped with a plaster keystone and framed by a raised segmented plaster surround. The front -facing plane features half -timbers extending up from the wood molding to the roofline. A half step brick porch extends from the left -side projecting wing to the north edge of the primary fagade and contains a bench and several planters. The exposed side of the gable roof does not feature any openings at the second story (Figures 4-6). Figure southwest. DPR 523L Figui and east -facing), looking northwest. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 15 Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update Figure 3. projection, looking southeast. Figure 5. DPR 523L fagade looking Figure Figi southwest. ry door. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 15 Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder)133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update The northwest fapade of the residence is accessed via a stone path, which leads to a swinging wood gate that provides access to the backyard. From left to right, the northwest fapade features four fixed multi-lite windows (15-lites) with multi-lite transoms (E- lites) and raised wood mullions at the ground story. The second story of this gabled portion features a pair of narrow, diamond- gridded windows at center with a vertical wood mullion. A wood molding divides the ground story from the second story, which is clad with stucco and raised batten siding. A secondary wood molding runs across the second story and is intersected by the window. The overhanging roof save features decorative carved trim along the edge. A chimney rises at the approximate center of the northwest fapade and extends from the ground to just above the roof peak. The batten siding and intermediate molding continue at the second story to the right of the chimney. Directly right -adjacent to the chimney at the second story is a fully glazed, multi-lite door with an inset fixed screen. It does not appear that the flat roof below this door was ever accessible (Figures 9-11). The ground story to the right of the chimney projects out approximately ten feet from the main plane of the northwest fapade into the side yard. This flat -roofed wing features overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. It is clad with stucco and contains four gridded leaded glass windows and transoms on the northeast plane. The northwest plane contains no openings and extends to the rear fapade. A high wood fence extends along the northwest property line and abuts the adjacent lot's side yard (Figure 12). looking southeast. Figi DPR 523L ith. Figure Figure house, west. or io Kesource Name or# (Assigned by recorder) 133 Pepper Avenue by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 O Continuation ❑ Update The rear (southwest) fagade of the main residence features several distinct volumes. The projecting flat -roofed, single -story wing features — from left to right — a tripartite fixed window with narrow wood -framed side windows flanking a wide diamond-gridded window with raised wood muntins and sash. To the right of this window is a fully glazed wood framed sliding door with inset vinyl muntins. Right -adjacent to the sliding door is a multi-lite, double -hung window with wood sash and vinyl muntins. Exposed rafter tails extend around the rear face of this single -story volume (Figures 13, 15.16). The center of the ground story rear fagade features a projecting shed -roofed sunroom, clad with tongue and groove wood siding, which contains, from left to right, two windows on the north -facing plane (fixed and sliding with metal sash), two horizontally oriented fixed windows on the west -facing plane, and a solid wood door flanked by two fixed windows on the south -facing plane. The door also contains an outer decorative wrought iron screen door. Clerestories above the windows on the north and south - facing planes extend up to the angled roofline (Figure 19). The shed roof appears to feature metal sheeting topped with a wood trellis. The area behind the sunroom projects upward a few feet from the former lanai flat roof and is also capped with a flat roof. Though it was difficult to view from the backyard, there appears to be a monitor window centered in the lower flat roof and a pyramidal skylight at the east side of the upper flat roof (part of original portion of house) (Figure 14). The second story of the main volume of the residence (above and to the east of the lower flat roof) features, from left to right, a stucco -clad dormer window containing four west -facing windows - three leaded glass windows (16-lites) and a double -hung window. A few feet to the right is a recessed dormer with two square, leaded glass windows (12-lites) at apposite sides. All windows on the second story appear to contain wood sash and frames (Figure 14). (north side) window, looking northeast. DPR 523L Fig northeast. CONTINUATION SHEET Page 6 of 15 Resource Name *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figi looking northeast. omial or # (Assigned by recorder) 133 Pepper Avenue *Date January 5, 2017 ® Continuation ❑ Update The south gable -roofed wing of the rear fagade - from left to right on the ground story - features a narrow, fixed and partial -height multi-lite window (9-lites) with wood muntins, followed by a solid wood door and a full -height window with wood sash containing four leaded glass windows (15-lites) and transoms (6-lites) divided by raised wood mullions. The second story of this gable -roofed fagade features four similar leaded glass windows aligned with the four below. One window has a portion of lead muntins missing on the lower portion. The north -facing plane of this wing contains no openings and features a chimney at the east side. The center and south portions of the rear fagade open onto a raised wood deck with a wood plank bench at the far south side (Figures 19.20). Figure 19. Rear (southwest) fagade, sunroom, looking north. Fil looking northeast. 1), The southeast side fagade of the residence is adjacent to a semi -circular yard planted with rose bushes and a perimeter low hedge. The driveway extends parallel to this fagade leading to the garage at the southwest side. A narrow side yard divides the driveway from a high wood fence abutting the adjacent property to the south. At the far left of the residence's southeast side fagade are four windows with transoms in the same style as on the south rear fagade. The second story contains a bank of five windows, which similarly appear to be fixed and multi-lite (15-lites). At the cross - gable roof intersection, the eastern portion of the southeast fagade projects a couple feet from the west side plane. The east side ground story features, from left to right, three leaded windows (15-lites) with transoms (6-lites) with wood mullions and wood sills. At center of this plane is a partial -height, fixed, multi-lite window (12-lites) followed by a narrow, vertically oriented multi-lite window (15-lites) with an inset stained glass window (Figure 27). On the right is another partial -height multi-lite window (12-lites) (Figures 23.26). Three decorative metal grates concealing foundation crawlspaces are evenly spaced along the fagade just above the ground (Figure 28). DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. .*Date January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update Similar to the other gable -roofed portions of the house, the second story of the southeast fagade (east side) is clad with stucco and raised batten siding and divided from the first story by a continuous wood molding. An additional wood molding traverses the fagade halfway between the top of the ground story and the gable peak. The second story features a partial -height multi-lite window (9-lites) at the left, a centered pair of multi-lite windows (15-lites) with transoms (6-lites), followed by another pair of narrow multi-lite windows (15-lites). The upper portion of the second story continues the batten siding and features curved half-timbering symmetrical below the gable peak. The roof eaves similarly feature decorative carved edge detailing (Figure 26). Figure Figu DPR 523L Drtheast. vest. FIE looking southeast. looking northwest. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Resource by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Figure 27. De Figu or u *Date tained glass. vest. January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update The garage is capped with a gable roof with overhanging eaves and similar decorative carved edge detailing. The east -facing ground story contains a wide wood paneled garage door with raised wood battens and wood frame. The second story features vertical half-timbering and a molding between the stories. The north and south facades contain no openings, and all facades feature stucco siding (Figures 29 & 30). The backyard of the main residence features a brick terraced landscaped garden with brick steps on the north and south sides, leading up to a pebbled concrete and stone paved pool deck. The pool is surrounded on the north and west sides by tall trees and high fences, obscuring views of adjacent properties. On the south side is a wood fence, which provides access to the rear of the garage (second story storage shed) and a small cottage, which is clad with tongue and groove siding, and is also accessible from the pool side (Figures 31-34). The cottage features a gable roof with overhanging eaves and wood -paneled soffits. The rear (southwest) side of the garage features an exterior wood stair and railing leading up to a solid wood door. A wood deck extends between the garage and the cottage. The side (northeast) fagade of the cottage contains a partial -height single -hung window at left followed by a partially glazed multi-lite door (6-lites) with wood muntins. A dog door is located in the lower portion (Figures 36 & 36). The wood fence intersects the side fagade of the cottage, and a multi-lite (12-lite) window with wood muntins and sash is to the right of the fence. The front (northeast) fagade of the cottage features two similar multi-lite windows (12-lites), which flank a solid wood door (Figure 33). DPR 523L State ofCalifornia —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 15 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 OO Continuation ❑ Update The primary facade of the residence faces a paved front yard adjacent to Pepper Avenue. A driveway begins at the south side of the lot and extends from an opening in the concrete fence at Pepper Avenue to a garage at the rear south side. A narrow, planted yard runs between the paved area and the street and large trees largely obscure views of the house from Pepper Avenue. Small trees and a hedge are planted in front of the primary fagade's south gabled wing. A wood fence and swinging door is adjacent on the south side to the gabled wing, which provides access to the side facade and rear garage (Figures 7 & 8). The residence and outbuilding exteriors of 133 Pepper Avenue are in fair condition but appear to require structural and roof repairs pool, looking southwest. looking southeast. DPR 523L 3 fences, looking northwest. State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 15 Resource Name or# (Assigned by recorder)133 Pepper Avenue age *Recorded by P& Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update southwest. DPR 523L Later additions shaded in orange. North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2016, edited by author. HRI# CT RECORD *Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue 61. Historic name: 133 Pepper Avenue B2. Common name: 133 Pepper Avenue B3. Original Use: Single -Family Residence B4. Present use: Single -Family Residence *135. Architectural Style: Tudor Revival/English cottage *136. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) 133 Pepper Avenue was completed in May, 1924 by builder, W.J. Black and San Francisco -based electrical contractor, Victor Lemoge (Building Permit #558). According to the earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. map (1924), the subject property originally featured the cross -gable roofed volumes of the main residence, rear flat -roofed extension (with pyramidal skylight), and the detached garage. Three unpermitted additions were made to the main residence, likely in the late 1930s through early 1940s, including a lanai on the rear northwest side (later enclosed), a square -shaped extension of the enclosed lanai on the northeast side in 1945 (indicated in an appraisal document from 1947), and a rear shed -roofed sunroom (c. 1960s). The current owner indicated that the 1945 extension was likely used as a dining room, Additionally, historic photographs indicate that an unpermitted leaded glass window was added at the second story of the primary fagade between 1954 and 1962, In September 1967, a permit was issued for unspecified work under owner, John Kockos (Permit 4580). In January 1989, the kitchen was remodeled for $6000 (Permit #2147). Pipe repairs occurred in 1983 due to illegal pipe connections. It is unknown when the rear bathhouse/in-law apartment was added, though it was likely constructed in the 1940s. *B7. Moved? EEINo DYes ❑Unknown Date_: Original Location: *68. Related Features: No B9a. Architect: Architect unknown b. *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Ai Period of Significance 1924 Property Type R (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as de Builder: W J Black (builder) and Victor Lemoge (electrical) and geographic scope. Also address Historic Context: City of Burlingame The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican -era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi -rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small-scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: See Page 16 813. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Cassie Rogg, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: January 5, 2017 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 523B (1195) DPR 523L Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2016. Property outlined in red. North is left. Modified by Page & Turnbull. *Required information ...o.`.., u.., u,o—no'�cOuu,...a Vwl1.y niniaiyn rl DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 19 Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 17 Continuation ❑ Update B10. Significance (cont'd): During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small village of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. However, the 1906 Earthquake had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910, annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of the San Mateo Rancho. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the property following Burlingame's death, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr, to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan '.centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree -lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents."' The land was subdivided and the streets were laid out in May 1906 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine BoreL The residential neighborhood is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.2 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton, Burlingame Park is bounded by County Road to the north; Burlingame Park, Crescent, and Barroilhet avenues to the east; Pepper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. Thus, 133 Pepper was among the earlier properties to be constructed in the neighborhood during the 1920s wave of development. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early twentieth century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are some variation of Craftsman or various revival styles (often altered). 133 Penner Avenue Construction of 133 Pepper Avenue was completed in May 1924.3 The original contractors were noted as W.J. Black and Victor Lemoge, who owned a San Francisco -based company, Lemoge Electric.4 No further information was found about builder, W.J. Black. Other contractors involved in the construction listed on the building permit include Roberts Manufacturing Co. and Gilly- Schmid. The earliest Sanborn Map of the property dates from the year of construction (1924) and portrays the original cross -gable roofed portions of the residence and the rear Oat -roofed, single -story extension with the pyramidal skylight. The rear detached garage is also depicted. It is unknown when the lanai, pool, and rear bathhouse were added to the property, but it is likely they were added in the late 1930s or early 1940s. An appraisal document from July 1947 indicated on a sketch that the rear bathhouse (labeled as storage), single -story lanai, and the single -story 'dining room' extension on the north side of the house (labeled 1945) were built by this time. The owner at that time was George T. Duffy (See areas shaded in Figure 37). The earliest historic photograph dates from July 1954 and describes the house's special features, including a "lanai, rumpus room, and bath in the rear of the garden, just built" (Figure 39). The addition of the bath in the rear cottage allowed for it to be used as dressing rooms for the pool during the 1950s-1960s and was later converted to be rented out as an "in-law apartment" in 1969, This photograph also indicates that the ground story windows and main entry appear unaltered, but featured awnings above the windows and door in the gable -roofed portions of the primary facade. At the second story, however, the south gable originally did not contain a paired window, which was added by 1962 in the same style as other windows (Figure 40). The left side window awnings were removed by 1965, while the awning remained above the front door until at least 1967 (Figures 41 & 42). Another appraisal photograph of the primary facade from 1969 indicates that the entry awning had been removed and the rear bathhouse was described as "a complete cottage with kitchen" (Figure 43). No other historic photographs were found of other facades, the garage, or rear cottage. Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park," (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). ' Building Permit #558. The San Mateo County Assessor lists the construction date as 1924 for $8000, 4 'Victor Virgillia Lemoge." (Record added August 2012) Available at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GR!d=96318573 DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial rage 13 of 19 Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 OO Continuation ❑ Update Owner and Occupant History The original owner of 133 Pepper Avenue was Harry P. Vollmer, a wholesale furniture salesman, who lived in the house for ten years with his wife, Elsa M. Vollmer, and his daughter, Shirley. The succeeding owner, Charles Considine, a manager at a local production plant, resided there for two years with his wife, Gertrude. In 1938, Franklin English, who was also a sales manager in a wholesale furniture business. purchased the property. He lived there with his wife, Almirah and daughter, also Almirah, for six years. It is likely that the additions were made to the property during the English's ownership, as they were indicated on the 1947 appraisal and no owners were listed in city directories from 1947-1948. Paul Young and his wife, Marjorie, lived in the house for a year following the English family, and the next record of ownership in city directories was in 1948, under Willard C. Chamberlin Jr. and his wife, Katherine Chamberlin. Willard worked as a script writer for a local radio station. In 1954, Charles Bassett resided at the subject property with his wife, Marion Bassett, and worked as a department sales manager (industry unknown). In 1958, George Duffy and his wife, Claire, were owners and George worked as an expressman and later dock foreman (port unknown). In 1967, John Kockos and his wife, Patricia (Moriarty), moved into the house and resided there for nearly fifty years. John was the son of Greek immigrant parents and served in the Navy during World War II through 1946. John met Patricia, a model, in San Francisco, and the couple married in 1950, moving to Burlingame soon after. They had six children (listed below) and Patricia worked during the 1950s for PanAm as a flight attendant. John was a real estate broker and started Kockos Realty, Inc. in 1956 with his brother and business partner, Basil Kockos. The business ultimately operated out of eight locations and was regarded as "the number one volume organization (number of recorded transactions) between 1959-1961 in northern California."5 A passionate salesman, John Kockos worked in commercial real estate development nearly until his death in 2013.The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 133 Pepper Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and other available resources: Yea I m of Ownership =Names) of Owners (toad) and Tenants Occation. -- 1924-1934 Harry P. Vollmer and Elsa M. Vollmer (wife) Wholesale merchant, furniture ShirleyI. Vollmer (daughter) 1935-1937 Charles J. Considine and Gertrude C. Considine wife Manager, production plant 1938-1944 Franklin A. English and Almirah (McGuffin) English (wife) Sales manager, furniture wholesale Almirah English (daughter) 1945-1946 Paul Young and Marjorie Young (wife) Unknown 1947-1948 Vacant N/A 1948-1953 Willard C. Chamberlin Jr. and Katherine Chamberlin (wife) Script and radio writer 1954-1957 Charles J. Bassett and Marion J. Bassett (wife) Department manager and salesman 1958-1963 George T. Duffy and Claire E. Duffy (wife) Expressman and later dock foreman 1965-1966 Main house vacant Unknown Lise Fontaine possibly tenant in cottage John Harry Kockos and Patricia Ann (Moriarty) Kockos John a broker from 1956-2013; 1967-2014 6 children: Jennifer, Melissa, Deborah, Scott, Kent, Mark Patricia worked before children as a Fran Caldwell tenant in rear apartment in 1970s model and later for PanAm 2014-current I Jennifer Colvin Evaluation (Significance): The property at 133 Pepper Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building does not appear in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) as of 2012, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan area, and therefore the property is not listed locally. 133 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Constructed in 1924, the property conveys contextual significance as a single- family residence associated with the early wave of development of Burlingame Park, but it is neither among the first, nor last, homes to be built in the neighborhood. Therefore, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion 1. 133 Pepper Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Research has not revealed any association with people significant in local, state or national history. The Kockos family were the 5 "John Harry Kockos". Obituary from September 22, 2011 DPR 523L 'OF PARKS AND RECRE IATION SHEET 19 Page & Turnbull, Inc. y Primary# IN HRI # Trinomial Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue `Date January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update longest -term owners and occupants of the property and sources indicate they were well -liked and respected members of the community; however, research has not revealed them to be significant within a larger historic context. Research does not indicate that any other former owners and occupants rose to a level of significance at the local, state, or national level such that the property would be individually eligible for listing under Criterion 2. 133 Pepper Avenue does appear to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The main portions of the house and detached garage are original from 1924, Though two single -story rear additions were made to the house during the 1940s-50s, the residence displays a notable collection of architectural features closely associated with the Tudor Revival style. This style was popular in the United States during the interwar period, as it evoked feelings of an English country cottage adapted to modern comforts. At the same time, the style expressed aesthetic refinement and gave the impression of hand -worked features that suggested these buildings were expensive to produce. 133 Pepper Avenue, built at the height of popularity of the Tudor Revival style, features exemplary Tudor and Jacobean features, such as steep pitched gable roofs, leaded windows, arched doors and windows, stucco detailing, and half-timbering. Despite the rear additions, which neither impact the original massing of the house, nor are visible from the front of the property, 133 Pepper Avenue remains a very good, though modest, example of a Tudor Revival -style house within an early twentieth century residential subdivision. Since no single architect is known to be responsible for the design, nor do any of the known contractors appear to have established individual significance, it cannot be said to be the work of a master at this time. However, the property is individually significant for its architectural merit and appears eligible for listing to the California Register under Criterion 3. This property was not assessed for its potential to yield information important in prehistory or history, per National Register and California Register Criterion DA (Information Potential). This Criterion is typically reserved for archeological resources. The analysis of the house at 320 Pepper Avenue for eligibility under California Register Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report. Evaluation (Integrity): The property at 133 Pepper Avenue features two principal rear additions to the residence, a pool, rear bathhouse/cottage, and a leaded glass window added at the second story in the primary fagade (c. late 1950s). All other windows of the original residence appear intact with wood frames, sash and leaded glass; a few of the rear addition windows and sliding door feature replacement vinyl sash and muntins. Though the rear alterations have impacted the original conditions and spatial relationships on the property, the original massing of the house remains intact and clearly discernible, especially as perceived from the front yard and public right of way, and the single -story rear additions are compatible with the Tudor design style and appropriate to the age of the residence. Overall, the building retains integrity of design in the original portions, materials, workmanship, and feeling. It continues to be used as a single-family residence within a universally residential neighborhood, and has not been moved since its reconstruction. The original garage also appears to have retained integrity of design. Changes in the rear landscaping, such as the rear swimming pool, bathhouse/cottage, and planting beds, somewhat affect the property's integrity of setting; however, the front yard and the proximity to adjacent residences appears largely unaltered such that the density of development and overall design characteristics within Burlingame Park remain. As a result, the building retains integrity of setting, location, and association. Therefore, the subject property retains overall historic integrity. Character Defining Features: For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character -defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly exhibit enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms of form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. The character -defining features of 133 Pepper Avenue include: -Steeply pitched, cross -gabled roof, clad with heavy shingles -Over-scaled chimneys with brickwork -Asymmetrical floor plan -Half-timbering in the gable or upper story and infilled with plaster -Tall, narrow, multi-lite windows in bands; often leaded casement or diamond -paned -Arched door - Plaster or stucco siding - Dormers -Slightly curved roof eaves and decorative trim suggesting the look of a medieval cottage -Gabled front entry DPR 523L Primary # Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 ® Continuation ❑ Update Conclusion The residence and garage at 133 Pepper Avenue were constructed in 1924, during the major wave of development in this subdivision of Burlingame Park. The cross -gable roofed portions of the house and rear upper flat roofed extension are original, while the lower flat -roofed rear additions, shed -roofed sunroom, and bathhouse were likely added during the 1940s-50s. While most windows and doors appear unaltered in the original portions, a leaded glass window was added at the second story of the primary fagade in the mid-1950s. Though there are a few other notable examples of Tudor -revival cottage architecture in Burlingame, such as the homes on Willborough Road (early 1930s), and an impressive example of a Tudor mansion next door, 133 Pepper Avenue appears to be one of the earliest and most intact examples of a Tudor revival residence in the neighborhood. No significant events are associated with the property, and while the Kockos family were long-term owners and occupants (nearly 50 years), neither they, nor any other owners or occupants, appear to be have contributed to history in a significant way. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of"3CS" has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was "found eligible for the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation.116 The conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. A cursory inspection of the surrounding area reveals a high concentration of early twentieth-century residences that warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park as a whole would need to be done to verify the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district. 6 California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 16 of 19 Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 ® Continuation ❑ Update *B12. References: Ancestry.com Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building Permit Records, 133 Pepper Avenue, Burlingame, CA Burlingame City Directories, California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Carey & Company. "Draft Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan." February 19, 2008. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004, Diane Condon-Wirgler, "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park," (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). Garrison, Joanne. Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008. Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007. Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. John Kockos Obituary, San Mateo Times. September 25, 2013. John Kockos Business Card. Burlingame Historical Society. Kockos Realty Co. Burlingame 1967 Directory. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. Patricia Ann Moriarty Kockos Obituary. San Mateo Times. April 24, 2014. "Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame." July 26, 1982. Property Ownership Cards, Burlingame Historical Society. San Mateo County Assessor Grantor -Grantee Index. San Mateo Times and Daily New Leader. San Francisco Chronicle. Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps: 1920-1949 (dated 1924). United States Federal Census records: 1924-1950. Water Tap Record. 133 Pepper Avenue, Lot 6, Block 1. May 16, 1924. Willborough neighborhood website. Accessible at https://sites.google.com/site/willborough/home DPR 523L iency Primary # 4TION HRI.# Trinomial Page 17 of 19 *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Maps and Drawings: �yp a �tl` tl'S *Date January 5,2017 e 1 {1Yld�Jf ee Figure 38. Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Map (1920-1949), dated 1924 Property outlined in red. Edited by author. ALS c .+ +fin r — CNOj - Ell s a t-'k k 7 v Figure 39. 133 Pepper Avenue, prima Burlingame DPR 523L Society. ❑ Update State of California -The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 18 of 19 Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue wcoraea ay rage & I urnpull, Inc. Figu r Mbu,rLrD PROM T9, 956 Ilse 1=o/uTAimF 44k"h 1'DI Bars Room t pox POOL �hG6�EJ lU�'r N LI 8 kur `:36 Figure *Date January 5, 2017 0 Continuation ❑ Update Burlingame Historic Society. fayade. Asses 3toric Society. DPR 523L State of California —The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 19 of 19 Resource Name or # 133 Pepper Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date January 5, 2017 171 Continuation ❑ Update "MU Po-16-bq Frw P q q, .a M0Sal &AT17, R n1rirk t wtrH k1tce np {i () LUX xlRr2) Iq 70 Figure 43.133 Pepper Avenue, primary fagade. Assessor's photograph (1969). Burlingame Historic Society. DPR 523L I33 PEPPERAI ENUE, BURLINGAME PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS [ 16"297A] PR; I'ARI 1) 1 OR: C I IY Ok BIJRHNG.�AMr COMMUNITY IA VELOPMH N I -)I PAR MINI AND I RCS ARCi it H-CI URF & IR 11 NOR DILSIC N AG " & TuRNBULL A0CUS1 30, )"H/ imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology Proposed ProJeaAnalyris 133 PeppwAnenue Final Burlingame, Cafiforma TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 2 METHODOLOGY................................................................................................. 3 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION....................................................................................................... 3 II. CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES.....................................................................4 133 PEPPER AVENUE........................................................................................................................... 4 IV. PROPOSED PROJECT ANALYSIS....................................................................... 5 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................. 5 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT................................................................................ 8 STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE .................................................... 9 SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS .......... ..................................................... I .... ........ 10 STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION................................................................................................ 10 ANALYSIS OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA........................................................ 14 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS..................................................................................................................... 14 PROJECT IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................... 15 VII. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................... 17 VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 18 XI. APPENDIX A........................................................................................................ 19 XII. APPENDIX B....................................................................................................... 20 August 30, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. y_ Proposed PrgjedAnalysis Final 133 PepperAuewe Burlingame, California This Proposed Project Analysis has been prepared at the request of TRG Architecture & Interior Design and their clients, Jennifer Colvin and Eric Klein, for proposed alterations to 133 Pepper Avenue (APN 028-274-020) in Burlingame, California. 133 Pepper Avenue is a two-story Tudor Revival style residence located on the west side of Pepper Avenue, between Ralston and Barroilhet avenues and across from Chapin Avenue in the Burlingame Park neighborhood (Figure 1). The subject house, a rear garage, and cottage, were constructed on this lot in 1924 by builder W.J. Black. The lot is rectilinear (roughly 209 feet by 109 feet), and the residence and outbuildings feature wood - frame construction and concrete foundations. A lanai (later enclosed) and a shed -roofed sumoom were added on the northwest side of the house in the late 1930s or early 1940s, and a flat -roofed, single story extension was added on the north side in 1945. The building is clad primarily in stucco with areas of raised batten siding and half-timbering at the second story. All windows feature wood surrounds. The residence is oriented approximately 45 degrees off the cardinal directions. blue. Later additions shaded in orange. North is up. Source: Google Maps, 2016, edited by author. 133 Pepper Avenue was evaluated in January 2017 by Page & Turnbull and determined to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture). As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of "3CS" was assigned to the property, meaning that it has been "found eligible for the California Register as an individual property through survey evaluation." However, 133 Pepper Avenue has not been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. August 30, 2017 Page dam' Turnbull, Inc. 2_ Proposed ProjeetAnalysis 133 Pepper Avenue Final Bur1mgame, California This report includes a summary of the building's current historic status, significance, and a list of character -defining features that enable the property to convey its historic significance. Refer to Appendix A for current photographs of the building. Based on the fording of historic significance, the proposed project is evaluated using the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation Guidelines for Rehabilitating historic Buildings, Page & Turnbull prepared this report using information collected from a December 2016 site visit, drawings provided by TRG Architects, as well as the evaluation in the January 2017 DPR forms. SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION The property at 133 Pepper Avenue was evaluated in January 2017 using the State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms (Appendix A) and determined to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture). 133 Pepper Avenue did not appear to be eligible to the extent necessary for significance under Criterion C of the National Register of Historic Places. Though there are a few other notable examples of Tudor Revival architecture in Burlingame, 133 Pepper Avenue appears to be one of the earliest and most intact examples of a Tudor Revival residence in the neighborhood. Therefore, 133 Pepper Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (the Standards) and was determined to fully comply with six of the ten Standards. As designed, the proposed project would impact the eligibility of the property for listing in the California Register. Three project improvement measures are provided that would help to reinforce the reviewed proposal's compliance with the Standards. August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc. 3- Proposed PmleaAnalysis 133 PoperAnenue Final Burlingame, California 11. CHARACTER -DEFINING FEATURES 133 PEPPERAVENUE For a property to be eligible for national, state or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character -defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials. According to the 2017 DPR forms, the period of significance for 133 Pepper Avenue was determined to be its year of construction, 1924. The evaluation includes a list of the character - defining features for the building that contribute to its significance as a representative example of Tudor Revival residential architecture. The character -defusing features listed below include those listed in the DPR forms, in addition to features of the environment and setting that have been determined to contribute to the property's overall historic integrity. According to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rebabilitation, significance for architecture is supported by the retention of features that relate to design, materials, workmanship, location, setting, feeling, and association. Please refer to the DPR forms for descriptions of existing conditions and photographs (January 2017) of the subject property (Appendix A). The character -defining features of 133 Pepper Avenue include: House Garage Site • Steeply pitched, cross -gabled roof, clad with heavy shingles • Wood cave trim • Over -scaled chimneys with brickwork • Half-timbering in the gable or upper story, infilled with plaster • Tall, narrow, multi -Etc windows in bands, often leaded casement or diamond -paned • Arched door • Raised batten siding in the upper story • Plaster or stucco siding • Bay window • Dormer windows • Slightly curved roof eaves and decorative trim suggesting the look of a medieval cottage • Gabled front entry • Asymmetrical floor plan • Gable roof with overhanging roof eaves • Half-timbering detailing and decorative trim • Stucco siding • Residence's orientation on site and set back with a deep front lawn • Spatial relationships between the residence and the detached rear garage August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc. -4- Proposed Project Analysis 133 PeepperAuenue Final Durk'ngam6 California IV. PROPOSE® PROJECT ANALYSIS This section analyzes the project -specific impacts of the proposed project at 133 Pepper Avenue on the environment, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following analysis describes the proposed project; assesses its compliance with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rebabilitation; and identifies cumulative impacts. This proposed project description is based on a Planning submittal set of drawings and perspective views prepared by TRG Architects and sent to Page & Turnbull Qune 30, 2017). The proposed project at 133 Pepper Avenue will involve the relocation of the historic house 28 feet and 10 inches diagonally to the southeast; construction of an adjacent two-story addition with basement to the north and a new second unit (detached rear guesthouse) at the southwest portion of the site; and an interior remodel. The proposed two-story addition will reach 24 feet above grade (22 feet above the ground story), and the detached second unit to 11.5 feet, neither of which will exceed the maximum allowable residential height requirement of 30 feet; the existing residence's roof ridge will be at 28 feet above grade. The net increase in area of the residence will be 3,923 square feet (includes 1,366 square feet in the basement and 2,557 square feet above ground). In addition, the new guest house will be 518 square feet (replacing the existing 511 square foot accessory building). So, the resulting overall net increase will be 3,930 square feet. No changes are proposed to the existing garage. The driveway will also remain in its current location, but will be narrowed to one lane following the residence's relocation. As proposed, TRG Architects intends to preserve the majority of historic features and massing of the existing Tudor Revival residence. No changes are proposed to the existing historic primary facade, except the colors of the residence axe proposed to be returned closet to colors shown in a historic photograph from 1969, in which the half-timbering is painted dark and the stucco is painted light. The adjacent new north addition, hyphen `entry link' addition, and addition to the existing rear of the residence will take design cues from the historic building, including floor heights, massing, and materiality. It will also draw design inspiration from the proportions of the existing building (L- shaped massing, divided windows), but in an inverse way, aiming to complement the visual language of the adjacent resource. All existing non -historic portions of the property, including latex additions to the main residence (enclosed lanai and sunroom extension) and the ancillary pool house will be replaced with new construction. Substantial new landscaping and paving are also proposed at the site. All property line setback requirements will be observed in the proposed design. Refet to plans and elevations provided for more information (Appendix B). Existing Residence - Rear Alterations /Additions Side (Southeast) Elevation There are two planned alterations to the existing southeast side facade: these include the replacement of a set of three original multi-lite windows with a new fully glazed side entry door with sidelite. This door will be accessed by two steps. Also at the ground story, one narrow, multi-lite window (second from the right in the main volume) will be removed and the wall patched in this location. Side (Noribwest) Courtyard Elevation Proposed alterations to the existing northwest facade will include new, fully glazed double doors flanked with sidelites to replace a bank of four multi-lite windows at the left side of the main volume's ground story. A non -original multi-lite door at the main volume's second story (at right of the chimney) will be replaced with a new two-lite window. August 30, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. 5- Proposed Project Analysis 133 PepperAuenue Final Burk'ngame, Cahforrna Bear Elevation The massing and tooflines of the original portion of the rear facade (south side and second story) will be generally retained in the proposed design. At the ground story left -side, the non -original lanai will be replaced by a raised patio and accessed by three steps from the backyard. The removal will expose a northwest -facing portion of the original volume, which will open onto the rear patio through two sets of doors — the left bay will feature fully glazed sliding doors (from the entry link), while the right bay will contain fully glazed double doors with sidelites. The areas between the doors and to the right of the double doors will be clad with vertical wood siding. At the ground story right -side, the non - original rear sumoom extension (c. 1945) will be removed and replaced by a new multi-lite window with wood mullions and sash. At the second story left -side of the existing rear facade, the dormers will be replaced by full -height glazing extending across the facade. At the right side, the roof behind the former sunroom will be made into an accessible deck and a new cable rail will be added at the southwest and northwest sides. Hyphen Addition (Entry Luck) This hyphen addition between the existing residence and the new north addition will serve as a recessed link between the existing residence and the new addition; the existing residence and the north addition will be physically separated by 20 feet on the front side and 24 feet on the rear side. Front Portion The front portion of the hyphen will feature full -height glazing at both stories with powder coated aluminum frames, which is typical throughout the new addition. A solid oak entry door will sit in the center panel, accessed by three concrete paved steps and a wide landing, A painted wood fascia will cap this portion of the facade, while an entry overhang with a Cotten steel fascia will define the ground story from the second story and extend across the facade, continuing the existing roofline of the historic building's ground story. To the right side of the glazed portion will be a projecting two- story volume clad with panelized Cotten steel on two sides, which will contain no openings; this volume will contain the vertical circulation (an elevator) for the new addition. Bear Portion As mentioned, the rear side of the hyphen will feature fully glazed sliding doors that open onto the rear patio. At the left side, another two-story projecting volume will enclose a stairway. Cotten steel paneling will also clad both sides of this volume and will frame two areas of off -center glazing, New North Addition Front Portion The new two-story addition's primary (northeast) facade will align with the primary facade of the historic building's main volume and will be clad with variable -width, charred grey vertical wood siding, oriented vertically to echo the residence's half-timbering. The ground story will contain fully glazed sliding doors at center and will be capped by a Cotten steel fascia and overhang. The second story of this portion will be recessed and feature a pair of partial -height windows at center, capped by a thin, flat metal parapet. A stucco parapet will wrap the perimeter of a grass roof above the ground story portion. Looking northwest, the front portion of the north addition ground story will feature an L-shaped band of stucco on the left (extends up to stucco parapet) and vertical wood siding on the right. At center, the facade will contain a fully glazed double door flanked with sidelites, which will open out from the new dining room onto the front entry patio/landing, and will be accessed by a single step down to a narrow landing flanked by reflecting pools. This portion of the facade will also be capped by a Cotten steel fascia, which wraps around from the primary facade. August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc. -6- Proposed PrOaAnaly✓h Final 133 Pe perAuenw Burlingame, Calfornia Bear Portion The rear portion of the north addition will extend west onto the parcel approximately 40 feet from the existing tear plane of the residence, and face onto a covered patio that extends another 12 feet to the west. Looking northeast, the ground story will feature a fully glazed single door at the right side, which opens out from the family room. This short facade will be clad primarily with vertical wood siding with a band of stucco at the far left side. The second story of this tear portion similarly will feature vertical wood siding with three-lite fully glazed sliding doors at the right side, which will be capped by a Cotten steel overhang. This volume will feature a flat roof and no discernible parapet. Looking northwest at the teat portion, the fat -left bay will feature the covered patio, followed by a bay containing wide, four-lite, fully glazed sliding doors leading to the backyard from a combined family room/breakfast Loom/kitchen. A band of vertical wood siding will wrap the corner on the left side of this single -story volume, and the ground story will be capped by an overhang with a Cotten steel fascia, continuing from the patio roof. The fax -tight side of the ground story will feature a single fully glazed door and a band of stucco will abut the hyphen's projecting stair volume. This portion of the addition will be primarily one story with a stucco parapet that bounds a grass roof. At the tight side, the master bedroom will be at the second story with access to a roof terrace. This second story portion will be clad with vertical wood siding and feature a southeast -facing single lite window capped by a Cotten steel overhang, which wraps the corner. Side (Nortbwest) Portion The northwest facade of the addition will extend along a single plane and read as three distinct but interlocking volumes. The portion at the far -left (east) side will feature a single -story volume clad with vertical wood siding (with the grass roof and low stucco parapet above). The overhang will wrap around to this facade from the front and extend to the end of the wood siding. Though the volume will be two stories at this point, the cladding materials will distinguish the ground story (stucco) from the second story (wood siding). The center portion of the facade, which aligns with the edges of the hyphen and projecting circulation volumes, will be clad with vertical wood siding that will extend to the eastern edge of the second story. This center section will contain three vertically oriented windows at the ground story and one horizontally -oriented, clerestory window at the second story. The right side of the facade will be one story, clad in stucco, and will extend to the top of the terrace and grass roof. Another horizontal clerestory window will span across the right side of this portion of the facade. The far -right side will feature the covered porch with Cotten steel overhang. Interior The proposed first floor of the existing residence will consist of an expanded living room, library, offices, guest bedroom, and side entry mudroom. The proposed addition will provide an entry hallway between the existing house and the new addition, which will contain a dining room, open kitchen/breakfast area, and family room on the ground floor. The second story will contain a playroom, two bedrooms, a library mezzanine, and laundry in the original portion. The addition will contain a master bedroom suite. The proposed new basement will be accessed via stairs and an elevator at the entry link and will contain mechanical spaces, a home theater, wine cellar, and exercise room. The interior remodel is not subject to review under CEQA. New `Second Units— Pool House The new pool house will echo the design language and motifs of the new addition. It will replace the non -historic pool house at the southwest side of the parcel, and be altered slightly in orientation. The front (northwest) facade will mostly feature full -height glazing with powder -coated aluminum frames. A fully glazed door will be located near center, and the right side of the facade will be clad with vertical wood siding. A Cotten steel overhang will extend above the glazed portion of the facade. The tight (northeast) side will feature both wood siding and cement plaster cladding with a pair of August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc. -7- Proposed ProjedAnalysis Final 133 PepperAvenue Burk'ngame, California windows at the ride side The rear (southeast) facade will be clad fully with cement plaster with one vertical window at the right side. The left (southwest) side will also be mostly clad with cement plaster except the area under the overhang at the right that will be clad with wood siding. There will be no openings in this facade. Site Features Front Lawn As indicated on the site plan, the existing site wall at the front of the property will be reconstructed, and a new opening and entry gate will be added at the center. New concrete unit paving is proposed at the driveway. Stone -paved walkways will lead from this parking area to a raised patio in the courtyard, or area between the existing residence, the hyphen link, and north addition. At the far north side of the parcel will be a bocce ball court surrounded by planting areas. New planting areas are proposed in the center of the front lawn flanking the entry walkways. Reflecting pools will flank the entry to the north addition. The rear wall will be replaced with six-foot solid wood fencing and a hedge will run along the perimeter of the property. The three eucalyptus trees at the front of the lot will be removed and replaced with six specimen or replacement trees. An evergreen hedge will be planted along the street -facing side of the new wall. Rear Lawn The existing wood retaining wall will be removed from the rear property line and replaced by a wall that extends approximately two-thirds of the length of this side of the parcel. New stone paving will be featured at the rear patio between the existing residence and the hyphen, outside the north addition, and at the pool deck. The current topography of the rear lawn will remain with a lower lawn and an upper lawn that will feature a reconfigured pool and pool house. The upper level will still be accessed by two sets of stairs at the north and south sides. A new planting area is proposed at the center of the lower rear lawn. A reflecting pool will be located outside the rear side of the hyphen. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) is state legislation (Pub. Res. Code �21000 et seq.), which provides for the development and maintenance of a high -quality environment for the present day and future through the identification of significant environmental effects) For public agencies, the main goals of CEQA are to: 1. Identify the significant environmental effects of projects; and either 2. Avoid those significant environmental effects, where feasible; or 3. Mitigate those significant environmental effects, where feasible. CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval from state or local government agencies. "Projects" are defined as "...activities which have the potential to have a physical 'impact on the environment and may include the enactment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of conditional use permits and the approval of tentative subdivision maps."2 Historical and cultural resources are considered to be part of the environment. In general, the lead agency must complete the environmental review process as required by CEQAThe basic steps are: 1. Determine if the activity is a "project;" 2. Determine if the project is exempt from CEQA; State of California, California Environmental Quality Act, accessed 19 November 2013, http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/summary,htmi. -' [bid, August30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc. -8- Proposed ProjeaAnaykis Final 133 Pepper Avenue Burlgngame, Cahjornia 3. Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the Project and determine whether the identified impacts are "significant." Based on the finding of significant impacts, the lead agency may prepare one of the following documents: a) Negative Declaration for findings of no "significant" impacts; b) Mitigated Negative Declaration for findings of "significant" impacts that may revise the Project to avoid or mitigate those "significant" impacts; c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for findings of "significant" impacts. STATUS OF EXISTING BUILDING AS A HISTORICAL RESOURCE In completing an analysis of a project under CEQA, it must first be determined if the project site possesses a historical resource. A site may qualify as a historical resource if it falls within at least one of four categories listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a). The four categories are: 1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.). 2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1 (g) of the Public Resources Code, shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant. 3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852). 4. The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Pub. Resources Code), or identified in an historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in section 5024,1(g) of the Pub. Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in Pub. Resources Code sections 5020.10) or 5024.1. In general, a resource that meets any of the four criteria listed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) is considered to be a historical resource unless "the preponderance of evidence demonstrates" that the resource is not historically or culturally significant."3 Based on analysis and evaluation contained in the 2017 DPR 523A and B forms, 133 Pepper Avenue meets the criteria for eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, and should therefore be considered a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act. In the case of the proposed project at 133 Pepper Avenue, the City of Burlingame acts as the lead agency. 3 Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Tide 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq. August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc, -9- Proposed Pmyea Analysis 133 PoeperAuenue Final Burk'ngame, California The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Standards) provide guidance for reviewing proposed work on historic properties, with the stated goal of making possible "a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values."4 The Standards are used by Federal agencies in evaluating work on historic properties. The Standards have also been adopted by local government bodies across the country for reviewing proposed rehabilitation work on historic properties under local preservation ordinances. The Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of substantial changes to historic resources. Projects that comply with the Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would have a less -than -significant adverse impact on an historic resource.5 Projects that do not comply with the Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. The Standards offers four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are defined as follows: Preservation: The Standards for Preservation "require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric, along with the building's historic form, features, and detailing as they have evolved over time." Rehabilitation: The Standards for Rehabilitation "acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing new uses while retaining the building's historic character." Restoration: The Standards for Restoration "allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials from the period of significance and removing materials from other periods." Reconstruction: The Standards for Reconstruction "establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non -surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive Purposes." Typically, one set of standards is chosen fox a project based on the project scope. In this case, the proposed project scope is seeking to alter and add to a historic building. Therefore, the Standards for Rehabilitation will be applied. STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION The following analysis applies each of the applicable Standards far Rehabilitation to the proposed project at 133 Pepper Avenue. This analysis is based upon the proposed designs by TRG Architects Urine 30, 2017), as submitted to Page & Turnbull Only 10, 2017). Rehabilitation Standard 1: A property will be used as it Was historically or he given a ne v use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationsh ps. a National Park Service, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Trzatment of Historic Properties, accessed online 19 November 2013, http://w .nps.gov/hps/tps/stuidguide/. 5 CEQA Guidelines subsection 15064.5(b)(3). August30, 2017 Page dv'Turnbuli Inc. 70- Proposed Project Analysis Final 133 Pepper Avenue Burk'nganr, California Discussion: The proposed project does not alter the use of the historic residential property at 133 Pepper Avenue, as it will continue to be used as a single-family residence. Therefore, as planned, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 1. Rehabilitation Standard 2: The historic character of a properly will be retained and preserved The removal of distinctive materials or alteration offeatures, spaces, and spatial relationships that characteri.Ze the propery will be avoided Discussion: As proposed, the project would not involve the removal of historic materials or alteration of character -defining features on the primary (northeast) facade. From the public right-of-way on Pepper Avenue, the historic character of the 1920s Tudor Revival style residence and its two-story massing will be preserved. Several character -defining features at the northwest, rear (southwest), and southeast facades will also be retained, including the steeply -pitched, cross -gabled roofs; overhanging roof eaves; stucco cladding; dominant chimney; half-timbering and other wood trim detailing; tall and narrow multi-lite windows; and the arched wood entry door. The asymmetrical interior layout will also be preserved. The rear and side ground story extensions (former lanai and sunroom) will be removed, but were not found to be contributing features of the property, due to their construction after the period of significance. A few windows and rear doors at the northwest, southwest, and southeast facades of the original portion of the house will be replaced with new metal -framed, single or dual-hte windows and fully glazed doors to match those of the new addition. Although these windows proposed to be removed appear original and contribute to the overall historic integrity of the resource, they are less visible than the windows and doors at the primary facade and south ends of the east and west facades. Thus, it appears that their removal at the secondary facades will not substantially impair the character of the resource. Although the majority of character -defining features will be preserved, the resource will be relocated 28 feet to the southeast on the site, narrowing the existing driveway to one lane (10 feet wide), slightly reducing the setback from the street (though it will still be 61 feet), and reducing the distance to the south -adjacent residence (it will be 13.5 feet with a required side setback of 7 feet). These proposed changes will alter the residence's setting and setback on the parcel, a character -defining feature of the property and surrounding neighborhood. Moving the existing residence will also alter original spatial relationships between the main residence and surrounding site elements, including the garage, street, and south -adjacent property in order to construct the new addition to the north. Although the house will remain oriented toward the street, the relocation will diminish the resource's integrity of setting, primacy on the site, and alter original spatial relationships on the property. Thus, as designed, the proposed project partially complies with Rehabilitation Standard 2. Rehabilitation Standard 3: Eacb propery will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elementr from other historicalproperties, will not be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project intends to integrate new construction at the sides and rear of the existing residence, which will be contemporary in its materiality and style (orthogonal massing and forms; mostly metal -framed single and dual-lite windows and fully glazed, multi-lite sliding and double doors throughout; varying width vertical wood siding; stucco; cement plaster siding at the new second unit; and Cotten steel panel cladding at the addition). While contemporary, new construction will not create a false sense of historic development or add conjectural Tudor Revival features. August 30, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. _7t_ Proposed Project Analysis Final 133 Pepper Avenue Burlingame, California Therefore, as designed, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 3. Rehabilitation Standard 4: Changes to a proper y that have acquired significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. Discussion: The proposed project will remove a rear and side addition (formerly a lanai) that was originally constructed in the 1940s but which has since been enclosed and further altered. A sumoom and poolside ancillary building were also constructed on the property c. 1945. None of these later additions date to the period of significance and do not exhibit Tudor Revival features that contribute to the character of the resource. Thus, these changes have not been found to have acquired significance in their own right. Therefore, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 4. Rehabilitation Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that cbaracteriZe a property will be preserved. Discussion: As discussed, although a couple character -defining windows will be removed from secondary facades, the proposed project will largely preserve the character -defining Tudor Revival examples of craftsmanship and design features, especially at the visible primary facade (including the steep gabled roofs and trim; narrow, multi-lite windows; half-timbering, arched entry door; dominant chimney; and detached rear garage), and massing of the existing resource. Most of the new construction will replace or alter portions of the existing building that are not historic. As designed, the proposed project is in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 5. Rehabilitation Standard 6: Deteriorated bisioric features will be repaired rather than replaced Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Discussion: As planned, the project does not describe any proposed repairs or replacements to deteriorated historic features. Existing wood trim and half-timbering will be repainted, and the existing roofing material will remain. If it is determined that any historic element cannot be repaired due to significant deterioration and needs to be replaced, the new windows or architectural detailing should be replaced in -kind. As planned, the proposed project does not involve repairs aid will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 6. Rehabilitation Standard 7: Chemical orphysical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used Discussion: No cleaning methods or repair of windows, detailing, or other historic materials is proposed at this time. If it is necessary to propose chemical or physical treatments, these methods should not involve the use of harmful treatments that would damage the historic elements. As planned, the proposed project does not involve chemical or physical treatments and thus will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 7. August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull, Inc. -12- Proposed ProjeaAnalysis 133 Pepper Avenue Final Burk'ngame, California Rehabilitation Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Discussion: The proposed project will involve excavation work at the basement of the new addition. If anything is discovered during this process, provided that proper mitigation measures are undertaken, the proposed project will be in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 8. Rehabilitation Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be dferentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and environment. Discussion: As discussed in Standard 2, the proposed project will not alter character -defining materials or features on the primary facade, though a couple original windows and dormers will be femoved at secondary facades. The residence's original two-story massing and Tudor -style appearance will be retained; however, the residence will be relocated 28 feet diagonally to the southeast on the site. Although the new addition will not be overtly noticeable from Pepper Avenue, due to six new specimen trees (to replace the eucalyptus trees) and site wall along the street, and will connect thoughtfully with the existing residence, the resource's overall integrity of setting and existing spatial relationships will be compromised by the relocation and construction of this two-story addition. As proposed, new construction will employ a clearly distinct, yet subtly compatible, design vocabulary and palette of materials, as compared with those of the historic building. The stucco of the new addition and cement plaster siding of the new pool house will be compatible with the original stucco cladding of the residence and maintain a desired consistency of this directly adjacent character -defining feature. The varying -width, vertical wood siding of the addition will also reference the half-timbering detailing of the primary and side facades, and the new addition's main entry door will be a dark -stained walnut to reference the existing main door. The proposed new windows of the addition and existing building will recall the general spacing and location of the existing windows or doors, yet will be stylistically differentiated, primarily featuring metal frames to clearly distinguish them, while one new window at the rear ground story will feature a wood frame and a differentiated multi-lite mullion pattern. The proposed new roofs of the addition and pool house will be flat and thus will clearly contrast with the existing cross -gabled roofs of the resource. The proposed design concept interprets several existing design features in an inverse manner — for example, the L-shape of the existing residence will be echoed in plan and elevation at the north addition, and the majority of new windows will feature an inverted orientation of lites with a panel at the lower portion, as compared with the Tudor Revival -style windows with transoms. Overall, the design of proposed new features does not appear to gratuitously interpret or directly imitate historic motifs. While new construction will be well differentiated, yet compatible in design, scale, and materials, the change in the property's location and setting will not preserve existing spatial relationships. Although the proposed addition will adhere to height requirements and feature appropriate massing and a recessed hyphen to the existing residence, the addition's primary facade does not appear sufficiently setback from the main volume of the existing residence, such that the resource will be able to retain its visual primacy on the site, which will already be diminished due to its new off -center position. The altered spatial hierarchy on the site may accentuate the addition's contemporary design elements, and overtly contrast with or distract from character -defining features, such that the resource's historic integrity will be compromised. Therefore, as designed, the proposed project partially complies with Rehabilitation Standard 9, August 30, 2017 Page er Turnbull, Inc. 13- Proposed Project Analysis Final 133 Pepper Avenue Burl'ngame, Catornia Rehabilitation Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired Discussion: The project will involve new construction at the one-story portion of the northwest £made and rear (southwest) facade of the residence, a couple replaced windows, as well as a new pool house at the southwest corner of the site. Since many of these features proposed to be removed are not original and less visible, they do not contribute to the character of the historic property. Even though two original windows and a substantial portion of the rear wall would be gone if new construction was to be removed in the future, it does not appear that these additions and alterations would impair the essential form and integrity of the resource or its environment, especially more than has already occurred at the rear. Additionally, new construction of a two-story addition to the north will necessitate a relocation of the residence and alter its existing setting and environment. This new addition will only physically connect to the resource at the non -original lanai portion of the ground story and at a non -original door at the second story. Therefore, if the addition were to be removed in the future, it does not appear as though it would impair the essential form or integrity of the historic residence. However, due to the proposed relocation, the integrity of the resource's setting and environment would be irreversibly impaired. Thus, as designed, the proposed project is not in compliance with Rehabilitation Standard 10. ANALYSIS OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC IMPACTS UNDER CEQA As the above analysis demonstrates, the proposed project as currently designed appears to be in compliance with seven of the ten Secretary of the Interior's Standards far Rehabilitation, and thus may affect the ability of 133 Pepper Avenue to be eligible for local listing or designation. According to Section 15126.4(b) (1) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA), if a project complies with the Standards, the project's impact "will generally be considered mitigated below a level of significance and thus is not significant." As the proposed project at 133 Pepper Avenue does not comply with all of the Standards, it may cause a significant adverse impact under CEQA. Although the property would still retain several of its character -defining features, the proposed new construction will significantly alter the property's original setting and environment such that the historic integrity of the resource will be compromised. As proposed, the project only partially complies with Standards 2 and 9 and does not comply with Standard 10 of the Rehabilitation Standards. The project would comply with Standard 8 upon condition that appropriate steps are taken. Therefore, the proposed design will likely result in project -specific impacts, and it does appear that the project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the resource as defined by CEQA. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The California Environmental Quality Act defines cumulative impacts as follows: "Cumulative impacts" refers to two or mote individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. a) The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects. b) The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other August 30, 2017 Page dr Turnbull, Inc. -14- Proposed Project Analysis Final 133 Pepper Avenue Burlingame, Cal�fornia closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.o Proposed new construction at 133 Pepper Avenue does not appear to cause any significant cumulative impacts which would compound or increase environmental impacts. Directly adjacent properties to the subject project site on the north and south sides feature similar scale, two-story Revival style residences (141 and 125 Pepper Avenue, respectively) (Figures 2 and 3). Parcels across the street to the south also contain single-family residences of similar scale. There is no record of the adjacent properties having been evaluated or designated as historic resources. According to the Burlingame Planning Department's list of `Approved' and `Proposed Projects Under Review,' there are no other proposed development projects currently planned in the direct vicinity of the subject property. As designed, the relocation of the existnig residence would respect the required side setback to the south -adjacent property, and the two-story addition would be compatible with the surrounding setting and scale of adjacent properties. Therefore, the proposed project was not found to cause any project -specific or cumulative impacts to the surrounding environment of the resource as defined by CEQA7 Figure 2.141 Pepper Avenue, looking west. Google Earth, 2017. Figure 3. 125 Pepper Avenue, partially visible looking southwest. Google Earth, 2017. To improve the project's compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, the following project improvement recommendations are presented. These recommendations should be considered and incorporated into design revisions, if possible. Project Irnprovement Recommendation # I Page & Turnbull appreciates that the proposed design respects and retains the majority of character - defining materials and architectural features of the historic resource. The relocation of the residence and the proposed two-story addition will unavoidably impact the resource's original setting and thus will compromise the property's overall historic integrity. In order to reduce these impacts, Page & Turnbull suggests a greater setback of the primary fapade of this addition, such that it would not align with the primary facade of the residence's main volume. Shifting the addition back, potentially to G CEQA Guidelines, Article 20, subsection 15355. 7 Budingame Planning Department website. "General and Specific Plans." http://w .burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=l51 August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull Inc. -15- Proposed Pro/ea Analyeis Final 133 Pepper Avenue Burhengame, California align with the northeast plane of the chimney (approximately 12 feet), would help to maintain the primacy of the historic resource. This recommended change would improve compliance with Standard 2. Project Improvement Recommendation #2 While the project proposes materials, proportions, and style that are clearly contemporary, it appears that more formal design cues could be taken from the historic features of the original building and interpreted at the addition (i.e. steep angles, curved eaves, arched opening, diamond muntins, chimney, raised batten siding) to strengthen the relationship and dialogue between old and new. For instance, new fully glazed windows could potentially feature more htes or consistent vertical orientations and proportions in reference to the Tudor style. At the projecting circulation volumes, integrate the pattern of the Cotten steel paneling or the design of the openings and overall volumes, which are clearly differentiated as new features, but do not appear at this point to also be particularly compatible with the existing resource. These recommended changes would improve compliance with Standard 9. Project Improvement Recommendation #3 Especially at locations where windows and doors will be removed at the sides and rear of the existing residence, Page & Turnbull would suggest that these new doors and windows consistently reference either the adjacent existing windows with wood frames and a differentiated mullion pattern (like the window currently proposed at the rear ground story of the rear fa4ade), or match the design of the addition's single or dual-lite windows with metal frames (like the second story window at right of the chimney). This recommended change would improve compliance with Standard 9. August 30, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -16- Proposed ProeaAnalysis Final 133 Pe perAuenue Burlingame, California The property at 133 Pepper Avenue was evaluated in January 2017 using the State of California DPR 523A and 523B forms and determined to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources under Criterion 3 (Architecture) (Appendix A). 133 Pepper Avenue appears to be one of the most intact and earliest examples of Tudor Revival residences, including a well- preserved rear support structure, in the neighborhood. Therefore, 133 Pepper Avenue is considered a historic resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project was evaluated according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and was determined to fully comply with six of the ten Standards. The project partially complies with Standards 2 and 9, does not comply with Standard 10, and would comply with Standard 8 upon condition that appropriate steps are taken. Though the majority of character -defining features of the property are proposed to be retained, the proposed design would impact the eligibility of the property for listing in the California Register, due to a potential adverse change caused by the relocation and construction of a two-story addition in line with the main volume of the existing residence. Project improvement recommendations are provided that would reinforce the project's compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. August 30, 2017 Page dr TurnbO, Inc. -17- Proposed ProjertAnalysis 133 Pepper Avenue Final BurG'ngame, California LTA IIA:7`t�s`dF]I+lllli7 DPR Form for 133 Pepper Avenue. Recorded by Page & Turnbull. January 2017. Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, Chapter 5.0 `Historic Resources', Section 5-6 through 5-9. Adopted in 2010 and revised in 2016 to be Chapter 6.0 `Historic Resources'. August 30, 2017 Page &Turnbull Inc. -18- Proposed PmjeaAualysis 133 Pepper Avenue Final Burlingame, Cadafornia KT4 WI -AI DPR Form for 133 Pepper Avenue. Recorded by Page & Turnbull. January 2017. August 30, 2017 Page & Turnbull, Inc. -19- Proposed PrnoaAnalysis Final Drawing set for Proposed Project (TRG Architects + Interior Design, July 10, 2017). 133 PepperAoenue Burlingame, California August 30, 2017 Page 6-Turnbull, Inc. -20- ARC I-1l iECTU R E 417 Montgomery Sheet, 8th floor 2401 C Street, Suite B 417 S, Al Street, Suite 211 PLANNING $ RESEARCH San Francisco, California 94104 Sacramento, California 95816 Los Angeles, California 90013 MATERIALS CONSERVAION 415.362.5154/ 415.362,5560 fax 916.930.9903/ 916.930.9904 fax 213.221.1200/ 213.221.1209 fax 4' 0 V 3' o 1. 2' a I I .... . ...... i.1 I I I -LL0 I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 101414.wdAmiii. S. Miti Citlif .. 1. 94401 FAX 650.579.0115 650.579.5762 E_M.iI: admin@trgai RJ AP440—W M-51PEN42 Nart: NOTE CONCRETE A R51174AREM-ACE 1111.TES DOWAORNT PMT IS LANV4AM FILMAnhitcat: FMMFM TO, SM I. REPLACE ALL MA OMMR VM~Y AO SIVEKAIX FROIMZ FOR FAIAHS, TRM AN2 DRIVEWAY ITE SITE. M-AN"IMS WMATION ITF ALL EX15TIN5 SANITARY SERER AW LATERAL 0NNMYM MV INSTALL A W.K 4LATERAL 5 INSTALL WATER Uw c*WzTioNs To m eiTyWATER MANS POR TM I 7PENT W-MIRIES MKT MIAMI OR FIRE -N5. ALL WATER I.M. ARE To BE INSTALL PER PLitMIMENT TORi OF G0 CITY ST"DA"PS no SPECIFICATIONS 4. ANY 07HN VVER6ROM UTILITY WORK IN THE ciTys Row OF WAY BE COCMTRZTED SITE M-M-45105-B N MARTINS O AMA Conswiant(s): ME 7 ta�4 J. " -1 1 -71-1 1" cONC PAD -E E WITH UTILITY ARFA -7 L= I BOX _70 ' -y - M SOVZ BALL I 71L -7 i.0 . IN b"T NA-1- '-, 10 OM.;;'�' t 11 Ell] 011000 0000001�' J-. 1 7 T T.- 7- L T- ]-T gcg P.ject: -T FV I I I I I I I " PkYj j 1 117 T I - "I 6UTTER IF-L - ;- -F -I- - - � -I- I I- — 7- - I I- i I— —' t-- I RESIDENCE LT r P L T .. .... .... EL & ADDITION 0A, 'rAI" D2 POQL 0 =P-A-) AM 028-274-020 T-7 FF Ir" 71� -F -L -L I J 1 11 —9- 1331"apperAve. M PLANTING Burlingame, CA 94010 AM AREA F' F -I- F, , 1, -1 j1— p S-5 -T -F-L] 1 -1 GOLVIN-KLEIN Jennifer Colvin H RWIN6 RE51DENGE IN) PAVj AREA 153 PEPPER AVENUE❑ & -Z4-020 Edo Klein APN: 02D r —'1 21, "7� 77- - - - - - - - - - 5555f - - - Sbect Coni -L-T - - - - - - - OEI❑ DLI LN 4 BE --T ffkn -T-L-T�—I F SM PLAN1 T :10 ;11' L; I\' A' 1, Th, A T� (E) TWO AR-C-3AW6E 111t�: 767—� 7 -LILL- L: r - — - +: 7 ftlkv-�%at Nw Reralw By App. 27P-6- 22'-w CONCRETE DRIVEWAY SITE -PLAN MAIME. 1jr - I A1.1 or xew L F L llllll t I T i1 r I I I i I I I I T I I I tMli I l l i l l l l T SCALES: GRAPHIC SES: 1/16" = V-0' 1/0' - 1'-W 16' = 1 . I/4" 1'-0' 3/4" a 1'-0" 1" = I'-0' I I J I/ I I I I I I I I EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION SCALE- for = V- E%ISTILE LOMPOSITON 51NN6LE ROOF POKMZ WAT ALUMINIM KWON5 (MIGAL AT MW AO0I71OW PAINT WOW fASOIA -----------I VMIAME WIDTH WARRED GREY VERTOAL HOOD SIDING I I9 F IRrESRAL OOLOR S7LWO l PAiWED HWD FASCIA _ � I a I ❑❑❑ .h �i5 I AvE pRABSE 1�GrNDE ❑❑❑ �" /- 1�jR 01 AT SIDE LOT LINE P NO ExISTIW MUWOWS TYP EXISTNS HIRDOYYM TTP Eft7INS STA NW HOOD DOOR I 6 AVERAGE LEI GRADE AT FARO M4.41' EXISTIN60RIMAFFON 15T0Ys PAINT 57= !P BAS[T£Nf EYOW PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION 2 SCAIf: S/Ir. NP IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36'a24" , IT IS A REDUCED EDU® PRiNF-SCA E ACCORDINGLY 1014 Howard Avonuo Sm Matco, California 94401 FAX 650.579.0115 650,579.5762 &Mail: ndmtn@ahz=b.cM ATOhitwt: fy AR� T.NNe01PH * �E y4 OD10/lT �T �` OFrAU� con0111t.I(0): Project• 133 PepperAve. Burlingame, CA 94010 owner(s): Jennifer Colvin Erlc Klein Sheet ContMu: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS x�A AM ar _ xe�a F L ..... ......... - GRAPHIC SCALES: 1116. I'D- 3/4' V-0' 1.-1.-0. r 2' 0 3" - I'-W ............... :�. ...... ono ................�� t .�� ass �a= ��=-1� mill EXISTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: SIM - I ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - -------------- WK ADDITION IEI"—) :m 1 EGRESS WINDOW CHART WINDOW NET CLEAR HEIGHT& WIDTH SILLHEIGHT I *30'X41' 28' R 2 ±30"X42" 01 F -1 3 48, x 108, G' (DOOR) 4 38'X 70' 0. 5 34- x 96" 0' (DOOR) 6 2MV 30" MEN =KVRXH vom "—(0 PANTED S11I 0,x r IN EXISTING OPENING AVERAGE 0 ORAVE A' CLIM 4.4l'j D0481aM TO M"N EPA PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 2116' . I-r 2 IF THIS SHEEP IS NOT 36544, IT IS A REDUCED PRINT- SCALE ACCORDINGLY I S. Matc., Callfbnda 94401 FAX650.579.0115 650,579.5762 F,M.il: admiI Anhitmt:g CmsWtant(s): Pmjmt-. 133 Popper Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 OMOT(s): Jennifer Colvin A Eric Klein Sheet Contents: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3.2 r L IIIIII III I b(I I I I I I I TI I I I I 1,1,i I I I T I I I 11 I l I I I GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/16" = 1'-0' 1/6' = 1'-0" 3/16' 1'-0" 11-01. 3W - 1'-0' 1" = 1'-0' 1-112' - 1'-0" 3' a I'-0" BA6ENEM Etl'OIN—� I EXISTING REAR ELEVATION ' SCALE: NMI a 1'-P' PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 2 SCAfE: s/16' v R r P s E AT w4F1' IF -MIS SHEET IS NOT 36'a24", IT IS A NEDUM PRINT -SCALE ACCORDINGLY 1014 H.—d Avenue San Mt., Cnllfarnin 94401 FAX 650.579.0115 650.579,5762 F-WI: admin@trgnrch.c= Architcck �fy Aa� T.RNieVH * ]LG IDE MP 10(ll �T' Web nY pem'm MaY. bit h 4 M"I m tle ewYlmn Mrtl.mia.�tN�gob�JmN n J.y, ud..gpaMa�wNLl ura n..pn.rahr FObrmr+W mM'm.snr. mrwM r bNe hihq ,wla xyr.rwr anyx.+Ynle T+a*tl.aLL COnsnitmt(s): Project I COLVIN & KLEIN APN: 028-274-920 133 Pepper Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 OwII.(s): Jennifer Colvin df Eric Klein Sheet Contents: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9hwc AU M Fhen IIIIII I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I 1 111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 hi�l I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1- ;,,,I,,,F, 1 1 1 1 1 GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/16" =1'-0' ]Jg' o l'-0" 3/16" 1'-0" 114" a I'-G' 3/4' a 1'-0" EXISTING RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION i stair: am = na BASE -or eerow-/ PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION Z L F-MI5 SH 1014 Howard A - Sao Mateo, Califomie 94401 PAX 650.579.0115 610.579.5762 ..,: admin@trgamh.com Architccl: v �anoowi * G11111E Conawtant(a): Project: COLVIN & KLEIN RESIDENCE raa rapper five. Burlingame, CA 94010 Owner(.): Jennifer Colvin Eric Klein Sheet Contents: EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS adla As ratan ------- lob; n.a P�Nq Aiamabl DFAalr 9aN. R.N910N. aro.e A3.4 __...-"y�� ', �.� � .r// .�„ .�. vr•-'-�i.' 'w�� � � -� 3�Y �r—S A,— � �Tr =� �—ter �r rr "4-t � � � �r—'ter —� '•� ,� rP �,.��.; /; �''' -���/ BOCCE COUPT? 9 n.uw.I Me r � Mo IN m k/�i �oi�o—ri�� �� " Pam■ �9 9 �> ��>r818�A6��DO ''� riii%ii��a•�'�r `!■Ili � ■ � . rwv.,®®���� ti �% --.: ° . Q � s_ 0 e�®dG v. W a z Um 0 zQ W c) n Ld �z z W ¢ m zw m J w Om w a U "'. r L1.0 IIIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 i, r I I l i I I I I T l l l l hiti I I I r I I l 1; l L i r I I I Lam,..., ..,.,,I i GRAPHIC SCALES: Ul6' = 1'-0" Ufi" = 1'-0" 3/16" - 1'-0' 1/4' I'-0' 3/4" - 1'-0" 1' - 1'-0" L i2, IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36'a24", IT 1S A REDUCED PRINT • SCALE ACCORDINGLY BIN 1014 Howard Avcnaa San Matco, Calif—i. 94401 PAX 650.579.0115 650.579.5762 E-Mail: adminQatrgaroh.c= Architcct: rsnacf alv to/u 4t of uD�' mvwsnwpw"e-Nmnwe.,, f."nnsultant(6): Project COLVIN & KLEIN RESIDENCE REMODEL & ADDITION APN: 028-274-020 133 Pepper Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Owner(e): Jennifer C0107 Eric Klein Sheet Cantent6: PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A2.0 a� F- IIIIII I I I I I I I I I GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/16" c 14•0" s J' III i "� Ali L 1. I I I T I I I I i°' I i1 i I I I I" I I I I..Il• I I �3' ° I' � 2' I � I I I �1 IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 30,24, 1T IS - 1'-0^ 3/16 - I'-0" 1/4" - 1',0. 3/4" -1'-0' I H l l i' IS" - 1'-0' I L 1 I I A REDUCED PRINT -SCALE ACCORDINGLY 12'-0' FRONGE 60ARDRN71IK PRWIDE ELAROR/,IL HIN 2 1014 Howard Avenue a2' AEOJE GRADE a2' M.O FINIBI GRADE PER eR0 2.1.2 GI2.1] A9.a PER51TOPO 912 S® Mateo, California 94401 b - FRIWVE PRENANUFAOT.R® FAX650.579.0115 LADDER TO AWSS uGIRVEtL 650.579.5762 !7 arNa r--------^---.-7 E-Mail: edminQtrgalch.com q —N— — xwl,PwvsNRwae --�IIIIIIII 'IIIIIII Ir, �D6' � Q O rm�wrw`a aen III�III O nw T4ry `--_—REF IIO — PMTMi.IMr .1_L"RcF .11wu(-w 1 IIII ab-H ID'•4' _ IiNIIIII ArohitecL DINING ROO KITCHEN-iP...mmnm I COVERED PORC FAMILY ROOM I BREAKFAGT DINING Na+a6 Aauv bb.be�4ronvw.r II II Dana soaaa4 II KMdH � i g� __ __. II II I� 'I 1 E jam❑ COnsultant(S): II Y ____ ____O ON A --1�----- _ — — — _ ®o______ Iry ®ml__m_____®--------, _ —®----a--- -- _ "�. 6, `�I -a. '_®®om y•� —vN---- arARox ZL5' _ IdLPL MPCCLRSN ENTRYLNK i� Project: T2( MltaaroEe lmaaal COLVIN & KLEIN 25,1k �°' °' 24RESIDENCE �\ it I y Ill REMODEL & ADDITION 2 II —rr m APN: 028-274-020 Q 133 Pepper Ave. IOI POLImr PMRS---.; il�ira B.b (a3LNa FIHLY 4aT1 AWalaXroal RBb.ID, ll I i Burlingame, CA 94010 •-v LIVING 0�I 7 III II �E` Jennifer Colvin &77 We Klein • I I I Sheet ContenLA: p HALL owDER I moan �wIORMOpBraN a^� fall � LIRR(�RV OFFICE --� 61 11-EdW I —i tea" ❑ PROPOSED ❑ a'-r I HALL UD LAUNDRY rI I i In \ I FIRST FLOOR PLAN BEDROOM yWL5 LIx+1Mna'rf DM naeRN PFOPOW LINE %HALL DE s I�z,. BUILT OF OW—W RATED OON'TMZTION I ID'-0L' I4w FROM THAN 5' A9b FROM PROFROOF ERTr LIf& SNALL OF alEfiR RATED pp fAIETRUORTION UR GARAGE � � D Nb ITC !22'4' - I I I I EXISTING GARAGE M1, (NOCHANGE) D /�, LIMA 61 .� s-1"; AS NOr® lob: Mle FannyNSuhmllbl pL-36]al) 8m- RKVL410N9 Na Rav4im ay IM App,. Qi PLsacN[aKRcagNE1 p 10.LLI1 aIPJ:ze'-0• A?� PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: J/1T . P-P 1 A2.1 Or Rh m II II II II OFFICE II �� I I II II II II GRAPHIC SCALES: 1/lfi"=1'-0' P il'i I/6'=1'-0" 3/I6'=1'-0" fi'i ii°'i i'' i' U4"=1'-0' i i i'' P„ 3/4"=1'-0' 'li�iliiil i' 3' 1"=1-0 �2 7 MA A78 reaur•.mr weave imar L I R b �� PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE. SIM . r•a • IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 36'x14", IT IS A REDUCED PRINT- SCALE ACCORDINGLY 1014 Howard Avenue San Matto, California 94401 FAX 650.579.0115 650.579.5762 E-Mail: edmin(a}trgmch.com Archilcct: fp A GRTd * GUNGE Consultant(s): Project ' 133 PepperAve. Burlingame, CA 94010 owner(s): Jennifer Colvin Eric Klein Sheet Contmu: PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN r z A36 heswe wor hefB4le rmr I u im I pxN91 R?fi IF THIS SHEET IS NOT 365d4' , rr IS A REDUCED PRINT- SCALE ACCORDINGLY 1.4 Howard Mm. Sm Mateo, Glilb nis 94401 FAX 650.579.0115 650.579,5762 F-MA: edmin&rgareh.cam Architect:Fy a, 0* # .rr cansnitmt(s): �w I 133 Pepper Ave. I I Burlingame, CA 94010 NS F I. I owner(s): Jennifer Colvin Eric Klein aN�ar muf I III _II � III. Sheet Contents: PROPOSED i i Lli d ROOF PLAN - "" 9da AS NO'Im ChshvdaY rsn _ — A9b ..... - ..._ 1..',str Mbc Nmnhq h:hnitplWM-M]] sertNoas 3 NZ PROPOSED ROOF PLAN score: am = r•v sN.� A2.3 Of Rhwh ..� may} � J�►�" � "�. ' �. , •,�, - SA - , `-:�,` � �. ` q�-+�+a yam•, * � .. /�i ..,� �� ids ' , a _ • jJ t. . it!! it t• Yt It �- •t 9 Ud 11! aiY �+ I .. - "!' ' f _ • ,t, It i!Y tti t I � •� l;"t 1 ' � j ` y. + ♦ff / � f- tt tall -. .e. I � � � � � - " r t ## wtllf / 1 w- • - ,tom"` ` �� � fi- -,� , � z �nw e/ R `T�.:�"' 4•.Z+w e�`,.s.Y'�"" i.. S'�"�4_ a� ��- �_ t 1i rs } ��il XI* •�;,,yAw— gas/. t"i1 tiiriii ui t I + SIR wt t I'll," ` ft f iIt: t�l�telt till ti- - - •fiu:t at.+ ad ti s , '00, lip or WAN Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit for a Full -Service Food Establishment and Commercial Design Review Address: 1465 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit for a full -service food establishment and Commercial Design Review for changes to the fagades of an existing commercial building. Applicant: Chef & The Butcher, Josh Stumpf APN: 029-201-040 Architect: William Duff Architects, Chris Telles Lot Area: 6,250 SF Property Owner: Mengshi Shen Zoning: BAC General Plan: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan: Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Previous Use: Personal Service (hair salon- Secrets of Medusa, currently vacant) Proposed Use: Full service food establishment with retail sales Allowable Use: Full service food establishment with approval of a Conditional Use Permit Summary: The subject property contains a two-story building that fronts Burlingame Avenue with two retail spaces (1461 & 1465) and abuts Fox Plaza Lane at the rear. At 1461 Burlingame Avenue (space on the left) there is currently a salon and the subject tenant space at 1465 (right) is vacant, but was formerly occupied by another salon. The tenant space is approximately 2,700 SF with an 800 SF mezzanine and also includes a rear portion of the building that is a catering business. A stand-alone catering kitchen is currently not a permitted or conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, howeverthe kitchen has operated for many years as a non -conforming use at this location. There are a total of 6 parking spaces (3 tandem) located off of Fox Plaza Lane that are located on the subject property. Two of the spaces are used by the salon at 1461 Burlingame Avenue and 4 of the spaces are used by 1465 Burlingame Avenue. The applicant, Josh Stumpf representing the Chef and The Butcher, is proposing to operate a full service food establishment at 1465 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC. The proposed restaurant would be open for lunch and dinner and would operate with an artisan butcher counter as an accessory retail use. The restaurant would be a dine -in food establishment focusing on barbeque-style grass fed, sustainable meats used to create comfort foods including sandwiches and salads paired with craft beers and local wines. The restaurant would operate seven days a week and would be open from 10:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. As part of the food establishment the applicant is proposing an accessory artisan butcher shop to be located within the front portion of the restaurant along Burlingame Avenue. The butcher shop would be approximately 90 SF and would sell a variety of types and cuts of grass fed, sustained meats along either company made spices, rubs, sauces and marinades for sale to customers and the general public. In addition, the rear portion of the tenant spaces, along Fox Plaza Lane, would be part of the Chef & The Butcher and would be used as the primary production kitchen and would also operate as a catering kitchen for the Chef & The Butcher. The applicant notes that the catering kitchen would account for approximately 25-35% of the restaurant sales. As with other restaurants operating in Burlingame take out/delivery meals would be provided by third party delivery services such as Door Dash, Grub Hub and Postmates. The proposed restaurant would not provide on -site or delivery catering but would be providing large volume orders to be picked up by customers for parties, weddings and corporate and private events. The tenant space would contain a retail butcher counter, customer seating on the ground floor and on the mezzanine, a kitchen, a small office on the mezzanine as well as back of house area and restrooms. The rear portion of the building that is used as a catering kitchen would be remodeled with the walk-in cooler removed and the area slightly expanded to provide a gas -fired wood burning smokers. The proposed food establishment will have approximately 850 SF of customer seating (550 SF on the mezzanine + 300 SF on the ground floor). While the mezzanine would primary be utilized for as a customer dining area the mezzanine would also contain a Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review 1465 Burlingame Avenue to be converted to be accessible parking spaces. A variance is not required due to the loss of the spaces required to provide accessible parking spaces, and the proposed use is considered to comply with the parking requirements for the proposed use. 1465 Burlingame Avenue Lot Nrea: o,cou or vians sate stam eo: Uctober 10, 2017 Existing Proposed ! Allowed/Required Use: Personal Full service food Conditional Use Permit required Service uses establishment' for a full serviced food ---- ------(- current) vacant 4rr -......Y................__.-) . -----.....-..------.-.-.-.___-............................--... establishment —1.. - - - -.-._ _....._....-.......-... Seating Area: n/a 850 SF at least 200 SF of seating area (550 SF mezzanine + -.-.-.._.._ 300 SF on ground floor) Off Street 3 spaces 2 2 spacesz Food establishment and retail Parking: I uses on ground floor are exempt ! from providing parking Mezzanine 240 SF office 713 SF salon service 3 spaces- required/ 4 spaces provided Requirement met Mezzanine 236 SF storage - 0.25 sp 77 SF office — 0.25 sp 640 SF restaurant — 3.2 sp 4 spaces required Loss of 2 spaces required for ADA compliance- no variance required itional Use Permit for a new full -service food establishment in Office (1:300 SF) Restaurant (1:200 SF) Storage (1: 1,000 SF) 4 spaces required for mezzanine Zoning nictrirt wifh RIM SF of on -site seating area (CS 25.32.070 (b) (2)). 3 The sixth existing angled parking space along the wall is not considered a space since it is located directly in front of two exit doors from the building. Staff comments: See attached memos from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a limited food service food establishment, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general 3 Conditional Use Permit and Commercial Design Review vicinity. 1465 Burlingame Avenue Design Review Criteria: The criteria for Commercial Design Review as established in Ordinance No. 1652 adopted by the Council on April 16, 2001 are outlined as follows: Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial areas; Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; 3. On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structure in the immediate area; and 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Josh Stumpf, Chef & The Butcher, applicant William Duff Architects, Chris Telles, project architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant's Letters of Explanation Conditional Use Permit Application Commercial Application Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: • Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel #: 029-201-040 • Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1465 Burlingame Avenue, 1461 Fox Plaza Lane APPLICANT Name: Josh Stumpf, Chef & The Butcher Address: 1290 Howard Avenue, Suite 311 City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: 650.316.8104 E-mail: josh@chefandthebutcher.com PROPERTY OWNER Name: Mengshi Shen Address: 539 Alma Street City/State/Zip: Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: E-mail: ARCHITECTIDESIGNER Name: William Duff Architects, Chris Teiles (primary project contact) Address: 1531 Mission St. City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: 415.371.0900 E-mail: cteiles@wdarch.com Burlingame Business License AUG - S 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's websits as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. T (initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: See attached "Project Description" AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. j Applicant's signature: l pg �,,_._ Date: 1 am aware of the proposed ap ' a ion and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. % Property owner's signature: r L Date: wt , 71' Date submitted: S:IHANDOUTSiPCAppficotion. Oc WDA PROJECT DESCRIPTION CHEF & THE BUTCHER -1465 BURLINGAME AVE., 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE REVISED:10/10/2017 APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT INTRODUCTION Chef & the Butcher is a full service restaurant concept with an accessory artisan butcher shop. A full commercial kitchen with commercial dishwasher will be paired with the artisan butcher shop to provide patrons with a full service dine -in experience complete with ceramic plates and metal flatware in a seating area that exceeds 250 square feet. The culinary mission of the restaurant and artisan butcher counter is to provide grass fed, sustainable meats of varying types and cuts, supported by a small, but deep selection of company made spices, rubbings, sauces and marinades that are press and destination worthy. Chef & the Butcher will blend this with their own version of eat -in barbeque- an increasingly popular , multi -faceted comfort food that pairs well with craft beers and local wines; combining the best aspects of a food establishment with a neighborhood diner feel. PROPOSED SCOPE The project scope encompasses two buildings on the same parcel (APN 029-201-040). The main building fronts Burlingame Avenue and contains two tenant spaces; 1461 Burlingame Avenue which currently houses "Salon 1461" and 1465 Burlingame Avenue which was formally Secret of Medusa salon and is currently vacant. The Main Space will house portions of Chef & the Butcher, including all customer dine -in seating, aspects of the production kitchen (barbeque smoker), the accessory artisan butcher shop, restrooms and Chef & the Butcher office and storage space. The second building on the south half of the property, 1464 Fox Plaza Lane, currently houses a catering business and is designated as an existing, nonconforming use. This Conditional Use Permit application will serve to bring the 1464 Fox Plaza Lane into compliance by having it become a part of Chef & the Butcher and its designation as a full -service food establishment. Under this application we propose creating an internal connection between the two buildings for use by Chef & the Butcher employees only. In doing so, the 1461 Fox Plaza Lane will serve as the primary production kitchen for the Chef & the Butcher, while also continuing to operate as Chef & the Butcher's catering kitchen. BUSINESS OPERATIONS House of Operation: Chef & The Butcher will operate 7-days a week, from 10:30am-9:00pm Meals Served: Chef & The Butcher will not be serving breakfast, but will be open for lunch and dinner. Meals will consist of sandwiches, salads, and smoked meats by the pound accompanied by both hot and cold sides. Additionally, we will offer a selection of beer and wine for both lunch and dinner service. Take-out Meals: Chef & The Butcher will accommodate take-out order as well as catering/large party pre -orders Meal Delivery: Delivery will go through a third party delivery service (i.e. DoorDash, GrubHub, Postmates, etc.) Catering: Chef & the Butcher anticipates catering/take-out will account for 25-35% of their restaurant sales and will target wedding, corporate and private events. Please note that Chef & The Butcher defines "catering" as large - volume orders that will be picked up by the customer, not on -site or delivered catering. s E �' 9 W I LLI AM DU FFARC HIT ECTS 0 C 1 0 2017 T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 William Duff Architects, Inc. page 1 of 1 1531 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94103 CDD-+ � ANN_-;ti'0 DIV wdarch.corn City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag me org Bl1RLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CEIVE® WIS-82017 OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. From a public health standpoint, Chef & the Butcher (CATB) looks to improve unfavorable existing conditions, primarily enclosing on -site garbage/refuse storage in a lockable vestibule accessible only by CATB employees. With regards to public safety, the proposed use will not adversely affect police protection, and will provide a new sprinkler system within the tenant space where one does not already exist. CATB will be in line with the already diverse and vibrant collection of businesses along Burlingame Avenue by providing a restaurant type not yet existing, only adding to the general welfare of the surrounding area. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? CATB will be located in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) District of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. The BAG District is defined as "the commercial and retail heat of Downtown Burlingame" and features "a mixture of restaurants, national retail stores, and many locally based retailers". As a "full -service food establishment", Chef & the Butcher is a permitted use within the zoning district pending conditional approval. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The large majority of CATB will be confined to the interior of two existing buildings. The aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the exterior of these buildings will remain untouched. The project proposes a small, secured exterior equipment enclosure where an existing walk-in cooler currently sits (walk-in cooler to be demolished). The footprint of the enclosure will be slightly larger than the existing walk-in cooler footprint, but at no point will it be taller than the adjacent parapet. The enclosure will house the rear portion of two (2) barbecue smokers (utilizing a "through -wall" installation) as well as wood storage and will only be accessible by CATB employees. The construction of the enclosure will maintain visibility through (steel frame structure w/ steel mesh walls) so patrons can see the smokers when entering from the rear of the site. See plans and elevations for more information. CUP.FRM Community Development Dept. • 501 Primrose Road • Burlingame, CA 94010 • P:650.558.7250 • F:650.696.3790 • w .burlinaame.om a 1. Proposed use of the 2. Days and hours of COMMERCIAL APPLICATION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM Full -service food establishment w/ accessory artisan butchers Monday -Sunday, 10:30am - 9:OOpm 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) 0 AIM - 8 gp 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this IocatiSRP-PLANNING DIV. Opening/ExistingAt Before After Before After Hours of Before After Operation 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm Weekdays 10 10 15 15 20 20 Full-time Part-time 5 5 8 8 10 10 Weekends Full-time 10 10 15 15 20 20 Part time 5 5 8 8 10 10 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: At • . ®, [ In 2 Years Before After In 5 Before Yea After Hours of Before After Operation 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm 5:00 pm Weekdays 100 100 150 150 200 200 Weekends 150 150 200 200 250 250 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): 99 persons 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? Burlingame Ave., Public Parking Lot K, on -site at rear of site 8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park? Burlingame Ave., Public Parking Lot K, on -site at rear of site 9. Present or most recent use of site Retail, personal services (Secret of Medusa hair salon) 10. List other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach a list if more room is needed) Salon 1461, Approx. 10-15 employees, Sunday -Tuesday: Closed, Wednesday -Saturday, 1 Oam-6pm Commercial Application.doc Project Address: Description: From Project Comments - Planning Application 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, APN: 029-201-040 Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 2) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 24) The office is Located on the mezzanine level. Provide an accessible office on the ground floor. 2016 CBC § 11 B-203.9 I was not able to clearly see on the plan where the accessible office is on the ground floor. 26) On the floor plan for both rest rooms, provide the minimum 5'-0" radius required for the turning space. 28) Show the height dimension for the accessible signs on the restroom door from finish floor. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: October 12, 2017 650 558-7270 GITV O Project Address: Description: Project Comments - Planning Application 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, AP N: 029-201-040 Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. From: Rick Caro I II Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 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. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2016 then this project must comply with the 2016 California Building Codes. 2) As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requires non -compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water -conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http,//www.leginfo.ca.gov/nub/09- 10/bill/sen/sb 0401-0450/sb 407 bill 20091011 chaptered.html. Revise the plans to show compliance with this requirement. 3) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. 4) Place the following information on the first page of the plans. Note: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 5) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 6) Due to the extensive nature of this construction project the Certificate of Occupancy will be rescinded once construction begins. A new Certificate of Occupancy will be issued after the project has been final. No occupancy of the building is to occur until a new Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. 7) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 8) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2016 CRC R311.7.8 or 2016 CBC §1011.11 9) A copy of the plans, stamped "Approved" by San Mateo County Environmental Health Department, must be submitted to the Building Division prior to issuance of the building permit. 10) Acknowledge that, when plans are submitted for building code plan check, they will include a complete underground plumbing plan including complete details for the location of all required grease traps and city -required backwater prevention devices. 11) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2016 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 422.1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A - Occupant Load Factor. 12) Separate toilet facilities are required for each sex, except: a. Residential occupancies b. Occupancies serving ten or fewer people may have a toilet facility for use by more than one person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2016 CPC §422.2 #2. c. Business and Mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less, including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2016 CPC §422.2 #3. 13) Show compliance with all accessibility regulations found in the 2016 CBC for existing buildings including: a. Accessible paths of travel b. A level landing must be provided on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. c. Accessible countertops d. Accessible bathrooms e. Accessible parking 14) Provide details on the plans which show that the entire site complies with all accessibility standards. NOTE: If full accessible compliance cannot be achieved complete a Request for Unreasonable Hardship. 15) Specify on the plans the location of all required accessible signage. Include references to separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically illustrates the accessible signage requirements. 16) Specify an accessible path of travel from all required exits to the public right of way. 17) Specify the path of travel from on -site parking, through the main entrance, to the area of alteration 18) Specify a level landing, slope, and cross slope on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. 2016 CBC §1113-302, 1113-304.2, 1113-305.2 19) Specify accessible countertops where service counters are provided 2016 CBC §11B-227 & I IB-904 20) Provide complete dimensioned details for the "employee washroom" 2016 CBC § 1113-203.9, 1 lb- 206.2.8, 1113-207.1 & Division 4 21) Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms 2016 CBC §11B-213 1113-603, 11B-604, 1113-605, 1113-606, 11B-607, 1113-608, 1113-609, 11B-610 22) Provide complete, dimensioned details for accessible parking 2016 CBC § 1113-208, 11 B-502 & I IB-503 23) Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for accessible features that are below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do not apply to accessible features. Seethe California Access Compliance Manual —Interpretive Regulation IIB-8. 24) The office is located on the mezzanine level. Provide an accessible office on the ground floor. 2016 CBC §11B-203.9 25) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 26) On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 27) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: August 10, 2017 650 558-7270 Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, APN: 029-201-040 Description: Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. From: Carolyn Critz Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: Project does not create or replace >2,500 square feet of impervious surface or use architectural copper. Nothing further needed at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the city's stormwater NPDES permit to prevent construction activity stormwater pollution. Project proponents shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a list of construction BMPs as project notes, preferably on a separate full size (2'x 3' or larger) plan sheet. A downloadable electronic file is available at: http://www.flowstobay.org/Construction under Construction BMP Brochures: Construction BMP Plan Sheet. For further assistance regarding stormwater, please contact Carolyn Critz, Environmental Compliance Manager, at (650) 342 3727, ext. 118, or carolvn.critz(a)veolia.com Reviewed By: Carolyn Critz Date: August 16, 2017 (650) 342 3727, ext. 118 Project Address: Description: From Project Comments - Planning Application 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, APN: 029-201-040 Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. The G ty has nG reGerd oF an appFeved addFess far 14fil rox Pla a Lane. Please pFovide pFeef that this s a legal address. Gnnfin-mm -,-;p of address is not suffiGipnt evidence that it's legal. 2. No further comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. Special conditions apply to Burlingame Avenue. 3. Any proposed tables and chairs must have a special encroachment permit for Burlingame Avenue. 4. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). s. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 8. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at http://www.flowstobay.org/sites/defa u It/files/Countywide%20Progra m%20BM P %20P]a n%20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 10/25/17 650-558-7245 Project Address: Description From: Project Comments - Planning Application 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, APN: 029-201-040 Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. The City has no record or an approved address for 1461 Fox Plaza Lane. Please provide proof that this is a legal address. Continuous use of an existing address is not sufficient evidence that it's legal. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a "Type I" project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of-way). 2. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. Special conditions apply to Burlingame Avenue. 3. Any proposed tables and chairs must have a special encroachment permit for Burlingame Avenue. 4. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non -City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities (including hauling). 5. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 6. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 7. The sanitary sewer lateral (building sewer) shall be tested per ordinance code chapter 15.12. Testing information is available at the Building department counter. A Sewer Lateral Test encroachment permit is required. 8. Insert the 'Best Management Practices', updated June 2014, construction sheet into the plans set. A copy can be found at htto://www.flowsto bay.o re/sites/default/files/Countywide%20Progra m%20BM P%20PIa n %20Sheet- June%202014%20Update.pdf#overlay-context=brochures or http://www.flowstobay.org/brochures then click "construction bmp plan sheet" Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 8/18/17 650-558-7245 ByRLINGNME Project Comments - Planning Application Project Address: 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, APN: 029-201-040 Description: Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. From: Bob Disco Parks Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: No Comment at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Reviewed By: BD Date: 8.23.17 650.558.7333 Project Address: Description From: Project Comments - Planning Application 1465 Burlingame Avenue (1461 Fox Plaza Lane), zoned BAC, APN: 029-201-040 Request for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new Full Service Food Establishment in the BAC. Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal: 1. The building shall be equipped with an approved NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout. Sprinkler drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Central County Fire Department prior to installation. The system shall be electronically monitored by an approved central receiving station, under a separate fire alarm permit. 2. The fire sprinkler system's fire department connection shall be located within 5 feet of the sidewalk and not within city right-of-way. See City specification for recessed installation. 3. The applicant shall ensure proper drainage in accordance with the City of Burlingame Engineering Standards is available for the fire sprinkler main drain and inspector test on the building plumbing drawings. These items may drain directly to landscape or in the sewer with an air gap. 4. The fire protection underground shall be submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department prior to installation. The fire sprinkler system will not be approved by the Central County Fire Department until the fire protection underground has been submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department. 5. Kitchen hood extinguishing system to be installed/serviced, where required. New system shall be installed under separate fire permit prior to installation. 6. A Knox emergency key box shall be located 5-6 feet above the ground within 5 feet of the front entry door. Required keys include, but not limited to, front and rear entry doors, exterior equipment yard. 7. Type I hood required for interior smoker, detail rated construction/separation for flue. Duct termination points for all smokers to be detailed and installed per Mechanical Code. 8. Provide specification sheets for all smokers, along with details of "installation kit". Reviewed By: Christine Reed Date: 9/517 650-558-7617 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT euRr iNcnMe 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for a new full service restaurant at 1465 BURLINGAME AVE zoned BAC. APN 029-201-040 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City 0 Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) APPLICABLE CODES APPLICABLE CODES: 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889 PROJECT DATA CONSTRUCTION HOURS WEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M. SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED (SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.) CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON - CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M. NOTE: CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST NOW BE INCLUDED ON THE PLANS. SITE INFORMATION PARCEL #: 029-201-040 1� ADDRESS: 1465 BURLINGAME AVENUE 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ZONING: BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN BAC - BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT PROPOSED SCOPE: THE PROJECT SCOPE ENCOMPASSES TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SAME PARCEL (APN 029-201-040). THE MAIN BUILDING FRONTS BURLINGAME AVENUE AND CONTAINS TWO TENANT SPACES; 1461 BURLINGAME AVENUE WHICH CURRENTLY HOUSES "SALON 1461" AND 1465 BURLINGAME AVENUE WHICH WAS FORMALLY SECRET OF MEDUSA SALON AND IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THE MAIN SPACE WILL HOUSE PORTIONS OF CHEF & THE BUTCHER, INCLUDING ALL CUSTOMER DINE -IN SEATING, ASPECTS OF THE PRODUCTION KITCHEN (BARBEQUE SMOKER), THE ACCESSORY ARTISAN BUTCHER SHOP, RESTROOMS AND CHEF & THE BUTCHER OFFICE AND STORAGE SPACE. THE SECOND BUILDING ON THE SOUTH HALF OF THE PROPERTY, 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE, CURRENTLY HOUSES A CATERING BUSINESS AND IS DESIGNATED AS AN EXISTING, NON -CONFORMING USE. THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION WILL SERVE TO BRING THE 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE INTO COMPLIANCE BY HAVING IT BECOME A PART OF CHEF & THE BUTCHER AN 1 TS DESIGNATION AS A FULL - SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. UNDER THIS APPLICATION WE PROPOSE -CREATING AN INTERNAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS FOR USE BY CHEF & THE BUTCHER EMPLOYEES ONLY. IN DOING SO, THE 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE WILL SERVE AS THE PRIMARY PRODUCTION KITCHEN FOR THE CHEF & THE BUTCHER, WHILE ALSO CONTINUING TO OPERATE AS CHEF & THE BUTCHER'S CATERING KITCHEN. Al PROJECT SUMMARY: USE EXISTING: RETAIL/PERSONAL SERVICE PROPOSED: FULL -SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT OCCUPANCY EXISTING: B BUSINESS (PERSONAL SERVICE) PROPOSED: A-2 ASSEMBLY (RESTAURANT) - PRIMARY M MERCANTILE (BUTCHER SHOP) - ACCESSORY BUILDING STORIES: EXISTING: 1 (W/ MEZZANINE) PROPOSED: 1 (W/ MEZZANINE) PARKING CALCULATIONS: PER SECTION 25.70.090 (VEHICLE PARKING IN THE PARKING SECTOR OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN), RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE AND FOOD ESTABLISHMENT USES LOCATED ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITHIN THE PARKING SECTOR ARE EXEMPT FROM PROVIDING OFF-STREET PARKING. ALL OTHER USES ABOVE AND BELOW THE FIRST FLOOR SHALL PROVIDE OFF-STREET PARKING AS REQUIRED. THERE ARE SIX (6) EXISTING PARKING SPACES ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE. TWO (2) ARE ASSIGNED TO THE ADJACENT 1461 BURLINGAME AVENUE TENANT. THE REMAINING FOUR (4) SPACES ARE ASSIGNED TO 1465 BURLINGAME AVENUE. TWO (2) OF THESE FOUR (4) SPACES WILL NEED TO BE ABANDONED TO ACCOMODATE ACCESSIBLE SITE ACCESS, SEE SITE PLAN PARKING REQUIREMENT CALCULATION PER TABLE 25.70.040 (GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE) USE (CALCULATION FACTOR) AREA SPACES REQ'D GROUND FLOOR EXISTING: RETAIL (EXEMPT) 2,606sf 0 PROPOSED: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (EXEMPT) 2,606sf 0 MEZZANINE EXISTING: RETAIL/PERSONAL SERVICE (1/400) 713sf 1.78 OFFICE (1/300) 240sf .8 TOTAL EXISTING 2.58 � 3 PROPOSED: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (1/200) 640sf 3.2 OFFICE (1/300) 77sf .26 STORAGE (1/1000) 236sf .24 TOTAL PROPOSED 3.7 t� 4 EXISTING PROVIDED PARKING SPACES 4 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES 2 (EXISTING LESS ABANDONED SPACES AS REQ'D TO PROVIDE SITE ACCESS) DRAWING INDEX 2 SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME REVISION A0.00 PROJECT DATA & SITE PLAN 2 A0.01 REFERENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 1 A0.02 EGRESS / ACCESSIBILITY PLANS 2 A0.03 TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE DOOR SIGNAGE 1 A0.04 ACCESSIBLE TOILET ROOM DOOR SIGNAGE 1 A0.05 ACCESSIBLE TOILET ROOM STANDARD DETAILS 1 A0.06 ACCESSIBLE PARKING DETAILS & ACCESSIBLE DOOR EXIT SIGNAGE 1 A0.07 GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES 1 A0.08 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1 A2.00 EXISTING / DEMOLITION PLANS 2 A2.10 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS 2 A2.20 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS 2 A3.00 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1 A3.01 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1 A3.02 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1 A3.03 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2 A3.04 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2 A3.05 I PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 2 VICINITYMAP NOT TO SCALE PROJECT LOCATION VIEW 5 a 029-201-320 260 EL CAMINO REAL (NOT IN PROJECT SCOPE) ELECTRIC METER GAS METER GAS VALVE HIGH -VOLT ELECTRIC MH (TYPE UNKNOWN) NEWSPAPER ENCLOSURE PACBELL/SBC VAULT PG&E VAULT STREET LIGHT STREET LIGHT VAULT TWIN PARKING METERS WATER METER BOX WATER VALVE CHEF & THE BUTCHER 1465 BURLINGAME AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A\ 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 029-201-380 1451 BURLINGAME AVENUE (NOT IN PROJECT SCOPE) 029-201-060 1435 BURLINGAME AVENUE (NOT IN PROJECT SCOPE) (N) ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE, SEE DETAILS DASHED LINE INDICATE TWO (E) PARKING SPACES ASSIGNED TO 1465 BURLINGAME AVENUE (ABANDONED TO PROVIDE SITE ACCESSIBILITY) VIEW 1 0 i 026-201-290 CITY OF BURLINGAME PUBLIC PARKING LOT "K" (NOT IN PROJECT SCOPE) SITE PLAN 1 /8" = 1'-0" WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH ITECTS William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 0 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 11 /02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE Al BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale 0 2' 4' 8' A ti �O TRUE O�Ty C� NORTH (TN) J 16' Sheet Title PROJECT DATA & SITE PLAN Sheet No. ffeIiIl] WDA W I L L I AMD U F FARCH I TECTS NORTH SIDE = BURLINGAME NOTE: SEE SITE PLAN ON A0.00 FOR VIEW REFERENCES VIEW 5 VIEW 4 SOUTH SIDE = FOX PLAZA NOTE: SEE SITE PLAN ON A0.00 FOR VIEW REFERENCES VIEW 3 wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. Date i1''. PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 1 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale Sheet Title REFERENCE PHOTOGRAPHS 615rMill on VIEW 2 VIEW 1 I PROPERTY LINE ------------------------------------------------------- ------ � --- � EM GM 70'-6" ° KITCHEN / EMPLOYEE AREAS KITCHENS, COMMERCIAL 579sf (1/200) = 2.9 occ - ACCESSIBLE OFFICE WORKSTATION @ 34"H MAX. PRELIMINARY EGRESS FLOOR PLAN - MEZZANINE 1 /8" = 1'-0" ACCESSIBLE EATING COUNTER AT 34"H MAX. ACCESSIBLE ODERING COUNTER AT 34"H MAX. _� LL � \_ \\--\- \��\ � BOH KITCHEN � L J U�L 5' - 0" KITCHENS, COMMERCIAL -11 596sf (1/200) = 3 occ GP Gp LEVEL INTERIOR, — — - — ' 121' EXTERIOR LANDING AT o� I _ O., 0 3 1' 41 �--] J '� ENTRY/EXIT DOOR. MAX I 'I oL�L SLOPE 1:48 N - - - -- >2 o 2, 6„ WALK-IN COOLER = STORAGE • i EXTERIOR EQUIPMENT YARD 70(1/300) = .23 occ M I STORAGE I d- I r 218(1/300) = .73 occ -46-11 TRASH VESTIBULET==� ACCESSORY FROM I_i_I i 35 N/A = 0 occ ° MEZZ. It-- �r - - ( ) 4 •�--- —• � � a8 occcs� � 1 iA0.06 I • z� �I n" l Ji a, O' D' a. r . Wo'._.,0-. I I I •------------- _j 1 CIRCULATION A0.05 ACCESSORY 362sf (N/A) = 0 occ ALL -GENDER RESTROOM 1 ACCESSORY 39sf (N/A) = 0 occ ALL -GENDER RESTROOM 2 ACCESSORY 39sf (N/A) = 0 occ LEVEL INTERIOR, EXTERIOR LANDING AT ENTRY/EXIT DOOR. MAX SLOPE 1:48 DINING AREA 1 RETAIL ASSEMBLY, UNCONCENTRATED MERCANTILE 173sf (1/15) = 11.5 occ 171sf (1/60) = 2.9 occ DINING AREA 2 ASSEMBLY, FIXED SEATING 252" / 18" = 14 occ COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL FROM ABOVE \ LEVEL INTERIOR, T EXTERIOR LANDING AT �TRY/EXIT DOOR. AX SLOPE 1:4 PRELIMINARY CODE ANALYSIS OCCUPANCY CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEC. 1004.1.2 (TABLE): NAME AREA L.F. OCCS. BOH KITCHEN 596 200 3 WALK-IN COOLER 2 70 300 1 - 0 T YAR218300 aEm 1 200 3 ALL GENDER RESTROOMS 59 - 0 RETAIL 171 60 3 DINING AREAS 547 15 37 (UNCONCENTRATED) DINING AREAS 612 Iin.inches 18"/OCC 34 (FIXED SEATING) OFFICES 256 100 3 CIRCULATION 474 - 0 PROJECT TOTAL: 3,005 85 (INTERIOR) SEE EGRESS / ACCESS PLAN FOR OCCUPANT LOADS PER AREA AND AT EXITS FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS NFPA 13 AUTOMATED SPRINKER PER SEC. 903.2.1.2 IS REQUIRED EGRESS TOTAL EXITS REQUIRED: 2 TOTAL EXITS PROVIDED: 3 EXIT SEPARATION NFPA 13 AUTOMATED SPRINKER SYSTEM; 1/3 MAX DIAGONAL SEPARATION OF EXITS REQUIRED: MAX. DIAGONAL: 121' - 0" (x 1/3 = 40' - 3") EXIT SEPARATION: 93' - 8" > 40' - 3" STAIRWAY WIDTH: 48 OCC x 0.3 = 14.4", 44" MIN, 36" MIN FOR < 50 OCC. STAIRWAY WIDTH PROVIDED 36" MIN. PROVIDED EXIT WIDTH REQUIRED (MAX): 97 OCC x 0.2 = 19.4" EXIT WIDTH PROVIDED: 34" MIN. (ALL LOCATIONS) MAX. COMMON PATH OF TRAVEL 55' - 0" (A OCCUPANCY, SPINKLERED, ALLOWS 75' MAX.) MAX. TRAVEL DISTANCE: 70' - 6" (A OCCUPANCY, SPINKLERED, ALLOWS 250' MAX.) PLUMBING FIXTURE REQUIREMENTS PER TABLE A (OCCUPANT LOAD FACTOR) AND TABLE 422.1 (MINIMUM PLUMBING FACILITIES) OF THE 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, CHAPTER 4 OCCUPANCY GROUP (TABLE A) AREA L.F. OCCPANT LOAD GROUP A2 789sf 1/30 26.3 GROUP B 1,523sf 1/200 7.6 GROUP M 200sf 2.,, 1/200 1 ACCESSORY 427sf N/A N/A TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES 34.9 = 35 18 MALE / 18 FEMALE A-2 OCCUPANCY: MALE = 1:1-50, FEMALE = 1:1-25 REQUIRED M W PROVIDED M W WATER CLOSET 1 1 1 1 LAVATORY 1 1 2 COMMUNAL/SHARED DRINKING FOUNTAIN 1 WATER SERVICE PROVIDED SERVICE SINK 1 1 PER SECTION 422.2 SEPARATE FACILITIES, EXCEPTION 3 - BUSINESS AND MERCANTILE OCCUPANCIES WITH A TOTAL OCCUPANT LOAD OF 50 OR LESS INCLUDING CUSTOMERS AND EMPLOYEE, ONE TOILET FACILITY, DESIGNED FOR USE BY NO MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT A TIME, SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR USE BY BOTH SEXES. LEGEND ## TOTAL MAX. OCCUPANT LOAD AT EGRESS POINT IN REQUIRED EGRESS POINT (DISTANCE, NOTED AT FARTHEST POINT) MAXIMUM EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE ## (DISTANCE, NOTED AT FARTHEST POINT) COMMON PATH OF EGRESS TRAVEL WDA W ILL I AM DU IFFAIRCH I TECTS wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. Date 1� PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 10/10/2017 02 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS 11/02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale As indicated PROJECT NORTH (PN) 0 2' 4' 8' 1 6' o'�GF T J Sheet Title EGRESS / ACCESSIBILITY PLANS Sheet No. "" A0002 PRELIMINARY EGRESS FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR 1 /8" = 1'-0" ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AUTOMATIC DOOR OPERATOR PER DOOR HARDWARE SCHEDULED FACE OF WALL WHERE OCCURS LEVER HARDWARE WHERE SCHEDULED KICKPLATE WHERE SCHEDULED z_ THRESHOLD 0 ROOM ID SIGNAGE - SEE SIGNAGE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INCLUDING MOUNTING ROOM ID o LOCATION ELECTRIFIED LATCH HARDWARE PER DOOR HARDWARE SCHEDULE TO AUTOMATICALLY U TCHCPOOR AIKB" ZVEII WOR IS A IVATE ACCESS WHERE SCHEDULED SECURITY ENTRY ACCESS WHERE SCHEDULED DOOR OPERATOR VERTICAL o ACTUATION BAR - PROVIDE ON BOTH SIDES OF DOOR FACING MOST PREDOMINATE DIRECTION OF 7@ DULED BIA� v DOOR WIDTH AS SCHEDULED `9" MIN. ON PUSH SIDE 16" MIN ON PULL SIDE 7) TYPICAL POWERED DOOR DETAILS F.F. m SCALE: 1" = V-0" R01 2016.01.01 PROVIDE THIS ADDITIONAL SPACE IF DOOR IS EQUIPPED WITH BOTH A LATCH AND A CLOSER MIN. MANEUVERING CLEARANCE REQ. (SHOWN DASHED) I ZQ w zQ w Z �' awe web Q'w w M w Z 00 00 Z U EQ CE EQ WALL MOUNTED, ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGN EXIT AS SCHEDULED OVER DOOR WHERE INDICATED ON REFLECTED CEILING PLAN - SIGN SHALL BE SELF -ILLUMINATED TO NO LESS THAN 5 FOOTCANDLES WITH 6" MIN. TALL,BLOCK CAPITOL, GREEN STENCIL LETTERING AND INCLUDE BATTERY PACK WITH SELF -TEST. CL DOOR CLOSER PER DOOR HARDWARE SCHEDULE. CLOSING TACTILE EXIT SIGNAGE - SEE SIGNAGE FORCE ON RATED EXIT DOORS DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL TO INFORMATION BE SET TO LOWEST FORCE INCLUDING MOUNTING LOCATION NECESSARY TO CLOSE & LATCH DOOR - FORCE NOT TO EXCEED EXIT 15 LBF ON RATED D00 S & 5 LBF ON DOOR AS SCHEDULED RATED EXIT NON RATED DOORS. DOORS SHALL SELF -CLOSING AND gqBTTE �DW�f�I EXI��EV>L;E�E� FACE OF WALL R TLARE WHERE OCCURS SCHEDULE WHERE OCCURS. THE UNLATCHING FORCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 POUNDS WHEN APPLIED IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL EXCEPT ON RATED DOORS. FLOOR -LEVEL, WALL MOUNTED, NON -POWERED, SELF -LUMINOUS EXIT SIGN TO MATCH EXIT SIGN ABOVE DOOR WHERE OCCURS; z FLOOR -LEVEL EXIT SIGN TO BE o USED AT DOORS AS REQUIRED PER a CBC BASED UPON OCCUPANCY �7_ KICKPLATE WHERE 0, SCHEDULED WALL BASE AS SCHEDULED E IT z_ THRESHOLD o - Zfl F.F. DOOR WIDTH AS SCHEDULED 4 TYPICAL EXIT DOOR DETAILS SCALE: 1" = V-0" 48"MIN. MIN. MANEUVERING 49" MIN. CLR. CLEARANCE REQ. (SHOWN DASHED) — — - — — — z zJ zJ 0w — 49"MIN. d J z0 w0w ¢¢ z Z �aw M �w � WWM Z D O O 1 co 2-1 00 n z 11 z d 1 W _j +/1 �---J ----- a� U 61" MIN. CLR. ' 1 61" MIN. CLR. PROVIDE THIS ADDITIONAL SPACE IF DOOR IS EQUIPPED WITH BOTH A LATCH AND A CLOSER REQUIRED MANEUVERING CLEARANCES AT DOORS IN SERIES SCALE: 1/4" = V-0" 61" MIN. CLR. R01 2016.01.01 R01 2016.01.01 CENTERLINE OF FIRE STROBE LIGHT TOP OF ELECTRICAL JUNCTION BOX FOR WALL SWITCHES, CONTROLS, AND/OR THERMOSTAT CENTERLINE OF DEADBC(I<I£NTffRB 9R DOOR CLOSER WHERE LOCK, LEVER SCHEDULED - CLOSING AND/OR FORCE NOT TO EXCEED 9" TYP. U.O.N. PANIC BAR 5 HARDWARE LBF. ON NON-FIRE- Q0 HINGE PER DOOR HARDWARE SCHEDULE, TYP. - NUMBER OF HINGES ON EACH DOOR AS REQUIRED PER MFR. TYPICAL ELECTRICAL WALL SWITCHS, DIMMERS, CONTROLS, ALARM PANELS, ETC. WHERE OCCURS DEAD BOLT WHERE SCHEDULED FACE OF WALL WHERE OCCURS LEVER HARDWARE WHERE SCHEDULED - TYP. ELECTRICAL DUPLEX WALL OUTLET WHERE OCCURS - ALIGN WITH SWITCH IF OUTLET IS WITHIN 2'-0" OF DOOR KICKPLATE WHERE SCHEDULED z_ THRESHOLD 0 6" '---WALL MOUNTED FIRE STROBE LIGHT pWHERE ELEOi%VAGNETIC HOLD OPEN DEVICE WHERE SCHEDULED -INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONS WALL MOUNTED THERMOSTAT WHERE OCCURS o w W BOTTOM OF w w z - ELECTRICAL BOX -- v bo M v WALL BASE AS co SCHEDULED z DOOR WIDTH AS SCHEDULED TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE DOOR HARDWARE 3� & ELECTRICAL WALL MOUNTING HEIGHTS / SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" ALLOWED TO PROJECT INTO CLEAR FLOOR SPACE IF PROJECTION IS LESS THAN 8" OR LESS PULL SIDE F DIRECTION OF TRAVEL DIRECTION OF z TRAVEL 13" CLR. j MIN. MANEUVERING CLEARANCE REQ. PUSH SIDE �2 MANEUVERING CLEARANCES RECESSED DOORS & GATES SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" J MIN. i MANEUVERING PULL SIDE PULL SIDE �_]MIN. F- CLEARANCE REQ. I - DIRECTION OF TRAVEL MANEUVERING 7 CLEARANCE REQ 37" MIN. CL F.F. R01 2016.01.01 MIN. MANEUVERING CLEARANCE REQ. ALLOWED TO PROJECT INTO CLEAR FLOOR SPACE IF PROJECTION IS LESS THAN 8" R01 2016.01.01 25" MIN. MIN. MANEUVERING PULL SIDE CLEARANCE REQ. U 25" MIN. CLR. 1 z z z_ @ EXTERIOR 32" MI DOORS DIRECTION 32 MIN. 32" MI a 11 DIRECTIONco (19" MIN. CLR. OF TRAVEL OF TRAVEL NET CLR. @ INTERIOR DOORS) NET CLR. NET CLR. U) 0 J 0 J U Q U Q 0 DIRECTION 11 PROVIDE THIS 23"MIN. z = a DIRECTION z_ z OF TRAVEL 1 ADDITIONAL SPACE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ry IF OF TRAVEL - 0 0 DOOR IS EQUIPPED WITH BOTH ALATCH L____ __ - L_____ L_____L_J PUSH SIDE AND A CLOSER PUSH SIDE z PUSH SIDE z 13" MIN. CLR. NOTE: THE FLOOR OR GROUND IN THE REQUIRED MANEUVERING AREA SHALL BE LEVEL AND CLEAR WHEN THE MANEUVERING AREA IS IN THE INTERIOR. WHEN THE MANEUVERING AREA IS IN THE EXTERIOR, IT MAY HAVE A SLOPE NOT TO EXCEED 1.8%. 1 REQUIRED MANEUVERING CLEARANCES AT DOORS SCALE: 1/4" = V-0" R01 2016.01.01 TYPICAL DOOR CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL STOREFRONT DOORS, ENTRANCE DOORS, EXIT DOORS, AND DOORS ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL BE MADE ACCESSIBLE AND FULLY COMPLY WITH ADA & CBC TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSIBILITY UNLESS THEY ARE EXISTING OR OTHERWISE NOTED. 2. THE FOLLOWING APPLIES TO ALL ADA & CBC TITLE 24 COMPLIANT ACCESSIBLE DOORS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED: A. THE THRESHOLD SHALL NOT BE MORE 1/2" ABOVE THE FINISH FLOOR OR CONCRETE FLATWORK. THE FINISH FLOOR LEVEL IS DEFINED AS THE TOP SURFACE OF THE FINISH FLOORING MATERIAL. SEE "TYPICAL DOOR CLEARANCES & HARDWARE MOUNTING GUIDE" ON THIS SHEET FOR OTHER TYPICAL REQUIREMENTS. B. THE BOTTOM 10 INCHES OF ALL DOORS EXCEPT AUTOMATIC AND SLIDING DOORS WILL HAVE A SMOOTH UNINTERRUPTED SURFACE TO ALLOW THE DOOR TO BE OPENED BY A WHEELCHAIR FOOTREST WITHOUT CREATING A TRIP OR HAZARDOUS CONDITION. WHERE NARROW FRAME DOORS ARE USED. A 10 INCH HIGH SMOOTH PANEL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE PUSH SIDE OF THE DOOR WHICH WILL ALLOW THE DOOR TO BE OPENED BY A WHEELCHAIR FOOTREST WITHOUT CREATING A TRAP OR HAZARDOUS CONDITION, TYP. C. THE DOORWAY SHALL BE OF A SIZE AS TO PERMIT THE INSTALLATION OF A DOOR NOT LESS THAN 3 FEET IN WIDTH AND NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT. DOORS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF OPENING AT LEAST 90 DEGREES AND SHALL BE MOUNTED SO THAT THE CLEAR WIDTH OF THE DOORWAY IS NOT LESS THAN 32 INCHES. D. THE MAXIMUM OPENING FORCE OF A DOOR WITH A CLOSER SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 LBS FOR EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR DOORS EXCEPT THAT FIRE DOORS SHALL NOT EXCEED 15 LBS. THE SWEEP PERIOD OF THE CLOSER SHALL BE ADJUSTED SO THAT FROM AN OPEN POSITION OF 90 DEGREES, THE DOOR WILL TAKE AT LEAST 5 SECONDS TO MOVE TO A POINT 12 DEGREES FROM THE LATCH. AUTOMATIC -CLOSING FIRE OR SMOKE DOORS BY SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL NOT HAVE A CLOSING OR RE -CLOSING DELAY OF MORE THAN 10 SECONDS. E. LATCHING AND LOCKING DOORS THAT ARE HAND ACTIVATED AND WHICH ARE IN A PATH OF TRAVEL SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH A SINGLE EFFORT BY LEVER TYPE HARDWARE, PANIC BARS, PUSH-PULL ACTIVATING BARS, OR OTHER HARDWARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE PASSAGE WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO GRASP THE OPENING HARDWARE. 3. EXIT DOORS: REGARDLESS OF OCCUPANT LOAD SERVED, EXIT DOORS SHALL BE OPERABLE FROM THE INSIDE WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. REVOLVING, SLIDING, AND OVERHEAD DOORS ARE NOT PERMITTED AS REQUIRED EXIT DOORS WHEN SERVING HAZARDOUS AREAS OR AN OCCUPANT LOAD OF 10 OR MORE. 4. RATED DOORS: ALL RATED DOORS SHALL BE POSITIVE LATCHING AND INCLUDE A CLOSER. RATED ASSEMBLIES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH APPROVED GASKETING MATERIAL INSTALLED TO PROVIDE A SEAL WHERE THE DOOR MEETS THE STOP ON BOTH SIDES & THE TOP. THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON THE JOB SITE FOR ALL RATED DOOR ASSEMBLIES. 5. SAFETY GLAZING: IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE OF SAFETY GLAZING MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2406.4 OF CBC TITLE 24: A. INGRESS AND EGRESS DOORS EXCEPT JALOUSIES. B. FIXED AND SLIDING PANELS OF SLIDING DOOR ASSEMBLIES AND PANELS IN SWINGING DOORS OTHER THAN WARDROBE DOORS. C. UNFRAMED SWINGING DOORS 6. POWERED DOORS: POWERED DOOR OR GATE OPERATORS MAY SUBSTITUTE FOR AN INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR DOOR OR GATE OPERATING FORCE OF 5 POUND PRESSURE (22.2 N) (11B-404.2.9). WHEN PROVIDED, POWERED DOOR OPERATORS SHALL COMPLY WITH HIGH ENERGY, OR LOW ENERGY OPERATED DOORS. A. NUMBER OF ACTUATORS: AT A PAIR OF DOORS, BOTH DOOR LEAFS SHALL BE A POWERED DOOR. WHEN AT A SINGLE LOCATION, ONE OF EVERY EIGHT EXTERIOR DOOR LEAFS, OR FRACTION THEREOF, A MINIMUM OF ONE PAIR OF DOORS SHALL BE A POWERED DOOR. OTHER DOORS LEAFS IN THE CLUSTER MAY HAVE A MAXIMUM DOOR OPENING FORCE OF 8'/z POUNDS (37.8 N). B. DOOR ACTUATORS, SENSING DEVICES, PUSH PLATES, VERTICAL ACTUATION BARS OR OTHER SIMILAR DEVICESACTUATORS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH LEVEL CLEAR FLOOR AREAS AND WITHOUT PROTUDING OBSTRUCTONS. ACTUATORS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES. C. POWER DISCONNECT: KEYED OR TOGGLE SWITCH FOR DISCONNECTING POWER TO THE DEVICE SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE NEAR VICINITY OF THE POWERED DOOR. AN ACTUATOR IS PERMITTED TO CONTAIN INTEGRAL OR BE INTERCONNECTED WITH TIMER, SECURITY SYSTEMS OR OTHER OPERATIONAL CONTROLS. D. BACK-UP OR EMERGENCY POWER OPERATION: POWERED DOORS SERVING A BUILDING OR FACILITY WITH 150 OR MORE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH BACKUP POWER OR BACK-UP GENERATOR POWER. THE BACKUP POWER SOURCE SHALL BE ABLE TO CYCLE THE DOOR A MINIMUM OF 100 CYCLES, WHEN THE DEVICE IS IN OPERATIONAL MODE. E. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS: a. IN ADDITION TO THE ACCESSIBILITY SYMBOL REQUIRED ON THE DOOR ACTUATORS, 6" BY 6" ACCESSIBILITY SYMBOL SIGN SHALL BE PLACED ON, OR IMMADIATELY ADJACENT TO, EACH POWERED DOOR (LOCATION ON A DOOR IS NOT SPECIFIED). THE SIGN SHALL BE ON BOTH SIDES OF DOOR. b. WHERE A POWERED DOOR IS PROVIDED IN A BUILDING OR FACILITY CONTAINING ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCIES OF 300 OR MORE, AN ACCESSIBILITY SYMBOL SIGN MEASURING 6" BY 6" SHALL BE PROVIDED ABOVE AND ON BOTH THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SIDES OF EACH POWERED DOOR OR PAIR OF DOORS. c. WHERE A POWERED DOOR IS PROVIDED A POWER DOOR CAUTION SIGN SHALL BE PROVIDED ON BOTH THE INTERIOR AND EXTEIROR SIDES OF EACH POWERED DOOR OR PAIR OF DOORS. WDA W I L L I A M D U F F A R C H I T E C T S wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: Scale As indicated Sheet Title TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE DOOR SIGNAGE Sheet No. A0003 WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS 6" TYP. O MEN co a } N O O } A O 'D E O O A. MEN'S RESTROOM SIGN ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM SIGNAGE SCALE: 6" = V-0" 1/8" TIP EQ. of w LL w a c B. WOMEN'S RESTROOM SIGN O 9" TYP. O N C) ALL - GENDER RESTROO� LL F_ LL A. MEN'S RESTROOM SIGN B. WOMEN'S RESTROOM SIGN RESTROOM DOOR IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE MOUNTED ON LIGHT COLORED DOORS SCALE: 3" = V-0" 1/8" TIP "A- 1 12" Of LL LL LL a c Of LL h LL A. MEN'S RESTROOM SIGN B. WOMEN'S RESTROOM SIGN RESTROOM DOOR IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE MOUNTED ON DARK COLORED DOORS SCALE: 3" = V-0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 C. UNISEX RESTROOM SIGN DO C. UNISEX RESTROOM SIGN C. UNISEX RESTROOM SIGN O O 1/8" RADIUS TYP DIUS TYP RESTROOM SIGNAGE NOTES: A. SIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/4" THICKETCHED MAGNESIUM, U.O.NWITH SQUARE POLISHED SIDES AND EASED EDGES. ALL INTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SIGNS SHALL BE ADHERED TO WALL WITH NON -STAINING SILICONE SEALANT AND FOAM TAPE AND MECHANICAL FASTENERS, U.O.N. B. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, BACKGROUND COLOR SHALL BE DARK BRONZE EQUAL TO PANTONE ONE COLOR 462U (UNCOATED), TYPICAL. TEXT AND GRAPHUICS TEXT AND GRAPHICS SHALL BE WHITE, U.O.N. B C. 1/32" MIN. RAISED PICTOGRAMS/SYMBOLS. SYMBOL/PICTOGRAM & TEXT COLOR SHALL BE 70% MIN. CONTRASTING REFLECTED LIGHT VALUE (R.L.V.) WITH SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR. PICTOGRAMS TO BE CENTER JUSTIFIED. D. HELVETICA MEDIUM, UPPER CASE LETTERS RAISED 1/32" MIN. & 70% MIN. R.L.V. - COLOR TO MATCH SYMBOLS ABOVE. TEXT TO BE CENTERED ON SIGN. CHARACTER PROPORTION WIDTH TO HEIGHT RATIO SHALL BE SELECTED FROM FONTS WHERE THE WIDTH OF THE UPPERCASE LETTER "0" IS 55% MINIMUM AND 110% MAXIMUM OF THE HEIGHT OF THE UPPERCASE LETTER "I". STROKE WIDTH TO HEIGHT RATIO SHALL BE BETWEEN 1:10 & 1:15 DE BASED ON UPPERCASE LETTER "I". ` E. CONTRACTED GRADE 2 BEAD BRAILLE TRANSLATION (IN LOWER CASE) OF TEXT ABOVE. CENTER JUSTIFY BRAILLE ON SIGN R01 2016.01.01 O SIGN NOTES FOR LIGHT COLORED DOORS: A. TRIANGULAR SIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/4" MELAMINE WITH SQUARE POLISHED AND EASED EDGES. ALL INTERIOR DOOR MOUNTED SIGNS SHALL BE ADHERED TO DOOR WITH NON -STAINING SILICONE SEALANT, U.O.N. B. CIRCULAR SIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/4" THICK ACRYLIC WITH POLISHED AND EASED EDGES. ALL INTERIOR DOOR MOUNTED SIGNS SHALL BE ADHERED TO DOOR WITH NON -STAINING SILICONE SEALANT AND FOAM TAPE WITHOUT ANY MECHANICAL FASTENERS, U.O.N. C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, BACKGROUND COLOR SHALL BE DARK BRONZE EQUAL TO PANTONE COLOR 462U (UNCOATEWPICAL. SIGN SHALL BE 70% R.L.V. (REFLECTED LIGHT VALUE) CONTRASTING COLOR WITH ADJACENT DOOR & SIGN SURFACES. ALL SIGNAGE FINISHES SHALL BE NON -GLARE MATTE OR EGGSHELL. D. TRIANGULAR SHAPE SHALL BE 1/4" THICK ACRYLIC PANEL SECURED ON TOP OF CIRCULAR ACRYLIC SHEET (B) WITH VHB SHEET ADHESIVE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, COLOR SHALL BENHITE. E. 1/32" MIN. RAISED PICTOGRAMS/SYMBOLS. SYMBOL/PICTOGRAM *EXT COLOR SHALL BE 70% MIN. CONTRASTING REFLECTED LIGHT VALUE (R.L.V.) WITH SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR. PICTOGRAMS TO BE CENTER JUSTIFIED. R01 2016.01.01 O SIGN NOTES FOR LIGHT COLORED DOORS: A. TRIANGULAR SIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/4" MELAMINE WITH SQUARE POLISHED AND EASED EDGES. ALL INTERIOR DOOR MOUNTED SIGNS SHALL BE ADHERED TO DOOR WITH NON -STAINING SILICONE SEALANT, U.O.N. B. CIRCULAR SIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/4" THICK ACRYLIC WITH POLISHED AND EASED EDGES. ALL INTERIOR DOOR MOUNTED SIGNS SHALL BE ADHERED TO DOOR WITH NON -STAINING SILICONE SEALANT AND FOAM TAPE WITHOUT ANY MECHANICAL FASTENERS, U.O.N. C. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, BACKGROUND COLOR SHALL BENHITE EQUAL TO PANTONE COLOR 462U (UNCOATED,)TYPICAL. SIGN SHALL BE 70% R.L.V. (REFLECTED LIGHT VALUE) CONTRASTING COLOR WITH ADJACENT DOOR & SIGN SURFACES. ALL SIGNAGE FINISHES SHALL BE NON -GLARE MATTE OR EGGSHELL. D. TRIANGULAR SHAPE SHALL BE 1/4" THICK ACRYLIC PANEL SECURED ON TOP OF CIRCULAR ACRYLIC SHEET (B) WITH VHB SHEET ADHESIVE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, COLOR SHALL BENHITE. E. 1/32" MIN. RAISED PICTOGRAMS/SYMBOLS. SYMBOUPICTOGRAM *EXT COLOR SHALL BE 70% MIN. CONTRASTING REFLECTED LIGHT VALUE (R.L.V.) WITH SIGN BACKGROUND COLOR. PICTOGRAMS TO BE CENTER JUSTIFIED. ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM 36" DOOR SIGNAGE - SEE DETAIL 4 & 5 ON THIS SHEET _4 c)i (/4 O EXTERIOR SIDE OF ACCESSIBLE DOOR BOTTOM OF DOOR FLUSH & SMOOTH ON PUSH SIDE WITH \ NO PROTRUDING HARDWARE - KICKPLATE WHERE OCCURS WALL BASE AS SCHEDULED A. DOOR ELEVATION TACTILE TOILET ROOM IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE - SEE DETAIL 3 ON THIS SHEET. MOUNTING REQUIREMENTS: 1. WALL MOUNT ADJACENT TO LATCH SIDE OF SINGLE DOOR 2. INACTIVE LEAF OF A DOUBLE DOOR WITH A SINGLE ACTIVE LEAF 3. THE RIGHT SIDE OF A DOUBLE DOOR WITH 2 ACTIVE LEAFS. 4. WHERE THERE IS NO WALL SPACE ON THE LATCH SIDE OF A SINGLE DOOR OR RIGHT SIDE OF A DOUBLE DOOR, SIGN SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE NEAREST ADJACENT WALL - COORDINATE LOCATION WITH CITY REPRESENTATIVE 0 z T.O. PICTOGRAM ON SIGN o z TACTILE TOILET ROOM IL _ _ EQ t EQ IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE CLEAR FLOOR AREA CENTERED 19" MIN. ON TACTILE CHARACTERS OF B. CLEAR FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS - PLAN SIGN TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM SIGNAGE William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: Author Checker Scale As indicated Sheet Title ACCESSIBLE TOILET ROOM DOOR SIGNAGE Sheet No. O 1 A0 0 0 R01 2016.01.01 SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" R01 2016.01.01 GENERAL TOILET ROOM ACCESSIBILITY NOTES: WDA FINISH FACE OF WALL WHERE CE O KRYNBLE, WALL MOUNTED MI 18" MIN. AUTOMATIC, ELECTRONIC SENSOR OPERATED FAUCET. HAND OPERATING METERING FACE OF FINISHED WALL FAUCETS SHALL REMAIN F w OPEN w FOR 10 SECOND MINIMUM. X > WALL MOUNTED o ACCESSIBLE r' w w w ALTMUU_ WLONTED LIQUID z WALL MOUNTED Of UJ SOAP ACCESSIBLE o 0 > o DISPENSER co LAVATORY - � CLEAR FLOORLU � Z SPACE 0 = wp Of ov (SHOWN DASHED) � 0 0 „ r O 15 MIN. t WALL BASE AS SCHEDULED FACE OF FINISHED WALL N 30" MIN. CLR. � Cn Cl) - - F-F LOCATE WALL -MOUNTED PAPER TOWEL INSULATE OR COVER DISPENSER OUTSIDE OF REQUIRED 19" MIN. CL EXPOSED CLEAR WATER SUPPLY AND DRAIN FLOOR SPACE & ACCESSIBLE PATH OF PIPES. THERE SHALL BE NO TRAVEL, TYP. SHARP OR ABRASIVE SURFACES UNDER LAVATORY SURFACE MOUNTED ROLL OR FOLDED PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER MOUNTED - LOCATION OUTSIDE PATH OF ACCESSIBLE TRAVEL, TYP. MANUAL ROLL ADVANCE WHERE OCCURS ON SIDE OF DISPENSER J O Z L 0 U X d O Q I— Ei z_ z0 0 x c` Z Q - z p 0 M N U L M CLEAR KNEE SPACE (SHOWN DASHED) 17" MIN. A. PLAN B. FRONT ELEVATION C. SIDE ELEVATION * 39" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR TO HIGHEST USER OPERABLE PART OR CONTROL - STANDARD ACCESSIBLE WALL -MOUNTED LAVATORY WITH AUTOMATIC FAUCET SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" 60" MIN. CLR. FLOOR SPACE 171/2" LCLEAR FLOOR SPACE (SHOWN DASHED) A. PLAN HANDS -FREE, ELECTRONIC SENSOR OPERATED, FLUSH ACTIVATOR U.O.N. ANY MANUAL CONTROLS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE WIDE SIDE OF THE TOILET. WALL BASE AS SCHEDULED * 40" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR TO HIGHEST USER OPERABLE PART OR CONTROL STANDARD ACCESSIBLE WALL -MOUNTED TOILET SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" FINISH FACE OF WALL OR PARTITION WHERE OCCURFSINISH FACE OF WALL 42" GRAB BARS 24" MIN. `12" MIN. C+' Nz� � U 60" CLR. FLOOR SPACE B. FRONT ELEVATION 171/2" 1/2" FACE OF FINISH WALL 1-1/4" TO 1-1/2" NOMINAL DIAMETER, TYP. IN. D. STANDARD GRAB BAR SURFACE MOUNTED SANITARY NAPKIN DISPOSAL WHERE OCCURS (4" MAX. o PROJECTION FROM FINISH FACE OF WALL) 0 w x U CO -d w ~ w N M = 0 O M U N F.F. WALL MOUNTED ACCESSIBLE WATER CLOSET F.F. fi 6" MIN. R01 2016.01.01 WALL MOUNTED TRASH BIN BELOW HANDS DRYER ONLY WHERE SCHEDULED (NOT REQUIRED FOR MEETING ACCESSIBILITY WHEN USING THE DYSON AIRBLM& AIRBLADE V \ RAPID DRYING ELECTRIC HAND DRYER BY DYSON i" A. SURFACE MOUNTED HAND DRYER WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC SENSOR XLERATOR MODEL XL- SB RAPID DRYING ELECTRIC INA4_KE&TLB I N HANDS bRYER WHEN DRYER PROJECTION IS GREATER TH 'MIN. FROM FINISH FACE OF WALL RECOMMENDED WAINSCOT HEIGHT 4'-6" A. F.F. � II V z O BOTTOM OF DRYER M 0 ~ WALL BASE F- WHERE B. SURFACE MOUNTED HAND DRYER WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC SENSOR MOUNTED IN WALL RECESS (4" MAX. PROJECTION FROM FINISH FACE OF WALL) * 39" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR TO HIGHEST USER OPERABLE PART OR CONTROL STANDARD AUTOMATIC HAND DRYER SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" VERIFY WALL STRUCTURE, BACKING & MOUNTING REQUIREMENTS IN FIELD - EACH GRAB BAR SHALL SUPPORT A MINIMUM OF FORCE OF 250 LBS. APPLIED IN ANY DIRECTION TO ANY POINT OF THE GRAB BAR. FINISH FACE OF WALL 56" MIN. 8„ 3" MIN. rt MIN. 48" GRAB BAR CLR. �,2" MIN I I Q ® N U co co O - (}I O ~ N O LL w Z M J cG N d Oo Z 0 6) o SURFACE MOUNTED JUMBO ROLL TOILET 12" MIN. TISSUE 36" MAX. 7" MIN. DISPENSER - MOUNT DISPENSER AT 45' 9" MAX. FACING TOWARD TOILET C. SIDE ELEVATION SURFACE MOUNTED TOILET SEAT COVER DISPENSER (4" MAX. PROJECTION FROM FINISH FACE OF WALL) VANDAL RESISTANT COAT HOOK WHERE OCCURS; PROVIDE AT LEAST 2 COAT HOOKS MOUNT ONE HIGH & ONE LOW AS SHOWN 0 w J l.T � 0 w x U U a 73 U) w w O M O U Z F.F. * 39" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR TO HIGHEST USER OPERABLE PART OR CONTROL GRAB BAR EXCEPTIONS: 1. THE REAR GRAB BAR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE 24 INCHES MINIMUM LENGTH, CENTERED ON THE WATER CLOSET, WHERE WALL SPACE DOES NOT PERMIT A LENGTH OF 36 INCHES MINIMUM DUE TO THE LOCATION OF A RECESSED FIXTURE ADJACENT TO THE WATER CLOSET. 2. WHERE AN ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY REQUIRES FLUSH CONTROLS FOR FLUSH VALVES TO BE LOCATED IN A POSITION THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE LOCATION OF THE REAR GRAB BAR, THE THE REAR BAR SHALL BE PERMITTED TO BE SPLIT OR SHIFTED TO THE OPEN SIDE OF THE TOILET AREA. z DOUBLE TOILET TISSUE LO ROLL DISPENSER - DO NOT USE _ DISPENSERS THAT CONTROL J, DELIVERY OR PERMIT 7/ CONTINUOUS PAPER FLOW 7" MIN' CL 9" MAX. A. SURFACE MOUNTED DOUBLE ROLL DISPENSER N � U 7" MIN. - SURFACE MOUNTED * 39" MAX. HEIGHT ABOVE FINISH 9" MAX. MULTI -ROLL TOILET FLOOR TO HIGHEST USER TISSUE OPERABLE PART OR CONTROL DISPENSER B. SURFACE MOUNTED MUTLI-ROLL DISPENSER ALTERNATIVE TOILET TISSUE DISPENSERS SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" R01 2016.01.01 R01 2016.01.01 CYy:1��111��� F.F. R01 2016.01.01 Cr. 1. THE MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, AND ABSOLUTE DIMENSIONS SHOWN IN THESE STANDARD DETAILS VARY FROM THOSE IN TITLE 24 ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND/OR AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES (ADAAG). DIMENSIONS THAT ARE NOT STATED AS "MAXIMUM: OR "MAX." OR "MINIMUM" OR "MIN." ARE ABSOLUTE (1101B.4). ALL DIMENSIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CONVENTIONAL INDUSTRY TOLERANCES EXCEPT WHERE THE REQUIREMENT IS STATED AS A RANGE WITH SPECIFIC MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM END POINTS. 2. TOILET ROOMS SHALL CONTAIN A 60" DIAMETER MANEUVERING SPACE OR EQUIVALENT T-SHAPED SPACE. THE MANEUVERING SPACES ARE PERMITTED TO UNDERLAP SOME OBJECTS. TOE & KNEE SPACE AT ONLY ONE END OF EITHER THE BASE OR ONE AREA OF T-SHAPED SPACE. A DOOR IS PERMITTED UNDERLAP A TOILET ROOM'S REQUIRED MANEUVERING SPACE BY 12" MAX. 3. TOILET ROOMS ARE TO CONTAIN A CLEAR 44" MIN PATH TO WHEELCHAIR AND ACCESSIBLE TOILET COMPARTMENTS, EXCEPT FOR INTERVENING DOOR WIDTHS. 4. TRASH CAN IS NOT PERMITTED TO OCCUPY THE CLEAR FLOOR SPACE OF ANY FIXTURE OR DOOR. 5. DOORS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ENCROACH ON THE REQUIRED CLEAR FLOOR SPACE AT ANY ACCESSIBLE FIXTURE. EXCEPTION: WHERE THE TOILET OR BATHING ROOM IS FOR INDIVIDUAL USE AND A 30" BY 48" CLEAR DOOR SWING, DOORS SHALL BE PERMITTEDFLOOR SPACE IS PROVIDED WITHIN THE ROOM BEYOND THE ARC OF THE DOORS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO SWING INTO THE CLEAR FLOOR SPACE OR CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR ANY FIXTURE. 6. THE CLEAR FLOOR AREAS OF ANY FIXTURE, ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND MANEUVERING SPACE ARE PERMITTED TO OVERLAP. 7. MOUNTING HEIGHT OF FIXTURES SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FLOOR SLOPE TO DRAIN. 8. FLOOR SLOPE TO DRAIN SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.5% IN ANY DIRECTION. 9. FIXTURE AND TOILET COMPARTMENT CLEARANCES ARE TO FACE OF FINISH. 10. NO ACCESSORIES ARE TO BE MOUNTED BEHIND GRAB BARS UNLESS THEY ARE COMPLETELY FLUSH TO ADJACENT SURFACE. NO ACCESSORIES SHALL BE MOUNTED ABOVE GRAB BARS. 11. ACCESSIBLE ACCESSORIES SHALL BE LOCATED ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND WITHIN ACCESSIBLE REACH RANGE PROVIDE CLEAR FLOOR SPACE THAT ALLOWS A FORWARD OR PARALLEL APPROACH BY A PERSON USING A WHEELCHAIR. ALL USER OPERABLE PARTS & CONTROLS SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 40" FROM THE FINISH FLOOR. CONTROLS AND OPERATING MECHANISMS SHALL BE OPERABLE WITH ONE HAND AND SHALL NOT REQUIRE TIGHT GRASPING, PINCHING OR TWISTING OF THE WRIST. THE FORCE REQUIRED TO ACTIVATE CONTROLS SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 5 POUNDS (22.2 N) OF FORCE. 12. DOOR TO SINGLE USER ACCESSIBLE RESTROOM SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH BY AN ACCESSIBLE PRIVACY LOCK. 13. THE CLEAR FLOOR AREA ON BOTH SIDES OF DOOR OF A WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TOILET COMPARTMENT SHALL BE CLEAR OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS & CLEAR OF THE ARC OF THE SWING OF ANY OTHER DOOR. ENLARGED RESTROOM PLAN SCALE: 1/2" = V-0" nnnn nrnnnirrrn rn c��nnnin n�irn W I L L I A M D U F FARCH I TECTS William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLIES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale 1 /2„ = 1'-01V Sheet Title ACCESSIBLE TOILET ROOM STANDARD DETAILS Sheet No. z'� A0005 EQ. WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH ITECTS TACTILE DOOR EXIT SIGNAGE - SEE DETAIL C. MOUNTING REQUIREMENTS: 36" 1. WALL MOUNT ADJACENT TO LATCH SIDE OF SINGLE DOOR 2. INACTIVE LEAF OF A DOUBLE DOOR WALL MOUNTED, EXIT WITH A SINGLE ACTIVE LEAF ILLUMINATED EXIT SIGN AS 3. THE RIGHT SIDE OF A DOUBLE DOOR SCHEDULED OVER DOOR " WITH 2 ACTIVE LEAFS. WHERE INDICATED ON 4. WHERE THERE IS NO WALL SPACE ON DRAWINGS - SIGN SHALL L= THE LATCH SIDE OF A SINGLE DOOR OR CL BE SELF -ILLUMINATED TO RIGHT SIDE OF A DOUBLE DOOR, SIGN NO LESS THAN 5 / SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE NEAREST FOOTCANDLES WITH 6" ADJACENT WALL - COORDINATE MIN. TALL, BLOCK CAPITAL, LOCATION WITH CITY REPRESENTATIVE GREEN OR RED STENCIL / LETTERING. _EX T BOTTOM EDGE OF SIGN fi FLOOR -LEVEL, WALL MOUNTED, NON -POWERED, SELF -LUMINOUS \ EXIT SIGN TO MATCH EXIT SIGN 00 ABOVE DOOR WHERE OCCURS. \ . C IT DOOR WIDTH AS SCHEDULED A. DOOR ELEVATION (N.T.S.) �oo FINISH FLOOR i li z TACTILE DOOR EXIT SIGNAGE - L - - ! - - SEE DETAIL C EQ EQ CLEAR FLOOR AREA CENTERED ON TACTILE 19" MIN. CHARACTERS OF SIGN B. CLEAR FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS - PLAN (N.T.S.) INGE C. TACTILE DOOR EXIT SIGNAGE EXIT SIGNAGE NOTES: A. SIGN BACKGROUND: SIGNAGE BACKGROUND SHALL HAVE A NON -GLARE NON -GLARE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, INTERIOR SIGNS SHALL BE TYPICALLY ADHERED TO WALL SURFACE WITH NON -STAINING SILICONE SEALANT AND FOAM TAPE WITHOUT ANY MECHANICAL FASTENERS. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR SCHEDULED, SIGN MATERIAL SHALL BE 1/4" THICK. COLOR SHALL BE DARK GRAY EQUAL TO PANTONE COLOR 426 U (UNCOATED), TYPICAL. B. TACTILE CHARACTERS: CHARACTER LETTERS SHALL BE RAISED 1/32" MIN. CHARACTER LETTERS SHALL HAVE 70% MINIMUM R.F.V. (REFLECTED LIGHT VALUE) WITH BACKGROUND. CHARACTER PROPORTION WIDTH TO HEIGHT RATIO SHALL BE SELECTED FROM FONTS WHERE THE WIDTH OF THE UPPERCASE LETTER "0" IS 55% MINIMUM AND 110% MAXIMUM OF THE HEIGHT OF THE UPPERCASE LETTER'S". STROKE WIDTH TO HEIGHT RATIO SHALL BE BETWEEN 1:10 & 1:15 BASED ON UPPERCASE LETTER "I". ALL TEXT CHARACTERS SHALL BE UPPER CASE. EACH LINE OF TEXT CHARACTERS SHALL BE CENTERED ON SIGN. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR SCHEDULED, TEXT COLOR SHALL BE WHITE IN A NON -GLARE FINISH TYPICAL EXIT SIGNAGE TEXT PER CODE: "EXIT" "EXIT RAMP DOWN' "EXIT ROUTE" "EXIT STAIR UP" "TO EXIT" "EXIT RAMP UP" "EXIT STAIR DOWN" "EXIT RAMP DOWN' C. BRAILE: CONTRACTED GRADE 2 BEAD BRAILLE TRANSLATION (IN LOWER CASE) OF TEXT ABOVE. CENTER JUSTIFY BRAILLE ON SIGN. cU w BLUE FIELD - THE BLUE FIELD COLOR WHITE STROKE SHALL BE EQUAL TO COLOR NO. 15090 IN FEDERAL STANDARD 595B INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY SCALE: 3" = V-0" R01 2016.01.01 1" MIN. HIGH, NON -GLARE, WHITE SAN SERIF LETTERING ON HIGH CONTRASTING BLUE BACKGROUND, TYP. - THE BLUE BACKGROUND COLOR SHALL BE EQUAL TO COLOR NO. 15090 IN FEDERALSTANDARD 595B REFLECTORIZED INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY 1" MIN. HIGH, NON - GLARE, WHITE LETTERING +36" A.F.F. MIN. AT WALL +80" MIN. AT POLE TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SIGN SCALE: 3" = V-0" 0 ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SIGN PER 2/A0.06. POST MOUNT WHERE INDICATED ON PLANS NO PARKING CIL EQ\ EQ. o Z N � TYPICAL WHEEL STOP 4" WIDE WHITE DIAGONAL STRIPING @36" O.C., TYP. 4" WHITE PAINT STRIPE, TYP. 4" BLUE PAINT STRIPE, TYP. (SHOWN SHADED) WHITE PAINTED TEXT OVER STRIPING - HEIGHT 12" MIN. TYPICAL PAVEMENT SYMBOL - SEE DETAIL EQ. T-0" TYP. EQ. R01 2016.01.01 z 80 wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. Date L PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale As indicated Sheet Title ACCESSIBLE PARKING DETAILS & ACCESSIBLE DOOR EXIT SIGNAGE D. PROVIDE SEMI GLOSS, CLEAR PROTECTIVE COATING ON SIGNS, U.O.N. TYPICAL TACTILE DOOR EXIT SIGN SCALE: 6" = V-0" R05 02015.08.19 5-0" MIN. ACCESS AISLE Y-0" MIN. CAR ACCESSIBLE STALL TYPICAL ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL SCALE: 1/4" = V-0" R01 2016.01.01 Sheet No. /1\�A0■ WDA 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE CHECKLIST FOR ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS Building additions of 1 000 square feet or more ANDfOR building alterations with ❑ permit valuation of $200,000 or more must be designed to include Mandatory Green Building Measures. Building permit Number: Site Address: 1465 BURLINGAME AVENUE (1464 FOX PLAZA LANE) In the column labeled "Plan Reference" sveclfv where each Measure can be found on the Dians. Green Building Measure PlanSheet /Details SITE DEVELOPMENT (2016 CGC §5.106) Storm Water Pollution Prevention. Newly constructed projects which disturb less than one acre of land shall prevent the pollution of storm water runoff from the construction activities through local A0.08 ordinance. Burlingame Municipal Ordinance 19.17.120 2016 CGC §5.106.1.1 BIVIP. Include a plan for Best Management Practices (BMP) on the plans. 2016 CGC §5.106.1.2 A0.08 Short Term Bicycle Parking. If adding 10 or more visitor vehicular parking spaces, provide permanentlyanchored bicycle racks with€n200 feet of thev€sitors'entrance, readily visible to passers- N/A by, for S percent of rlewvisitor motorized vehicle parking being added, with a min€mum of one two - bike Capacity rack. Exception: adding fewer than 10 parking spaces. 2016 CGC §S.106.4.1.1 Long -Term Bicycle Parking. For alterations adding more than 9 tenant vehicular parking spaces, provide secure bicycle parking spaces for 5 percent of the tenant vehicular parking being added, N/A with a minimum of one space_ 2015 CGC §S.106.4.1.2 Designated Parking, Clean Air Vehicles. If an addition or alteration adds 10 or more vehicular parking spaces, provide designated parking for any combination of law -emitting, fuel -efficient, and Carpool/van pool vehicles as shown: 2015 CGC Table 5.1.06.5.2 Parking stall marking, comply with: 202E CGC §5.106.5.2.1 N/A Grading and Paving: Construction plans sha11 indicate how site grading or a drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water from entering buildings. Exception: Additions and alterations which do not alter the drainage path. 2016 CGC §5.106.10 INDOOR WATER USE (2016 CGC §5.303) Meters, Separate sub -meters or metering devices shall be installed forthe uses described in 2016 CGC §503.1.1 and §5011,2, Additions in excess of 50,000 square feet: Separate sub -meters shall be installed as follows: 1. For each individual leased, rented, orcther tenant space within the building projected N/A to consume more than 100 gal/day, including but not limited to, spaces used far laundry or cleaners, restaurant or food service, medical ar dental office, labaratory or beauty salon or barber shop, Green Building Measure PlanSheet /Details with a MERV of 8, based on ASHRAE 52.2-1999 or an average efficiency of 30% based on ASHRAE 52.1.1992. Replace all filters immediately priorto occupancy. 2016 CGC §5.504.1. NOTE 9, A0.07 Covering of Duct Openings and Protection of Mechanical Equipment During Construction. At the time of rough installation and during storage on the construction site until final startup of the heating, cooling and ventilating equipment, all duct and other related air distribution openings NOTE 10, A0.0 shall be covered with tape, plastic, sheet metal or other acceptable methods, to reduce the amount of dust, water and debris which may enter the system. 2016 CGC §5.504.3. Finish Material Pollutant Control. Finish materials comply with 2016 CGC §5.504.4.1 to §5.504.4.4. NOTE 11 A0.0 Adhesives, sealants and caulks, Adhesives, sealants and caulks used on the project shall meet the NOTE 11, A0.0 requirements of the standards listed in: 2016 CGC §5.504.4.1. Paints and Coatings. Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with 2016 CGC Table 5.504.4.3 NOTE 11, A0.0 unless more stringent local limits apply. Verification. Verification of compliance with this section shall be provided at the request of the enforcing agency. 2016 CGC § 5.504.4.3.2 NOTE 11, A0.0 Carpet Systems. All carpet installed in the building interior shall meet the testing and product N/A requirements of one of the standards listed: 201E CGC §5.504,4,4. Composite Wood Products. Hardwood plywood, particleboard and medium density fiberboard composite wDcd products used on the interior or exterior cf the building shall meet the NOTE 12, A0.0 requirements for formaldehyde as specified: 2016 CGC Table 5.504.4.5 Resilient Flooring Systems. 80 percent of the floor area receiving resilient flooring shall comply with at least one of the pollutant control measures listed: 2016 CGC §5.504A.6 NOTE 13, A0.0 Verification of Compliance. Documentation shall be provided verifying that resilient flooring materials meet the pollutant emission limits. 2016 CGC §5.504.4.6.1 NOTE 14, A0.0 Filters. In mechanically ventilated buildings, provide regularly occupied areas of the buiIding with NOTE 15, A0.0 air filtration media prior to occupancy that provides at least a MERV of 8. 2016 CGC §5.504.5.3 Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) control. Where outdoor areas are provided for smoking, prohibit smoking within 25 feet of building entries, outdoor air intakes and operable windows, and 1/A2.10 within the building as already prohibited by other laws or regulations. 2016CGC §5.504.5.3 Labeling. Installed filters shall be clearly labeled by the manufacturer indicating the MERV rating.. NOTE 16, A0.0 2016 CGC §5.504.5.3.1 INDOOR MOISTURE CONTROL (ZO16 CGC §5,505) Indoor moisture control. Buildings sha€1 meet or exceed the previsions of the 2016 California Buiiding Code, CCR, Title 24, Part 2 Sections 1203 (Ventilation} and Chapter 14 (Exterior WalIs). For additional measures not applicable to low-rise residential occupancies, see Section 5.407.2 of this NOTE 17, A0.0 code. 2016 CGC §5,505 INDOOR AIR QUALITY 12016 CGC §5.506) Outside Air Delivery. Far mechanically or naturally ventilated spaces in buildings, meet the minimum requirements of Section 120.1, (Requirements far Ventilation) of the 2013 California NOTE 18, A0.0 Energy Code, or the applicable local code, whichever is more stringent. 2016 CGC §5.506.1 Carbon dioxide (CO2) monitoring. For additions equipped with demand control ventilation, CO2 sensors and ventilation controls shall be specified and installed in accordance with the NOTE 19, A0.0 requirements of the 2013 California Energy Code, Section 120(c } (4). 2016 CGC §5.506.2 n Green Building Measure PlanSheet /Details 2. Where separate sub -meters for individual building tenants are infeasible, for water supplied to thefollowingsubsystern: a. Makeup water for cooling towers where flaw through is greater than 500 GPM. N/A b. Makeup water for evaporative coolers greater than 6 GPM. c. Stearn and hot-water boilers with energy input more than 50D,D00 Btu/h, Excess Consumption. A separate subrneter or metering device shall be provided for any tenant within an addition that is projected to consume more than 1,0D0 gallons/day. 2016 CGC §5.303.1.2 NOTE 1, A0.07 Water Conserving Plumbing Fixtures and Fittings. Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings (faucets and showerheads) shall comply with the following: Water Closets: The effective flush volume of all water closets shall not exceed 1.28 gallons per flush. Note: The effective flush volume of dual flush toilets is 1/A2.10 defined as the composite, average flush volume of two reduced flushes and one full flush. 2016CC, C§5.30111 Urinals: The effective flush volume of Wall -mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.125 gallons per flush and Floor mounted urinals shall not exceed 0.5 gallons N/A per flush. 2016 CGC §5.303.3.2.1 & 5.303.2.2 Single Showerhead: Showerheads shall have a maximum flow rate of not more N/A than 2.0 gallons per minute at 80 psi. 2016CGC §5.303.3.3.1 Multiple Showerheads Serving One 5hower: When a shower is served by more than one showerhead, the combined flow rate of all showerheads and/or other shower outlets controlled by a single valve shall not exceed 2.0 gallons per N/A minute at 80 psi, or the shower shall be designed to allow only one shower outlet to be in operation at a time. Nate: A hand-held shower is considered a showerhead. 2016CGC§5.303.3.3.2 Nonresidential lavatory faucets. Lavatory faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 0.5 galions per minute at 60 psi. 2016 CGC §5.303.3.4.1 1/A2.10 Kitchen faucets. Kitchen faucets shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute at 60 psi. May temporarily increase to 2.2 gallons per minute at 60 psi, 1/A2.10 but roust default to 1.9 gallons per minute at GD psi. 2016 CGC §5.303.3.4.2 Wash fountains. Wash fountains shall have a maximum flow rate of not more than 1.8 gallons per minute/20 [rirn space {inches) at 60 psi]. 2016 CGC §5.303.3.4.3 N/A Metering faucets. Metering faucets shall not deliver more than 0.20 gallons per cycle. 2016 CG C §5.303.3.4.4 N/A Metering faucets for wash fountains. Metering faucets for wash fountains shall have a N/A maximum flow rate of not more than 0.20 gallons per cycle/20 [rim space (inches) at 60 psi], 2016 CGC §5.303.3.4.5 Commercial kitchen equipment. Food waste disposers. Disposers shall either modulate the use of water to no more than 1 gpm when not in use (not actively grinding food waste/na load) or shall automatically shut off after no more than 10 minutes of inactivity. Disposers shall use no more than 8 gpm of water. Note: this code section does not affect local jurisdictions authority to prohibit N/A a require disposer installation. 2016 CGC §5.303,4.1 2 Green Building Measure PlanSheet /Details ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT (CGC 5.507) Acoustical Control. Employ building assemblies and components with STCvalues determined in accordance with ASTM E90 and ASTIM E413 ar0ITC determined in accordance with ASTM E 1332, NOTE 20, A0.0 using eitherthe prescriptive or performance method in 2016 CGC §5.507.4.1 or §5.507.4.2, OUTDOOR AIR QUALITY (CGC 5.508) Ozone Depletion and Greenhouse Gas Reductions. Installation of HVAC, refrigeration and fire suppression equipment shall cornplywith 2016CGC §5.508,1,1 and §5,508.1.2. NOTE 21, A0.0 Supermarket Refrigerant Leak Reduction. New commercial refrigeration systems shall comply with 2016 CGC §5.508.2 when installed in retail food stores with 8,000 square feet or more of conditioned area, and that utilize either refrigerated display cases, or walk-in coolers, or freezers connected to remote corn pressor units or condensing units. The leak reduction measures applyto N/A refrigerat€on systems containinghigh-global-warmingpotential (high-GWP) refrigerant with a GWP of 150 or greater. 2016 CGC §5,508.2 Responsible Designer's Declaration Statement Contractor Declaration Statement hereby certify that this project has been designed to l hereby certify, as the building or installer under permit meet the requirements of the 2016 California Green listed herein, that this project will be constructed to meet Building Standards Code. the requirements of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Cade. Name WILLIAM DUFF JR. Name: TBD Address: 1531 MISSION STREET Address: City/State/Zip Cade SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 City/State/Zip Cade Signature: Signature: Date: Date: 5 Green Building Measure PlanSheet /Details Areas of addition or alteration. For those occupancies within the authority of the CA Building Standards Commission as specified in Section 103, the provisions of Sections 5.303.4 and 5,304 NOTE 2, A0.07 shall apply to new fixtures in additions or areas of alteration to the building. 2016 CGC §5.303,5 Standards for plumbing fixtures and fittings. Plumbing fixtures and fittings shall be installed in accordance with the Califomia Plumbing Code, and shall meet the applicable standards referenced NOTE 3, A0.07 in Table 1702.1 of the California Plumbing Code and: in chapter 6 of this code. 2016 CGC §5.3D3.6 OUTDOOR WATER USE (2016 CGC §5.304) Scope. The provisions of Section 5.304, Outdoor Water Use, reference the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) from Chap_ 2.7, Division 2, Title 23, Cal+fornia Code of Regulations. N/A Outdoor water use in landscape areas greater than 499 square feet. When water is used for irrigation with an aggregate area greater than 499 square feet requiring a building permit cr N/A landscape permit, plan check or design review, comply with Item I or 2 of 2016 CGC §5.304.2. Outdoor water use in rehabilitated landscape projects. Outdoor water use in rehabilitated land- scape projects more than 2,500 square feet shall comply with Item 1 or 2 of 2016 CGC §5.304_Z N/A Outdoor water use in landscape areas. Any project with an aggregate landscape area of 2,500 square feet or less may comply with the performance requirements of MWELO or conform to the N/A prescriptive compliance measures contained 1n MWELO's Appendix D. 2016 CGC §5.304.4. Graywater or rainwater use in landscape areas. Any graywater or rainwater project up to 2,500 N/A square feet is subject only to Appendix D, Section 5, of MWElO: 2016 CGC §5.304.5 CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING (CGC 5.408) Construction Waste Diversion. Recycle and/or salvage a minimum of 65%ofthe non -hazardous NOTE 4, A0.07 construction and demolition waste in accordance with 2016 CGC §5,408.1.1,, through 5.408,1.3. Universal Waste. Prohibited Universal Waste materials shall be listed on construction documents. NOTE 5, A0.07 BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION (2016 CGC §5.4141 Recycling by Occupants. Provide, readilyaccessible areas that serve the entire building and are identified forthe depositing, storage, and collection of nonhazardous materials for recycling NOTE 6, A0.07 including paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals. 2016 CGC §5.410.1 Additions. All additions constructed within a 12-manth period, (with 1 or more permits) resulting in an increase of �- 30% floor area, shall provide recycling areas on site. 2016 CGC §5.410.1.1 N/A Testing and Adjusting. Testing and adjusting of systems shall be required far new systems to serve NOTE 7 A0.07 an addition or alteration subject W Section 303.1. 201E CGC §5.410.4 Operation and Maintenance (0 &M) Manual. Provide the budding owner with detailed operating and maintenance instructions and copies of guaranties/warranties for each system prior to final NOTE 8, A0.07 inspection. Include a copy of all inspection verifications and reports. 2D16 CGC §S.410.4.5 FIREPLACES (2016 CGC §5,503) Fireplaces. Install only a direct -vent sealed -combustion gas or sealed woad -burning fireplace, or a sealed woodstove or pellet stove, and refer to residential requirements in the 2016 California N/A Energy Code, Title 24, Part 6, Subchapter 7, Section 150_ POLLUTANT CONTROL (2016 CGC §5.504) Temporary Ventilation. The permanent HVAC system shall Dnly be used during construction if necessary to condition the area or alteration within the required temperature range far material NOTE 9, A0.07 and equipment installation. If the HVAC system is used during construction, use return air filters 3 W I L L I A M D U F F A R C H I T E C T S William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 GREEN BUILDING CODE NOTES SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: 1. SEPARATE SUBMETE OR METERING DEVICE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ANY TENANT WITHIN A NEW BUILDING OR WITHIN AN MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. ADDITION THAT IS PROJECTED TO CONSUME MORE THAN 1,000 GAL/DAY; 2016 CGC §5.303.1.2 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 2. INDOOR WATER USE: AREAS OF ADDITION OR ALTERATION - FOR THOSE OCCUPANCIES WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 103, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 5.303.4 AND 5.304 SHALL CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE APPLY TO NEW FIXTURES IN ADDITIONS OR AREAS OF ALERATIONS TO THE BUILDING; 2016 CGC §5.303.5 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 3. INDOOR WATER USE: STANDARDS FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES AND FITTINGS - PLUMBING FIXTURES AND FITTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, AND SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS PARCEL #: 029-201-040 REFERENCED IN TABLE 1701.1 OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE AND IN CHAPTER 6 OF THIS CODE; 2016 CGC §5.303.6 4. CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING: CONSTRUCTION WASTE DIVERSION - RECYCLE AND/OR SALVAGE A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON -HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH Job Title 2016 CGC §5.408.1.1., THROUGH 5.408.1.3 5. CONSTRUCTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING: UNIVERSAL WASTE - PROHIBITED WASTE MATERIALS CHEF& THE BUTCHER ARE AS FOLLOWS A. ELECTRONIC DEVICES B. BATTERIES C. ELECTRIC LAMPS D. MERCURY -CONTAINING EQUIPMENT Job Address E. CRTs F. CRT GLASS 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. G. NON -EMPTY AEROSOL CANS BURLINGAME, CA 94010 6. BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION: RECYCLING BY OCCUPANTS - RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING AREAS ARE PROVIDED FOR EMPLOYEES, PATRONS WILL NOT DISPOSE OF THEIR OWN REFUSE. 7. BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION: TESTING AND ADJUSTING - ALL NEW SYSTEMS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TESTING Date AND ADJUSTING IN PER 2016 CHC §5.410.4 8. BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) MANUAL - CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 8/8/2017 BUILDING OWNER/OPERATOR WITH DETAILED OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS AND COPIES OF GAURANTIES/WARRANTIES FOR EACH SYSTEM PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION, INCLUDING COPIES OF ALL INSPECTION VERIFICATIONS AND REPORTS PER 2016 CGC §5.410.4.5 Issued For 9. POLLUTANT CONTROL: TEMPORARY VENTILATION - THE PERMANENT HVAC SYSTEM SHALL ONLY BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION IF NECESSARY TO CONDITION THE AREA OR ALTERATION WITHIN THE REQUIRED TEMPERATURE RANGE COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION. IF THE HVAC SYSTEM IS USED DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL USE RETURN AIR FILTERS WITH A MERV OF 8, BASED ON ASHRAE 52.2-1999 OR AN AVERAGE EFFICIENCY OF 30% BASED ON ASHRAE 52.1.1992. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPLACE ALL FILTERS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY; 2016 CGC § Job No. 5.504.1 10. POLLUTANT CONTROL: COVERING OF DUCT OPENINGS AND PROTECTION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT DURING 17005 CONSTRUCTION - AT THE TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION AND DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THE HEATING, COOLING AND VENTILATING EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION Drawn By: Checked By: OPENINGS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METAL OR OTHER ACCETABLE METHODS, TO REDUE THE AMOUNT OF DUST, WATER AND DEBRIS WHICH MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM; 2016 CGC §5.504.3 Author Checker 11. POLLUTANT CONTROL: FINISH MATERIAL POLLUTANT CONTROL - FINISH MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY AS FOLLOWS: A. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND CAULKS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2O16 CGC §5.504.4.1 B. PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH 2O16 CGC §5.504.4.3 C. VERIFICATION - COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ENFORCING Scale AGENCY PER 2016 CGC 5.504.4.3.2 12. POLLUTANT CONTROL: COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS - SHALL COMPLY WITH 2O16 CGC TABLE 5.504.4.5 13. POLLUTANT CONTROL: RESILIENT FLOORING SYSTEMS - 80% OF FLOOR AREA TO RECEIVE RESILIENT FLOORING SHALL COMPLY WITH 2O16 CGC §5.504.4.6 14. POLLUTANT CONTROL: VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE - DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE PROVIDED VERIFYING THAT RESILIENT FLOORING MATERIALS MEET THE POLLUTANT EMISSION LIMITS PER 2016 CGC §5.504.4.6.1 15. POLLUTANT CONTROL: FILTERS - IN MECHANICALLY VENTILATED BUILDINGS, PROVIDE REGULARLY OCCUPIED AREAS OF THE BUILDING WITH AIR FILTRATION MEDIA PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY THAT PROVIDES AT LEAST A MERV OF 8; 2016 CGC § 5.504.5.3 16. POLLUTANT CONTROL: LABELING - INSTALLED FILTERS SHALL BE CLEARLY LABELED BY THE MANUFACTURER INDICATING THE MERV RATING; 2016 CGC §5.504.5.3.1 17. INDOOR MOISTURE CONTROL: INDOOR MOISTURE CONTROL - PROJECT SHALL MEET OR EXCED THE PROVISIONS OF THE 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CCR, TITLE 24, PART 2 SECTIONS 1203 (VENTILCATION) AND CHAPTER 14 (EXTERIOR Sheet Title WALLS). 2016 CGC §5.05 18. INDOOR AIR QUALITY -5OUTSIDE AIR DELIVERY- FOR MECHANICALLY OR NATURALLY VENTILATED SPACES IN THE PROJECT, GREEN BUILDING MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 120.1, (REQUIREMENTS FOR VENTILATION) OF THE 2013 CALIFORNIA MANDATORY MEASURES ENERGY CODE, OR THE APPLICABLE LOCAL CODE, WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT; 2016 CGC §5.506.1 19. INDOOR AIR QUALITY: CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) MONITORING - IF THE PROJECT UTILIZES DEMAND CONTROL VENTILATION, CO2 SENSORS AND VENTILATION CONTROLS SHALL BE SPECIFIED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2013 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, SECTION 120(c)(4); 2016 CGC §5.506.2 20. ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT: ACOUSTICAL CONTROL - PROJECT SHALL EMPLOY BUILDING ASSEMBLIES AND COMPONENTS Sheet No. WITH STC VALUES DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E90 AND ASTM E413 OR OITC DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM E 1332, USING EITHER THE PERSCRIPTIVE OR PERFORMANCE METHOD IN 2016 CGC §5.507.4.1 OR §5.507.4.2 21. OUTDOOR AIR QUALITY: OZONE DEPLETION AND GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS - INSTALLATION OF HVAC, REFRIGERATION AND FIRE SUPPRESSION EQUIPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH 2O16 CGC §508.1.1 AND §5.508.1.2 A0007 WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH ITECTS SAN MATED COUNTYWIDE Water Pol I u ion Prevention Program Clears Water. Healthy Community. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) Construction projects are required to implement the stonii ate r best management practices MP) on this page, as Materials & Waste Management Nun-HazAirdons Materials ❑ $-crtn at3d cover stockpi lc s of said, dirt or other construc t ion material with tarps when ray In is forecast or i f not active Iy ben ng used witlti n 14 day - ❑ Use. (Lout don't ovcrtll ) r clalincd water for dust control_ Hazardous Materials ❑ Label all lral=Tdous nlatcriais and ha 7.ardo:as Wows#es (Sucix as p tic ides, paints., thi rI nm, selvenM fuel, oil, and antifreeze) in accordance vwrith city} county. state apd federal regulations. ❑ Storc hazardous materials and warns -In %vatcr tight containers, :51-ON in appropriate secondary contra nnwat, and cover theta at t] is -end of -r,very work day Qr during wet weather or unciDn rain i,, forcc asi_ ❑ Follnw Tnanufhct"Ws applacartlotr instmetions for hazardous materi a Is and be carefu I not to rase more than necessary. Ida not apply cbernicaIs autdoors wlacn rain is forecast within "4 hnurg. ❑ Arrange fbr appropriate disposal of •a!l ha7ardou5 waste_ Waste manngelnen t ❑ C uvcr' :rite disposal contaitner4 suctyrdy with tarps at the end of • cvery work day and during wet WCantlrcr, ❑ C~heCk waste disposal coartainers fregttently for leaks and- to make sure they arc noroverfilled_ Never hose down. a dumpster on the constrtr;ction site. ❑ Clean or replace portable toilets, and inspect rlieni frequeptly for leaks and spi I Is. ❑ D isposc of all wastes end debris properly. kccyc le material and wzstes that can be rncycic'd (suclr as asphalt. concrete, aggregate bas-c materials, wood, gyp board, pipe, etc-) Ll D ispcse of 1 it u id restd ucs from points, thinnerL solvents. glues. and c lean itiig flue ds as ha.72rdous raw zLstc_ C-0nstruttion Entrant -es an Perimeter ❑ Pwtabfish.and maintain effic:tive puriaietc:rcontrul& and stabilize alI construction cntranccs and cxGas to suff'rc-hontly control croston and sc-dirnent disclimlpg frorn site and tracking off sitc:. ❑ Sweep or vacuum any sLrceI Irac,king immediately and sccu e scdiurclis mrrcc to ptevca l fxlydicr tracking. Never hose doxn struts to clean up tymkitig- they apply to your pr fi t, all year 1 n . Equipment Management Spill Control Maintensince a nd Farkiag Ll De si pate an area, fitted with appropriate B. Psi t o r vc h is le and equipment parking and storace_ ❑ Perform rnaj(kr rnii into nuncc, rega it Jobs, and vchic le and equipment wash-Ing off site. ❑ if reftteling or vehicle maimnance roust be done onsitc, work in a btrmcd area away (runt stern drai11:4 end over a drip part or drop cloths big enough to col I cct fluids_ Recycle or dispose Of fluids as hazardous wsslu_ ❑ ifvc:hicle or quipn -nt elearting Must be do ne-onsitc. clear, with Water only in a battled area that will riot allow rinsc water to run into gutters, strects,storm drains, or surface waters, ❑ Do not clean vehicle orequTmeTftonwe using saps, sol Vent&, degneasem or st,earn el oaning e-q u ipinent_ Spill Prevention and Control • beep spill cleanup materials (e.g., rags, absorbents and cat li ttc.r) :ova i lab] c ;4t the construct ion site at all t imcs. ❑ Inspect vehic k s and cgaiprnem frequicntly for and repair leaks promptly. Use drip parrs to caWh leaks until repairs = rnadc_ ❑ Clem up spills or leaks immediately and dis-pose of cleanup inaterials properly, ❑ Do not hose down surfaces where fluids grave spilled, U sc dry c lcan-up mrthods (absari cni matcria Cs, cat Iltten aird!or rags). ❑ Swce p rip s p i 11 ed dry m ateriall s inrrucdlatcly- Do not try to wasti them a may with wrt[c r, or bury them. ❑ Cl can up spi I Is Ira di rt areas by digging tip and properly disposi n g of conmm inated sal 1, ❑ R eport si ail if cant spi Ili i minedi atcly. You ar-e required by law to report all significant releases of hazardotiq maten al9, Including dxl, To report a s'pil1, 1) Dial 911 or your local emergency response number, 2) Call the Governor's Ogee of F*m :�ncy Services Warning C r, rater, (900) 952-7550 (24 hour), Ea rthmovincF L� . - L ❑ Schedu le gradi rig and a xc a valtion work during dry weather. El Stabilize all denuded areas, i)ea~tall and maintain tempor-�Iry erosion contra is (such as erosnon cnritrol f�ibriu or bonded fiber Inatry x) until vegetation is establ i slued_ ❑ Remove existing vegetation only when absolutely nfccs%at-y* and seed or plant vcgeiation for erosion L:ontrol on slopes Gr where con%tructian is not iraxarrcd�arcly planned. ❑ Preve r t sediment froth tnigrad ng oft's i re and protect :Moroi drain inlets, gutters., d i Itches, and drai nage coums by insw i l iatg and mainta3nii3g appropriate BMPs, such as fiber rolls, silt fences. sedi nient basins, gravcl bags* boors, etc_ ❑ beep ext avatfrd soil on ,si to and lxm for i L to dump taroks on site, not in the streets. C o n t a rninated Sails Q 117 a5y of the fol Io%vi ng conditions are observed, test for emiamination and contact the Regional Water Quailty Control Board, -- Unusual soil coaditions, dis-:elorati or fir, - Ab�indoatied. uudcrgTound tanks, - Abandoaticd ,wells - Buricd barrels, debris, or trash, Paving/Asp halt Work ❑ Avoid paving and seal coating in wet weather or when rain is forecast, to prevent materials Lhal have not ct ed from contacting storrliwate r lunn f, U Covcr gtoa-rt3 drain i WFl and mmh n is when applying seal tack coat, slurry r1, fog sr al. ctu, ❑ Collect and recy0e ar agprcip iatcly dispose of excess abrasive gravel or salad, Do NOT swccp -or wash it inter gutters. ❑ Do not use water to awash dawn fi-c-A alsphan It concrete paxvernent. S awc u tfit7 g & Asph altiC oncrete Removal I❑ Pmtect nearby storm d ra i n inl ets whe n saw c utti ng_ U se fi Iter 1'abeic _ catch basi n inlet filters, or grovel bap to keep sl to r ry out ofthe storm, drain system, ❑ Shovel, abosorb, or vaeuxisn saw -cut slurry and dispose of all waste as soon as you are fin is Fred in one location or at the end of each work day i whi chever is ❑i if sawcut slurry enters a catch basin, clearl it up i nrrarcdiatcdv. Concrete, Grout & Mortar Application ❑ Store concretc, hut, and rnoilar away rrom storm drains tsr wa� rways, and tan pallets tinder corer to protect thcnil from rain_ runoff and wind_ ❑ Wash 0-al concrctc cquiprncnfitrucks offilte or -In a de si Ngn a tcd washout area, whet-0 the grater Will Row Into a temporary waste pit, and in a fflMncr that will prevent lcaching Into the underlying soil or onto star radi g arms. Lc:t concrete harden and dispose of as garbage, ❑ When washing exposed aggregate, prevent walsh wativr from entering storm dralins. Bloc> any inlets and valculum gutters. base wash -,A atrr onto dirt areas, ur drain onto a berrrmed surface to be purnped and disposed ofproperly. Landscaping , r., 0 protect siookpiled landseapitng materials from wi nd anal 3-a is n by stod rig therm trudeT tarps a 11 year-round. D Staek, bagged thatefiai -on pfl.Ilets attid under Corer. ❑ 1)19conti-nue application of any ewdible ] an&xape marteri a] within 2 days before a forecast rain cvEnt or during wet weather, V.-Altlting & Paler Removal Pal nlri ng Mean U p a rid Rein -oval ❑ Never clean brushes or rinse paint rc WFORers into, a strcpt, guneT, storm drain, or strea sn. ❑ For water -based paints, pair, I oui brushes to the cx tcnt possible, -nP4 hilm i mW asp drain that goes to the sanitary sewer: Ncvcr pour paint devni a : zrn drain. ❑ For oil -Eased paints, point out brr,3_shcs to the extern possible and clean with thinner or ,go1'`rcnt in a proper contain-cr_ Filter and reuse thinners and solvonts. D-kspesA-. of excess liquids as hazardortswastc_ ❑ Faint chips and dust m nun --hazardous dry stripping and sand bl asti ng may be .,wcpt ❑p or col lccted in piast]c driip clot h s and disposed of as trash. ❑ C,beini cal paint strippitrg residue and cl i ps and du:q t fi-orn marinc paints or paints containing le.M. mercury or tributy1 in 3nust be disposcid of as hazarduus wast,c. Lead based paint removal requires a state- ccrtilted Cantraetc>'r_ Dewatering { �rL zw-% 4Y ❑ Disehargus. of undwawr or captured runoff from dewatcring operations must bc, properly nianagcd and disposed. Whim por iblc• scud dcwartering discharge to landse$pel area or &tnkary scwt If discharging to the son nary sewerCal I your local wasttwatcr L-calmcnt plant_ ❑ Divert run-on water from offsite away frorn all dinurbed areas. ❑ When dewatcriug, ratify and obtain approval tram the local trrK,nioi pal illy before discharging wa itcf to a street gnaw or stoma drag,. Filtration or diversion throligb a baisiar, tank. Or sediment dap may he required. ❑ in areas of kmown or suspected coantaa-r-rination, tali your local algcncy to determine• whether the ground water must be tested. Pumped groundwater may nccd to be collecred and hauled off site for treatrnem and proper disposal. William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Author Scale Checked By: Checker Sheet Title BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 6155=►n 0 (E) ELECTRICAL METER � (E) GAS METER REMOVE (E) EQUIPMENT THROUGHOUT � II — — — — — — C FFF L1_ — — — — — — — — — REMOVE (E) WALK-IN II COOLER AND REMOVE (E) ASSOCIATED STOREFRONT TO ENCLOSURE AND ALLOW FOR TRASH CANOPY VESTIBULE n Al A3.01 2 REMOVE ALL (E) PLUMBING FIXTURES ADJACENT TENANT 1471 BURLINGAME AVE. REMOVE (E) PROJECTING SIGN 2 A3.00 1 REMOVE (E) SIGNAGE AT FASCIA (E) UNOCCUPIED SOFFIT OVER ENTRY TO REMAIN. REMOVE (E) RAILING DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - MEZZANINE 3/16" = V-0" J1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_-- ��� CU) I I II II II I I II II I 1 I II III II L-----------------------------J (E) BRICK PLANTERS TO L J _L � _ _ REMAIN - REFURBISHED TO REMOVED (E) FURRED SITTING BENCH. SEE A2.10 _ II OUT WALL, EXPOSE (E) REMOVE (E) MILLWORK �� II BRICK WALL I REMOVE (E) NON -CONFORMING STAIR II I J II I� L j II Al II III EXISTING USE: 2 A3.00 II I I III PERSONAL SERVICE u_2,606 SF (GROSS) kn/. / III REMOVED (E) FURRED / III OUT WALL, EXPOSE (E) REMOVE (E) MILLWORK BRICK WALLII III -------- I II I ADJACENT TENANT 1461 BURLINGAME AVE. u WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. Date 1\ PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 10/10/2017 0 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS 11/02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE 1BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale 3/16" = 1'-0" PROJECT NORTH (PN) 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 4, J Sheet Title EXISTING / DEMOLITION PLANS 615r i►C7 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR 3/16" = V-0" WDA DASH LINE INDICATES LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED WALL SIGNS, SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS, A3.o4 ADJACENT TENANT ALL (N) KITCHEN FAUCETS W/ (N) LAVATORY FAUCETS W/ 1471 BURLINGAME AVE. MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF NOT MORE 1 MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF NOT (NOT IN PROJECT SCOPE) THAN 1.8 GAL/MIN. AT 60 PSI, TYP. MORE THAN 0.5 GAL/MIN. AT 60 PSI j LINE OF MEZZANINE, ABOVE zt L\\\N YI/-I�I�I�I�I�I■►71I-I�I� 1" 04 WALK-IN COOLER 11' - 11 1 /2" ENCLOSED,LOCKABLE TRASH VESITBULE 15'-9" PRODUCTION CATERKING KITCHEN � o w EXTERIOR o EQUIPMENT YARD �0 H U) w 0< 00 �F_ GAS -FIRED, WOOD BURING SMOKER W/ "THROUGH - WALL" INSTALLATION KIT STE MESH/GRATE ENCLOSURE W/ROOF- 1 MAINTAIN VISIBILITY THROUGH A3.03 36' - 6 1 /4" 5=6 1/2" - T- 7 1 /4" \ IL / ih 8'-2" - 5'-81/4" 4'-6" T-3" 4'- 7" ALL -GENDER RESTROOM I � r N GAS -FIRED, WOOD BURNING SMOKER l � A3.04 2 DASH LINE INDICATES LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED WALL SIGNS, SEE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS � i I ALL -GENDER \ ` u? RESTROOM \ •�•�• • •�• •-11-=1 1 II II II II II II II I ' I II II II II II II II I A0.05 � I II II II II II II II II I EFFECTIVE FLUSH (N) STAIR, MIN. 36" VOLUME OF (N) WIDTH WITH \ WATER CLOSETS HANDRAILS PER \ NOT TO EXCEED CBC 1011.11 1.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH, TYP. 4'-43/4" 8'-7" 9'-31/2" 9'-0" EMPLOYEE 23' - 4 1/4" WORK AREA ELEVATION AT EN- N 41 io F-1 OPEN RETAIL SEATING_ ADJACENT TENANT 1461 BURLINGAME AVE. (NOT IN PROJECT SCOPE) 1 1 41.83 \ 41.49 I 41.52 , , \ I , 00 1 --1r--ter--1 GLASS WALLED DRY -AGE COOLER 36' - 2 1 /4" GENERAL NOTES 1. ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE WATER - CONSERVING FIXTURES IN COMPLIANCE WITH SB 407 (2009). U 2 A3.03 FLOOR PLAN - MEZZANINE �2 3/16" = 1'-0" - ETS CONTROL SIGNAGE: NO SMOKING WITHIN 25 FEET OF BUILDING ENTRY" I (N) WOOD BENCH AT (E) PLANTERS 41. 40.92 40.78 40.62 40.79 HVE VAULT SL------------� SLV TPM FLOOR PLAN - FIRST FLOOR 3/16" = 1'-0" W I L L I A M D U F F A R C H I T E C T S wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. Date 1\ PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 10/10/2017 \2 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS 11/02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 A PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale As indicated PROJECT \ NORTH (PN) 0 2' 4' 8' 16' 4, T r Sheet Title PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS A201 0 WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS (N) SKYLIGHTS ALUMINUM FRP "1453 bUKL11VljAIVIt AVt. 2 A3.03 William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 10 PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 0 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 11 /02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTAC WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: CATERING KITCHEN PARCEL #: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 029-201-040 i 1 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale 3/16" = 1'-0" PROJECT NORTH (PN) 0 2' 4' 8' 1 6' o'�GF T J Sheet Title PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS ROOF PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0" A2020 P.L. WITH WOOD TRIM TO REMAIN TO REMAIN WITH WOOD TRIM TO REMAIN P.L. T.O. PARAPET 22'-9" FINISH TO REMAIN DUT TO REMAIN ION SIGN TO BE REMOVED AT FASCIA TO BE REMOVED OETAL FASCIA TO REMAIN VEER TO REMAIN FIN. FLOOR AIL 0" EXISTING ELEVATION - NORTH 3/8" = 1'-011 T.O. PARAPET 22'-9" 1EN PARAPET 13' - 11 1 /4" FIN. FLOOR IIIIIIr 0" WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. �t, PLAN CHECK COMMENTS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: Author Checker Scale 3/8" = 1'-011 n I 0 2' 4' 8' 16' Sheet Title EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Sheet No. 1: A3000 EXISTING ELEVATION - EAST 3/8" = 1'-0" WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. i1PLAN CHECK COMMENTS Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM TENANT: JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: Author Checker Scale 3/8" = 1'-011 n I 0 2' 4' 8' 16' Sheet Title EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS (E) GAS METERS TO REMAIN ELECTRIC METERS TO REMAIN EXISTING ELEVATION - WEST 3/8" = 1'-0" Sheet No. 1: A3001 WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS (E) ALUMINUM FRAME SKYLIGHTS TO BE REMOVED (E) STUCCO FINISH TO REMAIN SEE 2 / A3.01 FOR EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION of 1465 BURLINGAME AVE (GREY AREA) CC T.O. PARAPET 22'-9" T.O. KITCHEN PARAPET 13' - 11 1 /4" FIN. FLOOR 0'. William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. i1PLAN CHECK COMMENTS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: Author Checker Scale 3/8" = 1'-011 Sheet Title EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS EXISTING ELEVATION - SOUTH (1464 FOX PLAZA LANE) 3/8" = 1'-0" Sheet No. '�'A3■ I I I / i\ \IN) v v IN. 1 I I m 1 "1 T.O. PARAPET 22' - 9" FINISH TO REMAIN )WNSPOUT TO REMAIN v1ETAL FASCIA TO REMAIN VEER TO REMAIN FIN. FLOOR AIL 0" PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH 3/8" = 1'-0" T.O. PARAPET 22' - 9" 1EN PARAPET 13' - 11 1 /4" FIN. FLOOR �%j 0" WDA W ILL I AM DU IFFAIRCH I TECTS William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. 1\ PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 0 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 11 /02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTAC WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: CATERING KITCHEN PARCEL #: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 029-201-040 L Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale 3/8" = 1'-011 0 2' 4' 8' 16' Sheet Title PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS TRASH VESTIBULE PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST 3/8" = 1'-0" 2 WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS wdarch.com William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. Date 1\ PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 10/10/2017 0 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS 11/02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. 1 BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Checked By: PN CT Scale 3/8" = 1'-011 0 2' 4' 8' 16' Sheet Title PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF (E) GAS METERS TO REMAIN OF (E) ELECTRIC METERS TO REMAIN PROPOSED ELEVATION - WEST 3/8" = 1'-0" WDA W I L L I AM DU FFARCH I TECTS (N) SKYLIGHTS TO REPLACE (E) ALUMINUM FRAME SKYLIGHTS (N) EXTERIOR WALL SCONCES ILLUMINATING WALL SIGN HATCHED AREA INDICATES APPROXIMATE LOCATION AND SIZE OF PROPOSED WALL SIGN. • NOTE: WALL IS INSET FROM PROPERTY LINE • PER CHAPTER 22.14 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (BAC DISTRICT REGULATIONS), ALLOWABLE SIGNABLE AREA IS 60sf • PER CHAPTER 22.48 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SIGN AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OF 80% OF THE SIGNABLE AREA 1. 60sf (0.80) = 48sf 2. (E) STUCCO FINISH TO REMAIN, (N) PAINT ,ALLOWABLE SIGNABLE AREA = 48sf (HATCHED AREA IS SCHEMATIC IN NATURE AND NOT INDICITIVE OF FINAL DIMENSIONS OR LOCATION OF PROPOSED SIGN/ 12'-0" 1 SEE 2 / A3.04 FOR PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION of 1465 BURLINGAME AVE (GREY AREA) T.O. PARAPET 22' - 9" T.O. KITCHEN PARAPET 13' - 11 1 /4" FIN. FLOOR William Duff Architects, Inc. T 415 371 0900 F 415 371 0800 1531 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 Revision No. A\ PLAN CHECK COMMENTS 0 STUDY MEETING REVISIONS wdarch.com Date 10/10/2017 11 /02/2017 Written dimensions on these drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions. Drawings shall not be scaled. Contractors shall verify, and be responsible for, all dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Shop details must be submitted to this office for approval before proceeding with fabrications. The drawings and their design content are the sole property of William Duff Architects, Inc. and may not be reused or reproduced in any manner without our express written consent. GENERAL INFORMATION ARCHITECT (PROJECT CONTACT): WILLIAM DUFF ARCHITECTS, INC. 1531 MISSION STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103 CONTACT: CHRIS TELLES PHONE: 415.371.0900 EMAIL: CTELLES@WDARCH.COM =kl A 61T. JOSH STUMPF CHEF & THE BUTCHER BUILDING OWNER: MENGSHISHEN PREMIER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 539 ALMA STREET PALO ALTO, CA 94301 SITE INFORMATION ADDRESS: MAIN SPACE: 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CATERING KITCHEN: 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL #: 029-201-040 Job Title CHEF& THE BUTCHER Job Address 1465 BURLINGAME AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Date 8/8/2017 Issued For COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW Job No. 17005 Drawn By: Author Checked By: Checker Scale 3/8" = 1'-0" 0 2' 4' 8' 16' Sheet Title PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH (1464 FOX PLAZA LANE) 1 3/8" = 1'-011 615rMill on A3005 Item No. 9c Design Review Study 4 ltlp PROJECT LOCATION 619-625 California Drive City of Burlingame Item No. 9c Design Review for a Design Review Study New 26-Unit Live/Work Building Address: 619-625 California Drive Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 Request: Design Review Study for a new four-story, 26-unit live/work development with retail commercial space on the ground floor, which requires applications for Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, Condominium Permit, and Lot Merger. Applicant and Architect: Ellis A. Schoichet AIA APN: 029-131-140, -150, and -160 Property Owner: Ed 1005 BM LLC General Plan: Downtown Specific Plan: North California Drive Commercial District Lot Area: 19,450 (0.45 acres) Zoning: C-2, North California Drive Commercial District Adjacent Development: Automobile service, multi -family residential, retail, and railroad right-of-way Current Use: Vacant lot at 619 California Drive; automobile repair shop at 621 California Drive; two dwelling units at 625 California Drive Proposed Use: 4-story, 26-unit live/work building with retail space on the ground floor Allowable Use: Live/Work, retail, personal service, business service, hotel, office, food establishment, auto repair shops, auto sales, lots, laundry services (refer to C-2 and C-1 zoning district regulations for a full list of permitted and conditional uses). June 12, 2017 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Meeting: On June 12, 2017, the Planning Commission held an environmental scoping and design review study meeting to discuss areas of potential environmental effects from the proposed project, as well as the design of the building (see attached June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached June 12, 2017 meeting minutes for a list of comments and concerns regarding the proposed project. Prior to moving forward with the environmental analysis of the project, the applicant is requesting that the Commission review and comment on the changes made to the building design and project in response to the Commission's comments at the initial design review study session on June 12, 2017. The applicant provided a letter, dated October 17, 2017, in response to the Commission's comments and questions about the project. In addition, the applicant provided a detailed list of changes made to the project, dated September 29, 2017. These written responses, as well as a revised project description, are attached to the staff report. The following is a summary of the significant changes made to the project: 1. Ground floor was redesigned to accommodate commercial space. Previously, five of the live/work units located on the second floor had connecting work spaces on the street level along California Drive, which had storefronts open to the sidewalk. The revised proposal places all of the live/work units on the second through fourth floors. The ground floor would contain 2,100 SF of retail commercial space, which can be configured as one two tenant spaces. 2. Ground floor floor -to -ceiling height was increased from 10'-7" to 14'-9". This increase in height provides a more generous ceiling height for the commercial space and provides the additional height needed for the vehicle stackers in the garage. As a result, the overall building height increased from 51'-9" to 54-10", where 55-0" is the maximum allowed. Design Review Study 619-625 California Drive 3. Off-street parking was reconfigured. Previously, a total of 26 at -grade parking spaces were provided in the garage. The revised proposal includes 7 parking spaces for the commercial space (6 unistall and 1 disabled) and 27 parking spaces for the live/work units (3 unistall, 22 vehicle stacker, and 2 disabled) in a secured area within the garage, behind an automatic gate. 22 of the 27 parking spaces for the live/work units are proposed to be provided by vehicle stackers. 4. Design of first floor level fagade along California Drive has been significantly revised. The change to the design of the ground floor is a result of incorporating commercial space at this level. Please refer to the revised building elevations and renderings, date stamped October 6, 2017. Project Summary: The project site is located at the southwest corner of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. The project site consists of three separate parcels which would be combined into one parcel for the proposed project. Currently, one of the parcels is vacant and the remaining two parcels are occupied by an automobile repair facility (621 California Drive) and two dwelling units (625 California Drive). The site is surrounded by an automobile service facility to the east, three-story multifamily residential buildings to the south, a retail building to the west, and a railroad right-of-way to the north. The applicant is proposing to construct a new four-story, 26-unit live/work building with retail space on the ground floor. The ground floor will consist of an entrance lobby providing pedestrian access to the live/work units on the upper floors and 2100 SF of retail space along California Drive, which can be configured as one or two tenant spaces. The at -grade parking garage provides 7 parking spaces for the commercial space and 27 parking spaces for the live/work units, for a total of 34 parking spaces. The live/work units on the second, third, and fourth floors range from 957 SF to 1,195 SF in area. Each live/work unit will contain a living area, kitchen, bathroom, laundry closet, sleeping area (studio or one -bedroom), and a work area. The Zoning Code defines live/work as "a single unit (e.g., studio, loft or one -bedroom) consisting of both a commercial/office and a residential component that is occupied by the same resident. The live/work unit shall be the primary dwelling of the occupant." The Downtown Specific Plan allows live/work units in the following zoning districts: C-2 North California Drive Commercial District, California Drive Auto Row, Howard Mixed Use, Bayswater Mixed Use, and Myrtle Mixed Use (Conditional Use Permit required). In his revised project description, dated October 17, 2017, the applicant discusses the potential businesses anticipated in the live/work units. He notes that "the units with storefronts can be imagined in use as photo, art, recording, instruction, or exercise studios. They could also function as the offices and working spaces for professional writers, accountants, architects, engineers, interior, graphic, and other designers, artists, artisans, attorneys, software, web, and multi -media developers, consultants of all stripes, insurance, real estate, and travel agents, internet sales, maintenance and repair persons, and many others who would be well served by the opportunity to live and work in this central location". During preliminary review Planning staff identified that the following applications will be required for this project: ■ Commercial Design Review for construction of a new four-story, 26-unit live/work building with retail space on the ground floor (C.S. 25.31.045 and 25.57.010 (c) (1) and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan); ■ Conditional Use Permit for building height (54'-10" proposed where 55-0" is the maximum allowed; Conditional Use Permit required if building exceeds 35-0") (C.S. 25.31.060 (c)); ■ Condominium Permit for construction of the new building (each unit to be privately owned) (C.S. 26.30.020); and ■ Lot Merger to combine three existing parcels into one parcel (Lots L, M, and N, Block 6). Page 2of6 Design Review Study 619-625 California Drive Commercial Design Review: Commercial Design Review is required for new commercial and mixed use buildings pursuant to Code Sections 25.31.045 and 25.57.010(c)(1). Design Review was instituted for commercial projects in 2001 with the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidebook. The project is located within the boundaries of the Burlingame Downtown Special Plan and therefore subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-3 through 5-12) provides design guidelines specifically for commercial and mixed use areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.4 (pages 5-22 through 5-26) provides more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown. The relevant pages of the plan have been included as an attachment for convenience of commissioners. The proposed exterior facades will include a variety of materials including solid composite panels/rain-screen fagade in six colors, aluminum framed windows, metal fascia and coping, tube steel splayed columns, and aluminum and glass guardrails. Architectural concrete planters and wood benches are proposed at the front corner of the site. The applicant provided renderings of the proposed project from various view points along California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. The following design review criteria for commercial development projects are outlined in the zoning code: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the city's commercial, industrial and mixed use areas; and (2) Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of existing development and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure, restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features, and is compatible in mass and bulk with other structures in the immediate area; and (6) Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. Off -Street Parking: Regarding the number of off-street parking spaces required for this project, it was determined that the residential parking regulations would be most appropriate for the proposed live/work units; the retail parking ratio of 1:300 SF applies to the ground floor retail space. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the plan area for the Downtown Specific Plan. Therefore, the project qualifies for the reduced residential parking requirements for Downtown, as per Code Section 25.70.032. Based on the number of bedrooms per unit proposed for this project (all units are studio or 1-bedroom units), the Zoning Code requires a total of 26 spaces for the live/work units (1 parking space per studio/1-bedroom unit required). Based on the retail ratio of 1:300 SF, 7 parking spaces are required for the 2,100 SF ground floor retail use. The project provides a total of 34 off-street parking spaces where 33 is the minimum required. As noted above, the project provides a total of 34 parking spaces located in the garage behind the commercial space on the ground floor. The parking garage will be accessed from a driveway along Oak Grove Avenue. Upon entering the garage, 7 parking spaces (6 unistall and 1 disabled) will be available for the ground floor Page 3of6 Design Review Study 619-625 California Drive commercial spaces. 27 parking spaces (3 unistall, 22 vehicle stacker and 2 disabled) for the live/work residents will be available in a secured garage area behind an automatic overhead gate. There is no guest parking required on -site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area (no guest parking provided). The proposed project includes vehicle stackers to provide 22 of the required parking spaces in the secured garage area for the live/work units. The applicant is proposing to use the Klaus MultiBase 2072 stacker system which can accommodate passenger cars, station wagons, SUV's, and vans (see attached specifications). The First Floor Plan on sheet Al shows where the vehicle stackers would be installed within the garage; Building Sections 1 and 2 on sheet A8 shows how that the proposed vehicle stackers would contain a pit so that two independent vehicles can be accommodated. The Municipal Code does not include specifications for vehicle stackers, 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 stackers. The stackers could each be considered "creative approaches" to providing the required on -site parking. To date, the City has approved several commercial and residential projects with various parking lift systems. Because the live/work project is located within a commercial district and is proposed as a condominium, the commercial condominium parking regulations would apply. Based on parking requirements for commercial condominiums found in Code Section 26.30.070 (a), unistall parking spaces are permitted (8'-6" x 18'-0" allowed and proposed) and an area for a delivery/service vehicle is not required (not provided with this project; only required for residential condominiums). Bicycle parking is provided for both the residents and visitors. A bicycle rack for visitors is located near the entrance lobby. Resident bicycle storage for 24 bicycles is provided in the secured parking garage. Landscaping/Private and Common Open Space: Although there are no landscaping requirements in the C-2, North California Drive Commercial District, landscaping is proposed throughout the site as shown on the Landscape Plan, sheet L1. Concept images of the proposed landscaping, planters, and seating areas at the front corner of the site are shown on sheet L3. Please refer to the Landscape Plan for detailed description of the various plants and trees proposed throughout the site. Two existing street trees along California Drive will be replaced with two new street trees (London Plane trees). The two existing street trees along Oak Grove Avenue are proposed to remain. There are no requirements for private and common open space for commercial condominiums. However, the proposed project includes private terraces for the live/work units on the fourth floor (565 to 625 SF in size); a common terrace (725 SF), accessible by all residents, is provided on the fourth floor. The common terrace will contain various planters and seating areas (see Terrace Plan on sheet L2). Common open spaces are provided throughout the site (see Landscape Plan on sheet L1). This space intentionally left blank. Page 4of6 Design Review Study 619-625 California Drive Table 1 - Compliance with C-2, North California Drive Commercial District Regulations Lot Area: 19,450 SF Plans date stamped: October 6, 2017 Proposed Allowed/Required Land Use: 26 live/work units above the live/work units permitted above the ground floor first floor only 2,100 SF commercial space ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... (retail) on the ground floor Minimum Lot Size & Street 19,450 SF lot size 5,000 SF lot size Frontage: 149.36 feet along California Dr 50 feet of street frontage .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 120 feet along Oak Grove Ave Floor Area Ratio: 2.52 FAR 3.0 FAR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................... (49,074 SF) (58,350 SF) Lot Coverage: 73.3% 75% ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................:............................................................................................................................... (14,273 SF) (14,587 SF) Setbacks Front (California Drive): 1'-83/4" no minimum required Exterior Side (Oak Grove Ave): 2'-2" no minimum required Interior Side: 6'-l" to building/ no minimum required 0'-0" to roof over gate Rear: 10'-01, 10'-01, .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. Building Height: 54'-10" to top of building roof ............................................................. 55-0" maximum ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... CUP required if over 35'-0" Off -Street Parking: 34 spaces 33 spaces 12 at -grade spaces + 22 space in 26 spaces for live work (1 space vehicle lifts per unit) + 7 spaces for retail use 1:300 SF ratio Conditional Use Permit required for building height (54'-10" proposed where 55-0" is the maximum allowed; Conditional Use Permit required if building exceeds 35-0"). General Plan and Zoning: In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan, specifically in the North California Drive Commercial District which is described as follows: The North California Drive Commercial District is the area along the west side of California Drive north of Bellevue Avenue to Oak Grove Avenue. Service Commercial uses dominate in this area. Retail or hotel uses are permitted on the ground floor whereas offices or hotel uses can be allowed on upper floors. Conditional Use Permit Request for Building Height: The C-2, North California Drive Commercial District states that no building shall exceed a height of 55'-0". A conditional use permit is required for any building which exceeds 35'-0" in height. The proposed height, measured to the top of the roof, will be 54'-10" (from average top of curb). The elevator enclosure on the roof makes up less than 5% of the roof area and does not extend more than 10'-0" above the top of parapet, therefore it is not counted as part of the building height. In Page 5of6 Design Review Study 619-625 California Drive order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit the following findings must be made by the Planning Commission: (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 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 live/work building and providing a credit for the existing commercial building and two dwelling units, the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is $118,650.40. One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Staff Comments: Comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions were addressed during the plan review process. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Ellis A. Schoichet AIA, applicant and architect Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner Attachments: June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter, submitted by the applicant, dated October 17, 2017 Summary List of Changes, submitted by the applicant, dated September 29, 2017 Klaus MultiBase 2072 Specifications Emails submitted by Kalendra Bell (dated June 10, 2017), Katie Treu (dated June 12, 2017), and Brett Newman (dated July 17, 2017) Application to the Planning Commission Project Description, submitted by the applicant, dated October 17, 2017 (revised) Environmental Information Form, submitted by the applicant, date stamped November 7, 2016 Conditional Use Permit Application Commercial Application Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo Page 6of6 CITY ryc�l 11 o� - 9 RPORATE Monday, June 12, 2017 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers d. 619-625 California Drive, zoned C-2 (North California Drive Commercial District) - Environmental Scoping for Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Condominium Permit for construction of a new, four-story, 26-Unit live/work development (Ellis A. Schoichet, AIA, applicant and architect; Ed 1005 BM LLC, property owner) (101 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff.• > Was this application seen by the Planning Commission prior to the addition of the corner lot? (Gardiner: Initially the applicant had met with some commissioners individually, and at that time the project did not include the corner lot.) > Would the ground floor spaces be able to be used as office space as opposed to retail space? (Gardiner: Live/Work spans across uses, so the space could be used for office or retail. The definition is not prescriptive; it allows either but does not say whether one should be used rather than the other. The intent is to provide flexibility for different uses.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Ellis Schoichet represented the applicant, with property owner Ed Duffy. Commission Questions/Comments: > Why is the third floor the tallest floor? (Schoichet: It is not supposed to be different. The first floor is taller because of the parking and storefronts, and the second and third floors are supposed to be the same. The fourth floor has the plate height set at the back, then slopes up to a larger expanse. However the fourth floor is surrounded with flat roof, and is sloped for drainage, the the floor thickness between third and fourth floors is thicker.) > Would prefer greater ceiling height on the first floor. Is 10'-P' for the first floor ceiling acceptable for a commercial space? (Schoichet: Would have preferred to have these as lofts with 20-foot ceilings, but factored the number of stories and the height. Wanted to keep to as close to 35 feet around the perimeter as possible before going up to the fourth floor. The parapet at the streetfront permits is 37 feet.) Would encourage revisiting the first floor to get it taller, since already applying for CUP for height. Wants the ground floor spaces to be as usable and generous as possible. > Do the work spaces on California Drive have direct access into the living spaces above? (Schoichet: Yes, they are two-story units with internal stairs between the floors and a door between the two levels.) Can the living spaces be accessed other than going through the business? (Schoichet: Yes, they have an entrance through the residential portion of the building, like the rest of the units.) > Stipulations if a business doesn't work out, what would go in the work space? (Schoichet: CC&Rs and planning conditions should treat what the allowable uses are for the spaces. However can't force people to have businesses in the spaces - conceivably they could live in the space for a period of time as well.) City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2017 > Concern with the large windows, if someone moves in and lives or uses the space for storage there is no control in how it looks. (Duffy: The intent is for the work spaces is to enliven the street, rather than having a broad wall. However can't control what happens. Uses will be deed restricted.) > Are the agreements to occupy the spaces attached? l.e.., different parties occupying each level of the unit. (Duffy: Could be deed -restricted to prevent that from happening.)(Kane: Opposite may also be desirable - if a space is not being occupied, may want to allow a commercial lease for the ground floor to keep it active.) > Doesn't Downtown have restrictions on what uses can be accommodated on the ground floor? (Gardiner: In the commercial districts yes, but live/work is its own land use. It is more flexible because this is not a primary pedestrian area. There could be office on the ground floor, or residential. Would need to anticipate that some of the units will be used as living space, since that is part of the live/work model.) (Kane: There is an economic interest on the part of the project for these spaces to not appear dead.) (Duffy: The units are typically rented by tech -related occupants. Doesn't anticipate welding, jewelry making or similar operations. Expects tech entrepreneurs.) > Wants to see how this can enliven the street. Doesn't want to have someone sitting on the ground floor working at their desk. Would be OK on the second floor. Also needs to have parking for clients and customers. > Is across from the high school, could have retail on ground floor. Professionals can be on the upper floors, which do not need street frontage. It's a good idea but does not want it to fail. > Should have a traffic study, since it is a busy intersection. > Has there been a market study? (Duffy: Has done projects like this in San Francisco. This is what the young tech kids want. This is on a transit corridor, and a lot of these kids do not have cars.)(Schoichet: Retail space would need parking. An earlier version of the project had retail on the ground floor with parking provided. Desire is to have uses on the ground floor other than parking.) > Tech companies have a need for collaboration, and while some will come on transit others will drive. Need to figure out where they will park. > With the big large windows on first floor, if it is an office it might be disorganized and not look good from the street. (Duffy: Provides window coverings on every building they build.) > What geography is the demographic drawn from? (Duffy: Projects built in San Francisco.) > Where did the 1 parking space per unit number come from? (Schoichet: The Downtown Specific Plan.) Where do the guests, vendors, employees, customers park? (Duffy: Last two buildings completed in San Francisco did not provide any parking, and have had no issues. A lot of people take public transportation.) > How does this fit into the neighborhood architecturally? (Schoichet: This is leading into a different direction on this strip. This originates with the Downtown Specific Plan, and the heights and densities that may come to this street over time. Vision of the plan is to move California Drive to something a little bit more dense and urban. The commercial guidelines have stipulations for gateway sites, allowing for a bit more height and architectural focus.) > Expected live/work to be something similar to what is shown on the lower floors, with high ceilings and open space like the lofts South of Market. The units above seem more like apartments. (Duffy: Live/Work from years before was trying to copy industrial buildings - had gigantic spaces but bad efficiencies. These units are more like New York -style lofts, more efficient without the wasted space of the 20-foot ceilings. The days of the 18- 20-foot loft is not coming back.) > Had there been consideration of underground parking, and where the water table is located? (Schoichet: Have had a geotechnical report and have studied the flood maps for the area. The site is not within a flood zone but is adjacent to flood zones on both sides. The geotechnical report suggested the water table could be as high as 6 or 7 feet based on experience with the area.) > Has there been consideration of podium parking? (Schoichet: If did a podium would lose the glass fronts because there would be a step up. Given the location on the corner and that it gets wet, above -grade drainage makes most sense.)(Schoichet: There is a stipulation that permanent dewatering is not allowed. Intent has been to enliven the streetfront, so design brief has been to get parking off the street, make it look like it does not have parking there.) > The floors are all equal stacks, like a pancake. Ordinarily there would be a ground floor of about 16 -feet, then 13'-6 to 13'-9" for each floor above for office, or lower if residential. An option would be to have City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 111812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2017 a higher first floor of 14- to 16-feet, and also consider parking stackers with the higher ceiling. If the intended users are graphic artists, architects and designers, a 10-foot ceiling would be an extravagance. Working through the vertical section would improve the facade; currently it appears blocky. OK with the modern design, but it could be made more elegant. While there is glazing on California, the rest of the project is mostly blank wall on the other three sides. (Duffy: Does not typically build 16-foot ceilings. Typically builds 13-feet floor -to -floor, 12-foot clear. Typically not dropping ceilings. Since there are small units on the ground it would not look right to have high ceilings.) > Would mixed use with commercial below and live/work above be allowed? (Gardiner: Commercial is allowed, but parking would need to be provided.) Public Comments: Cynthia Cornell, Homes for All Burlingame - Curious if a decision has been made if these will be condos or rentals? Renters would be subject to evictions and rent increases after their first lease. Marie Hatch lived at 619 California Drive and was served with eviction and died, roommate Georgia has since moved to assisted living. 1128-32 Douglas Avenue was approved with developer offering two units at 110% of Area Median Income. Would like similar consideration with this project, with units for extremely -low income seniors. For a single senior would be income of $27,000/year, $31,000/year for a couple. Would show goodwill to the City and seniors. Diane Shonwald - Lives in 1209 Oak Grove condominiums behind. Has met with architect and owners. Main concern is the loss of views for the the units facing California Drive. At present look out at trees, but four of five windows will be blocked. Main concern is traffic and congestion, with schools on both ends of Oak Grove Avenue. Frequently the road is backed up. Has discussed possibility of moving driveway onto California Drive? Building will blocking out light, and is boxy. Was originally going to be three floors, now it's four floors. The ground water creates a huge puddle at the corner when it rains. Alex Tobin, 609 California Drive - Concern with traffic impact. Also wants info on the emergency exit in back of the building, will open to nothing. There is a bus stop on the corner at 625 California Drive, plus Uber drivers pulling over, so there is no parking. Live/work will generate visitor traffic. There will be backups on Oak Grove, there already are. Traffic study would be appropriate. Wants to know how construction will effect business and customers coming in and out of the garage. Carrie Bonner, 1222 Oak Grove Avenue - Concern with parking, already very bad. Difficult to find parking on the street at night. Assumes there would be two professionals living in each unit, and each would have a car. Even if they take transit they may drive to the train, such as driving to Millbrae to take BART. Should have two parking spaces per unit so they are not parking on the street. Concern with people driving fast down Oak Grove. (Unidentified Speaker) - Friend of Marie Hatch. Concern with kids walking from the high school, it is already dangerous with the train. People are driving too fast. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: > Likes the creative thinking, and bringing in different ideas for housing, but thinks the building is too big. Concerned with the uses on the first floor. > Needs a traffic study. Concern with the garage being on Oak Grove, but not sure if California Drive would be any better. Traffic study could help determine this. > Would like more landscaping, and for planters to be more flush to the ground so people could be out front. > Would like consideration of a different aesthetic. Likes contemporary design but with classic influences. Examples of a house on Paloma in Burlingame, and the garden center on Chapin. City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 111812017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 12, 2017 > Bringing energy to the street with office or work space on California Drive is a great idea. Currently the surroundings area 1- and 2-story shops and utilitarian spaces on California Drive, but could be enhanced. > It is a gateway corner - would be great to see something with some presence to it, enliven the street and provide a bit of intensification. > 1 bedroom/studio sizes would be a great addition to the community. > Architecture needs a bit of work. OK with contemporary style. Neighborhood does not have a lot of existing style cues. This is an opportunity to create some energy and pedestrian activity, particularly with the existing pedestrian activity from the high school. > Live/Work is already allowed in the location, has a bit of a mixed use feel. Provides additional residential units and enlivens the street. Could imagine living units above stores elsewhere along California Drive. > Would like to see some work put into the CC&Rs to see how to control/encourage the energy being proposed and ensure it is going to work. There are five work spaces, not huge but large enough for things to be able to happen, 400-500 square feet. Can have some great spaces that don't necessarily have a huge impact but create some energy and life along the street. > Does not like the contemporary architecture, not pleasing to look at especially if views are going away. Would at least like the building to be more aesthetically pleasing to look at. > Needs to consider impacts on existing businesses. > Wants to figure out how to generate foot traffic along California Drive. If the spaces on the ground floor are developed properly it could work, much as the block to the north has a lot of retail spaces. > Should have a parking and traffic study. Concern with buildings in area being underparked and not compliant with city parking requirements. Traffic with visitors and deliveries. > Likes live/work concept but expects occupants will have cars and there needs to be adequate parking. > Not sure the project is appropriate in this location. It is a choke spot, not a gateway spot. Traffic from McKinley and the high school is heavy in the morning and at 2:00 when school lets out. Elsewhere on California Drive could be suitable, but not on this corner. > Design guidelines emphasize compatibility with surroundings, but does not believe the design as presented fits into a neighborhood where all the other buildings are 1 and 2 story. > California Drive is characterized by trees, with the large trees on the east mirrored with smaller trees on the west to create a sense of trees. This building will disrupt that visual aesthetic. > Supportive of live/work, but concerned it will look out of place in this location. As a Design Review Study/Environmental Scoping item, there is no action from the Planning Commission. The application will return as an Action Item with the environmental review at a later date. City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 111812017 PROJECT: California Drive Live/Work Job#: 15666 619-625 California Drive, Burlingame CA Date: 10/17/2017 City of Burlingame Planning Application ENVIRONMENTAL SCOOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY SES7clo)4kd 017 ARCHITECT'S SUMMARY and RESPONSE The plans have been amended as summarized below. Architectural re ' ions adicate Delta 3- PC Comments 912912017 Summary of Comments and Architect's Responses: These notes are the Architect's summation of and response to the concerns and criticisms expressed at the Study Session on 6/12/2017. Comments are paraphrased for brevity, and where multiple comments addressed the same topic they're aggregated into a single item. Please note that the many positive and supportive comments that were heard aren't treated in this letter. They speak for themselves and require no response. Planning Commissioner concerns and criticisms: There was concern about what would happen if one or more Live/Work occupant's businesses along California Drive were to fail. Or what would happen if one or more occupants chose not to have a public serving use in the ground level area of their unit. Could the use and character of the spaces be managed/controlled to make sure the street frontage would be active and welcoming? Could the occupants be held to a high standard in this regard? Could we say for sure that the work spaces would look good from the street, especially given the large windows adjoining the sidewalk? At least one Commissioner wondered whether conventional commercial tenant spaces would be a better choice for this location in the long run. Noted and amended. The spaces along California Drive, formerly the 'Work' areas attached to the 2nd Floor Live/Work units, are reconceived as commercial tenancies. The 2nd Floor units are now similar to the other Live/Work units in the building, with the 'Work' area integrated into each unit on a single level. The project is now a 'Mixed -Use' development with commercial tenancies on the California Drive frontage. The Live/Work units on the floors above have no connection with the commercial tenancies, other than being in the same building. This change is fully integrated into the revised design. 2. There was concern about whether the ceiling heights in the 1st Floor work spaces would be tall enough to be viable for commercial/retail use. There was also a concern that the height of the First Floor being more or less equal to the height of the upper floors led to proportions that seemed squat and 'pancake' like. Noted and amended. The interior heights of the work spaces along the California Drive street frontage have been increased from 10'-7" to 14'-9" in order to more comfortably accommodate a broader range of potential uses. The street facade has been redesigned accordingly, see item #6 below for a more detailed treatment of the question of proportions. This change is fully integrated into the revised design. Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Peninsula Building • 307 South'B" Street #12 • San Mateo CA 94401 • 650 • 343 • 3452 3. There was concern that the actual demand for parking to serve the Live/Work units and the ground level uses would exceed the 1 space/unit that's set forth in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (BDSP). The implication was that the BDSP requirement isn't realistic, and the project would exacerbate an existing shortage of parking in the area. There was also concern that additional parking for deliveries, customers, visitors, and/or collaborators wasn't provided. The design team's decision to avoid underground or 2"d floor podium parking was also questioned. Noted and amended. The concerns about parking are addressed in conjunction with the change to conventional commercial tenancies along the California Drive frontage. The 'Work' areas of the Live/Work units didn't technically require separate parking spaces under the provisions of the BDSP, and as a result no additional spaces were provided for the First Floor 'Work' areas in the previous design. 26 parking spaces were provided to serve the 26 Live/Work units. Converting the California Drive frontage to commercial use triggers a different set of parking requirements. 7 parking spaces are added to serve up to 2,100 sf. of commercial space at a parking ratio of 1:300 sf. Parking for the Live/Work units remains at 26 spaces for the 26 units, and an unassigned space is added to meet the State mandate for separate, dedicated electric vehicle charging spaces in residential garages. In total, the updated design for the Live/Work area of the Garage features 27 spaces with 22 of the spaces on 2-car lifts, and the remaining spaces set directly on the Garage slab. The height of the garage is increased for vertical clearance at the car lifts (in parallel with the increase in height at the commercial spaces described in item #2 above). The 7 newly added commercial parking spaces are placed outside of the secured perimeter of the Live/Work car and bike parking, with unrestricted 24/7 access from the Oak Grove Avenue. Consolidating the existing driveways that serve the three merged parcels yields additional street parking as well. The existing 47-lineal feet of curb cuts on California Drive are reduced to a single 12' curb cut for maneuvering bins in and out of the Trash/Recycling room. On Oak Grove Avenue, the proposed new driveway occurs mostly within an existing red zone, so there's only 7-lineal feet of reduced curb from what's currently available. In total there's a net increase of 28-lineal feet of curb space, roughly equivalent to 3 additional parking spaces. Aggregating the commercial, Live/Work, EV charging, and recaptured curbside parking there are 37 parking spaces associated with the updated design, an increase of 8 spaces over the previous design. This change is fully integrated into the revised design. Related notes: The Owner and the design team are confident that the provision of 1 parking space per Live/Work unit is consistent with the needs of the target demographic given the project's transit rich environment. It's also consistent with the City's vision, as expressed in the BDSP (Section 3/Land Use). The expressed policy goal is to allow for reduced and/or creative ways of providing and sharing parking in areas that are walkable and well served by transit. The proposed site clearly has both advantages, and the 7 additional commercial parking spaces could easily double as short-term visitor parking for the Live/Work units and be used for guest parking during off -hours of the commercial tenancies. Some or all of the 28-lineal feet of recovered curbside could be set aside for deliveries, loading, and/or short-term parking. The incorporation of underground and/or 2"d floor podium parking is impractical on this site. The limited size of the site and its corner location means that the ramps needed for multi -level parking would cancel -out virtually the same number of spaces gained on any additional levels of parking they might access. At the Study Session the design team responded to the question regarding the absence of underground parking by pointing out that the corner of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue is historically prone to flooding. An underground garage in this specific location is a 2 of 8 risk the Owner prefers not to undertake. Incorporating automatic vehicle lifts into the revised design entails excavation for lift pits to a depth of 7.5 ; which isn't ideal. However, it seems less problematic than having a full underground garage. Given the need to maximize the amount of parking in a very limited area, inclusion of lift pits has been deemed an acceptable compromise by the Owner and the design team. 4. There was concern about how an Environmental assessment could be done without knowing the actual uses that might turn up in the ground level work areas of the Live/Work units. Noted and amended. To a large extent this concern becomes moot with implementation of conventional commercial tenancies along the California Drive First Floor street front. Although it's still impossible to say exactly what businesses will ultimately lease the storefronts, the types of uses are expected to be typical of a mixed -use building. An environmental consultant should be able to account for them. Related notes: For the purposes of the renderings associated with this application we assumed a florist and an audio/home theatre designer/dealer. Both of these uses have been located nearby along the California Drive commercial strip in the past, but moved away within the last several years. 5. There was concern regarding the amount of traffic at the corner of Oak Grove and California Drive, and the impact the proposed project would have. A traffic study was called for. Noted. Even after accounting for the replacement of the current uses at the site, the proposed development will undoubtedly increase the number of automobile trips at the corner of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. However, the net increase will be relatively small as compared with the baseline level of traffic that's already generated by surrounding activity in this central location. A traffic study will be included as part of the Environmental Review in order to quantify the impact to the extent possible. No changes have been made in response to this concern. Related notes: The 'too much traffic' banner that's raised in opposition to this proposal contradicts good urban planning practice. Claiming that the subject site's location in an area with high traffic volume is a justification for denying redevelopment at a higher density is counterproductive. This is exactly the place where a project such as this should occur. Traffic and congestion on the neighborhood, citywide, and regional scale is arguably mitigated by projects which allow people to live in walkable areas close to transit and shopping. Creating developments that reduce individual car trips and make ownership of multiple vehicles unnecessary should be advocated, not opposed. It makes little sense to say that a project such as this would be better located in a sleepy area where there's minimal traffic, and by extension limited activity. Retrograde planning strategies such as this only reinforce the need for individual car ownership, and encourages more individual car trips to and from the active areas of town. Its a textbook example of a 'vicious cycle,' where automobile traffic in the commercial areas of the City continues to increase, and the insatiable demand for parking grows unabated. 6. There was concern that the building isn't compatible with the surrounding buildings due to its use of contemporary materials and its modern style. The proportions of the building were faulted for being 'pancake' like, with not enough verticality and too little differentiation between the heights of the First Floor and the levels above. 'Traditional' materials and styling were lauded as being more appropriate for Burlingame in general, and by implication, for this project in particular. This response treats the question of style. Refer to the next item (#7 below) for the question of size. Noted and amended. 3 of 8 In response to comments addressing the style of the building in relation to its Architectural context, the Owner and design team revisited and reconsidered the multitude of decisions that led to the selection of the proposed materials and style. The use of more 'traditional' materials such as brick, wood, and/or plaster cladding were carefully studied but ultimately rejected. Redesign of the building with some sort of retro/traditional styling treatment was also considered and ultimately rejected. Insistence on traditional materials and a nostalgic direction for the design were seen as preferences based on personal taste, and not by the context of existing buildings that actually populate the area. The California Drive fapade is redesigned in conjunction with the increased height of the First - Floor level and the change to commercial tenancies. The interlacing of the First -Floor street level design treatments with those at the upper level is refined in the updated design. The overall proportions of the building have also been improved, including a subtle increase in vertical emphasis along the California Drive fapade. Many other adjustments combine to make the updated design an improvement over the previous one, but the choice of materials and architectural vocabulary remains relatively unchanged. The Owner and design team stand firmly behind the design as originally conceived- a contemporary treatment of the loft building type. We believe this design will ultimately be recognized as an excellent addition to the eclectic mix of buildings that characterizes the area. Changes are fully integrated into the revised design. Related notes: In carefully considering the architectural context of the subject property it's not accurate to say that there's a predominant style, or even type of building. There isn't a preponderance of 'traditional' Architecture in the same way that there might be in other areas of Burlingame. In fact, one is hard pressed to generalize about architectural style in the vicinity of the proposed project. There's little or no justification for the assertion that one or another 'traditional' style is any more appropriate for this location than modern or industrial Architecture. Admittedly, there are a few traditionally styled 'jewel box' buildings in the neighborhood. These are best exemplified by the Mr. Bubbles building on California Drive, or the bungalow court a couple of doors down at 1221 Oak Grove Avenue. But these are notable exceptions within a highly eclectic context. For every traditionally styled building found along California Drive or Oak Grove Avenue there are at least as many, or more buildings which are not traditional. ➢ Along California Drive the majority of recent development presents either a commercial or utilitarian aspect. The traditionally styled buildings that are interspersed between the commercial and utilitarian buildings typically pre -date the commercial strip that this stretch of California Drive has become in recent decades. They are generally re -purposed from their original incarnations as single or multi -unit residential properties. The area's gradual transformation into a commercial strip may be related to the long-term implementation of the C2 zoning. The C2 commercial/industrial zoning would tend to stymie improvements to, or expansions of the low -density residential type structures that remain along California Drive. ➢ Along Oak Grove Avenue the majority of the multi -level apartment buildings can be identified as examples of modern Architecture from past decades such as the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, or 80's. As with California Drive, a few traditionally styled buildings are interspersed with the modern ones, but they represent a relatively small percentage of the overall total. The proposed design is admittedly modern in character. It takes its place as a modern building of the present decade, just as appropriate as the modern buildings from past decades, and the traditionally styled ones that are mixed -in. In keeping with the City's Commercial Design Guidelines, the proposed design continues the pattern of diversity in Architectural styles that already exists in the area. It doesn't attempt to imitate the styles of adjacent buildings. It strives 4of8 to be an honest reflection of its use, which happens to be the first implementation of a Live/Work building type in this area. The corner location requires the design to act as a bridge between the Architecture of the California Drive commercial strip and the multi -story residential structures on Oak Grove Avenue. The challenge is met with an elegant and carefully considered design. The contemporary Architectural vocabulary serves well in helping resolve the competing demands of the site, the program, and the context. It synthesizes contextual cues from both adjacent areas while creating a solid identity and presence of its own. 7. Concern was expressed that the building is too big, too tall, too blocky, and would appear out of place. This response treats the question of scale, refer to the previous item (#6 above) regarding the question of Architectural style. Noted. The Owner and the design team contend that the proposed design is an appropriate size and massing for the subject site. As a result of the increased height of the First Floor, the updated design is a bit taller than the previous design. The increase in height at the First Floor better suits the anticipated commercial uses, while at the same time providing the height needed for the car lifts (see items #2 and #3 above). There is a 4'-2" increase in the height of the first floor which translates into a 4'-1" increase in the height of the Third -Floor coping facing California Drive (41'4" above the average top of curb elevation). The uppermost line of the Fourth -Floor coping facing California Drive is increased by 2'-11" (54'-7" above the average top of curb elevation). While the upper roof of the building now approaches the 55' maximum allowable under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the large setbacks render it virtually invisible from the sidewalks below. Changes are fully integrated into the revised design. Related notes: At the hearing the design team's contention that this site is a 'Gateway Site' was disputed by at least one Commissioner. The suggestion was made that the site is located at a 'choke point'. The term 'choke point' isn't found in the zoning, design guidelines, or specific plan, but is typically used in reference to the limited points of access across the railroad tracks. A site located at one of the several 'choke points' in Burlingame should be even more likely to meet the definition of 'Gateway Site' because of the additional intensity of traffic and urban importance of the location. But even if this isn't a 'Gateway Site'. it's most definitely a 'visually prominent' corner site as described and defined in the Burlingame Commercial Design Guidebook. As a 'visually prominent site'. it calls for a design that is appropriately scaled for pedestrians on an adjacent sidewalk as well as from cars speeding north and south along California Drive or crossing the tracks from Carolan Avenue. The site sits adjacent to a single - story auto -repair shop, but must also anticipate the inevitable re -development of commercial properties to higher densities envisioned under the BDSP. This design strives to resolve the many, and often conflicting, constraints and opportunities that characterize its unique location. While it's true that the proposed building is larger than the existing neighboring buildings along California Drive, the proposed facades are composed of human scaled elements that engage with passersby, adjacent buildings, and the cityscape beyond. The massing of the building and articulation of the elevations imbues each facade with an appearance suited to the direction and context it faces. And despite those variations, the individual facades are united with a strong overall design vocabulary. The proposed design creates a consistency and Architectural presence that's exactly what's needed amidst the random and somewhat chaotic context of the North California Drive commercial strip. The California Drive facade is designed as a 'street -wall'. It's intended to be an urban edge that brings to life the BDSP's vision for pedestrian -oriented development that enhances and vitalizes the sidewalk experience. The larger setback and deeper landscaping on the Oak Grove side reflects the pattern established by the multi -unit residential buildings between California Drive 5of8 and El Camino to the west. The uppermost level of the building is set way back in order to reduce the apparent height and bulk as viewed from the adjacent sidewalks. The mass of the building from the near view is 3-stories, comparable to and compatible with the typical multi- story/multi-unit residential buildings that predominate along Oak Grove. From the longer view, the 4th floor is revealed, completing the visual narrative and establishing an Architectural presence on the corner. A 4-story building in this location is absolutely appropriate in the wide open and mostly desolate context of California Drive, the Caltrain right of way, and the BHS track and field beyond. 8. There was concern that there's not enough landscaping on the ground. Noted and amended. The planter areas at the sidewalk along California Drive have been reconfigured in conjunction with the facade redesign and the change to commercial tenant spaces. There are now ground level planters separating each of the commercial tenant entry doors along California Drive. On the Oak Grove side, the transformer vault has been moved in order to allow for more and better plantings at grade. The transformer vault is relocated to the sidewalk on the California Drive side. For the most part however, the raised planters proposed in the previous design are maintained in the updated design. As mentioned at the hearing, in some places the raised planters are part of the mandate to meet State storm water management requirements. In others they serve aesthetic or other functional purposes. Refer to the First Floor Plan/A 1 and the Landscape Site Plan/ L 1. Related notes: The terraced planters at the corner of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue provide a visual transition from the height of the building facade to the pedestrian scale at the corner plaza. They create an opportunity to gently define the limit of the public sidewalk area with benches, and at the same time create expanded seating for the bus stop. The combination of tiered plantings and raised planters of differing heights establish a context where building residents, the general public, and passers-by of all kinds will feel comfortable as they move through the well-defined public space. Raised planters are generally free of the trash that can accumulate at ground level planters, especially along busy public streets and transit corridors. Additionally, plantings adjacent to busy intersections are typically healthier and larger when grown in raised planters since they aren't subjected to trampling from foot traffic or other forms of abuse. Public comments: 9. Low income senior housing should be provided in this project. Noted. The project site is not zoned for housing, senior or otherwise. The Owner and the design team emphasize that this site isn't really appropriate for senior housing in any event due to its location in a C2 zone. Live/Work is a new option that was recently created by virtue of its being included in the BDSP. The Live/Work concept is presumably geared towards a younger, more adaptable demographic. This demographic is also starved for housing opportunities in present day Burlingame. 10. The project obstructs views from the adjacent condominium building. Noted. The Owner and the design team met with neighbors from the adjacent Casa Paloma condominium (1209 Oak Grove Avenue) on multiple occasions. The neighbors were kept up to date on the progress of the project, and where it's been reasonable and practical to incorporate the neighbors' concerns into the project planning process it has been done. The impact on the views from the 8 units whose windows face north towards the proposed Live/Work project has been carefully considered and discussed at great length. Regrettably, it's 6of8 neither reasonable nor practical to limit the height of the proposed development to a single story in order to avoid impacting the view from these units. The majority of large multi -unit buildings along Oak Grove Avenue and beyond have similar conditions. Side and rear units face other buildings of similar or greater height across relatively narrow side or rear yards. The fact that the former property Owners along California Drive hadn't redeveloped their properties with taller buildings isn't a promise that those properties wouldn't be redeveloped in the future. Owners of the condominium units don't have view rights over the adjacent properties to the north. As the City of Burlingame recommends, the design team afforded neighbors the opportunity to sit at the table, provide input, and influence the design. But even with the best and most solicitous participatory process on offer, it's not reasonable to expect that the existing views from the Casa Paloma condominium apartments can be maintained. Refer to the Neighborhood Outreach Summary Log that was included with the initial review submittal (dated 111712016), and the updated version that was included with the initial review comments resubmittal (delta 1 dated 312112017). Related notes: The facade facing the Casa Paloma building has been carefully designed to mitigate its visual impact. The windows on the south facing units of the proposed building have been recessed in order to create a less monolithic appearance and break-up the plane of the facade. The design also has the building stepping back to keep the width of the space between the buildings as wide as practical. The neutral grey color of the cladding panels facing Casa Paloma are selected with the specific intent of maximizing reflected light in the yards between the two buildings. The cor-ten colored panels that are used liberally on the other elevations are kept to a minimum on this facade. The sunshades and dark spandrel panels are also part of the effort to make the southerly facade as deferential to the adjacent building as possible. The landscape screening along the property line is selected to serve twin goals: Establishing a visual screen between the buildings (e.g. the bamboo hedge), and avoiding blocking light in the space between the buildings with over scaled tree canopies (e.g. the choice of smaller trees spaced out along the common property line). Refer to the Landscape Site Plan/ L 1. 11. Traffic and parking is already problematic in the area, and there will be additional cars coming and going in relation to this project. It will increase congestion and exacerbate the parking problem. You can't assume people in the building will only have one car, so they'll be taking up parking in the neighborhood, and there's no provision for visitors and deliveries. Noted and amended. Additional parking has been provided. Refer to items #3 and #5 above. 12. If the driveway were to be moved from Oak Grove to California Drive it would have less impact on the adjacent condominium owners. Noted. The location of the driveway was carefully considered as part of the design process. Given the priority for pedestrian friendly uses over parking and driveways along California Drive in the BDSP, the Oak Grove location seems more appropriate. The Owner and design team also believe that the Oak Grove location is superior from a safety, visibility, and landscaping standpoint. Related notes: The placement of the driveway on Oak Grove is better, even for the residents of Casa Paloma. In the latest design the trash room and the noise associated with it is located far from the neighboring condominiums. If the driveway were located on California Drive it would force the trash room to be located on Oak Grove, adjacent to the Casa Paloma driveway. This 7of8 would definitely be less desirable for those neighbors in view of the increased noise and traffic disruption caused by garbage trucks servicing the trash room in the new development. 13. Concern that the proposed design is boxy and large. Noted. The design has been refined, but remains substantially as previously conceived. Refer to item #7 above. 14. There was concern about the impacts on adjacent businesses during and after construction. The adjacent auto repair shop will have to close -off an existing roll -up door that opens directly on the property line. Noted. The construction impacts of the project will be mitigated via Conditions of Approval (CON placed on the project by the City and enforced by its agencies. Ultimately, once the project is completed, it will have a highly beneficial impact on adjacent businesses by enlivening and intensifying pedestrian activity and bringing more customers to the neighborhood. Related notes: Non -conformities in adjacent buildings such as the existing roll -up door opening at the property line will need to be addressed by the Owners of those adjacent properties. 15. Concern was expressed about people speeding on Oak Grove and California Drive, and suggesting that the project would have a negative impact on the safety of kids walking to and from nearby schools. Noted. The traffic study and Environmental Review will consider the impacts of this project and recommend mitigations as appropriate. Improved signage and enhancements to the curb markings completed in parallel with the proposed development may also be helpful. The project will enhance the safety and walkability of the area by widening and cleaning -up the sidewalks, and improving visibility around the corner between Oak Grove and California Drive. Related notes: Increasing the number of pedestrians in the area and creating people -oriented uses will also contribute to slowing down traffic. The more populated and active an area appears; the slower people tend to drive- likely out of caution and a desire to see what's going on. Mindfulness of pedestrians increases in areas where drivers expect to see pedestrians, and decreases in areas where pedestrians aren't expected. Currently, the site is part of a mostly unremarkable commercial/industrial strip with few focal points, if any. That may be one factor in making people feel comfortable speeding through the area. Creating a populated and active focal point at this intersection might encourage passing vehicles to slow down a bit- out of caution, out of interest, or maybe even a little of both. End of Response to Study Session comments and criticisms- please call if you have questions. Thank you. Ellis A Schoichet AIA 650.343.3452 8of8 PROJECT: California Drive Live/Work Building Job#: 15666 619-625 California Drive, Burlingame CA Date: 9/29/2017 City of Burlingame Planning Application List of Changes from Delta 1 (3/21 /2017) through Delta 3 PC comments (9/29/2017) 1. The California Drive First Floor street frontage has been redesigned to accommodate commercial tenancies. The target area for commercial tenants is 2,100 sf. 2. The Live/Work units on the 2nd Floor along the California Drive street frontage (Units # 1-5) have been redesigned to eliminate the internal connection with the First Floor street front spaces. These units are now self-contained Live/Work units similar in nature to all of the other units in the building. 3. The parking garage is redesigned to create 7 parking stalls to serve the commercial tenancies. The floor area of the 1st Floor commercial space is based on a parking ratio of 1:300 sf. 4. The residential parking area is redesigned to accommodate 26 parking stalls for the Live/Work units in the reduced area remaining after the commercial parking area has been allocated. This is accomplished by providing (11) automatic car lifts that create (2) spaces each for a total of (22) spaces on lifts. The remaining (4) spaces, including one accessible van space are located on the garage slab. 5. The residential parking area serving the Live/Work units is redesigned to accommodate a dedicated EV charging space that meets all requirements for an accessible van space. The EV charging space is provided in addition to the (26) Live/Work parking spaces. 6. The parking garage has been redesigned to be an 'open' parking garage (per CBC 405.5). In the previous iteration of the design the parking garage was partially 'open' and partially 'enclosed'. 7. The number of bicycle parking spaces provided within the secured Live/Work parking area has been reduced from (54) in the previous scheme to (28) in the current scheme. Bicycle parking is provided via (12) double -height racks and (4) single ground -mounted racks. 8. The First Floor is redesigned to provide a dedicated Electrical Room adjacent to and accessed from the residential parking area. 9. The California Drive street frontage at the First Floor is redesigned with the Trash Room oriented for access directly from California Drive. This eliminates the indirect and circuitous path via the southeasterly side yard that was shown in the previous design. 10. The facade of the California Drive street frontage has undergone significant redesign. The storefront configuration of the street facing spaces are now suitable for a single 2,100 sf commercial tenant, or for two smaller ones. 11. The street front commercial spaces are designed to have up to two exits and two toilet rooms each in order to accommodate a wide range of uses without being constrained by occupant load restrictions in the building code. 12. The First -Floor podium height is increased by 4'-1 " to accommodate the car lifts and create a more generous ceiling height for the commercial tenancies. 13. The increased podium height triggers a corresponding 4'-1 " increase in the height of the 3rd Floor parapet, and a 3'-4" increase in the uppermost coping at the 4' Floor roof. The height of the building at its maximum point along the California Drive facing coping of the 41h Floor roof) is now 54'-10 ", approaching the maximum allowable with a Conditional Use Permit. 14. The First Floor level of the California Street facade has been significantly redesigned, especially the way the architectural treatments at the First Floor interpenetrate and integrate with the treatment at the floors above. Modest changes have been implemented across the rest of the building, Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Peninsula Building • 307 South'B" Street #12 • San Mateo CA 94401 • 650. 343 • 3452 refinements to the previous design. The palette of (6) different color rain -screen panels, architectural concrete, as well as decorative metal gates and grille work remains as before. 15. The number and configuration of windows in the rear -facing Live/Work units (#6-10 on the 2 d Floor and # 17-21 on the 3'd Floor) have been changed. The smaller window at the 'Work' areas has been eliminated. 16. The location of the windows on the southeasterly facing wall of the Stair #2 enclosure has been shifted to the southerly corner. 17. Access to the uppermost roof from the 41 Floor at Stair #2 has been redesigned to eliminate the penthouse. This facilitates the increase in building height due to the podium change without triggering a corresponding increase in the height of the uppermost projections. 18. The Lot Coverage has increased by 3 sf., the floor area remains approximately the same. The building remains well within the allowable numbers in those metrics. 19. The underground transformer vault has been relocated from the Oak Grove frontage to the California Drive frontage. This list is intended as an overview/summary of significant changes, and doesn't note the many other subtle and minor modifications that were needed in order to implement the larger changes. Please call if you have questions about any specific item. Thank you. Ellis A Schoichet AlA 650.343.3452 2 of 2 Page 1 Section Dimensions Car data Page 2 Width dim. without door Page 3 Width dim. �door Page 4 Load plan Installation E t KLAvs multiparking t--160---- 0 Free space Ln 4— KLAUS Multiparking GmbH Hermann-Krum-StraBe 2 D-88319 Aitrach Fort +49 (0) 75 65 5 08-0 Fax +49 (0) 75 65 5 08-88 info@multiparking.com www.multiparking.com t 45 { Free � I 0 ao j\ 1-2 -2 ,o 1-2% 12°/ 520 for vehicle up to 5.00 m = 16'4" long �50 } (540 for vehicle up to 5.20 m 17' long) • 2072-170 i�lti►� Y_ r PRODUCT DATA CogE multibase2072 2000 kg • / 2600 kg • All space requirements are minimum finished dimensions. Tolerances for space requirements'. • Dimensions in cm. EB (single platform) = 2 vehicles DB (double platform) = 4 vehicles Standard passenger cars: Limousine, station wagon, SUV, van according to clearance and maximal surface load. Standard Special • width 190 cm •, , 190 cm • weight max. 2000 kg, max. 2600 kg, wheel load, max. 500 kg, max. 650 kg, Clearance profile 160 30 N N _y 7 N N N 15° 6, 13" 100 125 500(520) ®I1NNW I�111N IL max. pit = 225cm = T-5 car neignt car height height upper lower height upper lower 350 165 165 360 170 170 (335) 150 165 (340) 50 170 car height car height car height car height height upper lower height upper lower height upper lower height _.upper lower 380 180 180 400 190 190 420 200 200 430 205 205 (350) 150 180 (360) 150 190 (370) 150 20 (375) 150 205 • Standard type • In compliance with DI 1 10, 10 cm wide yellow-bl • Spe lia SO 3 64 must be applied by th (ma min. height from garage floor = 375 cm = 12'-4"+/- ge of the pit in the entry area to mark th •Tofo to consider the tolerances according to VOB, part C (DIN 18330 and 18331) and the DIN 18202. • Car width for platform width 230 cm. If wider platform E are used it is also possible to park wider cars. • If a higher ceiling height is available higher cars can be parked. • For dividing walls: cutting through 10 x 10 cm. • Potential equalization from foundation grounding connection to system (provided by the customer). ee „load plan page 4). Slope with drainage channel and sump. at unloadina space = 205 cm = 6'-8" +/- r"ft • For convenient use of your parking space and due to the fact that the cars keep becoming longer we recommend a pit length of 540 cm. • Must be at least as high as the greatest car height + 5 cm. MultiBase 20721 Code number 586.15.680-001 1 Version 11.2012 Page 2 of 6 Page 1 Section Dimensions Car data Page 2 Width dim. without door Page 3 Width dim. �door Single Platform (EB) EB 61 double usable platform width = 17'-0"+/- /2= 8'-6" per space data Single Platform (EB) Page 6 To be perfor- med by the IE" 0customer Description EB EB cXc 0 1 62 11 63 pin.20 usable platform width, B2 B3 , 230 255 245 , 240 j 265 255 , B4 4 B55 4m Double Platform (DB) I DB I B1 double bay width = 550 cm = 18'-1" +/- min. Double Platform (DB) X-O DB DB E M 1 B2 M 13 pin.20 usable platform width, B2 B3 460 485 , 475 , 470 495 485 480 505 , , 495 490 515 505 500 525 , , 515 510 535 , , 525 520 545 , , 535 530 555 , , 545 540 565 , , 555 and Double Platform B1 ,usable platform width, 230 + 460 240 + 470 250 + 480 250 + 500 270 + 500 270 + 510 270 + 520 270 + 530 270 + 540 triple usable platform width = 520cm + 260 cm = 780 cm = 25'-7" +/- / 3 = 8'-6" each space. triple bay width = 550 cm + 285 cm = 835cm = 27'-5"+/- min. Single and Double Platform (EB + DB) — Example IE-O EB DB EB DB M B2 4 B3 4min.20 Carriageway in accordance with usable platform width, B2 B3 local regulations 230 + 460 745 735 , 240 + 470 765 755 250 + 480 785 775 250 + 500 805 795 270 + 500 825 815 270 + 510 835 825 270 + 520 845 835 270 + 530 855 845 270 + 540 865 855 B4 B5 4min.20 Carriageway in accordance with usable nlatform width.. B4 .. B5 . local regulations AFor parking boxes on the edges and boxes with intermediate walls we recommend our maximum platform width of 270 cm for single platforms and 540 for double platforms. Problems may occur if smaller platform widths are used (depending on car type, access and individual driving behaviour and capability). For larger limousines and SUV wider driveways are necessary (in particular on the boxes on the sides due to the missing manoeuvring radius). 06.12.16 PC Meeting COMMUNICATION RECEIVED Item # 9d AFTER PREPARATION 619 - 625 California Drive OFSTAFFREPORT Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED JUN 12 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Kalendra Bell [mailto:kalendrab@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2017 10:42 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: Planning Commission Monday meeting Honorable members of the Planning Commission, During this Monday's meeting, when you hear the development plans for the property at California Drive and Oak Drive, I respectfully ask you do your best to help the owners see the value to our community and persuade them to include low-income units for seniors. Please do this for the people you serve and the city you love. Kind Regards, K COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: hearing tonight on proposed project for 625-619 California Ave. -1-tv1,/*q -----Original Message ----- From: Katie Treu [mailto:kctreu@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 4:23 PM To: GRP-Council; GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: John Ward; Gay Obrien Subject: hearing tonight on proposed project for 625-619 California Ave. Gentlemen, Having just returned from an oversea's trip yesterday, I saw the proposed hearing for 625-619 California Drive for this evening ( 6/12) Due to prior commitments I am unable to attend and would appreciate if mine and some of my neighbors concerns could be addressed. It was to be foreseen that a project would be put together for that property and the owners have every right to utilize their land to its highest and best use. As a 50 year resident and 49 year home owner at 745 Neuchatel Avenue I have numerous concern for the near future construction) and later ( traffic.) that will impact us directly. ( less than 1 bloc from the proposed site) We are already suffering from many fast drivers who are looking to avoid the traffic light at Oak Grove and Calif. Drive; especially all the traffic that comes out of Hillsborough every weekday morning. With Construction at that corner this will be a hellish nightmare for us!!! In addition to contacting the above 2 groups, who else would be in a position to work with us to find traffic and parking solutions for the construction period and permanent solutions to help us with the all already overcrowded street from above mentioned traffic and the long term parking for folks other than residents. As you may or may not be aware, Neuchatel is a very narrow street and when cars are parked on both sides of the road it literally becomes a one-way street- totally unable to pass unless one finds room in a driveway. Respectfully, Katie Treu 745 Neuchatel Ave. Burlingame, CA. 94010 cell phone 650 520 8109 email: kctreu@gmail.com RECENED JUN 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin From: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 5:35 PM To: CD/PLG-Ruben Hurin Subject: FW: Regarding Proposed Development on SW cornder of Oak Grove and California Attachments: IMG_8545.JPG; IMG_8547.JPG; IMG_8552.JPG; IMG_8554.JPG (RECEIVED From: Brett Newman[mailto:brett@daylightdesign.comj JUL 17 O017 Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 5:14 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners<PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> CITY OF BURLINGAME Subject: Regarding Proposed Development on SW cornder of Oak Grove and California CDD-PLANNING DIV. Greetings, My name is Brett Newman. I own 721 Neuchatel Ave and live there with my wife and two children. I am writing to express concern about a proposed 4-story, 26 Unit Live/Work development on the Southwest corner of California and Oak Grove. Building such a unit would have significantly negative impact on the community. The corner is currently occupied by a single family unit that, though dilapidated, is the appropriate type of structure for the neighborhood. My office is in the Mission District of San Francisco and I have watched over the last 10 years how the neighborhood has radically changed as live/work developments have been exploited for purposes beyond their intended use. Just from a parking perspective there are significant problems. Neuchatel shares the street with a large apartment complex. Though parking spaces were built to accommodate residents they go largely unused... 20% capacity on average... with cars parking on Neuchatel and Oak Grove, presumably to avoid paying additional fees for parking or because there are more cars than resident spots. The result is that parking on Neechatel and Oak Grove has become very very difficult and would be make untenable if there was more demand for street parking. Thank you for your attention. Brett Newman 415.260.8349 brettgdaylightdesi ng com Brett Newman 415.260.8349 Daylight I daylightdesign.com Design Thinking I whatisdesignthinking org i SO ,W'A 1641. s • - Jr e W16 4Itt - GURLIN"ME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 501 PRIMROSE ROAD * BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.668.7250 9 f: 650.696.3790 - www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 02.01- 13 1- 1 too Typq Of application: 021- 11)-Iso si n Review ❑ Variance 0 Parcel #: Ozf'% - (3 1- 14-0 :Codqitional Use Permit 0 Special Permit 0 Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS:.: /v) 6tr APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: 6e-60 Tc-het Name: Address: ,,Address:' 4(4 City/State/Zip: 6e h c -q AW 0 J k City/State/Zip: Phone: Phone: E-mail: E-mail: Edyin ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Address: 'Apok 212 k4 IF- 6L.% I R Eu` E i City/State/Zip: Phone: E-mail: NOV - 7 2016 v. Burlingame Business License#: CITY OF BURUNGAME CLAD -PLANNING DIV. Authorization. to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans )s submitted with this application on the City's website as part of he nning approval process and waive any claims"against the City arising out of or related to such action. /2WS (initials of Architect/Designer) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 4ej 24-Lj.,1"4 'L;\,r.L1LJ,,.,L tj/ 21. e,&v- ffm 0,ro"&nd .To/ CgVe id-rd Q&LV"d 4-< 4P_--JUn&S W-(u hcAsff. IQ 0 M CAVI g�aa-es to tz- f LLiwi v� cor4in, 41401 pf1jilik I I AFFIDAVIT/SIG TURF: I here ce if y under pena eFjwTtl1vPft in ation given herein is true and correct to the best of my kno edge and belie Applicant's s nature: Date: 111-7 /z, I am aware of the proposed ca an ere y aut r* e the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date:— fr Date submitted: (< r 7 I S:jHANDOUTS�PCAppficatlon.doc Architect's Statement Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permit Application 619-625 California Drive Live/Work Building (Delta 3 update 1011712017) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 26-unit mixed -use 'Live/Work' building at the intersection of California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue in Burlingame. Up to 2,100 sf of commercial storefronts along the California Drive frontage served by 7 parking spaces. 26 Live/Work units on three floors above have both living and work areas within them. A 26-car secured parking garage will be provided on the First Floor for the Live/Work residents. Landscaping will be oriented to the public rights -of -way at the corner facing areas. Private amenities include secure covered bicycle parking and a series of common gathering spaces on grade and at the Fourth -Floor rooftop. REQUEST: The Owner is seeking Commercial Design Review for the project in combination with a Conditional Use Permit for building height in excess of 35'. BRIEF: Rules governing the 'North California Drive Commercial District' (the District) went into effect with the adoption of the 'Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan' (BDSP) in 2011. With these rules came the option for developing 'Live/Work' multi -unit housing within the District. The need for a range of different types of housing in Burlingame, combined with the transit rich locale makes the Live/Work concept an ideal use for this property. There are probably few places in the City better suited for a development such as this. The project will create a new type of dwelling option in an area where the current uses don't take full advantage of the prime location. With the lack of housing in the headlines every single day, the timing couldn't be better. People are looking for options like this, and everyone in the City should be enthusiastically welcome the first Live/Work project under the BDSP! The commercial spaces on California Drive are intended to be conventional tenancies allowed under the City's C2 zoning. Allowable uses in the C2 district include all uses allowed in the C1 district such as retail, personal services, business services, offices (except medical and real estate), financial services, food services, and laundromats. The C2 district designation adds a different character of uses, including auto sales and repair, building contractors and trades, dry cleaners, amusements, print shops, and trade schools. The 26 Live/Work units on the Second, Third, and Fourth Floors are similar to 'artist's lofts', with work areas flexibly accommodated within a dwelling unit. Units can be imagined in use as photo, art, recording, instruction, or exercise studios. They could also function as the offices and working spaces for professional writers, accountants, architects, engineers, interior, graphic, and other designers, artists, artisans, attorneys, software, web, and multi -media developers, consultants of all stripes, insurance, real estate, and travel agents, internet sales, maintenance and repair persons, and many others who would be well served by the opportunity to live and work in this central location. The building is designed to respond to the many demands and constraints that converge at this unique site. The street wall along California Drive responds to the City's vision for pedestrian - oriented commercial in the District. The larger setback along Oak Grove responds to the context Ellis A. Schoichet AIA Peninsula Building • 307 South "B" Street #12 • San Mateo CA 94401 • 650. 343 • 3452 established by neighboring multi -unit residential buildings with larger setbacks and generous landscaping along the street frontage. On the macro scale the building creates a visual focal point amidst the wide-open and mostly desolate expanse of California Drive, the Caltrain right of way, and the Burlingame High School track and field beyond. The four-story height establishes the massing needed for a 'gateway' building on this visually prominent site. On the micro -scale, the building is carefully designed to appear as three -stories from all sides. Large setbacks at the Fourth - Floor act to conceal it from the adjacent sidewalks and properties. The uppermost story is only apparent in the context of a longer and broader viewpoint. The longer and broader the viewpoint, the more it becomes revealed. The BDSP regulations call for a single parking space for each 'Live/Work' Studio or One -Bedroom unit. The majority of the proposed units are equivalent to what's commonly known as 'Junior 1- Bedroom' units, which are effectively a Studio with a well-defined sleeping area. The 8 largest units are designed as 'l-Bedroom' units. In accordance with the District zoning, 26 parking spaces are provided for the 26 Live/Work units. In order to facilitate and encourage alternative methods of travel, the automobile parking is supplemented with 28 secure, covered, and convenient bicycle parking spaces. The garage is located at ground level for safety, convenience, and long-term flood resistance. 22 of the parking spaces are on 2-car mechanical lifts, and the remaining spaces are located on the garage slab. One additional space is provided for electric vehicle charging for a total of 27 automobile spaces in the Live/Work garage. Also on the ground level, and outside of the secured perimeter of the Live/Work garage, are 7 parking spaces with unrestricted access from the public way. These are provided to serve the commercial tenancies first and foremost, but could also be shared by the Live/Work units for guest parking, etc. during commercial off -hours. Amenities on the site will include landscaped common areas on the ground and a rooftop terrace on the Fourth Floor. The rooftop terrace is situated towards the front corner of the building in order to minimize potential impacts on the adjoining properties. The Owner and the design team believe that this proposed development is timely, reasonable, and will be of great benefit to the City. They have worked long and hard to find the balance point between the specific conditions at and around the site, impacts on the neighbors, the long-term goals of the City, and of course, the Owner's vision for the highest and best use of the property. Ellis A. Schoichet AIA October 17, 2017 (delta 3 update 1011712017) 2 of 2 NEIGHBOR OUTREACH SUMMARY LOG: CITY OF BURLINGAME Updated for delta 1 312112017 f,DD PLANNING � At the Owner's request the design team has made a point of reaching out to Owners of neighboring properties in parallel with the development of the design. They have been kept up to date as the project has evolved, their input gathered and reflected in the design where practical. A summary of neighbor outreach activities follows: 1. On 3/2/2016 the Architect reached out to the Homeowner's Association of the condominium building at 1209 Oak Grove Avenue, adjacent to the subject property. This early outreach resulted in a meeting on 3/12/2016 with (4) concerned Owners at 1209 Oak Grove, in one of the (8) units that face the subject property. These Owners were briefed on the project, reviewed the preliminary plans, provided input, and aired their concerns. Note: At this early stage the project spanned only the (2) parcels at 619 and 621 California Drive. It hadn't yet been expanded to include the corner parcel at 625 California Drive. a) The Owners were concerned over the obstruction of light and views and the impact on privacy on their units. The Architect offered to take practical steps to mitigate the impacts, including making sure the proposed building reflects light back, has visual relief, and that landscape screening is treated as top design priority. b) There was concern over what'Live/Work' means and what types of neighbors they might expect in the proposed project. At the time of the meeting there wasn't a specific definition, but the Owners' concerns were focused around parking. They pointed out that there is a parking shortage in the area already, and it would be wise to make sure 'Live/Work' excludes uses which draw significant numbers of customers and/or visitors who might arrive in private vehicles. The Owners were skeptical of the idea that the new neighbors would be one -car or car4ree households, despite the best intentions of the Downtown Specific Plan. b) There was a question as to whether the proposed building might block some amount of noise coming from the Caltrain tracks. While there's likely to be a reduction as compared to the existing single story structures, it's unclear at this point whether the reduction would be meaningful. c) The Owners were concerned about construction impacts such as asbestos, toxics, dust, and noise. Assurances were given that there would be a full environmental review, and any such issues would be dealt with proactively. d) The neighbors requested to be kept in the loop regarding the scheduling of demolition so they could shut their windows when work commences. 2. On 5/16/2016 a mailer was sent to the Owners of seven other properties surrounding the subject property, offering the opportunity to review and comment on the design. This resulted in direct meetings with (2) of the Owners and email exchanges with (2) others over the course of the following weeks. No response was ever received from (3) of the targeted Owners. Note: At this early stage the project spanned only the (2) parcels at 619 and 621 California Drive. It hadn't yet been expanded to include the corner parcel at 625 California Drive. 11 /7/2016 (Updated for delta 1 312012017) 1 of 4 Discussions with the property owners who responded proceeded as follows: a) 601 California Drive / Dean Najdawi and Willie Aish (W&M Investments): Met on 5/20/2016, very supportive of concept and design. Offered to provide a letter of support if requested. b) 609 California Drive / Matt Tragoutsis: Matt requested digital files in -lieu of meeting. Files were sent on 5/27/2016. A detailed response was received via email on 7/11/2016. The response paraphrased comments by his Architect which were generally negative, but nevertheless contained a number of good suggestions. The email is attached for reference [Attachment #1 ]. c) 701 California Drive / Jonathan Britton: Jonathan responded with a supportive email on 6/2/2016, attached for reference [Attachment #21. d) 1206 Floribunda Avenue / Anthony Galli: Met on 6/1 /2016, no specific objections although he expressed concern with the height of the building and how it might appear from the rear of his property. 3. On 10/11 /2016 a follow-up effort was made to update neighbors regarding changes to the project. During the intervening months the corner parcel at 625 California Drive had been acquired and added to the project site and the project had been redesigned accordingly. Where the original design proposal was for (18) units on two parcels, the updated proposal (consistent with this application) encompassed (26) units across three parcels. The group of Owners with whom a dialogue had previously been opened was re -contacted via email, and received a telephone follow-up. The neighbors who hadn't responded previously were once again solicited via mailer. The Owners of 601, 609, and 701 California Drive and 1206 Floribunda requested digital files of the updated drawings, which were shared via email. General support for the proposed project was expressed in telephone conversations with the Owners of 601, and 701 California Drive and 1206 Floribunda. As of the date of this writing there have been no comments on the updated design from the Owner of 609 California Drive. The same group of neighbors who didn't to respond to the first outreach attempt once again failed to respond. A follow-up meeting was scheduled with the group of concerned Owners at 1209 Oak Grove Avenue. The meeting took place on 10/30/2016. The neighbors were briefed on the expanded design and once again given an opportunity to voice their concerns and suggestions. The discussion on 10/30/2016 touched on the following specific topics: a) There was general agreement that the aesthetics of the design had evolved and looked better than the first time around, but concerns over the obstruction of light and views and the impact on privacy were reiterated. b) Traffic backs -up along Oak Grove as it stacks to cross or turn on California Drive. There is a large amount of East/West traffic, especially at peak drop-off and pick-up hours at McKinley Elementary to the West (at El Camino), and BHS to the East across the tracks. This is compounded when the train gees by and interrupts East/West traffic. The stacked cars on Oak Grove interfere with the driveway at 1209 Oak Grove, obstructing traffic entering and exiting the property. This same problem will also impact the driveway of the proposed development. There was a brief discussion as to whether it would be practical to move the driveway to the California Drive frontage. The Architect explained the City's expressed preference for locating pedestrian oriented uses over driveways and parking along 11 /7/2016 (Updated for delta 1 312012017) 2 of 4 California Drive. With the location of the driveway on the Oak Grove frontage as a given, it was suggested that extending the red zone further west, all the way to the 1209 Oak Grove driveway, would ease the problem by increasing the depth of the area where there are two lanes for stacking. c) The critical importance of selecting the right landscape screening along the shared west property line was revisited. The Landscape Architect will seek plantings that provide year- round screening but aren't so dense as to block all light, that look good year-round, with canopy heights that fit the need. d) In answer to the Neighbors' query, it was clarified that the proposed project is intended to be for rental. Even so, the requirements and paperwork for eventual condominium conversion will be completed in parallel with the initial development process. It's not been determined yet whether there will be house metering, sub -metering, or individual water meters for each unit. e) The neighbors pointed out that the gutter was falling off the existing house next door and pouring water onto their driveway. f) The Owner of Unit #301 requested more detail regarding the size of the windows that would be facing her unit, and what the proposed building would look like from her window. 4. Additional documentation was developed in response to the 1209 Oak Grove Owners' requests at the 10/30/2016 meeting. The additional documentation included a dimensioned detail of the proposed fenestration facing 1209 Oak Grove Unit #301 (dated 11/15/2016), and hypothetical views of the proposed building taken from the windows at Units #201, #301, and #302 (all dated 11/10/2016). Offered a choice between presentation in -person and receipt via email the neighbors opted to receive the documentation via email. The package of supplementary documentation was issued to the neighbors via email on 11/22/2016. 5. An email was received from the 1209 Oak Grove neighbors on 11 /23/2016 requesting another in -person meeting to review the sketches and receive a broader update on the project. This meeting took place on 12/11/2016 with the Owners of Units #201, #301, and #302. The 12/11/2016 meeting touched on the following specific topics: a) The Owners' concerns over the obstruction of light and views and the impact on privacy were revisited. It was suggested that window treatments be made part of the basic shell building design to make sure that units facing 1209 Oak Grove would be equipped with them without depending on random tenants to select and install them. b) The traffic back-up along Oak Grove as it stacks to turn right on California Drive was revisited. It interferes with entrance and exiting from the driveway at 1209 Oak Grove, and if not addressed it will also impact the driveway of the proposed development. it was again suggested that extending the red zone further west, all the way to the 1209 Oak Grove driveway would help by creating a deeper stacking area. Another suggestion was to widen Oak Grove Avenue as it approached the corner of California Drive, although it seemed clear to all that this wouldn't really be practical. c) Oak Grove Avenue floods during heavy rains in the area between 1209 Oak Grove Driveway and the corner at California Drive. This is due to a low spot in the street, and it will impact the driveway of the proposed development. it was suggested that a new catch 11 /7/2016 (Updated for delta 1 312012017) 3 of 4 basin placed at the low point of the street might be included in the project scope, allowing the trapped water to drain away. d) Concern was expressed regarding penetration of roots across the property line from new plantings at the proposed development. It was suggested that the Landscape Architect look at this possibility carefully and propose a design that mitigates the risk of this happening. e) There was a strong preference that the transformer for the new project be located underground. The group visited the existing transformer at 1209 Oak Grove and emphasized that it was an eyesore that shouldn't be repeated at the new building next door, if possible. f) The group was pleased that the trash room had been located on the California Drive frontage, away from their property. Apparently the backup caused by the trash trucks on Oak Grove Avenue is significant as it is. The Owners were relieved that the proposed design wouldn't further exacerbate the problem. g) The Architect remarked on the fact that only a limited group of Owners at 1209 Oak Grove had taken the opportunity to participate in the conversations around the proposed project. The Owners present confirmed that all Owners had been kept in the loop through the Homeowners' Association. There were some Owners who they would have expected to participate, but who had for some reason chosen not to participate. End of Neighbor Outreach Summary Log 11/7/2016 (Updated for delta 1 312012017) 4 of 4 Attachment #1 From: Matthew Traaoutsis To: EIIisO)EASAarchitecture.com Subject: 609 California drive Date: Monday, July 11, 2016 8:49:44 PM Hi Ellis Hope all is well. I sent the drawings out to my architect so that I could get his professional point of view and instead of trying to interpret his words to you, I am forwarding the below e-mail outlining what he had to say after his review of the plans. The bottom line seems to be that if done well, the changes you are proposing will increase the value of my property also. Take a look at his comments below and let me know your thoughts and the areas you would be willing to address. " I have reviewed the drawings that you sent. Looking at the neighborhood, l see that Oak Grove, Floribunda and the area around City Hall is dominated by high density housing. Based on this, I think that the proposed project would fit in. I am assuming they will need to have the zoning changed from commercial to residential. In concept, the fact that the developer is taking a parking lot and a smaller commercial space and squeezing 18 residential units out of it, should bring up the value of the surrounding properties. Now with regard to the specifics of the project. I think that the project is out of scale with its surroundings. It looks too big. At the ground floor, what is seen by pedestrians and cars passing by, is an open garage space. There is no "entrance" to the living space. The street presence is cold. The business space on the ground floor is somewhat small and unappealing. This space has a rather small street frontage which I think would affect its desirability. I could see it being vacant, and an eyesore. Then, the three stories over seem somewhat ominous. The facade could be broken up, possibly with balconies, or by simply stepping back to break the mass of glass wall. I would try to get the project to be successful without the top floor. I think it is only beneficial to you if it is successful, and the proposal needs some work to add appeal. And finally, I would request that he take extra measures to soundproof the units so that the residential units that will be adjacent to your commercial space do not constantly complain about noise. Your repair facility may generate noises that would disturb someone "working" in the live/work space." Sincerely, Matt Tragoutsis Attachment #2 From: Jonathan Britton To: Ellis A Schoichet AIA Subject: Re: 619-621 catifornia Drive Burlingame Date: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:05:47 AM Ellis, Sorry for the delay. The project looks great. Best of luck with the city and let us know if you need anything. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Ellis A Schoichet AIA <easa(abearthlink.net> wrote: Hi Jonathan, I'd appreciate it if you'd take a quick minute to confirm receipt of my email of 5/31/2016. Regards, Ellis Ellis A Schoichet AIA EASA Architecture 307 South B Street #12 San Mateo CA 94401 Jonathan Britton W.J. Britton & Co. (415) 934-1100 BRE#01855832 NEIGHBOR OUTREACH SUMMARY: At the Owner's request the design team has made a point of reaching out to Owners of neighboring properties in parallel with the development of the design. They have been kept up to date as the project has evolved, their input gathered and incorporated into the design where practical. Here is a summary of activities in this regard: 1. On 3/2/2016 the Architect reached out to the Homeowner's Association of the condominium building at 1209 Oak Grove Avenue, adjacent to the subject property. This early outreach resulted in a meeting with (4) concerned Owners at 1209 Oak Grove, in one of the (8) units that face the subject property. These Owners were briefed on the project, reviewed the preliminary plans, provided input, and aired their concerns. Note: At this early stage the project spanned only the (2) parcels at 619 and 621 California Drive. It hadn't yet been expanded to include the corner parcel at 625 California Drive. 2. On 5/16/2016 a mailer was sent to the Owners of seven other properties surrounding the subject property, offering the opportunity to review and comment on the design. This resulted in direct meetings with (2) of the Owners and email exchanges with (2) others over the course of the following weeks. No response was ever received from (3) of the targeted Owners. Note: At this early stage the project spanned only the (2) parcels at 619 and 621 California Drive. It hadn't yet been expanded to include the corner parcel at 625 California Drive. 3. On 10/11/2016 a follow-up effort was made to update the neighbors regarding changes to the project. During the intervening months the corner parcel at 625 California Drive had been acquired and added to the project site. The project had been redesigned to adapt to the larger site. Where the original design proposal was for (18) units on two parcels, the updated proposal (consistent with this application) encompassed (26) units across three parcels. The group of Owners with whom a dialogue had previously been opened were re -contacted via email, and received a telephone follow-up. The neighbors that hadn't previously responded were again solicited via mailer. Most of the neighbors requested digital files of the updated drawings, which were shared via return email. A follow-up meeting was held with concerned Owners at 1209 Oak Grove Avenue on 10/30/2016. They were briefed on the expanded design and once again voiced their concerns and suggestions. Those same neighbors who had failed to respond to the first round of outreach failed to respond a second time. 11 /7/2016 3 of 3 MARCH 21 / SEPTEMBER 21 619-625 California Dr. Shadow Study (SPRING EQUINOX / FALL EQUINOX) 7T7 10/24/2016 1 "=80' 8:10 AM DST (1 HOUR AFTER SUNRISE) ,f 415.. h ti6 ' \ ' I •th i iu a -"I 1 11 eiev vft. eve ah 737hn ;�• P NN ~• � � T� lea Y / ♦ ' NN4 .01 •• �' -"A MARCH 21 / SEPTEMBER 21 619-625 California Dr. Shadow Study (SPRING EQUINOX / FALL EQUINOX) 10/24/2016 V=W 6:23 PM DST (1 HOUR BEFORE SUNSET) ! `y ti41 ti W i N, U�1�.:a:.111F�Ull4FJ� p 619-625 California Dr. J♦UNE 21 Shadow Study (SUMMER SOLSTICE) 10/24/2016 7 1"=80' 6:47 AM DST (1 HOUR AFTER SUNRISE) UNE 21 619-625 California Dr. Shadow Study (SUMMER SOLSTICE) 10/ 1 so"=80' 6 1:11 PM DST (SOLAR NOON) H A �r a i i jam, n ., Ilk zw R UNE 21 619-625 California Dr. Shadow Study (SUMMER SOLSTICE) 7T7 10/24/2016 1 °=60' 7:35 PM DST (1 HOUR BEFORE SUNSET) 40!, 7 t / DECEMBER 21 619-625 California Dr. Shadow Study (WINTER SOLSTICE) 10/24/2016 1 "=80' 8:22 AM (1 HOUR AFTER SUNRISE) It 619-625 California Dr. DECEMBER 21 Shadow Study (WINTER SOLSTICE) 7T7 10/24/2016 V=ao, 12:08 PM (SOLAR NOON) � 3JR 4�. DECEMBER 21 (WINTER SOLSTICE) 3:51 PM (I HOUR BEFORE SUNSET) A, !b 4 619-625 California Dr. Shadow Study 10/24/2016 1.=80, City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road . P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or ��� CITii, � W1. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM (to be completed by applicant when Negative .Declaration or Environmental Impact Report is required) GENERAL INFORMATION oox Is I-* A,., Project Address: �� Assessor's Parcel Number: Applicant Name: y� i� r [ L 1 I Jk Property Owner Name: = _ Address: ' 5-1 S Address: •All City/State/Zip: g City/State/Zip: c9 c� Phone: —40 9Phone: Permit applications required for this project (special permit, variance, subdivision map, parcel map, condominium permit, building permit, etc.):ICI , �k Vevu Related permits, applications and approvals required Agencies: w`e SITE INFORMATION project by City, Regional, State and Federal Site size:__ r, �► Acres and Sq Existing use(s) of property: , u#hp C pogy- CM.A mv,�I Total Number of Existing Parking Spaces' . / N Number of Existing Structures and Total Square Footage of Ea, A i ---- d _ /'.._...� . � . t P A I .-t1 . _ •_ . e . Will any'structureg be demolis Size and use of structures to be Feet Existing Zoning: %I of Compact Spaces': it.L_ -1 _-_s . lied' or this project? lo* Yes No Number'and size of existing trees on :' site`, Si Will any of the existing tress be removed? If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be !�-S�dlki 6*(.. 15.3 + Ks Tv d1 // Are there any natural or man- AZo de water channels wTiicli run through or adjacent to the site'! Yes If Yes, where? t: U t: I V t= 1.) NOV — 7 2016 CITY OF BURLINGAME 1 City of Burlingame minimum standard parking space size is 9'x20'. The minimum size for cod c-F�ird� �l dD1V8'xl7'. Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular uses. 2 Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (C.S. 11.06) for tree removal permit and tree planting requirements. ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or Describe in general the existing surrounding land uses to the: North 1 6tit. 44oA South' m %" 1 j .a CeS i deyr6l . re East �— Au°l s aV►J,,r Cdaam West Avu vmL.LW . . u..L Yxs iJ,r PROPOSED PROJECT Residential Projects: Number of Dwelling Units: Size of Unit(s): V" a • ouseho d size (number Am� &W PA uVI Commercial/Industrial Projects: per unit) expected( 4,k Type and square footage of each use: Z4ka _64 P Estimated number of employees per shift:ll,�MOn Will the project involve the use, disposl' or emission of potentially hazardous materials (including petroleum products)? Yes No If Yes, please describe' Institutional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools): Major function of facility: Estimated number of employees per shift: Estimated Occupancy: For all Projects: Flood Hazard: Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes No v Land Use: If the project involves a conditional use permit, variance or rezonini application, please explain why the application are r�quired : G• LI. ` - �� ' ele va &w pem i hakse . 3 Please fill out and submit the appropriate application form 9variance special permit, etc.) ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.or Building gross square footage: Existing: 3 Proposed: 3 -f . Number of floors of construction: Existing: Proposed: ;4 Traffic/Circulation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided: Existing: Standar� ' Uncovered . Proposed: Standard 416 Compact Compact 1414 Total_ u� � Total J»i-.s(4f/eo eerre�/� Grading: Amount of dirt/fill material being moved (check one): 0-500 cubic yards 5,000-20,000 cubic yards 500-5,000 cubic yards Over 20,000 cubic yards(indicate amount) Note: If fill is being placed over existing bay fill, provide engineering reports which show the effect of the new fill on the underlying bay mud. Storm water runoff: Indicate area of site to be covered with impervious surfaces (parking lot paving, etc.): A Is the area ith imperviolaces less than 200 feet away from a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay? ��No Yes Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity generated by your project during construction: w t tl 4' A0-w . + r Noise sources generated during operation of facility: d.e.-c %- w G ILUM a ( MO S w Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may affect adjacent properties? Describe any potential sources of vibration: L4 s 'dU%4; , i Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior li Ming of the facility4: 1.13.0. t Water: Expected amount of water usage: (Iqre /itM in �svLi efe. tOs Domestic y„� Spa oU gal/day Peak use 40 gal/min Commercial a/ al/day Peak use gal/min Expected fire flow dema d Z'062' gal/min As per the C.3 regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, please respond to the following questions: 1. Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? 4 Refer to City of Burlingame Exterior Illumination Ordinance (No. 1477) regarding requirements which limit exterior illumination in both residential and commercial zones. ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning -Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org 2. Would the prop following construction?, project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or 3. W90" Id the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? 4.Would the proposed project create a si due to changes in runoff flow rates volumes? adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns 5. Would the proposed project result in increased erosion in its watershed? 6. Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list? If so will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? �L 7. Would the proposed project have a potential significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to�rloo arine, fresh, or wetland waters? 8. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water quality? Q„ 9. Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or ground 71,r receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 10. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? 90 Sewer: Expected daily sewer discharge fLao J • �! �. �i��h�'P G k Source of wastewater discharge on site site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, material processing, etc.) Ll ME �- 1"�i L�e M 3rilC�%*AVM e A M J VI -� i►/� � 9 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlinizame.org General: Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all items checked 'yes'. Yes No Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity. Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. See OCA'AdA m *t,- I- �Am flWf- V__..,4 Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity (during construction and/or during operation). --�`r 4Z1 4Aw►M 51 Site on filled land or on slope of 10 % or more. b' Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable materials or explosives. 1/ Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire water, sewage) Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.). Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished ve and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required f this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information re ented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge an belief. 7 7 Date Signature ENVREV.FRM ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM: ATTACHMENT Change in scenic vieN s or vistas f~roin existing residential areas or p-abffc Imids or roads. The proposed project will impact existing views from the (8) condominium apartments at 1209 Oak Grove which face northeasterly and look towards the Caltrain right of way across and over the existing one-story development on the subject property. Mitigations: • The proposed separation between buildings exceeds the distance required by the zoning at all but one point, and far exceeds the norm for adjacent multi -family residential developments in Burlingame. • The as -of -right height of 35' would have virtually the same visual impact as the proposed height because the areas of the building in excess of 37' are set back to the point where they will be out of the line -of -sight from the apartments at 1209 Oak Grove. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project,. While taking its cues from the predominantly 3-story multi -unit building lining Oak Grove Avenue, the proposed design is an intentional and justifiable departure from the existing California Drive context. The design responds to the Commercial Design Guidelines' call for buildings at visually prominent and gateway sites to address the broader urban context. in addition to the micro -context of immediately adjacent buildings, the design needs to be viewed in terms of its relationship to its wider surroundings. The design seeks to forge a reasonable precedent which interprets the Design Guidelines through the lens of the North California Drive Commercial District regulations. Mitigations: • Where a fourth story is proposed, it is set back from all sides. • Where a facade is taller than one-story, it is designed with careful articulation of massing, materials, light, and shadow to reflect the scale of the smaller parcels common along California Drive. • Where the building is experienced from the adjoining sidewalk, the visual presence is scaled down to three stories, the presence of the fourth story being masked by the setbacks. • Amenities are provided in response varying conditions along the perimeter of the property, with deeper landscaping along Oak Grove, storefronts along California Drive, and a publicly oriented landscape treatment featuring benches, planters, and a wider sidewalk at the corner. S,A)s m, itial change in existing Eloise or vibration levels fiY tb.e vici-nit during consti Liction and/or d-Lut ng operation). The construction process will involve a temporary increase in noise and vibration levels in the vicinity of the property. Mitigations: The builder will abide by the City's work hour restrictions. City of Burlingame Planning Deparhuent 501 P.f nure,se Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 %,v_burhng,9. xe_pM My R'�G�1 _ CITE` Off' H 'M�.€�lAM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICAT10 ii J_ 10V - 7 2016 CITY OF BURLVNGAME CD-P NNING DIV. Tie Plaaaaaing Commission is required by law tip anak e findings as def ued ley the City 's Ors lac Co e Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning C anunissiou in making the decision as to iviliether the findings can 6e made for year request. Please tylje or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this folan for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain wky the proposed use at theproposed location n.411 not be detrimental or injWrious to propert yerr improvements in the a= einift- or to public health, .safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed re -development of this site will be a tremendous improvement to public health, safety, general welfare, and convenience in the vicinity. The positive impacts will far outweigh changes to the status -quo that impact the adjoining properties. The proposed development will create a thriving community that enhances the vitality of the neighborhood, replacing uses that are no longer the best fit for the location. The project will open up this busy corner for pedestrians and create a welcoming transition between the residential and commercial areas. The project will meet the requirements of the 2016 California Building Code, including all of the latest regulatory standards for energy efficiency, sustainable development, and the enhancement of environmental qual ity. 2. Rosa} irill' tyre proposed use be located and condtieted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zon ing Ordinance? ance? The proposed 'Live/Work' development is fully consistent with the City's vision for this prominent corner site. The broad and general outlines of the C-2 District zoning regulations have been sharpened and focused 'within the project vicinity through the advent of the 'North California Drive Commercial District' within the recent 'Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan' (hereafter referred to as the 'District'). The District rules open the door to forward -thinking uses such as 'Live/Work' within this high traffic, high visibility, and high transit service commercial area. Policy Goal S-1.7 of the Specific Plan states that new developments shall include pedestrian -oriented retail design treatments on exposed elevations. The proposed design responds by creating a line of storefronts along the commercial (California Drive) frontage. The proposed redevelopment is in the spirit of the City of Burlingame General Plan's Goal 'I' / Implementing Objective 'c.' which states, "Encourage assembly of small lots in suitable locations to provide larger sites for apartments, office buildings, and commercial enterprises". The recently enacted option to create opportunities for 'Live/Work' units in this highly transit connected location is consistent with Implementing Objective 'e.', "Keep codes and standards free of arbitrary or obsolete provisions that would tend to inhibit construction of sound buildings in suitable locations to house a variety of uses. " 3. How ivill thepropo e project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the exlstfng a aaadpoteaa,tial uses on adjoini rg ropea+tres tar the general ricinit This project is designed to be respectful of the existing multi -story residential buildings that line Oak Grove Avenue. These are viewed as the defining fabric of the existing neighborhood, the mature context within which the design seeks to insert itself as a good neighbor. On the other hand, the project site occupies the pivot point between the lovely residential neighborhood up Oak Grove, and the jumble of mixed commercial, institutional, and transit uses along California Drive. The quality of design and public amenity along this important stretch of roadway is uneven, and there is little justification for matching or deferring to the buildings immediately adjacent to the subject property. Many of the single - story buildings along California Drive are bound to be remodeled or redeveloped as time goes -by, especially those in the direction of Burlingame Avenue that fall within the District. In this regard the proposed design is an intentional and justifiable departure from the existing California Drive context. The design responds to the Commercial Design Guidelines' call for buildings at visually prominent and gateway sites to address the broader urban context. In addition to the micro - context of immediately adjacent buildings, the design needs to be viewed in terms of its relationship to its wider surroundings. The design seeks to forge a reasonable precedent which interprets the Design Guidelines through the lens of the District regulations. Balance is achieved through thoughtful design, and attention to the full' range of competing interests which converge at this location. Where a fourth story is proposed, it is set back from all sides. Where a facade is taller than one-story, it is designed with careful articulation of massing, transparency, color, light, and shadow. Where the building is visible within a broader context, it presents a massing and presence that's scaled accordingly. Where the building is experienced from the adjacent sidewalk, it's visual presence is scaled down appropriately. Amenities are provided in response varying conditions along the perimeter of the property, with deeper landscaping along Oak Grove and storefronts along California Drive. The diverse mix of pedestrians who traverse the corner daily will be served by a publicly engaging landscape treatment featuring benches, planters, and a wider sidewalk. 2 Community Development Dept. ■ 501 Primrose Road ■ Burlingame, CA 94010 ■ P:650.558.7250 ■ F:650.696.3790 ■ www.burlingame.ora f BURLINGAME COMMERCIAL APPLICATION PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM 1. Proposed use of the site liqc 2. Days and hours of operation uY1k4iaw0% IVUV --'f LUib 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type) rljc.��1.�, CITY OF BURLVNGAME 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: n Hours of Before After Before After Before After Operation 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm 6:00 pm Weekdays Weekends 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, emplo ®.s and visitors/customers): 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? 8. Where do/will the customers/v 9. Present or most recent use of 10. List other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach a list if more room is needed) as Commercial Application.doc 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 facade, 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 fagades along side streets should be designed to help entice pedestrians onto the side streets. To achieve this, the fagades should include windows and continuation of the architectural details from the main storefront extending across the sidestreet facade. 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 FIGURE 5-5: Particular attention should be given to craftsmanship and detailing within the pedestrian's range of touch and view. FIGURE 5-6: Downtown Burlingame is characterized by relatively narrow building increments, predominantly 15 to 50 feet in width. 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 fagade 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. 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. Narrow Wider 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. Upper floors may have wider bays as part of an overall composition Minimum ' floor -to -ceiling 50 �5'S0 Ground floor bays 1S- height on �5'S0 with narrow, ground floor pedestrian -scaled increments FIGURE 5-8: Building scale should preserve he rhythm and fine-grained pedestrian character of downtown, particularly at the pedestrian level. 5.0 Design & Character 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. • 6 Parking Structure Residential/Offic Parking Residential/Office Structure Residential/Office Retail i� 'dential/] - Ground -Level �ial Courtyard LL _ e i ential/Office r �I Retail Underground Parking Upper -Level Courtyard _IFF Residential/Office l4�JV�L_ ntial/Office t Residential/Office Parking Structure Retail - Underground Parking 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 facades 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 facades to those of adjoining lower buildings and setting upper floors back at least 10 feet from the lower fagade. 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 5-10: 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. 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. 5.0 Design & Character Interesting RooRine 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 5-12: 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. FIGURE 5-13: Even if separate businesses function within the same building, the overall design of the facade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the facade. 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 fagades 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 facade should be consistent. Individual businesses should not break the basic lines, material and concept of the facade. 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. 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 facade. 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 facade 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. Di play Vindows 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 .. U/ FIGURE 5-14: Size, division and shape of display windows should maintain the established rhythm of the streetscape FIGURE 5-15: Awnings should be designed to be decorative, complimentary to the overall facade design, and provide effective weather and sun protection. 5.0 Design & Character 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 parlring 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. 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 facades that are visible from the public realm should exhibit sophisti- cated levels of design and materials. Rear and side facades 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 - 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 fagades 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 cafes, 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 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. 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 5.0 Design & Character Transition Area High Density Medium Density Low Densi 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 Elements B E 2-Story 3-Story 4-Story Low Density b 1-2 Story f 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. 5.4 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. PL DEFENSIVE Fence separates projects PL COOPERATIVE Plaza/pathway visually unites buildings 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. FIGURE 5-39: Example of two different land use intensities joined with a common paseo pathway. 5.0 Design & Character 9 am 12 noon 3 pm 5.4.2 SHADOW IMPACTS March 21 st June 21 st March 21 st June 21 st September 21 st September 21st December 21st December 21st March 21 st June 21 st September 21st December 21st FIGURE 5-40: Sample shadow analysis shows the range of shading conditions through the year. 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 21 st, June 21 st, September 21 st, and December 21 st (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. 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. Winter Sun South facing windows with shading Summer devices to control overheating in Sun Summer Direct sunlight through south facing windows would improve passive heating in Winter 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. 5.0 Design & Character 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. 5.4.4 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. CITY OF BURLINGAME ` COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 + PH: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 619 — 625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Condominium Permit for construction of a new, four-story 26-Unit live/work development at 619 — 625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE zoned C2 (North California Drive Commercial District). APN 029-131-140, 029-131-150 & 029-131-160. (Pl lekJp� SFA� sik7017 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) ' •�.. � TG2.1 sw o .. - y 2 '►' r do Opp AA IV 21 0' r p I Akru lb 41015, f r. eG 70 7 i 0 2 * r Q 77 r Y9 < ' 4a •` y' 7� s '7 i r 7y22] \1'21Q h1' ' �6 52d �1Z '�? ���y� T21 pi T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT 58' - 4 1 /8" T.O. COPING AT � r 1—FRONT FACIA IF 54' - 7 1 /8" FOURTH FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR _4V- 11, - THIRD FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR �J 27' - 81' II SECOND FLOOR- S FINISH FLOOR --- --- - ---- Fy «16'-Oil — — — Z Of LL FIRST FLOOR Q FINISH FLOO U � @ LOBB FIRST FLOOR - T.O.SLAB. 19.43' 0" AVERAGE T.O.CURB 19.19'L / -0' - 2 7/8" T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT v 58' - 4 1 /8" T.O. COPING AT FRONT FACIA v 54' - 7 1 /8" — FOURTH FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR 1 11— — THIRD FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR 811 SECOND FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR w M 16'-Owl Z L\LJ Q FIRST FLOOR - p FINISH FLOOR @ LOBBY 0' 3" V - FIRST FLOOR - T.O.SLAB. (19.43') v0� _ 0�� AVERAGE T.O.CURB (19.19') 2 7/8" PIT �7'-5" North-East (front 1 /8" = 1'-0" WIM I■1mKim ��■ �■1® ■II■ ■-IE11111111111111111��■ -®®��■II■ \ \ \ \dkl \ \ COPING AT T.O. FRONT FACIA Q 2-- - -- 00 -- -T r----F J I ti O o O O -- q L__ J -- _ r---Tf--- __ w Q -- 4 � � I ME I I — — — — - — — - V V V V V TYPICAL EXTERIOR MATERIALS ROOFTOP PHOTOVOLTAIC ARRAY METAL RACKING METAL COPING - PAINTED SOLID COMPOSITE PANELS / RAINSCREEN FACADE - (G) COLOR PALLETTE OI TRESPA METEON - UNI COULOURS A22.2. 1 - BLUISH GREY - SATIN O TRESPA METEON - UNI COULOURS A2 1. 1.0 - WINTER GREY - SATIN O TRESPA METEON - UNI COULOURS A03.4.0 - SILVER GREY - SATIN O TRESPA METEON - LUMEN L2 1 .5. 1 - DIFFUSE 5O TRESPA METEON - NATURALS NM01 - RUSTED BROWN - MATT TEMPERED GLASS AND ALUMINIUM GUARDRAIL SYSTEM METAL FACIA - MANUFACTURER COATED TO MATCH PANELS TUBE STEEL SPLAYED COLUMNS - FABRICATOR COATED METAL GRILLEWORK AND GATE - FABRICATOR COATED OAK GROVE AVENUE WOOD BENCHES - STAINED ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE PLANTERS (BOARDFORMED) ALUMINIUM SASH FENESTRATION - MILL -FINISH 'COOL ROOFING' MEMBRANE ALUMINIUM VENTS - MILL FINISH ALUMINIUM LOUVERS - FABRICATOR COATED O SOLID COMPOSITE PANELS / RAINSCREEN FACADE - (G) COLOR PALLETTE G TRESPA METEON - WOOD DECORS NW25 - HESBANIA - MATT ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE (BOARDFORMED) STEEL FLUSH DOOR - PAINTED STEEL GATES AND FENCING - FABRICATOR COATED 609 CALIFORNIA DRIVE TUBE STEEL POSTS - FABRICATOR COATED PERFORATED STEEL ROLLING PANELS - FABRICATOR COATED 4 South-West (rear) 1'-0" Ellis A. Schoichet AIA ARCHITECTURE Peninsula Building 307 South "B" Street #12 San Mateo CA 94401 650.343.3452 California Drive Live -Work 619-625 California Dr. Burlingame, CA APN#: 029-131-140 APN#: 029-131-150 APN#: 029-131-160 Owner: Ed Duffy / Renovattio Construction 415.533.4953 Architect: EASA Architecture 650.343.3452 Surveyor: FredrickT Seher & Associates, Inc. 415.921.7690 Geotechnical Engineer: Romig Engineers 650.591.5224 Civil Engineer: MacLeod & Associates, Inc. 650.593.8580 Landscape Architect: Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group 650.726.7100 Structural Engineer: Santos & Urrutia 415.642.7722 MEP Engineer: MHC Engineers 415.640.3800 9/29/17 PC Comments SUL 5/9/17 Initial Review Comments SUL ZL 3/21 / 17 1/25/17 Initial Review Comments Client Coordination SUL SUL 11 /7/ 16 Planning - Initial Review SUL Rev #: Date: Description: By: STAMP SHEET TITLE FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONS JOB k SCALE 15666 AS NOTED DATE SHEET 11/07/16 DRAWN SUL A 6 CHECKED EAS REVIEWED OF SHLI IS T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT 58' - 4 1 /8" T.O. COPING AT FRONT FACIA _ 54' - 7 1 /8" FOURTH FLOOR - FINIS_H FLOOR 41' - 1" THIRD FLOOR- �j FINISH FLOOR t 2 - 81' - SECOND FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR A t/ 1 - U I' - FIRST FLOOR - FINISH FICALIFORNIA DRIVE @ LOBBY 0' _ 311 FIRST FLOOR - T.O.SLAB. 19.43') 01 - 011 AVERAGE T.O.CURB 19.19, -0' - 2 7/8" North-West Elevation (right side 1 /8" = 1'-011 1209 OAK GROVE AVENUE South -East Elevation (left side 1 /8" = 1'-011 \n Z O Z w 0 w U U I- O - w O o 0 - Ln w I— 0 _ - O CZ; w w Q �- > - - LIJ LU _ _ -� w O, ° cn O LU -- -- w ■ i �O OPEN TO GARAGE -------- - - - I_ - J - o- b. II ,_ 1I I1 1I --- 1I 11 11 0 - --- I I 1 J _-_ - - - J J L L L_ L L i 1 OPEN TO GARAGE _ -J J J it J J J _J STEEL GUARD AND HANDRAILS - FABRICATOR COATED ALUMINIUM SUNSHADES - FABRICATOR COATED STEEL GATE � FENCING - FABRICATOR COATED PROPERTY LINE FENCE - STEEL FRAMED WITH WOOD SIDING 1209 OAK GROVE AVENUE T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT 58' - 4 1 /8" T.O. COPING AT FRONT FACIA 54' - 7 1 /8" FOURTH FLOOR - Q FINISH FLOOR Q 41' - 1" w z O Z o THIRD FLOOR- o FINISH FLOOR _ 27' - 811 U w O w O SECOND FLOOR- ILI > FINISH FLOOR — 16'-0" FIRST FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR @ LOBBY n 0'-3" ALIFORNIA DRIVEr FLOOR - T.O.SLAB. (19.43' 01 _ 6,710 AVERAGE T.O.CURB (19.19'') n -0' - 2 7/R11 PIT -7'-511 Ellis A. Schoichet AIA ARCHITECTURE Peninsula Building 307 South "B" Street #12 San Mateo CA 94401 650.343.3452 California Drive Live -Work 619-625 California Dr. Burlingame, CA APN#: 029-131-140 APN#: 029-131-150 APN#: 029-131-160 Owner: Ed Duffy / Renovattio Construction 415.533.4953 Architect: EASA Architecture 650.343.3452 Surveyor: FredrickT Seher & Associates, Inc. 415.921.7690 Geotechnical Engineer: Romig Engineers 650.591.5224 Civil Engineer: MacLeod & Associates, Inc. 650.593.8580 Landscape Architect: Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group 650.726.7100 Structural Engineer: Santos & Urrutia 415.642.7722 MEP Engineer: MHC Engineers 415.640.3800 ZL 9/29/17 PC Comments SUL ZL 5/9/17 Initial Review Comments SUL ZL 3/21 / 17 1/25/17 Initial Review Comments Client Coordination SUL SUL 11 /7/ 16 Planning - Initial Review SUL Date: Description: By: STAMP SHEET TITLE SIDE ELEVATIONS JOB k SCALE 15666 AS NOTED DATE SHEET 11/07/16 DRAWN SUL A 7 CHECKED EAS REVIEWED OF SHLLIS Section - Front to Rear 1 /8" = 1'-0" J H G F E D C B A.1 A T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT 58' - 4 1/8" Ellis A. Schoichet AIA I T.O. COPING AT _k FRONT FACIA PLATE J 54' - 7 1 /8" ARCHITECTURE ALUMINIUM SUNSHADES (NON-COMBUSTIBLE) — 1209 OAK GROVE AVENUE-__M �A;4 5� -III III III III III III III III III - Q � Iw U LU w CZ 0 O J LL 0 o — I Q _ CZ - Q _ D U `t O O I �? T.O. PLATE O I COMMON TERRACE ' 2 �2.2) (2.5 LEI i > a- ) Q n o OAK GROVE AVENUE U__ I � I s _ CAI ) Ni o Section - Side to Side - N I 1HPI FOURTH FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR Peninsula Building 307 South "B" Street #12 San Mateo CA 94401 41' - 1 " 650.343.3452 THIRD FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR 27'-8" V IT �d o � Q SECOND FLOOR- E I Ll FIN. PLR. o_ o FINISH FLOOR T.O. PLATE U w 16' - O" o � CALIFORNIA DRIVE Q o FIRST FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR jamm LEC COMMERCIAL #2 ° @ LOBBY 01-311 FIRST FLOOR - — IN. LP,. T.O.SLAB. 19.43' 1-77- I I IAVERAGE—_ —_ T.O.CURB 19.19' --0' - 2 7/8" III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III III • • T I I nil rn, III nil I Alil . I I I I ---- -- ---- I n I -HOUR RATED CONSTRUCTION AT PROJECTING SAVE OVERHANG WHERE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 20'-0" (SEE ROOF PLAN / A5 FOR EXTENT) 9 9.1 10 11 T.O. COPING AT ELEVATOR SHAFT 58' - 4 1 /8" Q -o —— — O- o m mLU FOURTH FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR 41' - 1" THIRD FLOOR - FINISH FLOOR 27'-8" HALL#2 > SECOND FLOOR- ' Q FINISH FLOOR T.O. PLATE ° L STAIR-. GARAGE + - COMMERCIAL- PARKING', BIKES - (PRIVATE) LIVE/WORK PARKING FIRST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL — `� — "( ) I � — — �. I 609 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FINISH FLOOR @ LOBBY 01 I" o. SLAB FIRST FLOOR - I - - 9 43' — — T.O.SLAB. (1 0' - 0,9 AVERAGE URB 19.19 ) I I California Drive Live -Work 619-625 California Dr. Burlingame, CA APN#: 029-131-140 APN#: 029-131-150 APN#: 029-131-160 Owner: Ed Duffy / Renovattio Construction 415.533.4953 Architect: EASA Architecture 650.343.3452 Surveyor: FredrickT Seher & Associates, Inc. 415.921.7690 Geotechnical Engineer: Romig Engineers 650.591.5224 Civil Engineer: MacLeod & Associates, Inc. 650.593.8580 Landscape Architect: Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group 650.726.7100 Structural Engineer: Santos & Urrutia 415.642.7722 MEP Engineer: MHC Engineers 415.640.3800 ZL 9/29/17 PC Comments SUL ZL 5/9/17 Initial Review Comments SUL zL 3/21 / 17 1/25/17 1/23/17 Intial Review Comments Client Coordination Fire Department Coordination SUL SUL SUL 11 /7/ 16 Planning - Initial Review SUL Rev #: Date: Description: By: STAMP SHEET TITLE SECTIONS JOB k SCALE 15666 AS NOTED DATE SHEET 11/07/16 DRAWN SUL Q A 8 CHECKED EAS REVIEWED OF SHLI IS 1 ' 2i 2.5 �3 4 6 7 8 9.1 10 11 - GO cc CALIF R IA DRIVF 3G'- 1" 13'-3" MH HRLL Q O O 019.9 RIM 17-3" �b 181- 101, 22'-2" 21'- 10" 1 U J 21'- 10" 21'- 10" AS HAI T (25'-7" ASPHALT 9 G 9 4 0 _� EMOWE (E) 5" PEAR QO O J 3' - 3" PC I. 00C(DUNDE GR NSFORMER VAULT O AND R�PLACE - REM 00 SEE NDSCAPE DWGS 8 0, 0 O REMO E ( CUTS (HAT o� CO CO c\O� Q M H UNK M H UNK (N) TREE - S DS PE D G • (N RECUT aj 019.0 RIM 1 g.4 RIM R D ZONE ovE CURB CUT ( T D) 5 R E T I Yo FEE 14"0 TREE o ° o SEW--R cn - - DRI EWA' m 00 o G� LNIIIIIIIIIIi t O � 1 MH UNK G o �c �,I a II 0 CO 019 0 RIM co co O V O C C E O .0'_ TEHRFIRE CONSTRUCTION U � F/RE S O ROJECTING OVERHANGS WHE (N) TREE- °� , S D- K EPq vATio S I D E N IRE SEPARATION 15TANCE IS LE SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS \ I - RCIAL # 1 O ME CIAL #11 CID MERCIAL #2 INS F 2ND FLOOR COM ER I #hg•64 C OR ATE / TRASH STANCE TH O�H-ATG € BO E (DASHED) TYP E T FNITPY N61° 1 24"W = = T- A YB w 9.98 F.O.F. 13"0 TR E i Y ,W 4 , . 9 R' �' �\ �� � A \ 10TEE 4 HIG _ a T NC LLJ d -- REMOVE (E STUMP O R I I y o O (TREE UN OWN) - 10 0 T EE 1 I I °� co TOIL(=T #2� I REMO E (E) GAS METER PTOILIET# OVE (E) STU o REFS UNKNO � of ' Q iCO NEw � (N) CO R F P TERS ¢t NOTE SERVESADJACENT PROPS ----- J- 13" 0 R E I I 029- 1 APN 029-1 -140 1 W III 1 III -J t j,G�[ O JAN l l I I JAN ,J_ET COMMERCIAL G E COMMERCIAL 1 I T} o a ;— j, = B 6, 202± S T. w Q i� --� 1 ' 1 I #2 I >u o 00 DIRT ��� �u STAIR #1 DR I C ATV \IIII/ / �u,��_ - I 9 3 F KAN 11319 SF BAck FLo ����� _ _ 1 I 200 -14 3 1 III w 1 99 SF - P ENTE ?= COIL 1k 1 8"� fR S 9 I I w "fOIET a J > =J1 Z P-) � Z C 16 a' ;- 4' S' � �� � 21 ELEVATORI L------------------------------- �------------- -, I I � � Q � T-/ (E) G" OAK - 36" TREE BI E (PU LC) CON R EC ELEC 1 O#1 J ELEVATOR METE \SS TR NOPY ROVE , V 11217 SF 1 5 SFEiT� DASHED) 2 a BIKES (PRIVA E) � � �---TTT LQ_CO <�_ LOBBY\ Pv CH E] [I� �i[�\] S °� n' VE/W K Q TO RO F STO#2 Q --- �, ss ENT << 290 S APN 029-131-150 P 029-131- - - r - - - - HGH _ _ �_ �1 5-0 WALK MIN. 029 131 160 _CO a — — — — SSSSS SS SS — — ° I� — — — �I Ir — — — EA = 6,471 SQ. F A + ± --- --� �-� q - Q NICE _ - 7 _ /N) TREE- — \ ' 6 7 Q v I 1� IL JI ' T SEE LANDSC PE DWGS - - M L CALIFORNIAI c E � u PIT 621 )RN/A DR _ - NTL OT - (N) PLANTE 00 (SH DED) ' STO#3 VACANT L pT� ` f' ., .% 1 1 LEVEL ST CCO _ STUCCO 60. o — — — T BINET - ---- — — 1 — -0— D. 5 N v 2 _Q3 R I R2 R3 R 5 R7 EV CHAR STATION 2 0 �_ co • � v O c iI — A8 o v VAN 1'- 0" CLR., STAIR #2f� o O P - 0" CUR. — M \ E Y TO WALL TO WALL Q 20.2G C — IRE — o E� — — — — — — — (N) FF C ° a °.' — — CO B ° 25 C L/ N DRI V I DRIVE °j a �° 1 LE L WOOD FRA E D R 9' o, E8'ro W D FRAME 8' - G" TYP uo1v� �r 4 °l,4 1 II[M�]LAIP NO. 2 OF 7[ ----- 18' 1"CLR DBL PLATFORM MULTI -PARKING_ OIL 7E E o U L U N C( 7-� o COMMERCIAL PARKING LIVENVORK RESIDENTIAL PARKING �.,.._ . REMOVE (E) � D A`�• DIRT (p �1 I II I G" PRIVET �\ GARAGE I CAL.9 Im ED FOG in RICK 16"0 TREES HTGHO N FEE WOOD EENC E R� ovE T10P EE �r x 1 N �; 1 f p pQ� C� O E_ A� ATE - (E) 24" OAK (rR C R E TL �� C O N C R E TE []0]ry !• `I O / �` O DRAIN LIFT PITS TO SUMP cis 18" x 18" x 24" SUMP ,n ' \TE S Cr) :� I)= _ _- _LINE OF 2ND FLOOR F B R N ABOVE (DASHED) TYP — — — 8'- I"CLR 18'-7"CLR � I, ,,,, , - F — — SGL +DBL PLATFORM MULTI -PA KING DBL PLATF -- MULTI -PARKING_ - — — — ORM MULTI -PARKING DBL PLATFORM I,, ; / ------ _---------- -------------------- ---- ----- — — --- -- d CC G - Ol �� - - - - - - - __ _ -_ - - - G GH Q HIS H -- `-)00� WODD VVT; O LIGF FROM E TER AIN - C 'ASS 1 �GROV VENUE _L E G E y�� G 12 q R UE R2� �" R23 R21 R19 R�7 R1 5 R13 RI 1 R9 O L WO — L E R2G R24 R22 R20 00 18 RIG R14 R12 RIO (N) P B R0 LI PIT LIFT PIT LI PIT LI PIT (5H DED) (SHADED) �N (5H DED) (S�1 DED) Olti o� R v, q� 1 p q RO ND WALL MOUNTED C SER UNITS ;, ; , • '' i ' H - - e _ o �a.. R �0.93' (N) TOS '.o G—G- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ME HANI AL EN L RE— - - - - 4 ARBORVIT - - - - - - - - - C C C OSU - - - , Ln - - - >��- J - J Air R E10 1 - - - - - .. TREE - I -H FIRE RATED CONSTRUCTION AT PROJECTING OVERHANGS -� LINE 2 FD'F1.U0 N R' w 1 _ U WH RE FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE IS LESS THAN 20' (HATCHED) E LA Sc f E DWGS DFISfid) TYC�'1 O ' z ' o., o ' w 00Qv RE O -- cc� ; _ o C p RE . g N TREE- z 15 - „ - ,•e•; Q 1�3 HE LANDSC E DWGS I5 _ " -2I ill NORTH --2 5.0 HIGH STONE 5. HI H TONE > 1 r� 1 1134'-0" 1 1 � & METAL GATE & A G�TE (N)TREE- WOOD FureS \y SE LANDSCAPE DWGS ROOF OVERHANG ROOF OV ROOF OVE H N �\ � ROOF OVE > c DIRT — — — 1 _ �b �RD 2.2 oVERHANG 3.1 3.3: 2ND-3RD � 53 10.1 G 6.5 6.7 7.4 .6 9 9.1 10 11 _ Q � � CARPORT a 2ND LEVEE 1 > 2Nb RD LEVEL 9.0' HIGH ------Qj ------------- - y v 2ND-3RD EEVEE DEC KS 8 RD LEVEL �? WOOD EENC E • � EC KS - OVERHANG (N) PRIVATE OUTDOOR LO NGEJD11idfNGAR AS- HANG` T — > � _SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS. APN 029-131-021 APN'S 106-640-010 106-650-010 - 106-650-140 �\ A 1 - - - 106-650-140 98 MAPS 86-88 9 APS 86-88 L Ellis A. Schoichet AIA ARCHITECTURE Peninsula Building 307 South "B" Street #12 San Mateo CA 94401 650.343.3452 California Drive Live -Work 619-625 California Dr. Burlingame, CA APN#: 029-131-140 APN#: 029-131-150 APN#: 029-131-160 Owner: Ed Duffy / Renovattio Construction 415.533.4953 Architect: EASA Architecture 650.343.3452 Surveyor: FredrickT Seher & Associates, Inc. 415.921.7690 Geotechnical Engineer: Romig Engineers 650.591.5224 Civil Engineer: MacLeod & Associates, Inc. 650.593.8580 Landscape Architect: Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group 650.726.7100 Structural Engineer: Santos & Urrutia 415.642.7722 MEP Engineer: MHC Engineers 415.640.3800 9/29/17 PC Comments SUL ZL 5/9/17 Initial Review Comments SUL 3/21 / 17 1/25/17 1/23/17 Initial Review Comments Client Coordination Fire Department Coordination SUL SUL SUL 11 /7/ 16 Planning - Initial Review SUL Rev #: Date: Description: By: STAMP SHEET TITLE FIRST FLOOR PLAN JOB k SCALE 15666 1 /8" = 1'-0" DATE SHEET 11/07/16 DRAWN SUL A I CHECKED EAS �OF REVIEWED SHEETS SPECIMEN TREE: LARGE MULTI -TRUNK 'ANCHOR' TREE, 24" MIN. BOX SIZE, E.G.: AGER PALMATUM (Japanese Maple) PARROTIA PER5ICA (Persian Parrotia) STEWARTIA P5EUDOCAMELLIA (Japanese Stewartia) ENTRY PLAZA TIERED PLANTERS WITH SHRUB PLANTIN65 FOR 5EA50NAL COLOR AND BUILT-IN BENCH 5EATING FIRE DEPARTMENT DOUBLE-GHEGK VALVE s F.D.G. (APPROXIMATE LOCATION SHOWN) EXISTING 36"(D OAK TO REMAIN OAK GROVE FOUNDATION PLANTIN65 PER NOTE BELOW NEW 5'-0" MIN. WIDE 'ON 51DEWALK ALONG OAK GRO AVENUE TO CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN 40 J Cwj OAK GROVE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS: AQ DURABLE, SHADE -TOLERANT LOW WATER-U5E PLANTS SELECTED FOR V FORM AND 5EA50NAL INTEREST. SHRUB HEIGHTS TO CONFORM TO WING TON REaUIREMENT5 REGARD VISIBILITY ALONG DRIVEWAYS, WHERE REQUIRED. EXI57I 16 24"(b OAK TOR MAIN EX15TINO JOINT UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN ADDITIONAL OAK GROVE FOUNDATION PLANTIN65 PER NOTE ABOVE EXISTING 4"cP TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW PERVIOUS WALKWAY (PERVIOUS CONCRETE OR UNIT PAVERS) Q 0 Q0 / B L3 �Dl MH UNK 1 &4 RIM Oo v� ,/ 00' CID � d ° ;� ti� ° d d / • • ° O P ° 8 g ° d — EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN, TYP. oo/ 0 SErER 0 NEW ±q'-O" WIDE CONCRETE 5IDEWALK ALONG CALIFORNIA DRIVE TO CONFORM TO CITY STANDARDS. v� EXISTING BUS STOP BENCH TO REMAIN C 0 ° d ° ° a ° ° d ° d ° d ° a°r STORM WATER BIOTREATMENT PLANTER 1A - 83 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWING5) EXISTING 31 "(:P TREE CLUMP TO BE REMOVED STAIRS LOBBY ELEVATOR BIKE PARKING PER ARCH. DRAWIN65 LNEW PE U5 ENTRY URT PAVING (PERVIOUS CONCRETE 3 OR UNIT PAVERS) v 5TORMWATER BIOTREATMENT O PLANTER 2A - 30 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS) EXISTING 16" (P TREE TO BE REMOVED FOR 4th FLOOR ROOF d TERRACE, SEE SHEET L2 s GARAGE d° ENTRANCE d d ° d ° ° 01 a EXISTING 10" d) TREE TO BE REMOVED NEW PERVIOUS DRIVEWAY (PERVIOUS CONCRETE OR UNIT PAVERS) 5TORMWATER BIOTREATMENT PLANTER 2B - qO 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS) 0 NEW IRRIGATION BAGKFLOW PREVENTER; APPROXIMATE LOCATION 5HOWN. V� C� CAI IFORNIA DRIVE CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOUNDATION PLANTINGS LOW, DURABLE, SHADE TOLERANT LOW WATER -USE 5HRUB5 ?LONG CITY 51DEWALK, TYP. PLANTING AREAS ARE TO BE LEVEL WITH ADJACENT PAVING, AND WILL BE IRRIGATED AS PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT IRRIGATION SYSTEM. NOTE: FOUNDATION PLANTIN65 ARE NOT PART OF THE PROJECTS REQUIRED BIOTREATMENT AREA. NEW PERVIOUS ENTRY PAVING, TYP. (PERVIOUS CONCRETE OR UNIT PAVERS PROPOSED NEW 4-STORY LIVE/WORK BUILDING PRIVATE OUTDOOR LOUNGE/DINING AREA FOR RESIDENTS: (1 OF 2) WITH BUILT-IN KITCHEN/BBa, DINING TABLE, GAS FIRE PIT a LOUNGE 5EATING d a ° d �7 ■7 r7 d d d° ° ° d d ° d ° ° ° d° ° ° d ° ° d ° d° °Od d° ° d ° ° ° ° ° I • e ° 3 ❑• ° ° d • g N54' S ' 59 "ry 5TORMWATER BIOTREATMENT PLANTER 1B - 24 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWING5) CALIFORNIA DRIVE STREET TREES LOCATE IN TREE GRATES PER CITY STANDARDS. 24" BOX MIN. SIZE, E.G.: PLATANU5 ACERIFOLIA 'COLUMBIA' (London Plane Tree) NOTE: ALL STREET TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED AS PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 5TORMWATER BIOTREATMENT PLANTER 1G - 24 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWIN65) d N61 ' ' d24 >><< m ° a ° °d d ° ° d ° TRASH 4° NEW ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER; ° APPROXIMATE LOCATION SHOWN. ° °° d d ° d d ° d ° _\\ 1 ° d ° STAIRS d ° d 41 ° d ° ,* ° d ° ° ° ° d EX15TINO 13"(D TREE TO BE REMOVED ADDITIONAL GALIFORNIA DRIVE FOUNDATION PLANTIN65 PER NOTE ABOVE 7ADJACENT BUILDING NEW PERVIOUS WALKWAYS (PERVIOUS CONCRETE OR d ° d UNIT PAVERS) d ° ° d ° NOTES ° d ° SEE ARCHITECT'S AND CIVIL DRAWIN65 FOR 51TE INFORMATION NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED ON THIS PLAN. CITY OWNED STREET TREES MAY NOT BE NEW PERVIOUS PAVING I$ d° d REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT FROM THE PARKS PATIOS (PERVIOUS CONCRETE ° DEPARTMENT. PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED ONCE THE OR UNIT PAVER5) ° PLANING COMMISSION APPROVES THE PROJECT. 5TORMWATER BIOTREATMENT PLANTER 3B - ° ° BIOTREATMENT AREAS SHALL BE PLANTED WITH A 135 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWING5) ° °d MIX OF GRA55E5, LOW SHRUBS, ND PERENNIALS SELECTED FOR THEIR ABILITY TO THRIVE IN TREATMENT AREAS. d � • ° ° ALL STREET TREES AND OTHER PLANTING AREA a ° ° LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY LIMITS, BUT A/C GONDEN5OR ENCLOSURE 8 d d CREATED FOR AND INSTALLED AS PART OF TH15 a APPLICATION, SHALL BE IRRIGATION BY THE MAIN ° ° ° d SITE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. ° d $ ° LANDSCAPE PLAN 15 REQUIRED TO MEET THE d STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE "ATER a ° ° d ° 4 4 CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS" FOR ° COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. PLANTING PLAN, ° d ° IRRIGATION PLAN, AND LANDSCAPE WATER-U5E CALCULATIONS, WILL BE SUBMITTED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE IRRIGATION AUDIT 15 5TORMATER BIOTREATMENT 55 34' WREQUIRED FOR FINAL INSPECTION. PLANTER 3A - 211 5F (SEE CIVIL DRAWING5)- SMALL TREES: SMALL TREES FOR 5EA50NAL COLOR & INTEREST (1 OF 7), 24" MIN. BOX, E.G.: GERCI5 'FOREST PANSY' (Redbud) GORNU5 KOU5A (Kou5a Dogwood) GHIONANTHU5 RETU5U5 (Fringe Tree) rp f I 46 Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group Landscape Architecture Environmental Design Site Planning 730 Mill Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (650) 726-7100 www. klsdesigngroup. com LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS CALIFORNIA DRIVE LIVE -WORK 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA APN: 029-131-140 029-131-150 029-131-160 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Planning Commi55ion Comments 3 q/2q/2017 Initial Review Gomments 2 5/q/2017 Initial Review Comments Revisions. 1 3/21 /2017 Date: 11/7/2016 PLAN CHECK Scale: 1/5" = 1'-0" Drawn By: TWC 4' 58' S ", 55 34' • • SITE PLAN SCREENING PLANTING: PRIVATE OUTDOOR LOUNGE/DINING TALL, NARROW HEDGE FOR PRIVACY AREA FOR RESIDENTS: BAMBU5A TEXTIL15 GRAGILI5 (Gracilis Bamboo) (2 OF 2) WITH BUILT-IN KITCHEN/BBQ, DINING Sheet No. (non-invasive root system) TABLE, GA5 FIRE PIT $ LOUNGE 5EATING NEW 6-0" TALL WOOD FENCE OVER RAISED CONCRETE CURB L Of AWL `R rA. -R f � 4 7 1� I •{ �' .•f i 1. 4 C J f � .� � � ,`..y ,. .�:y� , •� •tip 1 , _ - - OA CORNER PLAZA FROM CALIFORNIA DRIVE N.T.5. y1.Py •�' �. � �ji � �� � � Y'3.� c If R 0, c r —F W• • 'J l r JfJ I I _ s }ter- .� •J .; woo- V. r J — 4. � 4� • RJR K•h'���i.::' �. Y. tiGs'�J • OB CORNER PLAZA N.T.S. �`' . t 7� . 1 �' v 7'. �l I' I I } -w © CORNER PLAZA/BUILDING ENTRY FROM OAK GROVE AVENUE N.T.S. Fr Kikuchi + Kankel Design Group Landscape Architecture Environmental Design Site Planning 730 Mill Street Half Moon Bay, CA 94019 (650) 726-7100 www.lSkdesigngroup.com LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS CALIFORNIA DRIVE LIVE -WORK 619-625 CALIFORNIA DRIVE BURLINGAME, CA APN: 029-131-140 029-131-150 029-131-160 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Planning Commission Comments 3 q/2q/2017 4LInitial Review Comments 5/q/2017 1 Initial Review Comments Revisions.: 3/21/2017 Date: 11/7/2016 PLAIN CHECK Scale: AS NOTED Drawn By: TWG CORNER PLAZA CONCEPT IMAGES Sheet No. L 3 Of D q• i l Ir■ ■11 _ 4:u o 0 Plat, � �`g.�aJ�•- yv 1 Ea .'cW Y �fy/i 4.2a �tLR. y t P p - Al w 46 iy Y ®r_ T r 1 r Item N:o9dDesign Review Sdy City of Burlingame Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development Address: 920 Bayswater Avenue (main project address) Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 (Includes 908 Bayswater Avenue, 108-124 Myrtle Road) Request: Application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multi Family Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking. Applicant: Fore Property Company, Mark Pilarczyk Property Owner: Multiple Property Owners - 7 parcels (Baird/Hower/Ohlund/Mortensen) Architect: Withee Malcolm Architects, LLP- Dirk Thelen APN: 029-235-160, 170, 180,190, 200, 210, 220) Lot Area: 1.26 acres General Plan: Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area/ Anita Road Residential Area (53,012 SF combined lots) Zoning: MMU (Myrtle Mixed Use) / R-3 (Anita Road Overlay) Adjacent Development: Auto sales, Auto storage, Multifamily and Single Family Residential Current Use: 920 Bayswater Avenue: Auto Repair / 908 Bayswater Avenue: Single Family Dwelling / 108 Myrtle Road: Apartments / 112 Myrtle Road: Auto storage/ 116 Myrtle Road: Apartments/ 120 & 124 Myrtle Road: Single Family Dwelling Proposed Use: 128-unit residential apartment development. Allowable Use: MMU- retail, personal service, office, service commercial R-3 - Multifamily, duplex, and single family residential uses. July 10, 2017 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Meeting: On July 10, 2017 an environmental scoping meeting and design review study meeting was held for the proposed project. This was the first review of the project by the Planning Commission. There were several public comments at the public hearing and over 40 letters were received with a variety of concerns. The Planning Commission also had several comments and concerns; the minutes from the July 10, 2017 Planning Commission meeting are attached for reference. A brief summary, focusing on the design comments, is provided below: • Design is not consistent/compatible with the neighborhood, too massive need to break it into smaller sizes; • Project feels like it is bursting at the seams; is maxed-out, too massive and not broken up well; too modern; could achieve this style in more traditional ways; • Need a "graceful" transition between the two areas of the town, not just a small setback; • Courtyards should be redesigned to try to save some of the existing trees, particularly along perimeter of the buildings; Would like to see more landscaping and add more around the outside to make it more pedestrian -oriented; A lot of the trees on the site could be saved; • No argument for the variance; can't make required variance findings, reduce the height of the building to stay within limits; variance request is because the project is too large; • Sheer number of units is too large; the parking is sufficient for the number of units though; units will still not be affordable; • Rooftop deck needs to be oriented more toward the street and away from the adjacent residential area; • Do not like the proposed vinyl windows and wood -like plastic cladding. In response to the Planning Commission and public comments at the July 10, 2017 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study meeting the applicant reached out to a core group of residents, which reside in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood, to discuss their concerns about the project. There were several meetings that were New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue held in July and August and after considering both the public and Commission comments the applicant worked with their architect to redesign the proposed apartment development. The proposed design and building mass and bulk have substantially changed from the original proposal. In addition the unit count was reduced by 10 from 138 units (140 units in the original submittal) to 128 units; there are still 13 units proposed to be affordable (moderate income at 120% AMI). Please see the applicant's letter which details the changes made to the project, along with the revised plans and renderings date stamped October 10, 2017, in response to the Planning Commission's and public comments from the July 10 design review study and environmental scoping meeting. The major changes to the proposed project are summarized below: • Ten (10) units removed, 138-units proposed originally, reduced to 128-units currently proposed; • Complete redesign of building architecture from modern industrial design to craftsman/bungalow style; • Massing broken up with setbacks and offsets- appears as 3 different structures; • 8 existing trees on -site will be retained; • Roof deck size and location revised; reduced from 6,300 SF to 4,000 SF and location was shifted west (toward Myrtle Road); • Fourth (4"') floor removed from Bayswater/R-3 portion resulting in building height being lowered by 4'-8" for Bayswater/R-3 portion from 43'-8" to 39' tall; and • Variance for Rooftop Projections Eliminated, all rooftop projections are under the allowable 5% (of rooftop area) Please refer to the applicant's letter (attached), date stamped November 8, 2017, and the revised (redesigned) plans date stamped October 10, 2017, for a detailed overview of the changes made to the project since the Planning Commission's last review on July 10, 2017. The project analysis and description below is based on the redesigned project (drawings dated October 10, 2017). Environmental Review: In addition to reviewing the proposed design, the meeting on July 10, 2017 was also an Environmental Scoping meeting where staff was requesting that the Planning Commission comment on any potential environmental effects which it feels should be investigated and considered in the CEQA document. Those issues identified by the Commission will be incorporated into the environmental documents for the project. Given that the project has been redesigned, staff is bringing the revised project forward for a second Design Review Study meeting prior to proceeding with environmental review so that the project description/design can be further established before any technical studies and analysis are prepared. Project Summary: The project site is located at the northeast corner of Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road. The site is composed for 7 separate parcels, including 908 and 920 Bayswater Avenue and 108 -124 Myrtle Road. The largest of the 7 parcels, 920 Bayswater Avenue, is located on the corner of Myrtle Road and Bayswater Avenue and currently contains an automobile repair garage, while 908 Bayswater Avenue, 124 and 127 Myrtle Road all contain single family dwellings, and 108 and 116 Myrtle Road contain apartment buildings. All of the parcels, except for 908 Bayswater Avenue, are located in the MMU (Myrtle Road Mixed Use) zoning district where 908 Bayswater Avenue is zoned R-3, with the Anita Road Residential Overlay. All of the properties are located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. The site is surrounded by a variety of uses including, auto storage, auto sales, multifamily residential, and single family residential. The proposed project includes merging the 7 parcels, demolishing all of the existing structures on all of the parcels and constructing a new, 4-story 128-unit apartment development. There would be two -levels of below grade parking that would provide a total of 179 spaces. The below grade parking would be accessed from a two-way driveway along Myrtle Road. The proposed development would be broken up with setbacks and building breaks to reduce the massing along the street and to provide spacing between the main buildings so that they appears as 3 separate structures. The R-3 zoned portion, along Bayswater Avenue, has a smaller, three (3) story building with slightly different architectural details so that it provides a transition to the adjacent neighborhood to the east. The main portion New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue of the development would be 4-stories (44'-8") plus a roof top deck above, the building location the R-3 portion (along Bayswater Ave) would be 3-stories (39'). The new apartment development would contain 29 studio units, 54 one -bedroom units, 3 one -bedroom units with a den, 36 two -bedroom units and six three -bedroom units. Studio units would range from 519 SF — 530 SF, one -bedrooms would range from 705-833 SF, two -bedrooms would range from 897 SF — 1,249 SF, and the three -bedroom unit would range from 1,310 SF — 1,376 SF. The total gross floor area would be approximately 131,615 SF, though neither zoning district (MMU/R-3) regulates floor area ratio. Code section 25.34.030 requires a Conditional Use Permit for multifamily residential uses, with an average maximum unit size of one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) square feet; the average unit size for the proposed development is 853 SF. Staff would note that apartment projects are not required to provide common open space or private open spaces, as is required for condominium developments. However, common spaces for residents and visitors, including an enclosed entry, lobby, community room and fitness room would be provided on the ground floor. In addition, some units would have decks or balconies provided for open space. The following applications are requested for this project: • Design Review for construction of a new four-story, 128-unit apartment building with below -grade parking (C.S. 25.28.045 (R-3 portion), C.S. 25.34.045 (MMU portion) and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan); • Lot Combination (7 parcels into 1) (C.S. 26.04); • Conditional Use Permit for Multifamily Residential in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) Zone (C.S. 25.34.030(a)); and • Density Bonus Incentive (C.S. 25.63.0401(a) and (C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1)). Design Review: The purpose of this second design review study meeting is to provide further comments on design elements as they relate to the proposed project (criteria include compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood, respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles, maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used and incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future). The proposed project is subject to Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan (Design & Character). Section 5.2 (pages 5-2 through 5-16) provides design guidelines specifically for mixed -use areas within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Section 5.2.2.4 (page 5-7) specifically provides guidance on the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area; more general design guidelines that apply to all areas of the downtown are also provided in this chapter. The last 50 feet of the site along Bayswater Avenue is zoned R-3 and is part of the Anita Road Residential overlay therefore the multifamily residential design guidelines would also apply to this project given the split zoning. Because this is a 100% residential project, the Design standards for residential areas are generally most applicable in this case and can be found in Section 5.3 (pages 5-17 through 5-21) of the Downtown Specific Plan. Section 5.4 provides additional design standards for all areas of downtown that would also apply to this project, such as transitions to lower -scale residential areas (pages 5-22 and 5-23). 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, horizontal cement fiber siding, wood balcony railings, wood trellises and a shingle roof. Colored vinyl windows with simulated divided lites are proposed throughout the building and the applicant will be providing a window sample at the study meeting. There would be two courtyard areas within the development with landscaping, fire features, barbeque area and bocce court. In addition there would be a 4,000 SF roof deck space that would provide common recreational 3 New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue open space that would include a fireplace, fire feature, mounted television, barbeque area, landscaping and seating areas with a shade structure. Off -Street Parking: Parking requirements are based on the number of bedrooms proposed per unit. Zoning Code Section 25.70.032 provides reduced residential parking standards specific to properties located within the boundaries of the Downtown Specific Plan. In the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area the minimum parking requirement is 1 space for each studio unit, 1.5 spaces for each one -bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each unit with two or more bedrooms. However C.S. 25.63.040(a) provides by Right Parking Incentives upon request by the applicant for developments that are eligible for an affordable housing density bonus as provided in C.S. 25.63 (Density Bonus) which is consistent with Government Code Section 65915(p). With this provision the applicable parking minimum parking standard is 1 space for each studio unit or one -bedroom unit, and 2 spaces for each two -or three -bedroom unit. The project requires a total of 170 off-street parking spaces where 179 below -grade parking spaces in a two - level below grade garage are proposed. There would be 91 spaces on the lower level and 88 on the upper level. An area for on -site deliveries is not required for apartment buildings and there is no guest parking required on -site for properties located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Access to the below -grade parking spaces would be along the Myrtle Road frontage from a 24'-0" wide driveway (12' each direction). The Zoning Code parking space dimensions for multifamily are a minimum of 9'-0" wide x 20'-0" deep; all of the required spaces proposed comply with the dimensional requirement. The proposed project would provide storage space to accommodate 36 bicycles within the upper level of the below grade parking. This is not currently required under the zoning code but is recommended in Chapter 7.4.3 (page 7-11) of Downtown Specific Plan. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (sheets L1 through L5). The R-3 zoning regulations require 60% of the front setback to be landscaped and the MMU regulations require that 10% of the front setback to be landscaped. The project includes 60% (452 SF) landscaping within the front setback for the R-3 portion of the project and 88.9% (994 SF) landscaping within the front setback of the MMU portion. There were no existing trees to be retained as part of the original proposal due to the excavation required for the subterranean garage. However the project was revised with the footprints modified to allow the retention of eight (8) of the existing trees. The portion (arm) of the subterranean garage structure along Bayswater Avenue that extends below the R-3 lot has been reduced so that that excavation of the garage does not damage the roots of the existing trees in this area. With the redesigned proposal there will be eight (8) existing trees retained; including the redwood trees at the rear of 908 Bayswater Avenue and the pepper tree in front of 124 Myrtle Road. In accordance with the City's requirements, each lot developed with a multifamily residential use is required to provide a minimum of one 24-inch box -size minimum non -fruit trees for every 2,000 SF of lot coverage. Based on the proposed project, a total of 18 landscape trees are required on site. There are 16 trees existing on -site. The redesigned project allows the retention of eight (8) of those trees. The landscape plan proposes the planting of 18 new trees, which is in compliance with the replanting requirements for the proposed tree removal and with the reforestation requirements. The proposal includes the installation of street trees as well, with three (3) new Ginkgo Boloba trees along Bayswater and ten (10) new Crimson Spire Oak street trees along Myrtle. There is landscaping provided in the courtyard areas as well as in containers on the roof top deck, and around the perimeter of the site. This area left blank intentionally. 4 New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue Lot Area: 5,000 SF - R-3 48,012 SF MMU, combined 55,012 SF combined Plans date stamped• October 10 2017 PROPOSED PROJECT— ENTIRE SITE (53,012 SF) Land Use: 128 apartment units' 8.2 Multifamily residential - permitted use in R-3 zone C.S, 25.28.020(B). Multifamily residential - Conditional Uses in MMU zone per C.S. 25.34.030 a Building Height: 44'-8" 2 45-0" maximum/ CUP required to exceed 35'-0" Rooftop Projections: 4.6% 5% (1,484 SF) (1,602 SF) Off -Street Parking: 179 Total Studio — 1 sp x 29 = 29 1 bdrm-1 spx57=57 91 spaces on the lower level 2 bdrm — 2 spaces x 36 = 72 88 spaces on upper level 3bdrm — 2 spaces x 6= 12 Total = 170 spaces (based on CS 25.63.040(a) — density bonus) Driveway Width: 2 - 12'-0" driveways Parking areas more than 30 vehicle spaces - two 12'-0" wide driveways or one 18' driveway R-3 PORTION ALONG BAYSWATER AVENUE (APPRX. 5,000SF) PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front (11 fir): 15'-0" (all floors)* 15' or block average (2nd flr): whichever is greater (3rd flr): Left Side (11' flr): 0* N/A because parcels will be merged- (2nd fir): 0* zoning is still split R-3 and MMU (3rd fir): 0* Right Side (1s' flr): 9'-6" 5'-0-- (2nd flr): 9'-6" 6'-0" (3rd fir): 9'-6" T-0„ Rear (15' flr): 20'-0" 20'-0" (2nd fir): 20'4" 20'-0" (3rd flr): 20'-0 20'-0" 5 New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue Lot Coverage: 2,395 SF 2,500 SF 47.9% 50% Front Setback Landscaping: 452 SF 452 SF 60% 60% MMU PORTION (48,012 SF) PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front: 10'-0" to deck (all floors) 10, Left Side (1st fir): 2'-0" None required (2nd fir): 2'-0" (3rd fir): 2-4- (4th fir): 2'-0" Right Side (15F fir): 9'-6" 7'-0" (2"d fir): 9'-6" 8'-0" (3rd fir): 9'-6" 9'-0" (4th fir): 10-3" 10'-01, Abuts residential therefore must comply with R-3 standards (C.S. 25.28.075) per C.S. 25.34.060(d) Rear (111 fir): 20'-0" 20'4" (2nd fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (3rd fir): 20'-0" 20'-0" (4th fir): 20'4" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 32,045 SF 36,009 SF 65.6 % 75% Front Setback Landscaping: 994 SF 88.9% 112 SF 10% of front setback ' Conditional Use Permit required for multifamily residential in the MMU zone, 138-units proposed, C.S. 25.34.030(a). 2 Exercising C.S. 25.63.040 (c)(1) Development concessions and incentives, which allows a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit. Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Parks, Engineering, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Staff notes that the Fire Code regulations could not be met for all parts of the building for the required 150' fire hose full, therefore staff (including Fire, Building and Planning) met with the applicant to agree on an Alternate Means of Protection that would comply with the Fire code, but would also not compromise Building or Planning regulations. The applicant has tentatively agreed to the terms/mitigations discussed with staff and will be required to make an application with the Central County Fire Department for review and approval of an Alternate Means of Protection; this will be a condition of approval. Affordable (Below -Market Rate) Units: The City's previous Inclusionary Housing Ordinance has been replaced by a Density Bonus Ordinance consistent with State Law. The Density Bonus Ordinance is discretionary, and projects are not obligated to provide affordable units unless they seek to utilize development standard incentives offered by the ordinance. C.S. 25.63.40 allows development concession and incentives 0 New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue where affordable units are offered. In accordance with State law (Government Code Section 65915(p)), the project is entitled to a by right parking incentive, which allows reduced parking rates with studio- and one - bedroom units to provide 1 on -site parking space and two- to three -bedroom units to provide 2 on -site parking spaces. In addition, C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1) allows 1 incentive for projects with 10% of the total units offered to those that qualify as moderate -income earners. "Moderate Income" is defined as persons and families whose income does not exceed 120 percent of area median income, adjusted for family size (C.S. 25.63.015(i), referencing Health and Safety Code Section 50093). The 2017 San Mateo County Area Median Income (AMI) is $115,300 (based on a household of four); the corresponding "Moderate Income" figures are up to $96,850 for a single household, $110,700 for a two -person household, $124,500 for a three -person household, and $138,350 for a four -person household. The applicant is proposing to include 10% (13) of the units to be affordable offered at no more than 120% AMI and therefore under C.S. 25.63 the project is eligible for a concession received in the form of additional height without the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1)). Together with the reduced parking requirements (C.S. 25.63.040(a)), the concession would theoretically allow the project to reach a higher density than what would have been able to under the regular development standards. Building Height- Incentive: The project application includes a request for a density bonus incentive for height. This incentive states that where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height, a height up to forty-six (46) feet may be allowed without a Conditional Use Permit. The overall height of the majority of the building, as measured to the top of the ridge, is 44'-8" above average top of curb level. The portion of the proposed structure located in the R-3 zone measures 39' from average top of curb. The project includes a request for a density bonus incentive per C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1) which allows a height up to forty-six (46) feet without a Conditional Use Permit in zoning districts where a Conditional Use Permit is required for buildings or structures more than thirty-five (35) feet in height. Both the R-3 (Anita Road Overlay) zone and the MMU zone have a height limit of 35' by right with a maximum height allowance of forty- five (45) feet with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), however with the incentive the proposed height at 44'-8" would not require approval of a CUP application for height. General Plan and Zoning: In 2010 the City Council adopted the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, which serves as an element of the General Plan. The subject property is located within the boundaries of the planning area for the Downtown Specific Plan, specifically in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area and Anita Road Residential Area. The zoning for the site is split, with the majority of the site located in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area and a smaller portion along Bayswater Avenue (approximately 5,000 SF) located within the R-3 zoning district that is part of the Anita Road Residential Overlay. The land use designation under the Downtown Specific Plan is also Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area and Anita Road Residential Area. In the land use chapter of the Downtown Specific Plan, Section 3.3.7 details the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area as an area that is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and the residential neighborhoods to the east. Development is to be consistent with the existing neighborhood scale of small streets and mix of varied commercial and residential buildings. The Anita Road Residential Area includes the blocks to the west of Anita Road between Burlingame Avenue and Bayswater Avenue. The land use in this area is medium -density Multifamily Residential, with development to remain consistent with the existing neighborhood scale of small streets, small apartment buildings and single-family homes. The area is meant to serve as a buffer between the downtown commercial district and Myrtle Mixed Use Area to the west, and single-family neighborhood to the east. Special development standards apply to the Anita Road area to establish standards such as setbacks, building heights, and massing standards compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue The Downtown Specific Plan and corresponding zoning do not provide for specific density limits (dwelling units per acre); therefore, a number of bonus units is not applicable. However, because the proposed project includes 10% of the units to be offered to moderate -income households (up to 120% AMI), under C.S. 25.63 the project is eligible for a concession received in the form of additional height (C.S. 25.63.040(c)(1)), as well as the provision for reduced parking (C.S. 25.63.040(a)- as detailed above), which theoretically allow the project to reach a higher density than what would have been able to under the regular development standards. 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. .020 aon the proposed 128-unit multifamily dwelling apartment development and providing a credit for the existing commercial building, single family dwellings and multifamily dwelling units, the required public facilities impact fee for this development project is $587,924.49. One-half of the public facilities impact fees payment will be required prior to issuance of a building permit issuance; the second half of the payment will be required before the final framing inspection. Design Review Criteria: A design review application in multifamily residential (R-3 and R-4) Districts shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations (Code Section 25.57.030 f, 1-4): (1) Compatibility with the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect the mass and fine scale of adjacent buildings even when using differing architectural styles; (3) Maintain the tradition of architectural diversity, but with human scale regardless of the architectural style used; and (4) Incorporate quality materials and thoughtful design which will last into the future. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed. H New 128-Unit Apartment Development 920 Bayswater Avenue Planning Commission Action: Design Review Study - The Commission should comment on the revised design of the project as required by Chapter 25.57 of the Zoning Ordinance, Design Review, and Chapter 5 of the Downtown Specific Area Plan. Before beginning a CEQA analysis, it is important that any changes to the building envelope be made early enough in the process so that any changes are reflected in the environmental review. Catherine Keylon, Senior Planner c. Fore Property Company — Mark Pilarczyk, applicant Attachments: July 10, 2017 Design Review Study and Environmental Scoping Meeting Minutes Applicant's Progress Letter — Summary of Revised Project (Changes), dated November 8, 2017 Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Authorization from Property Owners Applicant's Project Description, dated January 30, 2017 Conditional Use Permit Application -Multifamily Residential Applicant's Neighborhood Outreach and Project Revisions letter, dated June 20, 2017 Downtown Specific Plan Applicable Design Guidelines (reference only) Neighborhood Letters- Various (Including those received at 7110/17 Study Mtg on previous design) Staff Comments Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed November 3, 2017 Aerial Photo ME Y HALL City of Burlingame BURLING501 PRIMMROSEROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, July 10, 2017 7:00 PM Council Chambers a. 920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) zoned MMU and R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multi Family Residential, Variance for Rooftop Projection and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 138-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking. (Fore Property Company, applicant; John C. and Donna W. Hower Trust, Julie Baird, Eric G. Ohlund Et Al, Doris J. Mortensen Tr. - property owners; Wiithee Malcolm Architects LLP, architects) (160 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Sargent, Comaroto and Chair Gum met with the applicant. Vice -Chair Gaul met with owner of Burlingame Garage. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Purpose of the hearing is for environmental scoping and also design review study. Comments could lead to modifications to the project which could lead to a second opportunity for scoping and design review study. No action will be taken this evening. He read the names of individuals submitting written comments prior to the hearing into the record., Lynn Feeney, Stephanie Sciace% Dennis Xifaras, Rae Martin, David Davenport, Michael Zygarewicz, Ellen Florio, Anne Toscht, Lynn Ann Howe, Teri Arbues, Sonja Shevalyov, Kathy Pirone, Frank and Toni Vasquez, Jerry and Maryanne Hahn, Line Pamess, Jaime Smith, Marsha Juresin, Tim Smith, Alexis O'Flaherty, Mary -Helen McMahon, Linda Field, Ashley Kline, Leno Bellomo, Monika and Ralph Froelich, Timothy Hooker, Gig Xifaras, Nicholas Shevelyov, Pam Baker, Steve Barron, Michael Nafziger, and David Whiteside. Questions of Staff. > When were the parking standards last update? (Meeker., within the last five years as part of the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan.) Chair Gum opened the public hearing. Mike Pilarczyk and Dirk Thelen represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: > Generally discourage vinyl windows; why and is there a particular style? (Pilarczyk: not yet decided.) Generally see aluminum -clad wood windows or more commercial -type windows; can't indicate a preferred manufacturer. Referred to the Design Guidelines. > Are building 179 bedrooms; what is the comparison between that number and the number of bedrooms being removed? (Pilarozyk., unknown. Can get an analysis.) > How does the architectural design fit with the fabric of the neighborhood? (Pilarczyk: feels it meets the design guidelines. Have softened the color pallet based upon neighbor reactions to blend better with Craftsman architecture.) > Doesn't have a preference for a particular style of architecture. How is the Craftsman style of architecture represented in the abstract? (Thelen: have included board siding with application in areas City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 111712017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2017 where there is articulation of the facade. Corner boards are also part of that type of architecture as is the stucco and fiberboard. Are looking at board and batten elements. Also looked at the color pallet in the neighborhood and carried that into the project. Have done what they can at this scale to mimic the adjacent design elements.) > Requested clarification regarding the variance. (Pilarczyk: the air conditioning condensers themselves alone rise over the 5% coverage. The elevator tower and stair towers take it up to roughly 7.5%.) > On a project of this scale, it is more difficult to approve with special considerations; has the developer looked at ways to eliminate the variance? (Pilarczyk: are looking at other methods for installing the condensors, but not sure what will exist at the time the project is built.) > Regarding the tandem parking; will the spaces be assigned? (Pilarczyk: will have a parking assignment plan for the development. The tandem stalls are geared to the two and three bedroom units.) > How is this project a buffer from the west side of the project to the residential area neighboring it? (Pilarczyk: is multi -family use against multi -family use, the rail line also acts as a buffer. Considered the transition from four to three stories along Bayswater) > Did the applicant look at other means of breaking up the height rather than a consistent four story profile. (Pilarczyk have not due to the State Density Bonus provisions.) > Requested clarification regarding access to the roof deck. Does it run fairly close to the neighboring properties? (Pilarczyk: explained and noted that it is possible that one could see into the neighboring properties.) > Was any thought given to including a commercial use? (Pilarczyk: are more than two blocks off of the main Downtown area, there is not much need in this area.) The Specific Plan encourages commercial uses. > Asked if infrastructure analyses are forthcoming? (Pilarczyk: yes.) > What is the wood -like composite siding? Provide a sample. > Seems that the trees on the property could be saved; concerned that nearly every tree on the site is being removed. Would be a nice nod to the neighborhood to save more trees. > Why is the breakdown of one -bedroom and studio units important? (Pilarczyk: promotes greater affordability and reduced use of cars. Given the prevalence of car -share services, car ownership is not as important today to persons who may live in the development. The development is close to CalTrain which will likely be more heavily used by residents. Are still providing adequate parking.) > Is there hard data to back up the claim that the studio and one bedroom units will result in less use of cars? (Pilarczyk: a number of parking demand studies exist to support this claim for Transit -Oriented Developments.) Should reference that this is a Transit -Oriented Development. > Is guest parking provided; how many spaces? (Pilarczyk: have 190 parking spaces which includes the guest parking.) > How many below market rate units are provided? (Pilarczyk: thirteen.) > What are the qualifying incomes for the affordable units? (Pilarczyk: will research and provide.) > Has any thought been given to provide art as a public benefit? (Pilarzzyk: will review.) > When performing the traffic analysis, take into consideration the other projects in the Downtown area that are currently in the pipeline and being constructed. > Whatever ends up on this property needs to serve as a buffer between the Downtown area and the residential area. Public Comments., Jennifer Pfaff., presented a petition containing 215 signatures from the neighborhood and Burlingame in general in opposition to the project. Met with the developer very early with a very similar plan. Is concerned that all of the trees are being removed. There is another Redwood and a Pepper tree that could be saved. The applicant implies that since he's doing affordable units he gets four stories; this is not a guarantee of the Downtown Specific Plan. The design needs a redo. Linda Field: attended the May community outreach meeting. Strongly opposes this project. The project is too massive for the neighborhood; it combines too many lots. Believes the number of vehicles that will be owned by tenants will exceed the supply. Parking is heavily impacted in the neighborhood. The design is a City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 11/7/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2017 cookie -cutter version of many other multi -family developments proposed throughout the Peninsula. Thanked the staff for its assistance. Juergen Pfaff. the project is too massive for the neighborhood. It does not work with the neighborhood. Biggest concern is that the increased traffic will severely impact the neighborhood. The transit system in the area does not function well for serving a development of this sort. Concerned about where traffic will be directed through the neighborhood. Laura Hesselgren: Agrees with others' comments regarding the project. Lack the infrastructure to serve the development. The parking provided is unacceptable. Disagrees that the tenants will use transit; they will need parking. Bike storage will not likely be used. Will impact the Lyon -Hoag neighborhood. Past decisions of the City of Burlingame have impacted the neighborhood. Make the project fit into the neighborhood. Monica Freolich: represent fourth and fifth generations within the neighborhood. A large-scale rental development will not result in occupants that have a vested interest in the community, they are transient residents. Are not opposed to any type of development,' just needs to be of a smaller scale that fits better into the neighborhood, perhaps a two-story design. Desire a concept that will result in long-term residents that will contribute to the community. Deny orredesign. Lynn Feeney. referenced 888 San Mateo Drive with 150 units, this project is similar in scale. Should be brought down to two stories. Seems like development at all cost. Concerned about pass -through traffic in her neighborhood; pets and pedestrians have been hit. Susan Houston: lives a block from the development. Too big, but the change in the design still doesn't fit with the neighborhood. Parking is always a struggle in the neighborhood. Will still not be enough parking provided with the proposed project. Rebecca Haseleu: has lived in Burlingame since 1955. This project is too massive for the neighborhood. Something half the size would be better. Parking and traffic will be issues. Traffic from Burlingame Point will severely impact on Peninsula Avenue; this project will contribute to the problem. David Harris: supports everything that's been said so far. With other development that will be built and currently exists in the area, will create a canyon along Bayswater. Not certain that a project of this size can be accpeted by the neighborhood. Betty Norton: was at the neighborhood meeting. Most concerns were about the number of units. Packing is severely impacted in the area. Studio and one -bedroom apartments will still have people doubling up at times. Occupants will still have cars. Design the project thoughtfully. Alec Hui. the project will impact schools; don't know how many people will have children. Doesn't know where the kids will be put into schools. Parking is occupied by people that work at the dealerships. Unnamed Speaker., people are very upset about the development. Will likely double or triple the number of vehicles in the area. Will severely impact the Lyon -Hoag neighborhood. The design would fit well in San Mateo from a design and scale; doesn't look like Burlingame. Jimmy Chan: glad to hear all of the feedback. Moved to Burlingame because of the quality of life. There is a lot of development happening in the area, if he had known this he may not have moved to the area. Chair Gum closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: City oraurlingame Page 3 Printed on 111712017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2017 > Commission has an obligation to consider any project before it. There will be an extensive environmental evaluation. > Has serious concerns. The neighborhood is a transitional neighborhood, but not a neighborhood in transition. The Downtown Specific Plan identifies the area as a transition between Lyon -Hoag and the Downtown district. The design is not consistent, nor compatible with the neighborhood, nor is it compatible in mass and scale. Feels that the applicant has misinterpreted the language of the Specific Plan; the design acts more like a barrier. Are looking for a 'graceful" transition between the two areas of the town. Need to transition from the two and three story buildings within the neighborhood, not just a token setback of the portion of the structure on Bayswater. Referenced Summerhill's approach to the transition from the single-family area. Need to revisit the massing. The courtyards are a great addition, except they may be intrusive and impactful to the neighbors due to the sound; perhaps look at more of a courtyard type approach to the development with courtyards facing the street, there are only token breaks in the facade. > Doesn't see an argument for the variance; should reduce the height of the building to stay within the limits. > The courtyards should be redesigned and reconsidered in order to try to save some of the existing trees, particularly along the perimeter of the buildings. > Look at providing some community gardens within the courtyard areas. > The fire lane will be an odd vacancy along the street, caused by the massiveness of the buildings. > Project has some great merits. Agrees with the neighbors that there are tired, beaten up properties within the area. Likes the smaller units and the provision of affordable units. Likes the amenities being provided. Just thinks that the project needs redesign before proceeding with environmental analysis. > Wants the environmental analysis to compare the density to other developments in the area. What does medium -density mean? > Recent parking trends to not match the observations of many Commissioners; would be interested in seeing studies referenced by the developer. > The project feels more like an incursion of density into the neighborhood. > Was surprised when walking the neighborhood that there are some three story buildings. The Specific Plan encourages respecting the lower one and two story existing residences in the area. > The design feels like it is bursting at the seams; is maxed-out. Doesn't believe the variance findings can be made. > The rooftop deck needs to be oriented more toward the street and away from the adjacent residential area. > The project is too massive, not broken up well. Is too modern; could achieve this style in more traditional ways. Would like to see more landscaping and add more around the outside to make it more pedestrian -oriented. > The sheer number of units is too large, the parking is sufficient for the number of units though. > The design sets a new precedent that doesn't fit with the neighborhood. Needs to fit better with the neighborhood. Perhaps break it into smaller sizes. The variance request is because the project is too large. A lot of the trees on the site could be saved. > The units will still not be affordable. > This is a great area to do some development. However, the project is too massive. Feels that no more than three stories is appropriate; donY need to maximize the site development. Encouraged doing a shadow study to see how properties are being impacted. > Make a 3D rendering from all sides to show how it fits with adjacent properties. > Doesn't know for sure how this project would impact traffic and parking. Is certain that there is a housing shortage and things are changing in Burlingame. Need to solve the housing problem somehow. This project wouldn't solve the problem, but need to address it somehow. Doesn't hate the project, is agnostic to the style. What does Burlingame get if the project is built, the developer needs to outline the benefits very clearly. > There is an artificial articulation in the design that is intended to somehow fit with the surrounding area, but is not successful in doing so. Will need to break down the large blocks and the heights. Doesn't like the proposed vinyl windows and wood -like plasic cladding. > Lets design the project intelligently and thoughtfully. Is a matter of crafting the project in a way that will City of Burlingame Page 4 Printed on 110/2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 10, 2017 fit with the existing neighborhood. > Could have perhaps fit into the community at another time; there is no desire in the community for a project of this scale. > Concerned about school impacts; where will the students go that move into the new projects. > A buffer is an incompatible thing that protects things from one another. > Would be great to see some of the trees saved. No action was required at this time. City of Burlingame Page 5 Printed on 111712017 rQ Fore Property Company ` Los Gatos 20 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, #300 Los Gatos, California 95030 (408) 203-1 892 Telephone November 8, 2017 920 Bayswater Avenue Proposed 128-unit Apartment Development Progress Letter for Changes to Plans on Application Re -submittal (10/10/17) Summary of Plan Changes Resultine from our July 10`" Planninn Commission Hearin: Fore Property Company ("Fore") heard the following comments from the July 10`h Planning Commission and Design Review Board Hearing: • Architectural style does not blend with the neighborhood — work with the neighborhood on design and site plan. • Try to incorporate existing perimeter trees into the site plan • Height transition or step-down in the R3 Zone needs to be further enhanced • Reduce the size of the rooftop deck and provide more privacy for adjacent neighbors • Reduce the overall size of the project (unit and massing) • City of Burlingame will not accept a variance for rooftop projections • What does the City of Burlingame receive from this project? Fore meet with five neighborhood representatives multiple times over a two month period to listen to their concerns and implement significant changes to the architecture and site plan. Attached you will find a letter from the neighborhood representatives indicating the hard work and multiple meetings together that resulted in a better project that fits within the neighborhood. Working with the neighborhood resulted in the following plan changes: • Complete Architecture Overhaul o Revised the architecture completely going from a modern industrial feel to a craftsman, bungalow style that is seen in the neighborhood. The project architectural style now blends into the fabric of the neighborhood. o Revised architectural style completely hides the 4t' floor into the attic/roof which is consistent with this architectural style. This design allows a four-story building to look and feel like a three-story building. • Site Plan o Broke the building up along Myrtle Road (now feels like three separate buildings) o Increased the building setback along Myrtle by 2'-3' providing more landscape o Faced the courtyard towards Myrtle to provide another building break, massing relief, and additional landscaping • Eight (8) trees are being incorporated into the site plan while two (2) others are being replaced to match the street tree species per city request. o Designated outdoor amenity space honoring the Brazilian Pepper Tree and creating a unique outdoor side yard and pet park for the residents. o Garage had to be designed and reduced in the R3 Zone area to allow for the space needed to help keep seven (7) existing trees in that area. • Removed the 41h floor entirely from the R3 Zone property allowing for a softer, more natural transition to the adjacent multifamily property. • Rooftop deck has been reduced in size and positioned to the side fronting Myrle Road providing privacy and distance to adjacent neighboring properties. • Project massing was reduced by breaking the building up into three separate structures in addition to lowering the unit count from 138-units to the current 128-unit design. • Fore is no longer looking for a rooftop projection variance for this project. • The City of Burlingame receives the following from this project: o Beautification of an aging block o True pedestrian connectivity from Downtown to Lyon Hoag Neighborhood o Much needed new Class A, LEED Certified housing stock in a time of a housing crisis throughout California o Transit Oriented Development (TOD) adjacent to CalTrain station and walkable to downtown Burligame Avenue. o On -site Below Market Rate (BMR) rental units o Permit and Impact fees over $550,000+ We have appreciated the opportunity to work with staff, receive comments and direction from the Planning Commission, and the detailed work with the neighborhood to create a better project that truly blends into the fabric of the Lyon Hoag Neighborhood. Sincerely, Mark Pilarczyk, Vice President of Development and Regional Partner Fore Green Development, LLC Fore Property Company COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558,7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: X Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Parcel ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Zoning / Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT n ,1 Name: �2 P!'am + 6get )-1'4—tr_ )�i IFrZ2y� Address: -2a S. _C._.Jr_ (rrz tt , 0'',30U City/State/Zip: (-+S "1 , 6+ 9J -630 Phone: 08-0103-la 4l E-mail: y rD=_VCpI ?Vom PROPERTY OWNER Name: M 1 (otrwt' -a.ir'Ec C r Address: /0/ No.. -...,'I City/State/Zip: f, .,X -jca (14 %y/OS Phone: ci/S- 6 SS- kloo E-mail: 19 V_ 501PI(y " \,J dAw. torn ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: wiV-a %lalcolr. AcP.ttchl, UP Address: ems, vrt� 110" �+r,. RECEIVED City/State/Zip: (A 90SOy Phone: 310-11"I -Firms JAN 3 0 2017 E-mail: 84r-AC04E� Vi r.cr.lcOlm /_oi 1 CITY OFBURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV.. Burlingame Business License #: Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to reproduce upon request and/or post plans submitted with this application on the City's website as part of eJanning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. (Initials of Architect/Designer) AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under pen erjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Applicant's signature: / !/ - Date:_ I am aware of the proposed application an ereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: fcc Ax�u n-K. a�OWr.s.-T+ jtl Date: 4, co+tk ci I fv Gv-rwS. Date submitted: S: iNAND0UTSIPC ApphCQrion. Uoc January 25, 2017 JAN 3 0 2017 The City of Burlingame Community Development Department - Planning Division CITY OF BURLINGAME Attn: Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager CDD-PLANNING DIV. 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 920 Bayswater (Bayswater and Myrtle) — Property Owner authorization for entitlement processing. Dear Kevin, The proposed apartment development by Fore Property Company consists of seven (7) parcels owned by four (4) different owners. The owners are as follows: • John C. Hower and Donna W. Hower, Co -Trustees of the John C. Hower and Donna W. Hower 2003 Family Trust UDT dated October 6, 2003, and James Dennis Hower 0 112 Myrtle Road (029-235-190) 0 116 Myrtle Road (029-235-200) 0 120 Myrtle Road (029-235-210) 0 920 Bayswater Avenue(029-235-170) • John F. Ohlund, Trustee of the John F. Ohlund Trust LOT dated November 6, 1997, and Eric G. Ohlund and Anneliese Ohlund Abdella o 108 Myrtle Road (029-235-180) • Doris J. Mortensen, Trustee of the Doris 1. Mortensen Family Trust UDT dated June 30, 2005. 0 124 Myrtle Road (029-235-220) • Julie Baird and Laurie K. Simonson, as community property with right of survivorship o 908 Bayswater Avenue(029-235-160) Please consider this letter as formal notification and authorization for Mark Pilarczyk, on behalf of Fore Property Company, to work with all City Staff departments (Planning, Building, Fire, etc.) to process entitlements for a proposed multifamily development on our property. We also ask for your confidentiality through this process. Sincerely, Property Owner Representative Laurie Gustafson, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Seller's Counsel Dated: January 25, 2017 SF H4815-8801-3120 v1 Bayswater Avenue & Myrtle Road Proposed 140-unit Apartment Development 30 Fore Property Company Applicant: Fore Property Company Mark Pilarczyk 20 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, #300 Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408)203-1892 mpilarczvk@forepropertV.com RECEIVED JAN30�bnl CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Property Owners: John C. Hower and Donna W. Hower, Co -Trustees of the John C. Hower and Donna W. Hower 2003 Family Trust UDT dated October 6, 2003 John F. Ohlund, Trustee of the John F. Ohlund Trust under agreement dated November 6, 1997 Doris J. Mortensen, Trustee of the Doris J. Mortensen Family Trust Julie Baird and Laurie K. Simonson Location: John C. Hower —112 Myrtle Road (029-235-190), 116 Myrtle Road (029-235-200), and 120 Myrtle Road (029-235-210) along with 920 Bayswater Avenue (029-235-170) John F. Ohlund —108 Myrtle Road (029-235-180) Doris J. Mortensen —124 Myrtle Road (029-235-220) Julie Baird and Laurie K. Simonson — 908 Bayswater Avenue (029-235-160) General Plan Designation: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan Zoning: Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area (MMU) and R3 Site Description and Surrounding Uses: The project site consists of an assemblage of seven parcels totaling 1.22 acres in total area and is relatively flat in topography. The property is currently being used for several uses which include: automotive shop, single family homes, and rental apartments. To the north and east of the site are existing apartment buildings along with a recently built condominium project at the corner of Bayswater Avenue and Anita Road. To the south is the Caltrain railroad tracks and a triangular lot that is used for automotive car storage for a local auto dealership. Project Summary: The proposed project consists of a four-story apartment community with ground floor residential units and leasing/common areas. Parking will be accessed off Myrtle Road and is two levels of subterranean parking podium constructed out of Type I concrete. The proposal includes 140 apartment units and will be constructed of Type V wood frame. The community will be a luxury Class A apartment with tenant amenities such as a gym, lounge area/ cybercafe, business center, bike shop, storage lockers, etc. and will be construction of high grade material to blend the industrial feel of the neighborhood with the more modern/contemporary living spaces that are in demand within the Bay Area. The proposed residential portion of the project will consist of studio's, one bedroom, and two bedroom units. The proposed project is utilizing the State Density Bonus by providing on -site affordable/BMR units within the proposed project. Affordable housing is being provided with the approximate breakdown: 10% at Moderate Income (80%AMI). In utilizing the State Density Bonus, the project is requesting the use of the reduced parking requirement and one development standard concession. The development standard concession that is being requested is the use of the 45' height limit as a by -right entitlement within the zoning instead of requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The architectural design is contemporary in nature with industrial elements to blend with the fabric of the neighborhood as indicated in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area General Plan. The ground level fagade treatment will be strong stone material for better looking material that lasts long and provides for a strong base for the development. The use of outdoor corner plaza at Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road will promote the pedestrian walkability and connectivity and help create additional set back of the building softening the corner at that intersection. The proposed detail elements on the ground floor would include metal, wood, and stucco portions blending harmoniously throughout the project with a focused area of aluminum street front windows and doors to distinguish the leasing lobby at the corner. A unique design feature is the use of glass to provide a clear sight line from Baywater Avenue and Myrtle Road through the leasing lobby and into the interior courtyard. This will allow the lush landscape from within the courtyard to be experienced by all from the exterior of the building. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore RSA CITY \ 13URLM9AME ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION , `� 4�, I. ,>^ (to be completed by applicant when Negative Declaration or Environmen a Tm Ia t E D Report is required) J A N 3 0 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME GENERAL INFOV. pRMATION CDD-PLANNING DI Project Address: .20 D4aY4vJ1,- A-4_ Assessor's Parcel Number: tivt'�t -$s Applicant Name: /Orr Pog" `o. ' / lc.k Wez/6roperty Owner Name: Noa.ry DA/,,,,J. 1%y4cnft. + s� Address: -70 S. S.J.A.x 0-36o Address: *S-t 1J0 8� ✓r.d,. , /69.112,114 120.12Y 1-t A AJ City/State/Zip: Lus 6r d-• s . (A 9SO3o City/State/Zip: g G « Uo U Phone: Yok-.2U3-/kXi Phone: t1/S-WS-- /Oo ,L&wr1c 6w+.4�A Permit applications required for this project (special permit, variance, subdivision map, parcel map, condominium permit, building permit, etc.): A,,, /1 o wJ g 'Id.y L, %_ Related permits, applications and approvals required for this project by City, Regional, State and Federal n ____: __. n . n N SITE INFORMATION Site size: 4.2.2- Acres and 5D. 0/.2 Square Feet Existing Zoning:,qM L) 4- R3 Existing use(s) of property: A..+nm. Si , CL , o n..hmn 1 si ke Total Number of Existing Parking Spaces': 3Number of Compact Spaces': r) Number of Existing Structures and Total Square Footage of Each: /to exisJ+�) /S yav SG in fail Will any structures be demolished for this project? xYes No Size and use of structures to be demolished: -All of J(�, ,.:II Number and size of existing trees on site`: ! --n. , 4„,.. 6 " er,yJ, Will any of the existing tress be removed? v/ Yes No If Yes, list number, size and type of trees to be removed: Afl 7 re~J .I Are there any'natural or man-made water channels which run through or adjacent to the site? Yes _:>(, No If Yes, ' City of Burlingame minimum standard parking space size is 9'xN'. The minimum size for compact parking spaces is 8'xl7'. Refer to City of Burlingame Zoning Ordinance C.S. 25.70 for parking requirements for particular uses. Refer to the City of Burlingame's Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance (C.S. 11.06) for tree removal permit and tree planting requirements. ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.ore Describe in general the existing surrounding land uses to the: South C,Idr-1 47-.. V Q 2 1.�«., 1.. �..,u.f 1�} �s�! h rfw. �1._k.�ti•� car East —A— West—A,,,n # L PROPOSED PROJECT Residential Projects: Number of Dwelling Units: / W Size of Unit(s): SJV-14osv . 4t —12i SF 7Ce� Household size (number of persons per unit) expected: 1-2 dtPz a), rl� /��1�� , ,' i Z Commercial/Industrial Projects: Type and square footage of each use: A)1+ Estimated number of employees per shift: Will the project involve the use, disposal or emission of potentially hazardous materials (including petroleum products)? Yes No If Yes, please describe: Institutional Projects (public facilities, hospitals, schools): Major function of facility: Estimated number of employees per shift: Estimated Occupancy: For all Projects: Flood Hazard: Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes /X,_ No Land Use: If the project involves a conditional use permit, variance or rezoning application, please explain why the applications are required3: �Jruti . Sk Dtaz� r� d(i a Please fill out and submit the appropriate application form 9variance special permit, etc.) ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burtineame.org Building gross square footage: Existing: Proposed: Number of floors of construction: Existing: Proposed: Traffic/Circulation: Standard and compact off-street parking spaces provided: Existing: Standard %I Proposed: Standard 9 Compact o Compact 0 Total 12 Total q Grading: Amount of dirt/fill material being moved (check one): 0-500 cubic yards 5,000-20,000 cubic yards 500-5,000 cubic yards ✓ Over 20,000 cubic yards(indicate amount) If fill is being placed over existing bay fill, provide engineering reports which show the effect of the new fill on the underlying bay mud. Storm water runoff. Indicate area of site to be covered with impervious surfaces (parking lot paving, etc.): 1 s:s-, ol� .! C3 vl« Fi-, Is the area with iml Yes vious surfaces less than 200 feet away from a wetland, stream, lagoon or bay? ?_ No Noise: Describe noise sources and timing of activity generated by your project during construction: _ Noise sources generated during operation of facility: Vibration: Will the proposal cause vibration that may affect adjacent properties? Describe any potential sources of vibration: A.A- Exterior Lighting: Please describe any proposed exterior lighting of the facility4: Water: Expected amount of water usage: Domestic Tab gal/day Commercial gal/day Expected fire flow demand Peak use lit) gal/min Peak use gal/min gal/min As per the C.3 regulations set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, please respond to the following questions: 1. Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters? ° Refer to City of Burlingame Exterior Illumination Ordinance (No. 1477) regarding requirements which limit exterior illumination in both residential and commercial zones. ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org 2. Would the proposed project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction? /V0 3. Would the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated increased runoff? ve5 4. Would the proposed project create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates volumes? / /() 5. Would the proposed project result in increased erosion in its watershed? ,A/U 6. Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d) list? If so will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already 7. Would the proposed project have a potential significant environmental impact on surface water quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland waters? AJO 8. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground water quality? 1%./d 9. Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? A/C-) 10. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? /VO Sewer: Expected daily sewer discharge e-IT rrl)' Source of wastewater discharge on site (i.e. restrooms, restaurants, laboratory, materi I processing, etc.) ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burtingame.org General: Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Provide attachment to explain nature of all items checked `yes'. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, or hills, or substantial alteration of ground contours. Tr, Yes No Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. X Change in dust, ash, smoke fumes or odors in vicinity. Change in bay, lagoon, stream, channel or groundwater quality or quantity, or X alteration of existing drainage patterns. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity (during x construction and/or during operation). Site on filled land or on slope of 10 % or more. X Use or disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, n flammable materials or explosives. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire water, sewage) x Substantial increase in fossil fuel consumption (oil, natural gas, etc.). Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief 1---_2 Date / 17 - / 7 Signatur ENVREV.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlineame.org EURLINGAME Ed - CITY OF BURLINGAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? RECEIVE APR - 3 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. CUP.rtue Cud; � Q Fore Property Company `8 Los Gatos 20 S. Santa Cruz Avenue, #300 Los Gatos, Califon a 95030 (408) 203 -1892 Telephone April 3, 2017 920 Bayswater Proposed Development Application Resubmittal March 31, 2017 Conditional Use Permit Application: The project site has a split zoning of Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) and R-3, allowing the site within the MMU zoning to be developed for multifamily residential use with a conditional use permit, subject to the regulations and restrictions of the MMU zoning district and certain standards as stated in section 25.34.030(a). The portion of the site within the R-3 zoning district allows for multifamily residential as a permitted use per CS 25.28.020(b). Fore Property Company ("FORE") requests a conditional use permit to redevelop the site for multifamily residential use of 140 apartments in one four-story building with subterranean parking, abundant amenities, and landscaping. The conditional use permit is being required for the portion of the proposed development that is within the MMU zoning district, item (a) Multifamily residential uses, including live/work, with an average maximum unit size of one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) square feet. Average maximum unit size is defined as the maximum value allowed when averaging the square footage of gross floor areas of all residential units in a project. The required findings for a conditional use permit for the project are outlined below. 1) Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed development is consistent with the existing uses that you will find on the subject property currently, along with all the existing multifamily immediately adjacent to the property. The site is made up of multiple parcels that included uses such as single family, multifamily, and automotive. The proposed development will remove the industrial/automotive use from the area while providing higher quality multifamily housing. The site is adjacent to automotive/industrial uses to the north, multifamily uses to the east, automotive/industrial to the south across Bayswater Avenue, and vacant land adjacent to the CalTrain tracks to the west. The proposed development will act as a buffer to the CalTrain railway tracks to the west while providing a transition from the train and automotive/industrial uses to multifamily uses which currently surround and abut the subject property. Parking — Myrtle Road is currently used for on street parking by CalTrain riders, and limited changes are proposed to the existing on -street parking. The proposed development will provide a two -level subterranean garage that offers surplus parking to the current requirements. Additional measures for dedicated car share stalls (zip car, etc.) are being researched as a possibility along with EV Charging stations within the garage. The use of CalTrain for residents to use for their work commute is a high possibility, but FORE understands that residents will still have cars living within the Peninsula. FORE is providing excess parking within the garage (off street) due to this concern. Traffic and circulation was designed to be less impactful to the residential neighborhood to the east, as the garage entrance was placed on Myrtle Road instead of Bayswater Avenue. The current design looks to minimize the impact of any potential increased parking requirements from the project by providing adequate and surplus parking fully contained within our proposed garage. Views — The building will act as a buffer for both sound and views to the active CalTrain tracks immediately west of the site. The building will act as a sound buffer for all multifamily residents immediately to the east of the subject property along with the single-family residences further to the east. The building design will blend into the existing neighborhood providing a blend of modern and industrial characteristics as outlined in the Myrtle Road Mixed Use Area design portion of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (5.2.2.4). The architect's design allowed for the bulk of the massing to be kept towards Myrtle Road (farther west) to help with the transition from the active CalTrain tracks to the west while transitioning to the existing multifamily to the east. Public Health — The proposed development is designed to code and will treat all required items for sanitation, sewer, water supply, in addition to stormwater systems. The stormwater system is requiring the FORE to extend the stormwater line a significant distance on Bayswater and Myrtle to tie into existing connections at those points. FORE will be doing this at their own cost providing for full treatment of all public health requirements as required by code. This community will be professionally managed and kept to a high level of service and maintenance as customary with all the communities that FORE currently owns and manages. The proposed residential use is a better and safer fit for public health than the current automotive use that exists today. Public Safety — The proposed development will utilize a fire sprinkler system throughout as required by code. The system will be monitored and provide for better structure safety than the current uses on the site. The community will be professionally managed and will include gated access and key fob entry providing for additional security measures over what currently exists on the property today. The proposed development will provide a high -quality structure that is built to code with high quality finishes that will blend with the fabric of the neighborhood. General Welfare — The site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan which indicates the desire and intent for the proposed development. FORE's current design provides an outdoor plaza at the comer of Myrtle Road and Bayswater Avenue, that will be heavily landscaped creating a sense of arrival and pedestrian connectivity. FORE is also proposing on -site Below Market Rate (BMR) units, which itself is rare or practically impossible to find anywhere in the Peninsula. The proposed redevelopment of the site will enhance the streetscape, the pedestrian connectivity to Downtown Burlingame and the CalTrain Station, while overall enhancing the area with an updated use for the property. The beautification of these parcels will enhance the overall neighborhood experience while still providing a great buffer from the CalTrain railroad tracks on the west side to the multifamily residential units on the east side. 2) How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The subject location is within the Downtown Burlingame Specific Plan and further identified within the Myrtle Road Mixed Use (MMU) zoning district and R-3 (multifamily) zoning district. The proposed development is consistent with the existing uses currently found on the site while also being consistent with the intent of the General Plan and existing Zoning Ordinances for this area. A zoning amendment is not required for this project, as the current design meets the requirements for the split zoning of MMU and R-3. A single variance for rooftop projections is being requested at the current time, due to the AC units and elevator/stairway roof access, which is required for the safety and operation of the building. The proposed project complies with all lot coverage, setback, landscape, parking, and open space requirements, as well as design review standards applicable to the MMU and R-3 residential development. 3) How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The project will compliment and blend in to the fabric of the neighborhood with respect to the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the structures. The neighbor to the north is a vacant/parking lot and then automotive business. The 20' setback from the vacant/parking lot to the north and then the automotive business provides substantial relief from the neighboring property and their industrial/automotive uses to our residential building edge. The neighboring properties to the east are all multifamily. The proposed building goes to ensure and provide for a sensitive transition from the harsher more intense commercial uses in the downtown area to multifamily on the subject block, to then single family residential farther east. The building contains a mix of traditional building materials that enhance the niche district that MMU offers with the varied auto -related commercial characteristics found in the area. The project is adjacent to existing multifamily and automotive uses and the choice of design and materials help to blend in with this neighborhood characteristic. The exterior materials include a combination of cement fiber wood siding, stucco/plaster, cement fiber panels, corrugated metal panels, and decorative metal railings. Thoughtful design and attention to detail still requires multiple aspects of the project to come together to make a project unique and classic. The site planning, lush landscaping, pedestrian connectivity, architectural diversity and multiple transitions providing narrow parcel increments, come together with the corner plaza and help to make the proposed project fit within the existing neighborhood. 11 rQ Fore Property Company Los Gatos 20 S. Santa Cmz Avenue, 9300 Los Gatos, Calilbo is 95030 (408)203-1892 Telephone June 20, 2017 920 Bayswater Avenue Proposed 138-unit Apartment Development Progress Letter for Changes to Plans on Application Re -submittal (5/26/17) Public Outreach: Fore Property Company ("Fore") reached out to the community early in this process to better understand the neighborhood concerns and desired architectural design. Our initial application was submitted to the City on January 301h, 2017. The submittal of the application started the process and created correspondence from the public to city staff. Fore met with Jennifer Pfaff on March 23`d, 2017 to discuss her concerns directly based off the initial application that was submitted to the City. This initial meeting was a catalyst for Fore to reach out to the remaining members of the immediate neighborhood where this project is being proposed. Fore decided to hold a neighborhood meeting to get everyone's input early in the design process. Fore was able to schedule a community neighborhood meeting on May 9ch 2017. Leading up to this meeting, Fore mailed out flyers to over 253 residents that live within a 1,300+/- distance to the east of the project location within the City of Burlingame. This represents over 4x the distance that is required from the City upon formal noticing for a proposed development. These flyers were mailed out through a certified mailing service and went out on April 171h, providing upwards of three weeks to the neighbors to make sure they could schedule accordingly and attend the meeting. In addition to mailing out the flyer, I personally spent over 3-hours walking door to door on Monday May 15C, 2017 talking to neighbors, discussing the proposed project, and making sure they received the flyer in the mail. The neighborhood meeting was held the evening of May 9`h, 2017 from 6:30pm to 9:30pm at the recreational center located at 850 Burlingame Avenue within the Social Hall room. Attendance was good given the mailed flyers, the door to door knocking, and social blogs that helped to get additional interested people to attend the meeting. In all, the formal sign in sheets indicated 32 attendees, but there is a good chance there were closer to 40+/- people in attendance as some attendees might not of signed the sheet. The meeting went from 6:30pm to 9pm and in summary resulted in these four concerns being the highlighted topics of discussion: • Architectural design is too modern and does not fit in with the fabric of the neighborhood which is mostly craftsman and bungalow style. • Overall project size of 140-units is a concern regarding traffic and parking • Height of the building without having a transition or step-down from our proposed project to the adjacent two-story condominium at 904 Bayswater. • Building breaks and/or design changes to help break up the overall massing and provide for a better feel of "built up over time". In other words, not enough building articulation. After hearing the concerns raised from the neighborhood meeting, staff and Fore thought it would make the most sense to address these concerns prior to the formal Planning Commission and Design Review Board. Fore and our design team made the following changes to address the neighborhood concerns: Architectural design is too modern and does not fit in with the fabric of the neighborhood which is mostly craftsman and bungalow style. The architectural style was "softened" to help provide more of a residential feel with the materials, color palette, and accents that you would find in craftsman and bungalow style architecture. The use of the warm red Napa style farmhouse was incorporated into the corner buildings to soften the previous industrial modern feel. The balance between wood and metal railings on the patios provide separation and independent building portions breaking up the style, look, and feel within the project itself. The building is sectioned off providing a look of "built up over time instead of one monotone style. The color palette was chosen to match photographs that we took of the existing craftsman and bungalow style single-family homes within a three -block radius of the site. Fore and their design team incorporated metal roof awnings in sections on both Myrtle and Bayswater while balancing craftsman style roof line pop -ups and a smaller softer contemporary flat roof line to provide additional vertical articulation. BEFORE: AFTER: Overall size of the project with 140-units is creating a concern regarding parking and traffic. Traffic was addressed in the neighborhood meeting and will be further vetted as we go through the environmental process with the City. The environmental process will likely result in the requirement of a traffic study which will be done by 31 party consultants and reviewed and analyzed by staff. As it relates to parking, the project was previously designed for 140-units. The parking requirement indicated the 140-unit project would need to have a minimum of 175 parking stalls. Fore's previous design provided for 184 parking stalls, of which none were designed as compact stalls. This represented a nine - stall surplus of parking for the project. In addition to having excess parking over the required amount, Fore recently changed the design which resulted in the reduction of two units overall. The new proposed project indicates 138 total units instead of 140 units. The parking requirement for the newly design 138-unit project is 178 parking stalls. This increased due to the addition of a 3-bedroom unit within the community. However, Fore heard the neighborhood concerns and wanted to keep additional parking within our garage and is providing a total of 190 parking stalls within the garage. This represents a surplus of 12 stalls, again with no compact stalls incorporated as the design accounts for all of them to be full size parking stalls. This does not account for the on -street parking, which has been kept and provides for an additional ten (10) parking spaces. Height of the building without having a transition or step-down from ourproposed building to the adjacent two-story condominium next door at 904 Bayswater Avenue, Fore worked with the architect to reduce the overall number of units within the project and focused our efforts on the side of the building that is within the R3 Zone and adjacent to an existing two-story condominium located at 904 Bayswater Avenue. We removed the three top floor units and replaced it with one unit positioned perpendicular to Bayswater Avenue. This created a further setback of the top floor of the building while also creating the step-down of the roof line. This helped to soften the transition and bring the roof lines closer to the neighboring two-story condo. The neighboring condo has a pitched -style raised roof creating an overall height of two and a half stories, while our proposed project has a flat roof and three- story height now at this edge. Please refer to Architectural Page 14 in the plan set dated June 20, 2017 for detailed building elevations. Building breaks and/or design changes to help break up the overall massing and provide for a better feel of "built up over time ". In other words, not enough building articulation. Fore worked with the architect, civil, and landscape architect to better enhance the streetscape experience for the pedestrians walking along Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road. The previous design was relatively flat and did not allow for different depths of view and building presence along these roadways. The new design provides for significant changes to the building articulation while the architect was able to create an actual break in the building fapade that essentially creates the feel of building separation. The landscape architect maximized the available area and heavily treated these spaces to create landscape nodes. Below you will seethe changes including patio placements, building jogs and/or setbacks and the break in the building with landscape to create those separations. BAYS WATER BEFORE: 11 4 BAYS WATER AFTER: m m 0 MYRTLE BEFORE: MYRTLE AFTER: MYRTLE ROAD SEGUR MYRTLE R0An We have appreciated the opportunity to work with staff and we look forward to working with the Planning Commission and Design Review Board on an exceptional development here in Burlingame. Sincerely, Mark Pilarczyk Fore Green Development, LLC Fore Property Company TOW �11 r z w Q rT- w Q U) Q m 0 m _ 0 N UM 1 W D z w Q w w Q m 0 N 4 N N t`J W D z w Q m o dd3eM _ N s O) CITY BURLINGAME NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA94010 Pfi:(650) 558-7250 e FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council (bombers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit (or Multi -Family Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking at 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE zoned MMU and R-3. APNs 029-235-160, 029-235-170, 029-235-180, 029-235-190, 029-235-200, 029-235.210, and 029-235-220 Mailed: November 3, 2017 (Please refer to other side) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE City of Burlingame A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) LETTERS RECEIVED FOR JULY 10, 2017 DESIGN REVIEW STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING MEETING 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 1 -----Original Message ----- From: CD/PLG-Kevin Gardiner Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:54 AM To: CD/PLG-Connie Rihm Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Ave -----Original Message ----- COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Teri Arbues mailto:; ._ - .Ogmail.coml Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2017 5:11 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanninaCommissionersCc_burlingame.org> Subject: 920 Bayswater Ave Our infrastructure is already overwhelmed, our freeways overcrowded, our air quality suffering. Burlingame used to be a quaint little city- we have lived here for 40yrs. Why add hundreds more people who will use precious resources and overcrowd an already overwhelmed community- I know money, but quality of life should out -way that. Please stop this project! Sincerely, Teri Arbues Sent from my iPhone CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame From: kathy Birkett [maiha,.. _@comcast.netI Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 1:49 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: 920 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame We are owners, tax payers, and voters residing at Bayswater Avenue in Burlingame, and we vehemently object to the large- scale project proposed at 920 Bayswater Avenue and Myrtle Road, on the basis of its size and traffic -safety considerations. This project will have many negative impacts on our Lyon -Hoag neighborhood. The 138- unit, 4-story project is far too large, out of character and scale for the area, and does not possess adequate parking for a complex that could potentially house well over 450 residents, where parking is already scarce due to parking overflow issues related to the nearby elementary school, and auto -related businesses. Kathy and Rick Birkett 650-: Bayswater Burlingame, CA 94010 716-_ Wythe Chautauqua, NY 14722 CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame - Proposed Development Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:30 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: 920 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame - Proposed Development RE: The proposed development of 920 Bayswater, 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd. I am a home owner on Bayswater (one block away from the development)and a Real Estate Broker with Coldwell Banker in Burlingame for the past 23 years. I strongly oppose the proposed development of the above properties - the size and scope of the proposed development will have a very negative impact on the area, from a number of standpoints, traffic, aesthetics and lack of conformity with the neighborhood. there is a school nearby - Washington School - increased traffic in this area will result in dangerous conditions for parents dropping and picking up children. A two level underground parking garage and a roof top garden in addition to 138 units!! This would be a real eye -sore in the neighborhood. There are already a lot of new units on California Drive in nearby San Mateo, with increased traffic resulting from these developments. The charm of this part of Burlingame will be destroyed by this development. I am requesting that this request for development be rejected. Thank you. Regards, Bernadette Casey-Durazzo, Broker Associate, International President's Elite BRE# 01100637 Cell 650 L _ @cbnorcal.com www. camoves. com/bernadette. case ydurazzo www.ColdwellBankerHomes.com Coldwell Banker 1427 Chapin Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Selling Real Estate since 1993 This email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete this copy from your system. Nothing in this email creates a contract for a real estate transaction, and the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a contract via written or verbal communication. CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: Bayswater Myrtle apartment project From: Teresa Colone [mailto:t...._ .. Cla gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 9:59 AM To: CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon; GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: Bayswater Myrtle apartment project Hello Planning Commissioners and Council members I am a 48 year resident and homeowner in the Lyon Hoag area. I am writing to express my concerns about the Bayswater/Myrtle project. While I am not opposed to the new apartment complex to be constructed at 920 Bayswater, I am deeply opposed to the scale and industrial looking design which does NOT AT ALL fit into this neighborhood.A two story building with a new very different design and greatly enhanced landscaping would be a welcomed addition to our neighborhood. Please do not approve this project as it is, it needs to be scaled back by half. The traffic/parking impact this nightmare of a complex will create in the surrounding neighborhood will also flow into the already terribly congested downtown as well. The planned removal of so many trees is also a major concern. The removal of a very large, spreading tree in front of 124 Myrtle is especially distressing. This beautiful tree could be a focal point in what I and many others hope will be a revised and downsized two storied building that is aesthetically pleasing. Saving this tree and hopefully several others could add an element of charm to the complex. Do not let this monstrosity of a building go forward and please consider saving at least a few of the larger trees. Sincerely Teresa Colone 07.10.17 PC Meeting COMMUNICA TION RECEIVED Item # 9a AFTER PREPARATION 920 Bayswater Avenue OFSTAFFREPORT Page 1 of 1 RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD - PLANNING DIV. -------- Original messaee-------- From: Pam Baker _ .. &Izmail.com> Date: 7/7/17 7:15 PM (GMT-08:00) To: GRP-Planning Commissioners<PlanningCommissionerskburlingame.org> Subject: Opposed to Apartment Complex at Bayswater & Myrtle Unfortunately I'm not able to make Monday's meeting but I wanted to express my serious concerns about this building in terms of additional traffic that it will create for our neighborhood. In addition this does not at all align with the aesthetic of our neighborhood. Please know that as someone who intends to be here for at least the next few decades my family and I are strongly opposed to this building. Please contact me with any questions - thank you. Pam Pam Baker http://IeadershipsDace.com/ r--_ ;Agmail.com AFTER PREPARATION CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon OFSTAFFREPORT Subject: FW: Bayswater and Myrtle proposed project -----Original Message ----- From: Steve Baron [mailto:_ ame.com] 07.10-17 PC Meeting Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 6:18 PM Item # 9a To: GRP-Planning Commissioners 920 Baywater Avenue Subject: Bayswater and Myrtle proposed project. I have lived in Lyon Hoag forforty years.. —As the years go-by traffic and crime have steadily increased. Parking inthe neighborhood is already becoming scarce. I see no need for a project of this magnitude in a single family neighborhood! I am definitely against this proposal!!! ne AFTER PREPARATIO. OF STAFF REPORT Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Ave Project 07.10.17 PC Meeting From: Tom Beerle [mailto:`t- Acbomail.com] Item # 9a Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 8:54 PM 920 Baywater Avenue To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: 920 Bayswater Ave Project Hello - My name is Tom Beerle and my family and I live on 1. Charming Rd. We have been here for about 6 years and send our kids -to Washington Elementary, Unfortunately, I -can't -make the -planning -meeting -but wantedto log my protest for what it is worth. I honestly cannot even believe this project is being considered. The planning commission, rightfully so, is normally so careful that even the idea of tearing down a tree or a proposal to build a house outside the look and feel of the neighborhood gets shot down immediately. How the heck is something this massive and out of touch with what we're trying to build for a community even get considered. I'm not sure the details of what is being offered to the community in exchange for the green light but the idea of injecting a 138 unit complex just seems crazy. anyway, add one vote to the 'nays'. Thanks, Tom 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 1 -------- Original message -------- From: Leno Bellomo mil_ ggmail.com> Date: 7/9/17 4:50 PM (GMT-08:00) COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD - PLANNING DIV. To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlannineCommissioners@burlin ame.org> Subject: Project Protest As a resident and homeowner in Burlingame I am against the project to be located at 920 Bayswater Avenue. The increase in recent modern architecture does not blend with the quaint history of our town. Over population, vehicle traffic, drains on water supply and effluent for sewage treatment and just as important, parking. Please don't be fooled to think that that the 138 units has anything less than two cars per unit. Please do not allow the magnitude of this project to spoil the ambiance of our town. Sincerely, Leno Bellomo, Jr. 1. Howard Avenue BURLINGAME, CA 94010 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 1 From: David Davenport rmailto:. Acogmail.com: Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 1:22 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: 920 Bayswater Ave. Proposed Development Commissioners: COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. I write to express significant reservations about this proposed development. If I understand it correctly, 138 units are proposed in an area that is quite simply not appropriate for that scale of development. It doesn't fit with the rest of the neighborhood and community, and the area is not suited to take on all the traffic, people and parking that will be servicing such a huge complex. I would encourage the Commission to require that the project be downsized to better fit the nature of the surrounding neighborhood and community and to place significantly less stress on the limited infrastructure. Thanks David Davenport 7- Concord Way Burlingame, CA 94010 David Davenport CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: Proposed Project Impacts -------- Original message -------- From: Donald Donoughe <� kdonou edesi .com> Date: 7/2/17 2:58 PM (GMT-08:00) To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlannineCommissioners�a burlineame.org> Cc: Beth Concoby <Beth.Concoby@dupont.com> Subject: Proposed Project Impacts Dear City of Burlingame Planning Commissioners, I wanted to let you know that the extra large proposed development at 920 Bayswater Avenue a block away from our house will definitely have a negative impact on our neighborhood. My wife and I have lived here at the corner of Arundel and Bayswater since the early 90's. Recently the traffic and parking situation has become extremely difficult and frustrating. If we move our car it's very likely that another car will fill the space immediately. I'm sure that Washington School and A Child's Way have something to do with it, as well as extra (and probably unlawful) apartments behind homes, the apartment buildings across the street and the employees of Putnam, have all contributed to the problem. I can foresee more cars parking in front of our house once the project is finished. It's also clear that many people are parking their cars and taking Uber/Lyft to SFO. This gigantic development will only exacerbate the parking and congestion. As you consider the merits of this project, please keep in mind the residents and tax payers of the neighborhood. Don Donoughe & Beth Concoby 1 Arundel Road (corner of Bayswater) c 650- .. www.donou hedesign.com don .donou edesi .com CD/PLG-Bill Meeker From: Lynn Feeney < , @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 4:57 PM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: Lynn Feeney Subject: Bayswater and Myrtle project 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 1 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT Hello, I will be in attendance at tonight's meeting but wanted to send a message as well. We live at 15 Dwight between Peninsula and Bayswater. We have been here 29 years and our children are grown. The neighborhood has transitioned to young families and we love all the young children. There has always been extra traffic on Dwight due to the traffic light. In fact, we worked with Burlingame to put in the bulb -outs at the intersection. While this helped, the remainder of the project, actuated lights, never happened and would have made a bigger difference. Over the last couple years, traffic has increased in quantity and speed. We have had numerous accidents at the intersection of Peninsula and Dwight/Delaware, including pedestrians. We plan to get access to this accident information. At the corner of Peninsula and Dwight, we have an apartment building that is two stories high and has 12 apartments. The project before you is ELEVEN times that number of units and twice as tall. Being realistic, tenants wanting to get to 101 are more likely to go down Bayswater to Dwight, and turn right so that they can turn left on Peninsula at a traffic signal. Some may go up to California but human nature being what it is, many will avoid the traffic lights at Bayswater/California and Peninsula/California and race down Bayswater to Dwight. I am not opposed to adding to the housing supply in Burlingame but I believe a 2-story and 60 unit development is more in line with the area. Another mitigation could be adding another traffic light on Peninsula (ideally at Anita) and requiring the developer to pay for it's implementation. Thank you for your cautious approach to this project. - - Lynn Lynn Feeney d(Msbcglobal.net 650 " I ED JUL I 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Pagel of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. From: Linda Field mailto. @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 07, 2017 4:03 PM To: PLG Comm -Sandy Comaroto <scomaroto@burl ingame.org>; PLG Comm -Michael Gaul <mgaul@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm -Peter Gum <pgum@burlingame.or9>; PLG Comm -Brennen Kelly <bkelly@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm -William Loftis <wloftis@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm -Rich Sargent <rsargent@burlingame.org>; PLG Comm -Richard Terrones <rterrones@burlingame.org> Subject: 920 Bayswater Avenue proposed project Members of the Burlingame Planning Commission, Please read over my attached comments and concerns regarding the proposed multi -family residential project at 920 Bayswater Avenue before the July 1 lth Planning Commission meeting. Thank you. Linda L. Field 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue July 7, 2017 Page 2 of 2 TO: Members of the Burlingame Planning Commission FROM: Linda L. Field, Burlingame resident & home owner m RE: Proposed 920 Bayswater Avenue Multi -Family Residential COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT k Project I am a decades -long home owner in and resident of Burlingame, though not of the Lyon & Hoag neighborhood. Because of my ongoing concerns about what I perceive to be the overdevelopment of our city with large scale residential and multi -use buildings, I attended the public meeting held in May by the proposed project developer. Since then I have also studied the plans on file at the Planning Department and have discussed them with staff contact Senior Planner Catherine Keylon who was very helpful in answering my questions. I cannot express my opposition to this project strongly enough. The scale is far too massive for the existing neighborhood which surrounds it. The design is virtually interchangeable with other projects going up all over the county and is a cookie -cutter look that will rapidly become dated. With 190 parking stalls for cars and 48 spaces for bicycles it is easy to imagine the negative impact that those added vehicles will have on traffic in the immediate area, especially when one or both of the nearby railroad crossings are closed off when a train approaches or is in the Burlingame Avenue station. Certainly some, perhaps many, of the units will have more cars than assigned parking spaces, which will add to the already problematic on -street parking in the neighborhood, as will the additional vehicles of anyone visiting the tenants. Noise issues that the proposed roof -top large screen television and oversized wall screen projection area might cause are another concern. I strongly urge you to ask for a complete redesign of this project on a much smaller scale which will be more in keeping with the character of the Lyon & Hoag neighborhood. Thank you for considering my comments. 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 1 -----Original Message ----- From: Ellen Florio [mailtu._. aavahoo.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 11:55 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: Project at Bayswater COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. We would like to voice our opposition to the proposed project at Bayswater and Mrytle Aves. We feel it's massive size will result in increased traffic and congestion on our street and fundamentally change the atmosphere of our neighborhood. An additional concern is the proposed rooftop public area which will potentially cause a noise nuisance. We hope you will consider the concerns of the residents of our neighborhood. Sincerely, Dr Richard and Ellen Florio 2' Bayswater Avenue Sent from my iPhone Ellen 07.10.17 PC Meeting COMMUNICATIONRECEIVED Item # 9a AFTER PREPARATION 920 Bayswater Avenue OFSTAFFREPORT Pagel of 2 RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME -------- Original message -------- CDD - PLANNING DIV. From: Monika Froehlich <. ___ _ ___ gsbcglobal.net> Date: 7/9/17 11:04 AM (GMT-08:00) To: GRP-Planning Commissioners<PlannineCommissionersnn,burlingame.org> Subject: 920 Bayswater Project Dear Burlingame Planning Commissioners: Where do I start to express my deep concern regarding the proposed monstrous, eyesore of development known as 920 Bayswater. This project is certain to forever destroy the small, quaint, and close knit community of the Lyon Hoag neighborhood. My husband and I are fortunate to be part of this neighborhood, and our homes have been in the family since the early 1950's. Four generations of our family have called Lyon Hoag "home" and have witnessed many changes over the years; some good and some not so great. Of late it has not been so great, and this proposed project would put an end to the what we for generations called and appreciated as a tranquil and enjoyable neighborhood. Let me outline the numerous concerns with this proposed monster of a building: 1. The sheer size is overwhelming for this neighborhood. We are a community of single family homes blended with some small scale apartments that look and feel part of our neighborhood. The proposed 138-unit complex simply drowns out the neighborhood feel. 2. Increased traffic and parking that simply can not be absorbed in this area. We're already burdened with insufficient street parking and outsiders parking long term in our neighborhoods. Traffic on Bloomfield and Bayswater where we live is non-stop and being used as a major thoroughfare. It's often impossible to enjoy the backyard as it feels like sitting next to a freeway. I can't tell you the numerous times and the one actual time I was hit by another vehicle while trying to park my car or pull into my drive way. I can't imagine circumstances being any different for those living around Howard Ave., Anita, Arundel, Clarendon, Dwight, and all the streets down to Humboldt. Plus with the San Mateo proposed full freeway interchange on Peninsula Ave., adding a monstrous project on 920 Bayswater will simply turn our charming and beautiful neighborhood into a traffic laden ghetto that no one wants to live in. 3. Infrastructure wise we are not prepared to take on such a large project. We don't have adequate road space, parking space, schools, and downtown that can accommodate such a large influx of residents. 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 2 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT 4. Keeping in mind that this is not the only proposed large scale apartment complex in Burlingame. We're starting to loose all the quality of life we all longed for when moving here. We're suddenly being "forced and railroaded" to live in a large city when all we wanted was a peaceful and relaxing suburban style of living. If I wanted the hustle and bustle of city live I would move to San Francisco or San Jose. This is not what I want for my family and future generations. 5. Architecturally speaking this proposed development is completely opposite of the existing homes. Nor does it even remotely conform to the general guidelines outlined for Burlingame's future development plans. 6. In addition the project requires the removal of some beautiful heritage trees that are being replaced by inadequate vegetation around the site. The setback for this building is so minimal that there is barely any room for greenery. The outlandish proposed 6300 sq ft roof top deck does nothing to foster vegetation. It is planned as an outdoor entertainment area for the residents and their guests. Again adding more challenges for parking as invited guests will need to park in our neighborhood. 7. A large scale apartment complex doesn't foster residents that have any vested stake or sense of community for our neighborhood, unlike homeownership that creates and solidifies roots in a neighborhood. I'm not against developing the proposed site, but my husband and I strongly believe it needs to be a development more in line to our existing neighborhood. Possibly a townhouse community of 2 story buildings with two car garages and architectural design more in line with what is already in existence would be more appropriate. Possibly a 2-story condo complex with underground parking dedicating 2 stalls per unit to ensure ample neighborhood parking. I realize the incentive for a smaller scale project is not in line with this developer's ROI goal, but perhaps this out of state developer is not the right developer for Burlingame. Let's keep Burlingame and specifically Lyon Hoag the place of peace, tranquility, and quality of life we all have invested in. I'm more than open to welcome a developer that shares and respects the values we hold dear in our neighborhood, and is not only focused on maximum ROI that can be obtained from a piece of property. I urge the Burlingame Planning Commission to either reject this proposed project or scale it back to where it falls in line with what the citizens of Lyon Hoag need to maintain our community. Regards, Monika & Ralph Froehlich 1 . Bloomfield Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon From: Burlingame Planning Dept Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 9:20 AM To: CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: Proposed Project: 920 Bayswater, Burlingae From: Victor Gray (mailto.- ftmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2017 2:59 PM To: Burlingame Planning -Dept zplamringdeptPburlineame.orgs, GRP-Council <councilfturlineame.or¢5 Subject: Proposed Project: 920 Bayswater, Burlingae July 2, 2017 To the Planning Commissioners and the City Council members, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed project called 920 Bayswater. I am a long time resident of Burlingame, most of it in my home in the Lyon Hoag neighborhood. I will get directly to the point; this project as it is currently proposed does not belong in this neighborhood. I suggest they peddle this project in Livermore or South San Jose or anywhere else that they feel a need to cram as many units on one small piece of property and further exacerbate the crowding thereby adding to the decline of the quality of life. As I understand it the revenue that would generated will trickle back to some company in Florida, not a local entity. I know this has all the hallmarks of a NIMBY rant but let me pull back a bit. The project as proposed , in my opinion, is unacceptable. However, a project that is more in tune with the surrounding neighborhood and with a reduced quantity of traffic producing units could be an improvement. I am not going to talk about mass and shadows and height and etc.. I am sure there are plenty of much more qualified people to express these finer points of contention. I am talking about the quality of life in Burlingame. It certainly feels like this town is in "the more the better" mode. At least the decisions regarding building appears to reflect that. Why do we need more people begetting more traffic, ? I understand taxes. I understand growth. We seem to be doing pretty well with all the commercial development east of 101. The traffic everywhere is horrendous and getting worse, noticeably worse. The traffic engineers seem to say "impact will be minimum" when everyone can see it is everything but minimum. Gridlock, wasted time, negative environmental issues, declining quality of life. I am not foolish enough to think we can stop it but can't we at least slow it down ? Burlingame is at risk of becoming just another community that is losing sight of why people want to live and visit here. Are we trying to squish the uniqueness and "old town" qualities that we have ? Are we destined to become something akin to the homogenous strip malls that seem to be everywhere because we need "more"? Come on folks, time to scale things back. Just say no. I regret I will not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on July 10, 2017. I trust you will at least consider the opinion I have expressed here. It would be wonderful. Thank you for your time. Victor Gray 6. Howard Ave. Burlingame, Ca. 94010 CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Ave Development Plans -----Original Message ----- From: Mary Griffith [maihw.. _@Rmail.com] Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2017 5:19 PM To: CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon; GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: GRP-Council Subject: 920 Bayswater Ave Development Plans - Hello -Planning Commissioners and CouncirMembers. My husband anal own a home at 2. . Clarendon Road. I am writing to share our thoughts about the proposed apartment building at 920 Bayswater Ave. In our opinion the proposed building is completely out of proportion to the surrounding neighborhood. It's our understanding the proposed building is 45 feet tall. The shear mass of the structure is inappropriate. From an architectural perspective is not inviting nor in keeping with the charms of our eastern neighborhood. We have grave concerns about the proposed 138 units. That's an awful lot of new people and vehicles in a location adjacent to the railroad tracks and very close to our schools. We are concerned about the additional traffic, parking issues and have concerns about the safety of the many children who walk to Washington school. Traffic is currently an issue and parking is a nightmare, we think this project as proposed will further impact those problems. We understand the land will be scraped, losing more of our beautiful tree. Trees are the soul of our little city and part of what makes it such an inviting place to live. What we've seen as proposed for landscaping is inadequate. Finally, the east side of burlingame is under a tremendous amount of pressure from a variety of projects, High Speed Rail, Cal Train electrification, new construction on Howard and the proposed retrofitting and improvements for ingress and egress to 101 at Peninsula Avenue. We feel it's safe to say that the east side is being cut off from the remainder of our town. Our neighborhood will be denigrated with more traffic, high density living spaces and related issues as well as more issues with parking. We do not eschew development. We are of the opinion that whatever is to happen with the parcels under consideration should be much smaller in scale, two story at a maximum. Town homes, well designed with beautiful landscaping and parking seems more in keeping with what exists in the neighborhood predominately. Normally we would attend the planning commission meeting to air our concerns, but it's full scale summer and we've planned to be away from home the night of the meeting. We sincerely hope you'll give consideration to this letter and the concerns it raises as if we had attended the meeting. Sincerely, Mary & Richard Griffith Sent from my iPad 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 1 -----Original Message ----- From: Mim Hahn [mailto:. (a)gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 10:22 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: Apt complex COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD - PLANNING DIV. Planning commission - As longtime Lyon Hoag/Burlingables home owners we are very concerned about the possibility of the above proposed apartment complex. Please reconsider allowing new construction to be developed at the site of Myrtle and Bayswater..this project would greatly impact the neighborhood.. congestion is of primary issue currently and would jeopardize safety and further alter the already overcrowded east side neighbors... Sometimes change and development can hinder rather than improve an area and we are against an out of place new apartment complex which in no way would be affordable for those who really need housing. Thank you- awaiting outcome of your decision and meeting tonite. Jerry and Maryanne Hahn 7 Burlingame Ave Sent from my iPhone CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Development Plans From: David Harris [mailto:�. ? Calomail.com] Sent: Monday, July 03, 2017 5:18 PM To: ckeylong(fturlingame.ora; GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: GRP-Council Subject: 920 Bayswater Development Plans I live at 6: Howard Avenue and have been a resident of Burlingame for 17 years. I am writing to state my concerns about the proposed apartment building at 920 Bayswater Avenue. They include the following: • Height, size and massing relative to other buildings in the neighborhood. • Architectural design that does not fit with the neighborhood. • The impact of 138 apartment units on neighborhood traffic and safety, including impact on Washington Elementary School • Removal of trees On the first point, after reviewing elevations for this project at a community outreach meeting on May 9, 1 feel that it overwhelms everything around it. It's too tall and too massive for its location. If you stand on East Lane between Howard and Burlingame avenues (near the parking lot where Mike Harvey Honda keeps its inventory of new cars), and look south down the Caltrain corridor, it's not hard to visualize the impact. With the new office building going up at the corner of Howard and East Lane, a sort of canyon effect will be created with the multi -story dealerships on the other side of Caltrain corridor. It will be exacerbated by this four-story 48' tall project spanning about half the block. In addition, the architectural design features of this project are more appropriate for an urban or commercial environment, and have little in common with the surrounding residential architecture. In terms of traffic, even if all residents use the building garage, the impact during commute times will further negatively affect the neighborhood. While this is a single project, it should not be viewed in isolation. There are a number of other projects that will also be impacting traffic and the overall quality of life on the East Side: The $300 million bayfront office project at 300 Airport Blvd., just over the Peninsula Avenue bridge, is already underway and is expected to be completed in two years. This 18-acre project will include 767,000 square feet of office, retail and life sciences space. It will significantly increase traffic on Peninsula Avenue and throughout the East Side. If the 101/Peninsula Avenue interchange project moves forward, as the City of San Mateo intends, this will have a major negative impact on our neighborhood from traffic heading on and off 101. East Side and other Burlingame residents have voiced strong opposition to this project for numerous reasons, including traffic. Caltrain electrification will increase the number of times crossing gates are down and hold up traffic at Peninsula, Bayswater, Howard and Burlingame avenues. According to Caltrain, the volume of trains will increase from about 92 trains per day to 114 trains in 2020. If high-speed rail become a reality, train volumes in 2030 are expected to reach 220 a day. During peak times train volume is expected to be 20 trains an hour, or one train every 2-3 minutes. The Planning Commission needs to evaluate this project in terms of how its size and scope will contribute to the projects and pressures already impacting our neighborhood. We need more housing, and housing that's affordable, but it needs to be designed such that it supports the quality of life that we've all come to value in Burlingame. Having attended the May 9 meeting where the developer presented the project, I believe he sincerely wants to work with the community to come up with a successful design. However, it needs to be smaller in size, and designed to be more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Sincerely David Harris 6: Howard Avenue CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: FW: 920 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, CA From: Laura Hesselgren [mailL-' @deerrieldrealty.net] Sent: Friday, June 30, 2017 10:19 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Subject: 920 Bayswater Ave., Burlingame, CA Dear Planning Commissioners, I am_writingyou to_pr-otest theoroposed project for 920 Bayswater- Ave_,BurlingamerCA This_proposed-project istoo massive for our neighborhood and does not fit in. Essentially five stories, if roof top garden is counted, is unacceptable and should not be allowed to be built. This project is basically from lot line to lot line with very little landscaped area. The design is something that is popping up all over the Peninsula and it's like the developers have gotten together and faxed the same design from City to City. We are NOT the south of Market and should not be made to look like it. This project is under parked and will create more of a parking issue than already exists in this area. Our area has already become a traffic nightmare and to add more to it is unacceptable. Per the downtown specific plan, section 5.1 of the Design and character section, states: IN THE RESIDENTAIAL AREAS, NEW PROJECTS SHOULD REINFORCE THE FINE- GRAINED SCALE AND QUIET AMENITY THAT EXISTS. This project in no way represents that and in fact, does quite the opposite. Again, let me repeat the downtown specific plan: NEW PROJECTS SHOULD REINFORCE THE FINE-GRAINED SCALE. I would hope that you would downsize this massive project to fit more into our neighborhood. I discussed the parking issue with the developer at a community meeting a few months back. He specifically stated that parking is not an issue in the developments his company manages up and down the Peninsula. He stated that his residents take the train and he even stated that there were empty parking stalls throughout. Well, I did a quick google search of his company at that meeting and found that the nearest property they own and manage is in Chico, California. They have NO projects in the Bay Area and he basically lied to the residents on this fact. When pressed on the matter, he finally admitted he did not have a project on the Peninsula but meant that he looked at studies — basically, he lied to us. How do you trust a developer like that, to come into our neighborhood and design a building that will add value to our properties and enhance our quality of life? You can't. Please do not consider this MASSIVE project that does not fit into our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Laura Hesselgren 4 Bayswater Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 07.10.17 PC Meeting Item # 9a 920 Bayswater Avenue Page 1 of 3 Original message From: Timothy Warren Hooker <,, _ kgmail.com> Date: 7/8/17 4:25 PM (GMT-08:00) COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED JUL 10 2017 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD - PLANNING DIV. To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissionersgburlin ame org> Subject: --Proposed Apartment Complex at Bayswater and Myrtle Please find attached my input on why I think this development would be damaging to our City. Thanks for listening. Timothy Hooker Chief Experience Officer Esperto Labs P.O. Box 117523 Burlingame, CA 94011-7523 650- -Voice/fax 806- : -Toll free My Email:: ibespertoinc.com Our website: www.esnertolabs.com Facebook: www.facebook.com/espertoinc LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/esperto Web DesignIOnline-MarketingISocial Media)Security Search Engine OptimizationlReputation Management LETTERS RECEIVED FOR NOVEMBER 13, 2017 (SECOND) DESIGN REVIEW STUDY MEETING 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE Nov. 1, 2017 RE: 920 Bayswater Avenue FORE Proposal Honorable Chair Gum and Planning Commissioners: On occasion Burlingame experiences developers who really step up to the plate when their projects are met with extreme community opposition. Mark Pilarczyk of FORE Property Company is one of those. Though we cannot possibly speak on behalf of the larger Lyon & Hoag neighborhood, we can offer a close -in, neighborhood perspective of five longtime residents from Bayswater Ave., Bloomfield and Dwight Rds., all of whom take great pride in the renaissance of our neighborhood and homes, while grappling with increased congestion, traffic, and parking issues on our streets each day. After Mark braved overwhelming neighborhood criticism and less than stellar reviews of his original project from the Planning Commission at the July loth Design Review Study session, most people speculated that FORE would disappear, as others have, not wanting to invest the time nor effort necessary to revisit design approaches and work with neighbors. Much to our surprise, FORE did not go away. At his request, we met with Mark on several occasions in July and August, initially expecting an impasse. Instead, Mark, his architect, and landscape architect, have devoted countless hours and energy to addressing our concerns down to even the smallest detail, to make this project "fit" the entrance and transitional area to our neighborhood, as well as remain financially feasible for FORE. Notably, the original bulky mass has been broken up into three much more attractive structures, with open courtyard spaces in between. The fourth floor has been cleverly tucked under a farmhouse -style, gabled roof, lessening the visual impact significantly. A scaled back, three-story structure fronting Bayswater transitions nicely to the smaller -scale condos at the Anita corner. The roof deck has been decreased substantially, and relocated to minimize noise and privacy concerns. On the far end of Myrtle, the enormous heritage pepper tree has been spared, becoming a focal point in an open space area for the residents and their pets to enjoy. The substantial redwoods behind, and birch trees in front of the mid -block Bayswater parcel have also been spared, all of which will help give the project an immediate sense of place. Furthermore, previously minimal side setbacks on the Myrtle side have been substantially increased, providing much needed space for plantings that will help soften the project so it blends in. The variance for additional rooftop projection above the parapet has been eliminated, as well. Excess parking slots, beyond those required, are included. We recognize and appreciate that FORE has made significant efforts towards reduction of the unit count to 128. In any case, this remains a very dense project-- one of a handful moving through the city pipeline that will, without a doubt, impact traffic in and through our neighborhood. Setting density limits per acre was not a pressing, nor relevant issue during the development of the Downtown Specific Plan in 2007-10, a time of recession with little or no building activity, and prior to newer state - mandated density policies. Though we are in full support of the FORE plans as proposed and have only the highest praise for this developer and his efforts, we want to emphasize for the city's record the very urgent need for strategic traffic -calming devices (and the necessary funding thereof) to ameliorate the cumulative and ever -worsening situation in our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. Teresa Colone, Lynn Feeney, Monika Froehlich, Laura Hesselgren, Jennifer Pfaff Cc: Burlingame City Council, Burlingame Public Works Dept. CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon From: .@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2017 12:53 PM To: CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon Subject: Re: 920 Bayswater Avenue project What it's worth as resident in the area, I strongly oppose!! On Nov 1, 2017, at 10:23 AM, CD/PLG-Catherine Keylon <ckeylon0burlingame.orp wrote: Hello, This email is being sent to you because you requested information regarding the proposed multi -family development at 920 Bayswater Avenue. Location: 920 Bayswater Avenue (includes 908 Bayswater Ave., 108 Myrtle Rd., 112 Myrtle Rd., 116 Myrtle Rd., 120 Myrtle Rd., 124 Myrtle Rd.) Zoned: Myrtle Mixed Use (MMU) and R-3 Description: Application for Environmental Review, Lot Merger, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Multi -Family Residential, and Density Bonus Incentive for a New 128-Unit Apartment Development with two levels of below -grade parking. Height: 45-feet Parking: 179 spaces We have the project scheduled for Design Review Study at the November 13 Planning Commission meeting. Attached is a rendering of the revised project that will be reviewed that evening. The Planning Commission meeting agenda and supporting documents will be available on Friday November 10, 2017, you may view the meeting agenda and staff reports by clicking on the following link: http://www.burlingame.org/index.aspx?page=3345 Thank you, Catherine Keylon - Senior Planner I Community Development Department - Planning Division I City of Burlingame I ph 650.558.7252 1 fax 650.696.3790 1 ckevlon@burlincame.ora The Planning Division will be closed every Wednesday afternoon from 12pm -5pm. <Bayswater Ave and Myrtle Road -Rendering 11.1.17.jpg> November 7, 2017 Dear Planning Commissioners, As I will be out of the area on November 13t' and unable to attend that evening's Commission meeting, I am writing in regard to the upcoming design review for the 920 Bayswater Project. Thank you for carefully reading and considering my concerns. The design of the exterior of the buildings has been greatly improved since the project's initial proposal. It is much more in keeping with the neighborhood and is a traditional style that will 'age' gracefully in the years to come. Other changes that are appreciated include the reduced number of units, the reduced size of the roof garden, the lower height of the units near the condominiums at 904 Bayswater Avenue, and the overall redesign of the project from one large blocky structure into separate smaller structures. The Fore Property Company has listened to the concerns of the residents in the neighborhood and incorporated many of their suggestions into the revised plan. The issues of traffic congestion and of on -street parking availability, however, remain of great concern to me. At present when I drive through the neighborhood the streets are busy and there is virtually never any on -street parking available near the proposed 920 Bayswater Project site. It doesn't take a crystal ball to surmise that adding 128 units of new housing will increase traffic in the area. While commuting to work on the train may be an option for many of the future residents, they will still require vehicles for trips to the doctor, dentist, library, grocery store, gym, their child's school and after school activities, the post office, weekend getaways, etc., etc., etc. We simply do not have a public transit system that allows most residents to live in this area without owning and using a motor vehicle. If these same residents own more vehicles than the number of on -site parking spaces can accommodate, even though that number exceeds the number of spaces required by city code, there will be even greater competition for the limited amount of on -street parking spaces. The future employees of the offices being built at the 988 Howard Avenue Project will also impact both the traffic and parking situations in the neighborhood. I strongly urge you to give serious consideration to these concerns and to do whatever is possible to see that traffic calming measures are explored and included in the final plans for the 920 Bayswater Project. Thank you for reading this letter and considering my concerns Sincerely Linda L. Field 1 Paloma Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 -- - - .- ._ -r. �.:�' }lye.-�+..�s L z. � • . CONTENTS OI I C aVIVIIVIHIIi ADDRESS EXISTING ZONING 920 BAYWATER AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA MMU AND R3 GROSS LOT AREA 1.2 AC 53,012 S.F. 01 PROJECT SUMMARY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION PARKING GARAGE TYPE I RESIDENTIAL TYPE VA PROJECT SUMMARY C1 TITLE SHEET DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED PLAN C2 EXISTING CONDITIONS DENSITY N/A 107 DU/AC C3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TOTAL UNITS N/A 128 DU C4 PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN LOT COVERAGE HEIGHT MMU 75% MAX. R3 50% MAX MMU RIB MAX. R3 RIB MAX 65.6% IN MMU ZONE - 47.9%IN R3 ZONE 46' C5 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C.S.25.63.040 (c) (1) DEVELOPMENT CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES C6 PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NUMBER OF FLOORS SETBACKS MMU ZONE: WA 4 STORY OVER 2 LEVELS OF SUBTERRANEAN PARKING C7 STORMAWATER CHECKLIST FRONT 10' 10, C8 STORMWATER CHECLIST SIDE ADJACENT TO R3 SIDE ADJACENT TO STREET 9.5' 0' 10'-5- 2'-1'-1' C9 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL PLAN REAR SETBACKS R3 ZONE: 20' 20' C10 PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL DETAILS FRONT 15' 15' C11 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SIDE REAR 9.5' 20' 9.5' 20' EX1 BUILDING HEIGHT EXHIBIT GROSS BUILDING AREA: YEA URED FROM EXTERIOR WALL TO EXTERIOR WALL EXCLUDING CONIES AND OPEN CORRIDORS L1 COURTYARD ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN PARKING RESIDENTIAL L2 ROOF DECK ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN P2-LOWER PARKING 45,813 S.F. 1 ST LEVEL 32,119 S.F. L3 EXISTING TREE PLAN P1-UPPER PARKING 45,813 S.F. 2ND AND 3RD LEVELS 33,424 S.F. (66,848 AT 2 LEVELS) L4 PLANT PALETTE TOTAL 91,526 S.F. 4TH LEVEL TOTAL 32,648 S.F. 131,615 S.F. L5 CHARACTER IMAGES UNIT SUMMARY UNITTYPE NUMBER OF UNITS GROSS FLOOR AREA TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA NET FLOOR AREA TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN S1-STUDIO 22Du 519S.F. 11,418S.F. 477S.F. 10,494S.F. EXISTING CONDITION S1-1-STUDIO 82 4DU 3 DU 519 S.F. 530 S.F. 2,076 S.F. 1,590S.F. 477 S.F. 482 S.F. 1,908S.F. 1446 S.F. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS PLAN ROOF PLAN - HEIGHT EXHIBIT TOTAL STUDIO: 29 DU RATIO:23% GROSSAREA:15,084S,F, NEFAREA: 13,848 S.F. LOWER LEVEL PARKING - P2 Al-1 BDR.-BATH A2-1BDR.-BATH 42 DU 3DU 705 B.F. 723 S.F. 29,610 S.F. 2,169S.F. 654 B.F. 656S.F. 27,468 B.F. 1,9688.F. UPPER LEVEL PARKING - P1 A 1 BDR.-BATH 2DU 650 S.F. 1.300 S.F. 604 S.F. 1,208 S.F. 1STLEVEL - GROUND FLOOR PLAN A4-1BDR.-BATH 7DU 679S.F. 4,753S.F. 631S.F. 4,417S.F. 2ND LEVEL TOTAL 1BEDROOM : 54DU RATIO42% GROSS AREA: 37,832 S.F. NET AREA: 35,061S.F. 3RD LEVEL C1-1BDR+DEN 2DU 831S.F. 1,662S.F. 779S.F. 1,558S.F. 4TH LEVEL C2-1BDR+DEN 1DU 833S.F. 833 S.F. 775 S.F. 775 S.F. ROOF PLAN TOTAL 1 BEDROOM+DEN: 3 DU RATI0:3% GROSS AREA: 2,495 S.F. NET AREA: 2,333 S.F. BUILDING ELEVATIONS B1-2BDR.-2BATH 20 DU 1,050S.F. 21,000S.F. 992S.F. 19,840S.F. BUILDING ELEVATIONS Bz-2BDR.-2BATH B3-2BDR.-2BATH 2DU 2DU 1,082S.F. 1,004 S.F. 2,164S.F. 2,008 S.F. 1,000S.F. 946 S.F. 2,000S.F. 1,892 S.F. SITE SECTION Ba-2BDR.-2BATH sou 1,042S.F. 5,210S.F. 979S.F. 4,895S.F. UNIT PLANS B5-2BDR.-2BATH B6-2BDR.-2BATH 1 DU 1 DU 1,131 S.F. 1,142S.F. 1.131 S.F. 1,142S.F. 1,088 S.F. 1,079 S.F. 1,088 S.F. 1,079 S.F. UNIT PLANS B7-2BDR.-2BATH 2DU 1,249S.F. 2,495S.F. 1,172S.F. 2,344S.F. UNIT PLANS TOTAL 2 BEDROOM- BATH; 33DU RAA0:26% GROSS AREA: 35,153 S.F. NETAREA:33,135S.F. UNIT PLANS D1-2BDR+IBATH 1DU 897 S.F. 897 S.F. 843 S.F. 843 S.F. UNIT PLANS D2-2BDR+IBATH 1DU 953S.F. 953S.F. 897 S.F. 897 S.F. PERSPECTIVE TOTAL 2 BEDROOM+IBATH: 2DU RATI0:1% GROSS AREA: 1,850 S.F. NET AREA: 1,740 S.F. PERSPECTIVE ET�BDR+2BATH sou 1,310 S.F. 7,860 S.F. 1,210S.F. 7,260 S.F. PERSPECTIVE E2-3BDR+2BATH 1 DU 1,376 S.F. 1,376 S.F. 1302 S.F. 1,302 S.F. PERSPECTIVE TOTAL 2 BEDROOM+IBATH: 7 DU RATIO:596 GROSS AREA: 9,236 S.F. NET AREA: 8,562 S.F. PERSPECTIVE PERSPECTIVE TOTAL UNITS: 128 DU TOTAL GROSS AREA: 101.860 S.F. TOTAL GROSS AREA: 94.W2 S.F. EGRESS DIAGRAMS / OCCUPANCY ANALYSIS AFFORDABLE UNITS: 13 DU 10%OF TOTAL UNITS ARE AFFORDABLE AT MODERATE INCOME 120%AMI EGRESS DIAGRAMS / OCCUPANCY ANALYSIS ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAMS PARKING REQUIRED PER STATE AFFORDABILITY / DENSITY BONUS PARKING PROVIDED ACCESSIBILITY DIAGRAMS STUDIO ONE BEDROOM 1 CAR CARIDU 29 STALLS 57 STALLS P1 P2 88 STALLS 91 STALLS LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM TWO BEDROOM THREE BEDROOM 2 CAR/DU 2 CAR/DU 70 STALLS 14 STALLS TOTAL BICYCLE 179 STALLS 36 SPACES ALLOWABLE AREA ANALYSIS TOTAL 170 STALLS BUILDING HEIGHT ANALYSIS OMMON OPEN SPACE GROSS AREA) LOCKERS LEASING AND MAIL 1,504 S.F. AT P2 119 LOCKERS GYM 758 S.F. COMMUNITY ROOM 1,3]6 S.F. ROOF DECK 4,000 S.F. COURTYARD 12,500 S.F. 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 PROJECT TEAM DEVELOPER FORE PROPERTY COMPANY ADDRESS: 20 S. SANTA CRUZ AVENUE N300 LOS GATOS, CA 95030 CONTACT: MARK V. PII-ARCZYK PHONE: 408.203.1892 EMAIL: mpli-yk@F-P,pe y- ARCHITECT WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP ADDRESS: 2251 WEST 190TH STREET TORRANCE, CA 90504 CONTACT: DIRKTHELEN PHONE: 4M.266.6935 FAX: 310.217.0425 EMAIL: dff,.I-@wRheemalcolm.com CML ENGINEER EKE ENGINEERS ADDRESS: 1730 N. FIRST STREET, SUITE 600 SAN JOSE, CA 95112 CONTACT: JEREMY MARELLO PHONE: 408.467.9137 EMAIL: Jm 11.@bM.wm LANDSCAPEARCHRECT GATE +ASSOCIATES ADDRESS: 2671 CROW CANYON ROAD SAN RAMON, CA 94583 CONTACT: DAVID GATES PHONE: 926.736.8176 X 206 EMAIL: D-i6@Ug-.wm VICINITY MAP BUILDING CODE SUMMARY 1 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2016 MECHANICAL CODE, 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC& CODE, AND 2016 PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. 2 CONSTRUCTION HOURS: WEEKDAYS: 7:00 AM - 7:00 PM 3ATURDAYG:9:WAM-6:00PM SUNDAYS I HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE UNITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NONLITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 80 AM-5:00 PM. 3 ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PREFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CRY APPROVALS, INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. 4 ACCESS TO PUBLIC WAY PER CBC SEC. 1028.5 5 705.8.1 ALLOWABLE AREA OF OPENINGS. THE MMIUM AREA OF UNPROTECTED AND PROTECTED OPENINGS PERMITTED IN AN EKTERIOR WALL IN ANY STORY OF A BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED IN TABLE 705.8 6 FIRE -RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR EXTERIOR WALLS BASED ON FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE SHALL COMPLY TO TABLE 602. 7 AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, PWTSAND ENGINEERING WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR SHORING AS REQUIRED BY 2016 CBC, CHAPTER 31 REGARDING THE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY AND AS REQUIRED BY OSHA. 8 OSHA PERMIT WILL BE OBTAINED PER CAT I OSHA REQUIREMENTS. CONSTRUCTION SAFETY ORDERS: CHAPTER 4 SUBCHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 6, SECTION IM1.1 9 GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 10 PRIOR TO APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT THE APPLICANT MUST CONFIRM THAT THE ADDRESS IS 920 BAYSWATER OR OBTAIN A CHANGE OF ADDRESS FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 11 ACCESS REGULATIONS SHALL BE CBC CHAPTER 1 IA FOR APARTMENTS, I I B FOR LEASING OFFICE. 12 THE PROJECT WILL NOT USE ANY PUBLIC MONEY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT. 13 THE PROJECT WILL NOT RECEMETAXCREDITS. 14 SEE ARCHITECTURW SHEETS A20-23 FOR PATH OF TRAVEL 15 ALL PATHS OF TRAVEL AND COMMON USE SPACES WILL BE ACCESSIBLE AND ALL LIVING UNITS WILL BE ADAPTABLE. 16 SINGLE ACCOMMODATION TOILET FACILITIES SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SEC. 1127A2.2.1 WHEELCHAIR CLEARANCE 17 SEE ARCHITECTURAL SHEETS Al 6H17 FOR CLEARANCES 18 WATER CLOSETS IN BATHROOMS OR POWDER ROOMS REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SEC. 1134A7.1 19 ONLY ONE BEDROOM WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE DESIGNED TOCOMPLYWTTH PERCBCSEC1134.2OPTION2 20 BATHTUBS REQUIRED TO BE ACCESSIBLE SHALL COMPLY PER CBC SEC 1134A.5 21 STRIKE EDGE MANEUVERING SPACE AT DOORS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SEC. 1132A5.2. 22 ONE ELEVATOR SHALL PROVIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY ACCESS AND MUST ACCOMMODATE A STRETCHER THAT IS 24" X M PER CBC SEC 3002.1 23 ONE ELEVATOR SHALL HAVE INTERIOR DIMENSIONS PER CBC 11 B407A.1, TABLE I I B407A.1 24 EACH REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS SHALL BE CONTINOUS TO A PUBLIC WAY PER CBC SEC. 1009.2 25 MULTISTORY DWELLINGS UNITS IN BUILDINGS WITH ONE OR MORE ELEVATORS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SEC. 1102A.3.2. 26 PUBLIC SPECIAL ROOMS, SPACES AND ELEMENTS SHALL COMPLY TO CBC 1 iB OMISION 8 27 EXIT PASSAGEWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SEC 1024.1 28 ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIRED SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SEC. 1109A. PROJECT SUMMARY FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM TE ARCHI �N16111Yzsmpl e e ce �so�a L LLP m EVA RATED SYNTHETIC i . ` = • _ TURF CELLS ` EXITING TREE TO I _ CRIMSON SPIRE OAK WAN CITY R.O.W. REMAIN "— �QE3Es GRANITE SEATPAD W/ SCREENWALL LOUNATING W/ CONCRETE PAVERS ON PODIUM } RAISED PLANTER _ BOCCE COURT j -- EVA RATED CONCRETE PAVING " LOUNGE SEATING I LOW, WALKABLE PLANTING FOR ® _ BBQ/ FOOD PREP AREA FIRE ACCESS — RAISED PLANTER W/ BOARDFORM CONCRETE WALL i. STONE WALL W/ BUILT *' IN WATER FEATURE & FIRE LADDER CLEAR AREA, TYP. BAR -STYLE SEATING TABLE &CHAIRS I W/ UMBRELLA RAISED PLANTER W/ BOARDFORM FIRE FEATURE _ CONCRETE WALLS POTS W/ TIVOLI LIGHTS 1 LOUNGE SEATING — OVERHEAD L d DOG RUN W/ SYNTHETIC ' FIRE LADDER CLEAR AREA, TYP. TURF I MOVEABLE FURNITURE IN - FIRE LADDER ZONE PLANTING ON GRADE L - I W/ WIRE TRELLIS ON WALL f - F FIRE HYDRANT, TYP. OF 4 RAISED PLANTER BAYSWATER AVE DsicrvnrvD +� + FRONT SETBACK SQ FT FRONT SETBACK % SQ FT LANDSCAPE WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENT �- W/ ORNAMENTAL TREES LANDSCAPES FT 4 Q NTHOR-UMN arEQUIRE ENTS SNE aEAooED ND aTa DTD. M«rHE 2090 SQ FT 1860 SQ FT gggb au aEOuiaEMENrs as NECEssnr DECORATIVE ROCK/ GRAVEL i. THEiRMI—ON-M-111-I�NED mar+.rEa�.o�sEau rio�i�MiN-11E.Cai��� MYRTLE RD. - s�SPRAY ouI O-o I'ETIRIc111YNE oS=.I noMrHxou.ITINGxa ._,ON A"BA - I FIRE LADDER TURN RADIUS FRONT SETBACK SQ FT FRONT SETBACK % SQ FT LANDSCAPE No ._ ON -T • LANDSCAPE SQ FT 4,090 SQ FT 2,710 SQ FT 66% PRCJECrro CONTROL GINKGO BILOBA TREE @ STREET -PE ANDC—URE)°TO EACH —E—PE. PER' NCRRD"^L—ONE �ECONP'^NT ALONG BAYSWATERTO MEET THEMED BLOCK REQUIREMENT o s 10 20 EUONYMUS OR PITTOSPORUM SCREEN SCALE: rv=10'-0" AROUND TRANSFORMER WATER CONSERVATION STATEMENT I. N HO-CUIJUTAxr EQUIRE EMI-SCIES$HKLEEADDEDPNDSuaiRACrED iO FUEMuiHE DFSIGNANO HORIICULTUPAL REQUI0.EMENRAS NECESSARY. THEx. HE IRNWiION$YSTEM$HALL EE D6IGNEDwTIwniE0.CON5B—IONIN MINDwHIEE ACHIEVING SPRa'I0.RK,ATIONEiO LE SHaUaVGaOUNIEPRCI DCOVEaaIEwt AN eUEEEERE iOiNE igEESBYMEAN501 n. I TO rourro ACLLIOEvI EVENri vE�i of PaEarlrAnoNTHxBAD oucHourTMEixxlwnON a.THEWA�PRj TO CONTROL ExroLLs�uRE(ED o EACH—E G—NED PER IN--HroaozONE (EASED ON Pi — All 0 5L.f 1 J SCALE: I "=10'-0" 10 GATES 920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA L3 EXISTING TREE PLAN ,ASSOCIATES OCTOBER 2017 l �. r S. ► ..r �1. ,. Ti 1p F. )�tIR t N , GATES 920 BAYSWATER AVE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA +ASSOCIATES PLANT PALETTE L4 OCTOBER 2017 SEATING NO . 4]�W- FIRE FEATURE WATER FEATURE SCREEN/ACCENT WALLS RAISED PLANTER WALLS c � ����.. i•� � ��•SAL - Yea`-+' k'' � � � i .. • .f �� ^ •.ii.e�Y w r ^ 177-7, 4040 W � < Jppl U) / mRQ PO r'''K r r A D # s G m z m MYRTLE ROAD �R3 A� Fes- J' +[` + -� 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160, 029-235-170, 029-235-180, 029-235-190, 029-235-200, 029-235-210, 029-235-220 DATE:OCTOBER 10TH,2017 WIA m ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN POREuPROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, P MEo. JULY Pos. 2117 LLP 02 EXISTING EXISTING CURB CUT CURB CL wu 3 4 5 6 2 EXISTING CURB CUT �x I RED CURB FIRE / HYDRANT ru I � I EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING CURB CUT CURB CUT— CURB CL was a.ss � � °.woscw. _ I 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 MYRTLE ROAD EXISTING CONDITION FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP o so ao�oe rzsmp„eece.�so�a 03 101 / -- RED CURD FIRE — HYDRANT EXISTING T EE TYP. rD^^ VCl D IM G M mm RAILROAD / 238'-4" MYRTLE ROAC3 R D RB ,OT,-\ 4 -2 HOUR 3 PARKING D._D. 2 FIRE TRI Ir`K TI IRNINT; RADIUR Rg EXIT -STAIR 3 �iWITH STANDPIPE \L,- I®III I�" ell / ■`. ■ `■■r � �IIJ =y' � 'I ■ awi�l _ a �1II . . I-nn_ �. i._. -n r d �•- �`;yLl • ��I 1 •: `emu __�._�� r.W.I` - �� -q..:-. 11W'•� I�_`1:,�F��7 wail �lowiy±"� 1 _ li w1 I— 'III : - _ __ ■ � \ ��_ _______���� "III r � II Q,� AN 11 I, � CIF y� • "I�TS u u � _��f � ., u- ` �. I' w�l - Innlnl�� !�.����'-a�.'�--�1.�-•�:I�,..r■I���� JI�€s'�Ir•7■IEE? `'Ih}�� In;llul �l-Iwo III, ilnGll�• EXIT STAIR 2 ^: oily Ir EXIT STAIR 1 WITH WITH STANDPIPE ;......,�I►,.�. ,ICJ STANDPIPF ING TREES TRANSFORMEREXIST R3 ZONE PER NOTES ConstrucLlon type shall be 4-stones VA wood over 2 levels IA concrete parking st:udure Fire sprinkler system shall be NFPA 13 per section 903.3 of the 2013 CDC. 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE N • - , APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 TOWA� TRAIN STATION CODE CLASSIFICATION RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS OCCUPANCY: R-2 OCUPANa SEPARATION: 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE WALLSAND PROTECTIVE OPENINGS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE V-A SPRINKLER: NFPA 13 SYSTEM FIRE RATING: 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALLS, FLOORS, AND ROOF HEIGHT: 3 STOREIS ♦ 1 ADDITIONAL STORY, 60 FT MAX. PER 504.3 & 504.4. ALLOWABLE AREA: 36,00' SF X 2 FOR MULTI -STORY = 72,000 SF EACH STORY NOT TO EXCEED 18,000 SF (EXCEPT FOR FRONTAGE INCREASE) FIRE WALL: 2-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL SHAFT ENCLOSURES: 2-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION PER 707 FIRE PARTITION: SEPARATION BETWEEN THE DWELLING UNITS AND CORRIDOR WALLS SHALL BE OF 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION PER CBC 708.3 PARKING GARAGE OCCUPANCY: S-2 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TYPE I -A SPRINKLER: NFPA 13 SYSTEM HORIZONTAL SEPARATION BETWEEN S-2 AND R-2: 3 HOURS LEGEND WH FIRE HYDRANT FIRE TRUCK 150' FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE PULL ♦`/ TURNING RADIUS FOR 35' LADDER - FOLDED TO IT S\S FIRE TRUCK TURNING RADIUS � II I II I I 20'-3" INSIDE TURN 36'-4" CURB TO CURB 40'-5" WALL TO WALL RESCUE WINDOWS UP TO THIRD FLOOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS PLAN FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP o e Y zsmp„e . ce. aosaa 04 TOP ROOI 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 EXIT STAIR MAX. ALLOWABLE PROJECTION: 5% PROPOSED PLAN: 4.4% DP OF MANSARD )OF 74.2' ALM ALLOWABLE ELEVATION: 75AT COVE AVERAGE TOP OF CURB AT 29.47' AGE TOP OF PROPOSED CURB: 29.47' NO LEVEL F.F.: 30.2' IF ROOF SHEATHING: 70.2' lF ROOF DECK: 71.2' _ROOF AREA: 0= 31,810 F TOTAL ROOF AREA: 31,810 X 5%=1,590.5 S.F. ARCHITECTURAL / ROOF TOP PROJECTION BEYOND 45' AREAS MARKED WITH RED STAIRS: 537 S.F. ELEVATOR: 160 S.F. CONDENSERS: 680 S.F. PARAPET AT ROOF DECK: 33 S.F. TOTAL AREA: 1,410 S.F. / 4.4% OF ROOF AREA ROOF PLAN - HEIGHT EXHIBIT FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 1 ne1 ce-9— DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 -- s 48 05 — N06111r:,mp, I DISTANCE TO FL DISTANCE TO FL PARKING PLAN — P2 — LOWER LEVEL 920 B A Y S W A T E R AVENUE FOR PROPERTYCOMPANY N _ WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP • — s aneema�m.�m ce, a�a 06 APN:029-235-160, 029-235-170, 029-235-180, 029-235-190, 029-235-200, 029-235-210, 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH, 2017 DISTANCE TO PL DISTANCE TO PL 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 PARKING PLAN — P1 — UPPER LEVEL FORE PROPERTY COMPANY IN WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP s a�oe rzsmp„eece.�s0�a 07 101 BSI 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 1 ST LEVEL - GROUND FLOOR FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 1 ne1 ce-9— O$ DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 � 01N06111r:,mp, MYRTLE ROAD 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE 2ND LEVEL FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP • - s a. ,naame om. ome a ce.�so�a 09 APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 _6 _y. p1, MYRTLE ROAD 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 3RD LEVEL FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHIITE 1 ne1 ce-9— DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 s 32 IIN16111r:,mp,1/ LLP im MYRTLE ROAD D cn LINE Tm UNIT N G m z c m 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 PRESENTS LOW (TYP.) 4TH LEVEL FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHIITE 1 ne1 ce-9— DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 s 32 0IN06111r:,mp,1/ LLP 11 MYRTLE ROAD D rn D LINE Tm UNIT N D m z c m 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 LINE REPRESENTS UNIT BELOW (TYP.) ROOF PLAN FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHIITE 1 ne1 ce-9— DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 LLP 12 IT SHINGLE ST OOD COLORED lq ROOF AILING VINVL WINDOW W/SIMULATED DIVIDED LITES 1.1. iL a •.' 7 :l I Al 4477FUIT.. — i — EeE — : MMU ZONE 3 — NORTH ELEVATION Spomp CEMENT EXISTING VG LE IIr FB�TREE iI WINDOW] �ROOF TREEWS MUD DED TES-STUCCO[WOO 4 — EAST ELEVATION KEY PLAN 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE MMU ZONE APN:029-235-160, 029-235-170, 029-235-180, 029-235-190, 029-235-200, 029-235-210, 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH, 2017 BUILDING CODE SUMMARY 705.8.1 ALLOWABLE AREA OF OPENINGS THE MAXIUM AREA OF UNPROTECTED AND PROTECTED OPENINGS PERMITTED IN AN EXTERIOR WALL IN ANY STORY OF A BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED IN TABLE TOSS BUILDING ELEVATIONS FORE PROPER AIE?MPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP Pw om a 7 ce a�a 13 EXISTING CEMENT EXISTING COLORED CEMENT WOOD STUCCO SHINGLE STUCCO EXISTI TREE FIBER TREE VINYL WINDOW FIBER RAILING ROOF TREE SIDING W/SIMULATED SIDING DIVIDED LITES Lr ___ __ _ ____ _ �___ _ __ ________ __ ____--- — — --------- __ ____—.— -- —.--� --- W ro, I I MMU ZONE 1 — SOUTH ELEVATION CEMENT STUCCO SHINGLE COLORED WOOD EXISTING FIBER ROOF VINYL RAILING TREE 1 WINDOW W/ SIMULATED DNIDED LITES ®. ��°`�^ ____t --- 41 Btu �El .o°oFAxco[ww[An,ry e _ o� ap 1F 1}I} 4F ry1y1- ' ' ,. x —J R3 ZONES MMU ZONE 2 — WEST ELEVATION KEY PLAN 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 BUILDING CODE SUMMARY 70&&1 ALLOWABLE AREA OF OPENINGS. THE WUUUM AREA OF UNPROTECTED AND PROTECTED OPENINGS PERMITTED IN AN EXTERIOR WALL IN ANY STORY OF A BUILDING SHALL NOT EXCEED THE PERCENTAGES SPECIFIED IN TABLE TOSS BUILDING ELEVATIONS FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP 14 s�oe Lrzsmp„eece.�sD�a PLAN � C r 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 SITE SECTION FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE �ULrzsmp,e�e�ce�so�a L LLP 15 UNIT S2 STUDIO/1 BATH GROSS AREA: 530 S.F. NET AREA: 482 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 3 DU 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE i UNIT S1-1 STUDIO / 1 BATH GROSS AREA: 519 S.F. NET AREA: 477 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 4 DU yT—� � a a• b CLEARANCE LEGEND APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 UNIT S1 STUDIO/1 BATH GROSS AREA: 519 S.F. NET AREA: 477 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 22 DU UNIT PLAN S FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM TE ARCHI �N06117rzsmp, e e ce �so�a L LLP in BEDROOM��■�� u IL5 II IIII I.I .,�III�� 7mi7m e .I� too ellll iin UNIT A2 1 BEDROOM / 1 BATH GROSS AREA: 723 S.F. NET AREA: 654 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 3 DU 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 UNIT Al 1 BEDROOM/1 BATH GROSS AREA: 705 S.F. NETAREA: 654 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 42 DU � a a• yT—� b CLEARANCE LEGEND DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 UNIT PLAN A FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE 1�oe���rzsmp,le�ece�so�a L LLP 17 ■O.......oA IIIIIIIIIIIII P PEA�a�sE�.,,3�s.z UNIT C2 1 BEDROOM + DEN / 1 BATH GROSS AREA: 833 S.F. NET AREA: 775 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 1 DU 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 UNIT C1 1 BEDROOM+DEN/1 BATH GROSS AREA: 831 S.F. NETAREA: 779 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 6 DU yT—� � a a• b CLEARANCE LEGEND DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 UNIT PLAN C FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE Noe rzsmp,eece�so�a L LLP 18 0 I , ■ ��MASTER lR�l � 01�� QJ I � J _III� EDROOM lJ II II o� • piiii■iiiil �JIIIIIIIINI � ' I!!!:!lIIIIII II�I,I� I,`III� II L,:,x IIIIIIII�II ® � iB Iljaaulll Dii---------- ` I I � ILIPe'IIIIII IIIIIIIIIiFil�Yll�lll 9E I , � IIIIIII ,, � I � Illllllllliiiill�ll® lli� ■ � � IL�JI UNIT 32 2 BEDROOM / 2 BATH GROSS AREA: 1,082 S.F. NET AREA: 1,000 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 2 DU 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 , I , I�IL II man �I , II ; ` N f� � r r.�l LJI , r.� lJ .III ■ I��lillll I iillllllll E '*'* ®Iii:EYtlill ��I IIIIYYilI r•nn�illllllli �1111fi�110 LJ 1 E ' G1 _ LJ A ■' III � � � I I I ::: [[ IlYiiiY►iiYlllll iili:YIII11111Y1lI �1``Y,YiilYIIIN,llliii Iiiiaiiii3lYllll i UNIT 31 2 BEDROOM / 2 BATH GROSSAREA: 1,060 S.F. NETAREA: 992 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 20 DU yT—� � a a• b CLEARANCE LEGEND DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 ENTRY"P PER csc sec.>>sus.z UNIT PLAN B FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE mp,e�.lce-sosoa —�VzsL LLP im BEDR OM -lJ10'-8' _______. ply �IIIIII lJ - G LIII.- �� 1py- i NOUNillll el UNIT E1 3 BEDROOM / 2 BATH GROSS AREA: 1,310 S.F. NET AREA: 1,210 S.F. NUMBER OF UNITS: 6 DU 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 yT a a• b I CLEARANCE LEGEND DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 UNIT PLAN E FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE 1�oe���rzsmp,le�.ce�so�a L LLP 20 r; w �.MYRTLE RD. l N 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN: 029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 1 - BAYSWATER AVE. AND MYRTLE RD. FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE N16111Yzsmp, e e ce �so�a L LLP 21 MYRTLE RD. -..ji I J' a - 3 I m 2 — BAYSWATER AVENUE LOOKING NORTH 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP • naame om. ome e ce.�so�a 22 APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 �611' p„ N 920 BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 3 - MYRTLE ROAD LOOKING WEST FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM TE ARCHI N16111rzsmp, e e ce �so�a L LLP 23 �F BURLINGAME, C-A-L F-O-R-N VA 5 .- MYRTLE RD. wpm —..ji' I J' � r a 3 I m N 5 — MYRTLE ROAD LOOKING NORTH 920 B A Y S W A T E R AVENUE FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITECTS, LLP • naame om. ome e ce.�so�a 25 APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 �6 11, p„ 1 y/ . MYRTLE RD. 6 920 N BAYSWATER AVENUE APN:029-235-160. 029-235-170. 029-235-180. 029-235-190. 029-235-200. 029-235-210. 029-235-220 DATE: OCTOBER 10TH. 2017 6 - BAYSWATER AVENUE LOOKING SOUTH FORE PROPERTY COMPANY WITHEE MALCOLM ARCHITE _�rzsmp,,e�ece�so�a L LLP 26 CITY OF BURLINGAME eURLINGUME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: November 6, 2017 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: November 13, 2017 FROM: `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, Associate Planner SUBJECT: FYI — REVIEW OF REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 1411 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling at 1411 De Soto Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 23, 2017 (see attached October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). At that hearing, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project based upon the following revisions being reviewed by the Commission as an FYI item, prior to the issuance of a building permit: • that all new windows be recessed; and • that the 24-inch box strawberry trees proposed in the front, on each side of the walkway, shall be replaced with new medium or large size trees to provide a fuller canopy along the front elevations. In addition to the above requested revisions, the Commission had also suggested that the applicant consider extending the proposed half -chimney, on the left side elevation, to a full chimney with a direct vent exhaust. No changes have been made to the proposed chimney. Please refer to the attached letter from the project architect, dated November 2, 2017 for a detailed response to the Planning Commission's requested revisions and suggestion. The applicant submitted revised plans showing all windows being recessed (see revised renderings, sheet A-9). The proposed landscape plan (sheet L-1) notes the change in tree species for the two trees at the front of the house from Strawberry Tree (small size, 24-inch box) to Purple Leaf Plum (medium size, 15 gallon). The Purple Leaf Plum tree species is part of the list of suggested medium size trees on the Community Development Department Tree List. No other changes are proposed to the design of the house. A building permit has not yet been issued for the project. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a public hearing with direction to the applicant. `Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner Attachments: Explanation letter submitted by the project architect, dated November 2, 2017 October 23, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes Originally Approved plans (before), date stamped October 13, 2017 Proposed plans (after), date stamped October 30, 2017 DUONG 1411 DESOTO AVE. PC` o . 1411 ❑e Solo Avenue STREET MAP PROPERTY MAPS CODES: 2016 EDITION OF THE: RES CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CALIFORNIA PLUM51NG CODE CALIFORNIA MECPANICAL CODE CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CCDE CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE CALIFCRNIA ENERGY CODE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE CALIFCRNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE ALONG UJITN ALL OTPER LOCAL AND STATE LAUDS AND REGULATIONS. DENCE Burlingame, CA. KEY PROJECT STATS Setbacks EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOV14EIXREM) • Front(1 st) : 12'-10" 17.1' 17.1' (block average) • Front (2nd) N/A 20' 20' • Side (Left) 10'-6" 10' (to remodelled porch) 4' (to remodelled porch) • Side (Right) 3'-9" 5' (to addition) 4' (to addition) • Rear (1 st) 45'-4" 48v-411 15' • Rear (2nd) n/a 481-411 20' Max Height: 30► 30' • Top of Roof 30' Max Coverage : 2,019 SF (33.1%) 2,216 SF (36%) 21440 SF (40%) Max FAR SF : 21107 SF (.35 FAR) 3287 SF (.54 FAR) 31304 SF (.54 FAR) PROPERTY SPECS. APN Number; 004-008-100-700 Zoning Designation: R-1 Site Area: 6100 SF Lot Dimensions: 50 x 122 PROJECT AREAS 5.F. EXI5TING GARAGE AREA : 268.00 EXISTING FIRST FLOCK AREA (TO BE DOWN -SIZED): 16g8.64 EXISTING FRONT ENTRY PCRCH AREA : g6.15 TOTAL EXISTING FLOOR AREA : 1g14.64 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR AREA : 165q.1a PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR AREA : 1506.32 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR AREA : 268.00 PROPOSED CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA : 3165.50 EXISTING FOOT -PRINT AREA : 1g14.64 1407 DE50TO AVE. 1411 DE50TO AVE. 1415 DE50TO AVE. (5UBJEGT PROPERTY) DRAWING SHEET INDEX Label Title Architectural A-1 COVER SHEET A-2 EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-3 EXISTING FLOOR PLANS A-4 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS A-5 EXISTING & PROPOSED ROOF PLANS A-6 EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-7 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-8 GARAGE EXISTING & PROPOSED PLANS A-9 EXTERIOR VIEWS Landscaping L-0 EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN L-2 IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN HROJEGT SCOPE 1. DEMOL15H EXISTING KITCHEN AND RELOCATE TO NEW LOCATION. 2. REPLACE EXI5TING GARAGE DOOR, SIDE DOOR AND EXIST. WINDOW, AND ADD A WINDOW TO RIGHT WALL OF GARAGE. 3. DEMOL15H EXISTING BEDROOM CLOSET, CONVERT TO NEW PANTRY. 4. DEMOL15H EXI5TIN(5 HALLWAY BATHROOM, & CONVERT TO NEW STAIRS TO SECOND FLOOR. 5. ADD NEW POWDER ROOM AND NEW BATHROOM. 6. CONVERT EXISTING BEDROOM #2 TO NEW GUEST SUITE. 1. ADD A NEW SECOND FLOOR. 8. ADD A NEW IPE DECK AT REAR OFF FAMILY ROOM. q. REPLACE FRONT ENTRY DECK, WITH STONE BASE, NEW STONE PAVERS, AND PAINTED COLUMNS AND OPEN BEAM AND 4X RAFTERS ABOVE. 10. EX15TING BASEMENT 15 TO BE CONVERTED INTO A CRAWL SPACE. PROJECT DIRECTORY LANI)5CAFE DESIGN TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 1013 SOUTH CLARET" IONT ST. STE. 1 SAN I" IATEC, CALIF. 94402 TEL: (&50) 636-99a5 FAX: (l 50) 63a-998ro dennis@dtlandarch.com CI4U DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC. 55 lU. 43RD AVE. SAN MATEO, CA 94403 TEL: ((o50) 345-92a(o, EXT. 101 E-MAIL: Dare'Ochudesier.c®m NOTE : MR. 4 MRS_ SCOTT DUONG 1411 DE 50TO AVENUE BURL INGAME, CA 94010 TEL : 1-310-5(c2-a130 E-MAIL: 5catt&�crg0verizon.net LANE) 5L FFVE ' SAVIOR P. MICALLEF LAN® SURVE''IN 421 LUILDWOOD DRIVE SOUTI4 SAN FRANCISCC, CA 940�30 TEL: ((o50) 808-0250 FAX: (805) 109-2423 BIGGSGROUP 3708 Linwood Ave. Oakland, CA. 94602 Phone:510-757-6131 Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com GED ARC G GS No /�F �0 .IN I SIGNATURE 4-30-17 EXP. DATE C A1- Client: Scott & Leanne Duong 1415 Desoto Ave. Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: 310-562-8130 Email: scottduong@verizon.net z O Q O >Q z Q U w O N O E � O � Q z �m W 0 W Lli ry PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10-6-2011 Revision Table No. Date Description w w _ W ry W > O CU A=1 MASSING COMPARISON STUDY m TO P.L. 1 1 DECLINING HEIGHT ANALYSIS A-5 50ALE:1/4"=1'-0" ALL DOORS AND NINVOY45 TO BE RECESSED 2" BACK FROM FACE OF WALL FINISH. 3 T5 FIGAL A-5 GALE:1/4"=1'-0" EXTERIOR FINISH MATERIAL GLAD WOOD WINDOW FRAME. W/ NAIL FIN RIOR FINISH MATERIAL 0 SIDING OR STUCCO) STUDS NINDOW SECTION iv DHE 98.87' RAII I1Jr RFI nW 2 PROP05ED ROOF PLAN A-5 5GALE:1/4"=1'-0" L BELOW, TYP. GUTTER ROOF BELOW BIGGS GROUP 3708 Linwood Ave. Oakland, CA. 94602 Phone:510-757-6131 Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com GED ARC 81 G GS No o � I SIGNATURE 4-30-17 EXP. DATE C A1- Client: Scott & Leanne Duong 1415 Desoto Ave. Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: 310-562-8130 Email: scottduong@verizon.net z 0 Q 0 ;Q z Q U W o ai � o E Q z �m W 0 V ) UW/ ry PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10-6-2011 Revision Table No. Date Description 1 10/30/ 2017 LL O0 CD w ry 06 Z VJ z _^j Z ` I..L rJ J UQ W Z C) A=5 GENERAL FIN15H NOTES: 1. FACIA TO BE 2X8. 2. ALL WINDOWS TO BE ALUMINUM GLAD WOOD WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITE5. 1610FXII`�II1 �15 l FIRST FLR. EL. 102. q' STONE BASE GRAD PAINTED WOOD COLUMN (DOUBLE 8" 50. POSTS) A.T.O.G. PAINTED WOOD BEAM AND 4X RAFTERS ABOVE g1.85' FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED 5CALE:1 /4"=1'-0" r� TOP OF RIDGE t— m DIRECT VENT EXHAUST LEFT ELEVATION -PROPOSED UA-7 56ALE:1/4"=1'-0" WATER HEATER DIRECT VENT EXHAUST 6 : 12 55 METAL ROOF owoo unuur 3708 Linwood Ave. Oakland, CA. 94602 Phone:510-757-6131 Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com — STUCCO ALUM GLAD WIND W g GG��o F PAINTED GUTTER �P SIGNATURE 4-30-17 EXP. DATE Client: MTL. RAILING Scott & Leanne Duong 55. GABLE 1415 Desoto Ave. Burlingame , CA. 94010 Phone: 310-562-8130 Email: scottduong@verizon.net 55 MTL. ROOF STONE BASE A.T.O.G. q-1.a5' STONE BASE E1 REAR ELEVATION - PROPOSED E1 RIC-7HT ELEVATION - PROPOSED A, 5CALE:1/4"=1'-0" A-7 5CALE:1/4"=1'-0" FIN15H PALLET - STONE PANELS AT BASE ROOF FINISH: SMOOTH 5TUGCO 6" 5HIPLAP SIDING EXTERIOR WALL SCONCE EXTERIOR PENDANT -M5 INTERNATIONAL, �� COLOR: WINDOW &DOOR WINDOW &DOOR METAL POSTS & r LOG SEAM" 55 MTL ROOF COLOR: WHITE (FRONT PORCH) Al 1 1. .1 Af,PY1 1•I-I 1 I ueonl.\ldoc ❑WicLl A —, ev CIAIII_I I FRONT PORCH/5TEP5 � A— � nA„ ,— �Rllr I VVLVI\7. �ULIVJ/1I'llly I'IVVRLJ "GOAL CANYON" MANUFACTURER: MBCI ---_� f COLOR: CHARCOAL GREY White charcoal - -A- - ,e• 1 FT - WOOD FACIA - COVE GUTTERS -BELOW EAVES -WOOD TRIM -3" DOWN5POUT5 ' - PAINT ON BEAD ' rlLVl'I. VLrIYYII`1V I IIV I.J rI ' '"�✓• '"�+- ' ""�' ' I\L/"I\ YLVI\ I 11�1✓rl VnVLL I\rllLll'/l/ FLOOR FINISH r ; fi - M15G FLASHING BOARD -ATTIC VENTS (SIMILAR TO TUNDRA -SHADOW BOARD sR.¢6 sR152 Hinkle Atlantis Bronze 16 - ��- BM #1603) Bronze 1laxcel Lighting T0749 Hyde Matte Black SEALED IPE WOOD, 6" PLANK -STEEL HANDRAILS & High Dark Sky Outdoor Wall SLATE TILE, GREY P05T5 Vght Park 3 Light Outdoor Pendant W/ CONGEALED FASTENER GROUT • Z O Q O ;Q Z Q U W o O E J N M Q � � z � CO 0 w ry PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10-6-201-f Revision Table No. Date I Description Q � VJ z W CEO o > rXw w J W A=7 .7 P" . 00�- 16 Mp a e-�p k V .14 � L f f � en w } Ad rif Pd r 46 r r i r BIGGS GROUP 3708 Linwood Ave. Oakland, CA. 94602 Phone:510-757-6131 Email: tom.biggs@biggs-group.com GED ARC INGGSNor SIGNATURE 4-30-17 EXP. DATE C A1- Client: Scott & Leanne Duong 1415 Desoto Ave. Burlingame, CA. 94010 Phone: 310-562-8130 Email: scottduong@verizon.net z O Q O ;Q z Q U W o o E J a Q 0 � z �m W 0 vJ LU 0 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10-6-2017 Revision Table No. Date Description 1 10/30/ PLANNING 2017 - FYI v / 3: O I r W X W (50' PLAN R/w) 0 4' 8' 16' SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" LEGEND KEY NOTES O WALKWAY TO RESIDENCE FRONT DOOR: INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE O2 EXIST. CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN O3 DRIVEWAY: INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE ® PATIO AREA: INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE O5 PROPOSED STEPS/STAIRS © PORCH O7 DECK ® SEATING AREA WITH CONCRETE SEATWALL (18" HIGH MAX) O9 FIRE PIT 10 OUTDOOR KITCHEN/COUNTER 11 PEA GRAVEL PAVING 12 CONCRETE STEP STONES 13 VEHICULAR GATE (3FT HIGH --BLACK CHAIN LINK) TO DRIVEWAY/GARAGE TO REMAIN 14 PEDESTRIAN GATE --WOOD 6FT HIGH TO MATCH ADJACENT FENCING 15 EXISTING WOOD FENCING TO REMAIN --PATCH AND REPAIR AS NECESSARY 16 ROOF/BUILDING OVERHANG 17 EXIST. APPROX 6 INCH WIDE PLANTING STRIP AT PROP LINE/FENCE LINE. REPLACE BRICK EDGING WITH CONCRETE CURB 18 OUTLINE OF NEIGHBOR'S TREE: ACER SP. 19 OUTLINE OF NEIGHBOR'S TALL SHRUB: LIGUSTRUM JAPONICA PLANT LIST ABBREV. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE I QUANTITY MISC. NOTES & REQUIREMENTS TREES LAU SAR Laurus n. Saratoga' IHybrid Laurel 24" box 3 S.L.INo. Whorl. BON. Drp. Br -Watch PRU KV Pianos ceresdera Kreuter Vesuvius' Purple Leaf Plum 15 G.C. jHi. Br./Match/No top. SHRUBS DIA VAR Dianeila tesmanica 'Variegata' Variegated Flax lily 5 G.C. 22 LIG TEX Li ustrum japonicum Texanum' Japanese Privet 5 G.G. 7 F & B MAN GS Nandina domestica 'Gulf Stream' Dwarf Heavenly Bamboo 1 G.C. 27 F & B OSM VAR Osmenthus heterophyflus Venegatus' Holly -Leaf Osmanthuls 5 G.C. 14 F & WBr. Gr. PHO TT Phorrnium tenax 'Tom Thumb + Dwarf New Zealand Flax 5 G.C. 65 2-6" o.c. /Match PHO YW Phormium tenex'Yellow Wave4 Cream New Zealand Flax 1 5 G.C. 1 11 2'3" o.c. /Match PEREN NIALSIBU LBSIAN N UALS HEM BIT Hememcalfis 'Sitsy'* Evergreen, repeat bloom Daylily B.R. 10 Double fan min., plant at 18" o.c. max. PEN FAI I Perwisetum 'Faity Tales' Fountain Grass 1 G.C. 24 GROUNDCOVERS DUC IND Quchesnea indfca Indian Mock Strawberry Flats 626 sf Plant at 16" o.c. FES EB Festuca ovina Elijah Blue' Blue Fescue 1 G.C. 14 Plant at 12" a.c. TRA JAS Trschelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine 1 G.C. 527 sf Plant at 36" o.c. LAWN(SOD) SOD Sodded lawn shall be "Blue/Rye" mix 100% special blend of Trailblazer and Amigo fescue, 268 sf available through Mello Turf Ranch. (800) 533-2428, or equal. 1. * Hemerocaflis available only tram Greenwood Daylilies, 8000 Balcom Canyon Road, Somis, CA 93066, (562) 494-8944. <www.greenwoodgarden.com> 2. + Phomrum t. hybrids must be accompanied by a written guarantee stating they are the named cultiwr and are stable in size, form and color. Submit to owner and landscape architect. Proof of securement and purchase must also be submitted with in two weeks of award of contract. PLANT LIST ABBREVIATIONS: Note- This list together with the plant list prepared by Taniguchi Landscape Architecture must accompany the contractors nursery order(s) SL Single main, straight, dominant, leader Hi. Sr. High branched —lowest limbs held above rootball 5' min. for 15 gallon can 6 min. for 24" box trees No Top No topping or pruning of upper branches Br. Gr. Branched to ground F & B Full dense, bushy, vigorous plants, with young growth closely spaced on branches, no oldlwoody plants. KV.S.30 deg. Narrow upright vase shape 30 degrees or less spread in branch/trunk structure M.V.S.-45 deg. Narrow upright vmse shape 45 degrees or less spread in branchltrunk structure No. Whorl. Sr. No closely spaced whined branches. Select even symmetrical branch distribution Match Matched size, form. caliper, branching and cultivar. Select from one lot, one grower, for guaranteed consistency through life of plants. In general plants within a group or area are to be matched, unless noted otherwise. T.F_------- Tree Form S.F. — Shrub Form N.F. Narrow upright Form B.R. Bare Root B & B Balled and Burlap Mult. St. Multi stemmed Flat Rooted cuttings from flats at on centerdistance specified in list. See groundcowrrsnrub o.c. planting detail for layout. Cal. Caliper EV. Evergreen _ G.C. Gallon Can N.C.N. No Common Name _ Trail F Select trailing Forms for prostrate growth Veg. Gr, Vegetative Grown Had. F. Hedge Form (clipped) Stem up. Stem up to expose trunk and lower branch pattern O.C. On center N. Drp. Br. No long haaW drooping branches PROPOSED TREES SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREA X T-,\X � 1 � x DD O 090 EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN Existina Tree Summary Number Tree species/Common Name Trunk Diameter (DBH) Height (feet) Spread (feet) Disposition 1 Platanus acerifolia/London Plane Tree 22 50 25 Retain 2 Platanus acerifolia/London Plane Tree 33 50 30 Retain 3 Liquidambar styraciflua/Sweetgum 6 20 8 Remove 4 Ilex aquifolium/English Holly multi (4 to 6) 8 5 Remove —overgrown, poor form 5 Betula nigra/River Birch multi (6,4) 18 12 Remove —too close to foundation 6 Betula nigra/River Birch multi (6, 4, 2, 2, 3) 18 12 Remove —too close to foundation 7 Prunus cerasifera 'KV'/Purple Leaf Plum 6 16 14 Remove 8 Acacia melanoxylon/Blackwood Acacia 12 20 15 Remove —growing between buildings 9 Liquidambar styraciflua/Sweetgum 5 12 4 Remove 10 Malus sp./Apple (*espaliered on wall) 5* 3' 10* Retain DUONG RESIDENCE 1411 De Soto Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 W co U -j co U) � U) (.0 NO O J O co E O — Q U U� U 00 O � . _ O U (I3 CCCD G O N M L r O CD Q U) > U S"PF =2 10/31/18 Renewal Date S 10, 24/17 Q Date F' OF CAL�FO ISSUE: DESCRIPTION: DATE: 1 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 05/25/17 2 COMMENT RESPONSE 07/14/17 3 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10/06/17 4 COMMENT RESPONSE 10/2417 SCALE: As Noted PROJECT NUMBER: TLA#: 17011.000 SHEET TITLE SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET NO. L-1 PRELIMINARY- NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ©Copyright 2017 TANIGUCHI LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE