The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2022.07.11Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online7:00 PMMonday, July 11, 2022 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On June 20, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 078-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency; 2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. Pursuant to Resolution Number 078-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 11, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 July 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 854 9123 0621 Passcode: 625375 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 854 9123 0621 Passcode: 625375 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA Members of the public may speak about any item not on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to suggest an item for a future Planning Commission agenda may do so during this public comment period . The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits the Planning Commission from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes each; the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. 6. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 July 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 1425 Castillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage .This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc., applicant and designer; Rajiv Gujral, property owner) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali b. 1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form +One, applicant and designer; Kasey and Bill Schuh, property owners) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for proposed changes to a previously approved project for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (SJA Development, applicant and designer; 16 Goethe Street LLC, property owner) (122 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi d. 1251 California Drive, zoned CMU - Application for a Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing commercial building to an 8-room hotel. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 – Class I of the CEQA Guidelines. (Ted Catlin, Dreiling, Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Paul Dimech, property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit e. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 713 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for first and second story plate heights and second story balcony for a new, two story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Kevin and Christine Chung, property owners) (98 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 July 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 2229 Adeline Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a two and half story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Cameron and Shannon Foster, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon b. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of July 5, 2022 2758 Summit Drive, zoned R-1 - FYI for revisions to a previously approved Design Review project for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. a. 12. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, July 11, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on July 11, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on July 21, 2022, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 7/7/2022 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 13, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Michael Guina. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft May 23, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 23, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.1430 Palm Drive, zoned R-1 and R-3 - Application for Conditional Use Permit for a preschool use in an existing church building. (Rita Enright, applicant; Alan William Coon, architect; New Life Community Church of Burlingame, property owner) (210 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1430 Palm Dr - Staff Report 1430 Palm Dr - Attachments 1430 Palm Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 1City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Rita Enright represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email: Can the small lawn accommodate 45 children? (Enright: We can actually have one classroom at a time, which is a group of 20 children. The requirement is 25 square feet per child so we can have at least 20 to 25 children on that lawn area at one time.) (Hurin: Sounds like the play time might be staggered then. (Enright: Yes, we can rotate the play time.) (Hurin: You're restricted by State regulations like you said, 75-square feet per children? (Enright: Yes.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a good alternative use to the location during different hours. It's a great cause and I don't see anything with the program itself that is of concern. >This is great use for the facility during the week when there are no church services so I don't see any reason to hold this up. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.320 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Zohar Schwartz Design, applicant and designer; Todd Lindstrom, property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 320 Bloomfield Rd - Staff Report 320 Bloomfield Rd - Attachments 320 Bloomfield Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Zohar Schwartz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >Drainage for the roof balconies and the planting areas have not been addressed. It is important that you get that in there because if you just put brown downspouts there, it will mess up the rhythm of the architecture and a good solution. So, if you're going to do something that's going to change the look of the outside, that would require an FYI back to the Planning Commission so you're not caught at the end . Downspouts can be an opposite color and it would change things for you if you don't incorporate it correctly. >As someone who wasn't thrilled the first time around because of the bulkiness of what was so close to the street on the corners and because of the prominent facade all around, I really think, beyond the comments about the drainage, it has been vastly improved. The railing looks much better than just the stucco and I appreciate that you took the height down a bit. The trim has been altered. The small little things have made a difference. I can see them and really appreciate the attention to detail, it's going to make a big difference. Thank you very much. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that if the drainage downspouts from the balconies are moved to the exterior walls, an FYI application shall be submitted for Planning Commission review. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.1766 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU - Application for Design Review, State Density Bonus and Tier 3/Community Benefits for a new 8-story, 311-unit residential apartment development. This project has been determined to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15332 which is intended to promote in -fill development within urbanized areas. (Carmel Partners, applicant; Certosa Inc ., property owner; TCA Architects) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1766 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1766 El Camino Real - Attachments 1766 El Camino Real - Previous NMBU District & Density Bonus Code Sections 1766 El Camino Real - Materials Board 1766 El Camino Real - Plans 1766 El Camino Real - Class 32 Infill Exemption Appendix A - TDM Plan Appendix B - Tree Report Appendix C - Environmental Site Assessments Appendix D - Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix E - Supporting Noise Information Appendix F - Air Quality Analysis Modeling Appendix G - DPR Forms Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he met with the applicant, the project architect, and representative on Zoom. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Page 3City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Greg Pasquali, Teresa Ruiz, and Take Katsuura, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Athan Rebelos: I'm excited about 1766 El Camino Real. My wife and I live at the top of Trousdale Drive and go through the intersection dozens of times each week. Conceptually, this is the correct development, in the correct place, at the correct time. So let's embrace this much -needed multi-unit residential development and keep the ball moving forward. >Karen Rosenberg: I’m a resilience associate with Greenbelt Alliance. In addition to sending a letter in advance, I wanted to provide a public comment. For over 60 years, Greenbelt Alliance has helped create cities and neighborhoods that make the bay area a better place to live. Healthy places where people can walk and bike, communities with parks, shops, transportation options and homes that are affordable and resilient to the impacts of climate change. After careful review, Greenbelt Alliance is excited to endorse the proposed 1766 El Camino Real project. We would like to commend the City Council and staff for their leadership on housing and for creating a Specific Plan that creates a clear vision and policy basis for dense housing and the inclusion of affordable housing in a transit and service rich location. 1766 El Camino Real is a wonderful representation and embodiment of the objectives of the City ’s Specific Plan. The developers have done a wonderful job in engaging the community and incorporating feedback in the current rendition of the site. The proposal reflects a comprehensive TDM which will result in a 25% reduction below baseline and major investments in a sustainable energy and water efficient design. The proposed projects close proximity to jobs and transits and commitment to affordability and sustainability aligns with the City of Burlingame's General Plan. Greenbelt Alliance believes 1766 El Camino Real will play a pivotal role in re -imagining a more climate resilient and inclusive Burlingame for all residents to enjoy and we're proud to give this project our endorsement and we hope our approval will expedite the process to turn this vision into reality. Thank you. >Niko Nagel: I'm speaking on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition. We are a 20 year old nonprofit organization supporting building new homes at all levels of affordability to help alleviate the Bay Area in our statewide housing shortage which is driving our displacement and affordable housing crisis. I would like to speak in support of the project which will bring 311 much needed homes to Burlingame. I would like to thank the Councilmembers and staff for your tireless efforts to help meet that housing demand . Tonight, I ask that you support the project and move it forward without delay. Thank you. >Alex Torres: I am the director of the government relations for the Bay Area Council. Thank you for the time today. I'll align my comments with some of the points Mr. Pasquali made on this project. But I want to highlight the level of outreach by Carmel Partners noted by him as well as the excellent staff report analysis. On behalf of our 350 plus members we want to voice support for this project at 1766 El Camino Real. This project alone will account for nearly ten percent of Burlingame's total 2023-2031 regional housing needs allocation, RHNA assessment of 3,257 units. As noted, it's an ideal location, one half mile from the Millbrae transit center and also within walking distance as our friends from Greenbelt Alliance and the Housing Action Coalition have noted. The project leads an environmental design as well. Great project all in all. We strongly support and urge you to support it as well. Really appreciate your time. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I'd like to thank the applicant and their team for the work that they've done from the various versions of this project. The renderings have dramatically increased in quality which also shows more thought into the details that they're trying to put into the project. The first versions didn't communicate those details well so it was making it hard to see the quality of what was going to happen. It got them to do some better Page 4City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes details. I like the added depth in the windows and the material transitions a lot better. The simplification has really helped. I appreciate the effort put into the material board as well because that shows they're thinking through the materials and make it easier when we're reviewing this information to back check that against their elevations and renderings. All of that really helped the submittal package this time. It was very well done and it communicates the quality of the project that I was hoping it would be. So, I stand in support of the project and it would be a good project moving forward. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I wanted to add a few minor positive comments. Since the last rendition, I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the locations for the bike parking. They're in great locations in relationship to the most typical bike path to our more centralized transportation nodes. The thoughtfulness for the location of the courtyards make a lot of sense. I appreciate seeing the shadow study and how a good part of the time those courtyards would be used are actually well lit. That takes really good planning and thought. This rendition has come a long way as well. I like the look at the corner of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real that defines the building and the development at that corner calls attention to itself. It's essentially the gateway into Burlingame for the bulk of our city. I also wanted to thank the team, personally, for producing a finish board for each and every one of us. That was quite an effort, but really appreciate seeing the actual finishes in hand and not just a colored rendition of it. Overall, I really like how this project has progressed and developed. The color palette looks really nice together, it's very cohesive, interesting and has nice textures. I like the horizontal elements that are brought out now with a clean delineation of materials and elements around the whole development on all sides. I, too, can see supporting this project going forward and look forward to seeing its construction. >I want to thank you for all your hard work on this project. I agree with everything that my fellow commissioners have said. I want to thank the applicants for the extra affordable housing element to this project. As we all know, we definitely need to help our own here in town and I appreciate all that, that they've created more space for families and workers here and nearby towns. >I find this project very palatable. I like the use of all the materials. It's a perfect site for housing. I am just having trouble with the California Drive side. Our Design Review criteria addresses gateway sites, where the design fits the site and should be compatible with the surrounding development. I don ’t find that with this project. I come from the train station a lot and come down California Drive to my house, so I ’m very familiar with that part of the drive and this, especially in the renderings, just looks overwhelming. The project is very big. But stepping it back on the upper floors on the California Drive side could really soften that. It dominates those townhomes that are to the south of it. I don't think that's fair to that architectural element of the town. It's possible it may get torn down one day, but that ’s not what is happening there . That’s where my questions were leading to, if those could be pulled back and with 311 units. I believe knocking a few units back wouldn't kill the project, but it doesn't sound like that's going to happen for the applicant. It looks like 90% supports the project, but that elevation is just killing me and I don't know if I can support it. >I pretty much want to echo that. I love the presentation, the materials board and colors are great . Thank you so much for listening to the architects who are no longer on the Planning Commission, but they were very assertive and helpful with their comments about pulling the whole thing together. It made a huge difference. But I'm having a hard time because there's a very similar project that is much smaller in scale in Millbrae. It has a dog leg on it and the minute that came up on California Drive, I thought it must be a mistake. Ours is going to be even larger and it's very close to those adjacent townhomes, so I'm really having a hard time with it. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the modified condition of approval as noted by staff. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse5 - Nay:Gaul, and Pfaff2 - c.500 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for a Special Permit for building height for a new elevator enclosure on the roof deck of an existing four -story office building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Page 5City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines.(Carlos Castillo, Element One Architecture, applicant and architect; Waterfront Plaza Properties LLC, property owner) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 500 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 500 Airport Blvd - Attachments 500 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Carlos Castillo, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The existing building does not have a parapet. The roof is the top of the elevation and the elevator enclosure is going to stick up a lot more. For Hillside Area Construction Permits we ask for story poles to analyze potential impacts. I'm concerned with this proposal; some of the other buildings with large penthouses look like a topper to the building. This is going to be a miniature box but yet standing 20-feet tall; it's going to look weird. Looking at the section and then looking at the roof on Goggle Earth, this feels like it's going to stick way up. Would like to request some sort of mockup so we can see what it's going to look like on the building. It could be as simple as a flag that is at the same height. It's hard to tell from here and being a z-shaped building, it's going to be unusual. >In your letter, it says that there was additional space needed so an elevator technician standing on top of the elevator cars is not crushed or badly injured. Suggest you consider an access through the roof as a practical solution. You can access it to the top if it was in the path of travel, you could have a hatch on the top to access the equipment. I could be wrong, my experience with commercial elevators is very limited, but in residential elevators the cart takes up the whole shaft. You can't idiot proof everything obviously, you can step off the side of the building, too, but I'm not asking you to put a handrail around it. Consider looking into another solution. I’m in full agreement with my fellow commissioner that if there's a structural shear requirement, typically it can be put to the side of the opening and you can make the penthouse wider and not so tall. Suggest going back to the engineer and the elevator company to see if you can work out a different solution. because this is really tall compared to what we're seeing. >It feels like a pimple on the roof that sticks up too far. The other penthouses in the building surrounding them have HVAC equipment and they have other things in them, so they really look like a structure on the roof where this is going to be a different. Looking at the smaller one that is there now, I agree, but this is going to extend higher. We need some sort of mockup and it could be as simple as a couple of 2x4's sticking up on the one corner and going high enough to show us that we can't see it. But right now, I feel like it's going to stick up quite a ways and really all of the surrounding buildings that are five floors or above will be looking at this thing. So that's my concern. >I would agree with that comment. If there were to be some poles erected, I would ask for two, one in opposing corners so we would get something closer to the street than away and the first one might not have the same effect, but there has to be a better solution. When we cut an opening in the side of a house, we put a shear panel on the side. You could make this structure and put the shear on the side . You don't have to have the shear underneath it. That's like what they did on the Golden Gate Bridge. They put their cross braces underneath the deck so they didn't have to have shear up above, but you could put Page 6City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the shear to the side because you have the room. You don't have to have the height. There's a solution for that access space on the top which could be some kind of lid on the top. My experience with elevators, which I have put some in residences, we get to six inches on the top. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. There's a different solution to this problem and as everyone knows, there's more than one option. It might have to cost a little bit more to get it done. I’d like to see some other alternatives before this project can move forward. >I don't know if there's really an appealable solution here at the moment that makes sense to deny the application, so we should continue to give them a chance to come back with another solution that's more viable. If we're still looking at something as tall as this solution here, then we're going to need to be convinced with story poles. That would be up to the applicant to decide which way they're going but if they could reduce the overall height quite a bit, then I would maybe not be so anxious about story poles. At the moment, with it sitting six feet above the roof just feels really weird. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.620 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant and architect; Patricia and Griffin Tormey, property owners) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 620 Trenton Way - Staff Report 620 Trenton Way - Attachments 620 Trenton Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones and Ted Catlin, architects, and Patricia Tormey, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider using a more craftsman style garage door and less of a ranch style look. >I like the character that was present with the shutters on the left side of the main floor under the gable end. Consider adding shutters on the central element of the second floor. It would be nice to add some ornamentation to it to bring a little bit more attention to itself since is it very symmetrical and balanced. >There is a feeling of heaviness on the upper floor that you might want to study further. It can be because of the deep eaves on the front balcony at the lower level or the hatching of the shingles, but please look into other solutions which can reduce that effect. Suggest raising the plate height in the garage, which can help the roof work better so as it terminates at the roof of the porch. It can help tie in the levels and the addition of the second floor. Page 7City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Provide a colored 3D image to help answer our questions and concerns. >Regarding the front elevation of the second floor looking heavy, most of the windows around the house are grouped together in three's or four's. The four windows at the front of the house look a bit small and it gives more wall space. I think that ’s where the illusion of that weight comes from. I understand that these are bathroom windows, but consider rearranging and look for a different solution. >I agree on the heaviness and some of the comments that my fellow commissioners made. I think part of it is the density and the color of the hatch that is making it graphically look that way. I like the opportunity of increasing the roof vents or shutters in the middle area to make it look a little bit more celebratory. Another good solution is to add a planter box beneath the window sill to take up some of the extra space and make the middle portion a bit more prominent; this could take some pressure off the two sides. Otherwise, it is a great project and would like to see it move forward. >I completely agree with my fellow commissioner, I would also like to suggest a planter box. All the other comments are helpful. It is going to be a great project. It would be wonderful to see the transition of the house with simple means and keeping the core house is great. Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.1425 Castillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Variance for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc ., applicant and designer; Rajiv Gujral, property owner) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1425 Castillo Ave - Staff Report 1425 Castillo Ave - Attachments 1425 Castillo Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with several neighbors, including the tenant who currently lives in the house, the neighbor to the right, and the neighbor across the street. He noted that he was also able to access the rear yard of the neighbor to the right . Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email: We are homeowners next door to 1425 Castillo Avenue. Concerned with height variance being upwards of 6’ – 8’ higher than allowed. This property is on a hill which will increase the height even more which affects our privacy with windows on the second floor. We would like to request a side -by-side drawing of the footprint and setbacks between 1425 Castillo Avenue and 1427 Castillo Avenue so that we can see where the windows will be located. We would like to ask why the property couldn ’t be graded 3’- 4’ lower and set closer to the street to offset the variance request to increase the height? >Melinda Earlywine, 1427 Castillo Avenue: Those are the questions that I have sent via email. Also, just listening to the meeting, the fact that there is a door on the right side and a four -foot setback has me a little bit concerned, especially if there is no planting in front of it; that is a question I am raising as well with the ones I have sent via email. >Stuart Hosman, 1418 Castillo Avenue: We live right across the street from the house that they are planning to getting a variance for. We have lived on this street for over 30 years and we have seen Page 8City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes driveways like that having problems, that driveway specifically, we have watched the car roll down the driveway. So just by taking 2’- 4’ out of there makes it that much safer for everybody who lives on Castillo Avenue. Additionally, bring it down so it doesn ’t look like a skyscraper up there and that would give them the ability not to have the variances as much as they are asking for. I’ve built two houses on the street and have stayed within the variances by not going up, so it can be done. It would be better for the neighborhood and it will make everything more uniform. We like the look of the house and we like the ideas that they are coming up with, but between the height of the house and where it sits, it is overwhelming based on what we see from the plans that they currently have. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider adding a roof element for weather protection over the side door on the left to be consistent with the door at the right. >Look at lowering the grade to reduce the height and get away from the variance; there are ways to do it. Typically, if the cut is below thee feet, you can do it without engineering. The concerns from the neighbors were about the building height and I tend to agree because the existing house is so high off the ground. >Provide the window locations of the next door neighbors’ houses on both sides because there is some concern about privacy. >Consider adding some planting, maybe an evergreen that can grow tall, on the right hand side toward the second entrance to the kitchen to help provide screening and privacy. >I can appreciate the comments by the neighbors. I am looking at the house on the right side and it looks like that one has pretty close to a 3-story presence on the street. So it is not that this will actually be the tallest house. I can appreciate the uphill nature of the site and we have seen quite a few of these . The designer has done a nice job with the architecture. Suggest evaluating what some regrading would look like on this for the next round. As we think about having this property graded down, we have to consider that the neighbors on both sides are going to be above it and will be dumping water into this property. So, we have to be sensitive of the fact that you cannot just depress it and not have unintended consequences. It needs to be looked at appropriately. If he can get a foot or two out of it, that would be great. All in all, it is sitting on a sizable hill which is not much different than what we have approved in the last couple of meetings on this street. Looking at the other homes that the applicant mentioned, this design is handsome and plays out nicely three -dimensionally. I would like to see the project move forward, but I see some opportunity for the applicant to come back with a few more answers for us before we look at it in the action calendar. >The house looks really nice. We have a couple of streets that we have this uphill slope and Vancouver Avenue is one of those. We have made adjustments and have variances on some of those properties on the uphill side of Vancouver Avenue and this is like the same project. I agree with my fellow commissioner. I’d like to see this project move accordingly. If the applicant can take a quick look at it and see if they can come up with an alternative, but it is not a deal breaker for me. I do like the project and would like to see this come back to the action calendar. >I agree, it is a good looking project. I think it is a simple solution to do a grading cut, you end up with a terraced retaining wall but it will be just like a terraced backyard and it is not really a big deal. I’m not saying to scrape it down 4 feet from property line to property line. It gives you an opportunity to have an enclosed patio with the planter area. It is a simple solution to getting away with the variance and maybe keeping the height down a little bit. I agree with my fellow commissioner about bringing this back to regular action. Commissioner Commaroto made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Pfaff, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 9City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes c.2758 Summit Drive, R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Raymond Frank, applicant and architect; Charles Chiparo and Laure Rupenian, property owners ) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2758 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2758 Summit Dr - Attachments 2758 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with both the property owner of this project and the neighbor to the right, who provide him access to the home to see the back of the subject property from her kitchen window. Commissioner Tse noted that she contacted and left a message for the neighbor, Faith Chan, and unfortunately was not able to coordinate a visit in time . Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Raymond Frank, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Eugene and Sylvia Chinn, 2751 Summit Drive: We live directly across the street from 2758 Summit Drive and have reviewed the renderings and plans for the proposed addition. Our house is the only one that has a direct view of 2758 Summit Drive. We have lived here for 43 years and the project improves the neighborhood, as such, we endorse the project. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a very interesting house. Please revisit placement of doors and windows as some of them seem not to align with the windows on the other levels of the home, especially on the rear elevation . Consider using a consistent mullion size. There seem to be a lot of different mullion sizes proposed which is distracting and makes it a less solid design. >The site plan shows a tree next to a gas meter. I didn ’t see that at the site, but there is a big tree at the corner that looks to be at the neighbor ’s property. Please look to see if that is correct and adjust the plans accordingly. >I can certainly appreciate the comments from the neighbor directly to the right as you are facing the house. It is a little bit downhill. They are also dealing with a remodel of the house on the other side of them that we have looked at not that long ago. So they definitely are going to have some change, but the reality is that the protected views from that property are out the back side towards the canyon. I would be more concerned about blocking views from her deck and views of the canyon. I can appreciate that they have the side window open for this long, but I also can appreciate that the neighbor has the right to build and they are not building something large and oversized. That really is a very modest home for what is a fairly sizable site. They are well under the FAR with this little addition that is going to be below the neighboring house. As much as I sympathize with the neighbor, I feel that this project does it ’s best to minimize and yet was able to take advantage of their lot and their ability to build. So, I can support the project and can see it going forward. >It is very modest. I did notice how close that home is to the neighbor on the right. What the designer has proposed to block the view would be helpful. I absolutely love the current front railing, the proposed glass is fine but it has an industrial look. It is not a deal breaker for me but the existing front has this very nice warm feel. It was just a very interesting railing. I can see this move forward as well. Just need to tighten up what we have discussed about aligning the windows and making the moldings uniform. Page 10City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I had some concerns about the sizes of the decks and that they all extend out the same distance. I was at the neighbor ’s house to the right as you face the property, her kitchen window certainly looks out to what is there now. But what has more impact for that neighbor is behind the kitchen on that same side is a bedroom. You’ve got a pretty good size deck coming off the living and dining areas potentially where you are doing your entertaining. I know in the hillside area we are not really limiting the size of the decks as we are in the lower areas of the city, but it might even look better if the upper deck will step back a little bit and same with the lower deck. It would be helpful to see an outline of the house next door to see the relationship distance between the two properties and show where the windows are located just so we get a better feel of how close we are putting people together up there. Overall, I like the project. I just wish it is a little bit farther away from the other house. Stepping the decks back might help but it might be something to look at. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - d.34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 34 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The two windows on the south elevation are very narrow and very tall, they look squished in there . There is also a set of four sliding doors on the left hand side at the basement that are very tall and oversized. Consider bringing down the height. >On the proposed left elevation, the relationship of the door that is underneath the bay window and the window next to it seems odd. The door looks miniature and the window looks really tall. Consider relocating the door in the garage or lowering the window header height. >I think you made a really beautiful house. You’re good at designing the entrances of homes and it looks lovely coming at the front. I hope you can revisit some of those window heights. >I did notice that there were always a lot of plants or bushes on the left -hand side on the driveway and they seem to all be gone now. Consider putting a hedge or something in there because it would be more in proportion to the house, to make it feel warmer and such. >I'd like to say thank you for being able to adapt and reuse the forms of this house. We're seeing two Page 11City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes story homes that are really tall; this home and design has taken great advantage of a split -level opportunity to be able to update something but not make it a lot bigger. So, I commend the owner and the team for really putting forth a really good adaptive solution on this project. I can support this and love to see it go forward. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - e.777 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits for building height and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits for new 13-story Office/R&D building. (LPC West, applicant and property owner; Gensler, architect) (21 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 777 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 777 Airport Blvd - Attachments 777 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Marc Huffman, Jacob Peterson and Chris Payne, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider incorporating low -level pedestrian lighting that's close to the ground at sidewalks and crosswalks into the overall lighting plan. >The building is so strong in shape and so tall, provide shadow study to see impacts. >At the Burlingame Point project there's a lot of ground floor amenity, but it's not accessible to the public; to me that doesn't fit the bill of community benefit. This project has a plaza that's 7,600 square feet and the walking diagram showed you walk around the building and the plazas but you can't go in. I would like to see more of a community benefit here. I don't know why people would go walking through there. Maybe to get to the Bay Trail if coming from the Embassy Suites Hotel but for people who enjoy a plaza, you have to give them a reason to go there. It's not just a place to sit down. So, I really would like to see more of something that the community can use there. It could be a combined use and it doesn't have to be open 24 hours, but we're looking for a community benefit and not just the open space. >There was a comment about less pedestrian activity on Anza Boulevard behind the building between the Bay Trail and the triangle at the rear. Because of all the vegetation back there, there's going to be a lot of pedestrian activity because it's hidden, that should be taken into consideration. That wooded area is a place that could encourage not such desirable activities. You might want to look at a pathway through there somehow and incorporate a plaza there. Something not too wooded that would encourage people not to be back there, because that end of the Bay Trail gets a lot of use by transients; it's an opportunity for mischief, if you will. Page 12City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I feel that this building is way too big. It doesn't give any relief to the corners and it's just a big box that's put up right in your face on the lagoon side. You've done a good job with the exterior materials for bird remediation and I like the bottom floor. Having been involved on the bay side for the last few years and understanding the amount of work that goes into subterranean parking, I know it's very costly and I can appreciate and understand that. But putting cars on the top floors is not creating a public amenity as my fellow commissioner have mentioned. It's not creating that public amenity that I really want to see on that bay side. I want to see a coffee shop; I want to be able to go out there, enjoy what we've created and I want kids to go out there. We're going to have a nature preserve out there and hopefully Topgolf. There's no place to go out there to enjoy an evening. The building ’s owners need to create some restaurants for us in the evenings and the weekends for bike riders, it doesn't have to be late. Just even up to 6:00 pm, but that give us something. When you say public amenities and you give us the park and the sea level rise improvements, well that's awesome but that is also something that BCDC mandates for us and they're responsible for that. So in a perfect world, I don't know if that's a social benefit. What a social benefit to me is having this plaza, music, and something out there to go to. I don't see that here. I really feel that this is a very tall building and it needs to be scaled down. That's why I was hoping that the applicant could potentially look at going below grade for some of the parking because it would push the building height down a bit. >I can appreciate the complexity of this project and the amount of effort being put into it. A lot of the exterior does work nicely. Most buildings these days are having to provide exterior areas just to not make them be boxes on the land. The open space is nice but it's not as much of a community benefit as my fellow commissioner has mentioned. It's just a little more open space. The height is tall, that's why I was asking about some of the comparable buildings in the area. This building is going to be double the height of the DoubleTree Hotel which is the next tallest building you can see out there. It's going to be a lot like Salesforce Tower being half a building taller than the rest of the city. It's something that needs to be looked at harder. Being able to look at some of the new projects which have not been built yet, but understanding the relationship to some of these other tall structures, it might help us get over 225 feet. The applicant is going to need to show some of that a little bit more. It may mean three -dimensional drawings and seeing where the other big buildings are that they're next to. I'm not really feeling the architecture. One of the other buildings we looked at earlier today, a multi -unit residential building on El Camino Real, that building started off stark and not very well designed, but it has come a long way. I’m not seeing a whole lot of material definition on this one. I'm not seeing a lot of depth and it is a big box . Unless we're going to see a lot more rendering of details of how it goes together and start to see more pedestrian scale, it's not doing anything for me. It's boring glass. The applicant is going to want to try and do some more with this in order to push this forward. It's an incredibly complex project. I can appreciate the efforts being put in it and what the team is doing but architecturally, it's not doing it for me right now. I would like to see more effort into that portion of it and obviously the sooner they do that, the sooner it will be reflected within their environmental scoping. >It’s worth repeating what someone said around retail, that's an important aspect on community benefit . On their plan, it says retail /amenity. Retail comes with the definition that it's public. I do think that's an important aspect of a community benefit. With respect to the height, I ’m open to the height because it seems like it's compliant with the General Plan. If we want the height of the buildings lowered, it seems like we might want to look at the General Plan and what that allows. I don't fault the developers for maximizing what we have allowed in that zoning district. >I know that this site is challenging and that the team has done a nice job of trying to work with this site. What I want to see more is some kind of organic relationship to this site, the shape, the neighborhood, the context of buildings in the area; as proposed it looks like it doesn't belong on the site . I'm okay with the height; they have met the FAR. Of course it's very expensive to develop these properties, so I want them to get out what they can in their development, but this building looks like it's plopped on the site and doesn't relate itself to the area. That pinched corner is concerning because it's so tight, it's coming right off the freeway exit and almost seems like you can drive right into the side of the building . Driving from afar, I came from a far distance to approach this site, and the new buildings at Burlingame Point made the buildings feel tall. Those four buildings are approximately 140 feet tall and this is one singular building that is on a narrow lot that would be 220 feet tall or so. Again, I don't have a problem with the height but it somehow needs to relate to the site, the shape of it. Setting itself back from a corner Page 13City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes or some other shape and softening of the edges, it needs something so that it feels like it organically belongs on this site. There are efforts put towards the public amenity spaces, the park and such and I appreciate that, but by looking at what has been offered in terms of imagery and the types of furnishing or seating arrangements, it's not telling a complete story. It's just pictures from here and there, but would love it to feel a little bit more cohesive like it's really thought through as a space that's intended to be enjoyed by people and not just a side thought to the project. >I agree with what has been said, I keep thinking of the Facebook project as well. It's not in our list from staff this time but I believe the building is the tallest one there. They're significantly shorter but my point is that they have an organic shape to them and that's what my fellow commissioner is saying. With this, it was plopped on the site and it needs to feel like it fits. It's not a graceful height. Sometimes the height, if it's tall and narrow can work, but the goal is to make a space that can accommodate any tenant and so that is a bit of a conundrum. The issue with retail at the Facebook project was that they promised a lot. It was going to be daycare and a restaurant open to the public, but as soon as that tenant changed ten years later, none of that was allowed because it was all going to be private. The eating spaces needed to be private, so we were left at the end of the day with no daycare, just this tiny little cafe, which is publicly accessible but it's a far cry from what we started with. It would be great to have but I don't know if that can be promised with this. Certainly it does feel very large for this site and that is a bit foreign. I do like what you've attempted to do with the rear of the site; we use that area a lot. I love what you're envisioning, the pathways and certain areas under that bridge that people can hang out. >I don't disagree with what anybody said; I echo my fellow commissioner's viewpoint. The General Plan dictates our guidelines and height is allowable. When you compare the facade and the height to what's in the area, we're comparing it to very old and in my opinion, very ugly architecture. So, yes this will stand out in a good way. I totally agree with the retail aspect, but as a retailer myself, this is a terrible area for retail . It might being self-sustaining because of how many people will work in the office building; maybe there's a study that can bring that up. I would love to see that retail but I ’m not going to tell my kids to go to a coffee shop on Anza Boulevard and Airport Boulevard. It's nice to have ., but I don't know if I would want it as contingent. All in all, it's an improvement for the area. Life science is indeed in demand and I would love to have the tax dollars and the interest level come to Burlingame. That's a part of the plan and as the developer said, this is a hallmark-type building and that's really important to remember. >I’ve been a big proponent of the retail. I remember the Facebook project at the drive -in site with a proposed 26,000 square feet of commercial space. I’m not looking for a destination. It's going to be incidental to you going they're. The rendering shows people walking their dogs, an older couple, and a family with two little kids. It may not be a profitable space but that's the community benefit I ’m looking for and I’m disappointed with what we got at Burlingame Point. I brought it up ten years ago whether we were doing that Burlingame Point, but Kincaid's is out there all by itself and it does really, really well. The people who stay at some of those hotels are looking for a place that's not the buffet breakfast at the Embassy Suites. That's why the Red Roof Inn does well because the hotel breakfast's are not good. So if you had a little breakfast café that would be great. If the people of Burlingame found out it was great, they would ride their bike every Saturday and Sunday. >I agree with this being a tall, skinny box. One of the criteria of the Commercial Design Guidelines note "compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale and existing materials of surrounding development and appropriate transitions to adjacent lower intensity of development and uses". I don't see them achieving this goal with that. I get that you want to maximize what you can, but I can guarantee that there are smaller life science companies that would look for a smaller building. So, I am concerned with the proposed height of 226 feet. I would like to see a list or a map of the heights of buildings around it for our next meeting. >I would like the applicant to look at the proposed development at 1200-1340 Bayshore Highway that came in front of us at our Annual Joint City Council /Planning Commission meeting because that building, although it's big and it's right there on the water, it is beautiful architecturally. That’s something that I would look for on the project like this. It's too big but if it the architecture was better, it could work. I want the architect to pull out the stops because I know it can be done. The application is required to return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes environmental review. No vote was taken. Page 14City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.2201 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - FYI for revisions to a previously approved Design Review project for a single story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. 2201 Hillside Dr - Memorandum 2201 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2201 HIllside Dr - Plans Attachments: >Accepted. b.1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1 - FYI for proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. 1345 Vancouver Ave - Memorandum 1345 Vancouver Ave - Attachments 1345 Vancouver Ave - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners noted the following concerns: Concerned with proposed changes to exterior and balcony; there was no explanation given of why changes were being proposed; plans need to show originally approved and proposed front elevation on same sheet (this should be done for each building elevation ); and plans need to clearly label previously approved and proposed elevations. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Notice: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on June 13, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on June 23, 2022, 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 $708.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 15City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 27, 2022 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and TsePresent5 - Lowenthal, and SchmidAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no Minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 9a - 2313 Ray Drive was continued to a future agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.620 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit 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.(Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Patricia and Griffin Tormey, property owners) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 620 Trenton Way - Staff Report 620 Trenton Way - Attachments 620 Trenton Way - Plans Attachments: Page 1City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Ted Catlin, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I want to thank the applicant for listening to our comments and addressing them with the revised plans. This rendition is beautiful and addressed all of our concerns. The upper floor fits much more nicely against the first story. I appreciate the added detail with the shutters on the second floor windows upstairs . The raised porch roof was a perfect solution to address not only the stacking of the second floor over the first floor, but also to address the interconnection with the roof over the garage. I support moving this project forward. Vice-Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal, and Schmid2 - b.1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1829 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report 1829 Sebastian Dr - Attachments 1829 Sebastian Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Horan noted that he met with the neighbors at 1833 Sebastian Drive, 1829 Sebastian Drive, and 1860 Capistrano Avenue. Commissioner Tse noted that she spoke to the same three neighbors, was able to view the impact of the proposed project against the two adjacent neighbors on the left and right on Sebastian Drive, and was able to view the effects from 1860 Capistrano Avenue from the backyard only but did not get a tour inside the house . Commissioner Tse also noted that she contacted the project surveyor to check the accuracy of the drawings as there were concerns expressed by the neighbors. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she reviewed the story poles from inside the home of the neighbor at 1860 Capistrano Avenue, and also visited both neighbors on either side of 1829 Sebastian Drive and had several conversations with Ms. Lee. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with the neighbor at 1860 Capistrano Avenue; he did not get inside the home but walked through the backyard with permission. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 2City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Tim Raduenz, designer and Yousef Shamieh, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >Neighbor (no address provided): I’m the neighbor a couple of doors way. The house is blocking our dining room and the living room bay view. I realized that several Commissioners have already visited several neighbor's house. But I received this notice about a week ago that's why I joined the Planning Commission meeting so the Commission is able to hear what we have to say and see how we could avoid this blockage of the bay view. I just wanted to bring this to the owner's attention. This is blocking the bay quite a bit because we're up the hill a little bit; the roof was very obvious and it's blocking quite a bit of the bay view. >Jeffrey Hoeck, 1860 Capistrano Avenue: Some of you came out and visited. I've lived here for 45 years. As Yousef said, I did an addition in 1992-1993 to the house, prior to that I went to all the neighbors, showed them the plans, discussed with them and made a change here and there. I discussed it with everybody. It was passed and wasn't an issue. Unfortunately, through whatever fault, I only saw Yousef for the first time concerning this house on Thursday and Sunday. I was away in Los Angeles, so I really never got a chance to talk to him. It was never discussed, although I saw the drawings at the last meeting, it was never discussed with me about the addendum to the fence or the story poles that are up. The story poles definitely block view from my living room, dining room, and my kitchen, and also from the sitting area by my pool. I don't know if that counts or not, but even if that doesn't, from my living room, dining room and kitchen, without a doubt, you can see the story poles easily from my front door on the other side of the house. If I had more time, I would have talked to him longer and maybe come up with something because the height of the house, without a doubt, blocks everything for me. I appreciate those who came out and looked at the place. When he was over, he talked about the possibility of having a flat roof which would drop it quite a ways. The tree issue which he talked about keeping it cut would amount to a certain height. He thought he could drop the roof by a foot and a half or two feet but he didn't have all the engineering specifications there, but I never had a chance to go over it. So, this is the first opportunity I've had to talk to both him and of course to all of you. It definitely blocks my view. >Teresa Chang, 1833 Sebastian Drive: I'm the neighbor on the right -hand side. The issue is not having a second story. The main issue is that the building is really bulky when it's extended to the backyard rather than starting on the original roof line. The addition is really obscuring our view and I feel pressure when I stand out there. The other thing I'm wondering about when I look at the plan, I know the lot line is not something that the Commission is dealing with, but if the lot line is not correct when they try to repave the walkway from five feet to eight feet according to the plan, that may change the plan because when the architect prepares the plans, they need to be within the envelope. I'm not sure it will affect the project . Honestly, Yousef just approached me one time briefly and never talked to me further about my concerns . I think the situation would be a little bit better if he tried to open a discussion with us before the hearing starts, rather than giving me surprises when I see the plans, the layout, the lot lines and the bulkiness to my backyard. Thank you Commissioners for visiting my house and listening to my concerns. >Christine Lee, 1825 Sebastian Drive: Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak . Today we had three Commissioners visit my home and Teresa's house. The building addition for the neighborhood is a percentage of lot size, but we are dealing with the yard in the back. I was really shocked when I first saw the story poles and also the large deck. I think the architect wanted to minimize it, but I wish there were no decks at all because the deck looks into my backyard. I have a private backyard. My property is surrounded by trees on three sides. If Yousef puts more landscape screening, I feel like I'm going to be trapped in my backyard so that's a concern. Yousef approached me around 5:30 pm tonight, I talked to him for about 30 minutes. Thank you Commissioner Tse, for checking with the surveyor and conforming that he did the land survey correctly. But we, Teresa and I, measured Yousef's land surveyor's mark that was three feet over to Teresa's side and 1.25 feet on my side and then two feet in the back. I said that in the last e -mail. I need some time to get a survey. We don't have time and my lot checks out to be 72 feet wide from fence to fence, so I really need to confirm the lot dimensions before anybody decides on anything. I would appreciate it if you give could give both our neighbors a chance to Page 3City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes look into this further because we didn't have time for this. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider a complete hipped roof over the addition, it may take a big chunk out of considerable view blockage even if the height is not reduced necessarily. >It's great that you're planting trees, but they take a long time to grow. Those are good trees, they're evergreen and can be very dense, but perhaps you might consider an obscure railing for the deck rather than a see-through design because part of the issue is probably an increased intensity of use in that backyard. >Support the suggestion to do a hipped roof. Looking on the right side elevation, it will help with the massing. There's no setback on the second story along the right side; there is no articulation so it looks like it's an apartment building. With so much space and a big property, there must be other opportunities to improve and meet the program requirements but also look more like the house that's there now . Whether it's a hipped roof or gabled roof, it does help that you have changed the orientation, but it would make a difference to your neighbor. >Study other options for the two proposed windows by the stairs facing the right side neighbor, it does feel like they're invading their privacy. Seeing the impact of the addition over their yard, it looks massive from just with the story poles in place. >Reconsider the size and location of the deck off the dining /family room area, which has an impact on the right side neighbor's backyard. Safety wise, I would not want to see a deck at all. A reduced size deck facing the backyard would be acceptable since you have the articulation along that rear elevation. >Consider using something similar to the existing roof tile on the rest of the house versus the proposed asphalt roof on the addition. The asphalt roof is going to look like it's going in a completely different direction. >Ensure that you're going through our City Arborist regarding any proposed tree removal; look to see if there's a way to trim it back so it's stable, because it appears to be protected size. >I was not in attendance for the first meeting, but I did watch the video for this part of the meeting. I have a number of issues with the whole project. The idea of the second story being setback would help this a lot because that wall on the right side is pretty sheer, it's pretty blank and flat. The roof material bothers me that they would be different roofs. It's making this look more and more like an addition and it does look like something has been added on. It has been stated a number of times that the lot is really big and they're not approaching the FAR, which is true, but it makes me think that maybe there's a better solution than a second story. That brings me to the main point that though the view of the distant view is through the trees and it's a little bit muted, there is a distant view and it's being blocked. We have rejected projects before for less of a view blockage than what I'm seeing here. I honestly think it would help if the applicant cut the trees down so the neighbor behind could see, and then maybe some kind of a solution could be brought together that everyone could agree on. At the moment, I see this as too much of a view blockage to have a second story. I don't think I could support the project. >I agree with most of what my fellow Commissioner said. Subjectively, I don't like the project; it looks like a pimple on the back of the house. It doesn't fit aesthetically. That's my subjective view. I’ve heard about why different solutions couldn't be done, I'm not there yet in saying that this is the only solution . Putting the addition above the existing house is more about money and not wanting to impact the current home than about it being impossible. To my fellow Commissioner's point, it is a large property and if they're cutting into the back hill, there could be some room for a one -story addition that doesn't minimize the lot too much. But all of that is really driven by this view blockage. I would like to see what the neighbor who called was talking about once they feel comfortable giving an address because all of us had a chance to visit with the property owner at 1860 Capistrano Avenue. I was able to go to each room inside of his house and the addition does block the view, so that's probably the primarily concern. While I feel for the neighbors in terms of the privacy concerns and how daunting the addition looks, it's not necessarily a code issue or something that we're able to influence from a design perspective. I do appreciate the architect and homeowner being willing to modify the design based on our recommendations. I just feel like Page 4City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes there's more room for that going forward to find a way to get an approval. >I echo a lot of what my fellow Commissioner just stated. I had also shared with the neighbors about the applicant's right to add on to their property wherever that addition may be, but I agree that this particular proposed design doesn't seem to fit well with the existing house. It seems like the addition is lopsided. There's a considerable amount of massing to go with it and so it doesn't feel like it's a natural extension of the home. Having visited the two neighbors on Sebastian Drive, I am concerned about the deck, the noise and the privacy issues for the left side neighbor because I can already imagine the impact of that deck even reduced over that neighbor's property. For the neighbor to the right, it's the massing that just doesn't suit the space, the location on that part of the property. I just feel like there can be a better solution. We have a talented designer and it may be budgetary constraints that are creating this design . There are many other opportunities on such a large lot to really come up with a solution to give the family some additional living space. As I see it now, I can't support the project either as it's presented. >I agree with my fellow Commissioners. I went to Capistrano Avenue as well, although I was having a bit of a hard time understanding the distant views because the trees are in the way. To really understand where that view is coming from, I looked at a two -story house located across the street from the project house and the roof line seems to also be impacting the house at Capistrano Avenue. But it's too hard to really understand the layout of the land with the trees there. I'm not disputing that there's a view ordinance issue, I'm just not sure what it is. But I agree with my fellow Commissioners about the deck. I'm completely not in agreement with the second story deck and would like to see it eliminated for the privacy issues of the neighbor to the left. It's looking right into her backyard. The sheer wall on the right side of the house looks like it’s just been placed on top of a cake and it doesn't feel like it fits the neighborhood . There's enough space in that yard and I don't know why we can't utilize what we have as a single story. I'd much rather see giving them more square footage if they kept it as a single -story house versus a two -story house on that property. >If they cut the trees down to start with because they're going to get cut down anyway, there would be a clearer view of what's being impacted. The applicant has said it would probably enhance the view, but the view impact is there and I saw it today from outside the building. Whether it's filtered or muted by the trees now, it's going to be enhanced by the trees being removed which is going to give the neighbor on Capistrano Avenue a stronger case. That’s where they should start cutting the trees. The neighbor to the right of 1860 Capistrano Avenue, to my understanding is tenant occupied. The owner is 90 years old and they have a right to come to us to talk about the project for themselves and the impact it has on them . But standing in Mr. Hoeck's backyard, you could easily see there were some rooms on that property that may or may not be impacted. It's not for me to say and it's not for me to determine that at this moment . Those owners need to take responsibility to come to us. There’s more impacts on bay views in that location, so I just want to be cognizant of everyone on that block. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal, and Schmid2 - c.2758 Summit Drive, R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit 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. (Raymond Frank, applicant and architect; Charles Chiparo and Laura Rupenian, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2758 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2758 Summit Dr - Attachments 2758 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: Page 5City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Raymond Frank, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide drawings to show the location of the neighbor ’s kitchen and bedroom windows so we can have a better idea of how those windows relate to the proposed addition and decks. >It’s greatly improved from the last time. I appreciate that it looks more together and is a tighter design . We received the e -mail from the neighbor regarding trees and staff responded to it. Suggest helping the neighbor, who appears very close to this project, by planting additional landscaping to make this work out for her, that would be greatly appreciated. The project has come along nicely. >I would echo that, thanks to the applicant and the architect for listening to all the comments and making all of those changes. It fully reflects the conversation we had at the last meeting. >Planters should be added at the sides of all three decks in order to provide privacy between the subject property and the neighbor to the right. I would like to make sure we do see those permanent planters put on the decks with the final plan; that could potentially come back as an FYI. >I would also like to see a more developed landscape plan. It is pretty bare between the two houses and if you go into the neighbor's house on the right, you look right out at the deck. It would be a benefit to both parties, especially if this deck is going to be increased in size, if the applicant would add trees on that property line. A landscape plan showing additional plantings along the right side property line should be provided to investigate further opportunities for new landscaping that can provide enhanced privacy. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing planters at the sides of each of the three decks and a more developed landscape plan to provide screening along the right side property line between the two single-unit dwellings. Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal, and Schmid2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2313 Ray Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jeff Alan Gard, applicant and architect; Ronan McConnell and Michele McKenna, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2313 Ray Dr - Staff Report 2313 Ray Dr - Attachments 2313 Ray Dr - Plans Attachments: Page 6City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Item 9a - 2313 Ray Drive was continued to a future agenda. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There were no reportable actions from the last City Council meeting regarding Planning matters, and there were no FYI reports. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. Page 7City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 34 Dwight Road Meeting Date: July 11, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conception Designs, Inc. APN: 029-301-230 Property Owners: Piotr Gorski and Suzan Nguyen Lot Area: 5,834 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot containing an existing split-level house with an attached garage. The proposed project includes a single-story addition along the right side of the house and a two-story addition at the rear, left side of the house. The project also includes replacing all of the existing windows in the house with aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites and reconfiguring the front entry. With the proposed additions, the total floor area would increase from 2,643 SF (0.45 FAR) to 2,959 SF (0.51 FAR) where 2,967 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The total number of bedrooms would increase from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The existing attached garage provides the required covered parking space (12'-1” x 18'-6” clear interior dimensions, where 9’ x 18’ is required for an existing garage) and there is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The existing landscaping on site is proposed to remain. A minimum of three landscape trees are required based on the proposed FAR. Three 24-inch box size Crepe Myrtle trees are proposed in the rear yard. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)). 34 Dwight Road Lot Area: 5,834 SF Plans date stamped: June 1 and June 24, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 14'-3½” ¹ 23'-2½” No change No change 15'-0" 20'-0” Side (left): (right): 4'-7½” 3'-0” ¹ 7’-3½” to addition 4’-0” to addition 4'-0” 4'-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37'-0” 48'-10” 41’-8½” 41'-8½” 15'-0” 20'-0” ¹ Existing nonconforming front and right side setbacks. Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Design Review 34 Dwight Road -2- 34 Dwight Road Lot Area: 5,834 SF Plans date stamped: June 1 and June 24, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 2,126 SF 36% 2,281 SF 39% 2,334 SF 40% FAR: 2,643 SF 0.45 FAR 2,959 SF 0.51 FAR 2,967 SF ² 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (12’-1" x 18’-6”) uncovered (9' x 18') No change 1 covered (10' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 23'-7” No change 30'-0" Plate Height: 8’-4” on 1st flr ³ 8’-4” on 2nd flr 9’-0” at 1st flr addition 8’-4” at 2nd flr addition 4 9’-0” on 1st flr 8’-0” on 2nd flr Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055.A.1. ² (0.32 x 5,834 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,967 SF (0.51 FAR). ³ 1st floor plate height on existing house varies; majority is at 8’-4”. 4 Special Permit not required for second floor additions where plate height of addition matches the existing plate height up to 8’-6” above finished floor. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood front door and aluminum garage door • Siding: cement plaster • Roof: asphalt shingle • Other: wood corbels, limestone door and widow casing at front porch Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 13, 2022, 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 June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans (sheets SP1, A1, and A7), dated June 24, 2022, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; Design Review 34 Dwight Road -3- 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed exterior improvements enhance the existing Spanish-style architecture; that the massing of the additions blends with the split-level construction of the existing house and does not increase the overall existing building height to the highest ridge, and that architectural details such as the stained wood garage and front doors, a stucco exterior, and the arched entry and living room window are compatible with the character of the existing dwelling and with the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's 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 and date stamped June 1, 2022, sheets T1.0 through AD.2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and sheets SP1, A1, and A7 date stamped June 24, 2022; Design Review 34 Dwight Road -4- 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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; (not necessary if FAR is 200 SF + feet under max). 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; (new houses only) 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; and Design Review 34 Dwight Road -5- 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would 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 c. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer Attachments: June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated June 24, 2021 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 1 , 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 13, 2022 d.34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 34 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Ceylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The two windows on the south elevation are very narrow and very tall, they look squished in there . There is also a set of four sliding doors on the left hand side at the basement that are very tall and oversized. Consider bringing down the height. >On the proposed left elevation, the relationship of the door that is underneath the bay window and the window next to it seems odd. The door looks miniature and the window looks really tall. Consider relocating the door in the garage or lowering the window header height. >I think you made a really beautiful house. You’re good at designing the entrances of homes and it looks lovely coming at the front. I hope you can revisit some of those window heights. >I did notice that there were always a lot of plants or bushes on the left -hand side on the driveway and they seem to all be gone now. Consider putting a hedge or something in there because it would be more in proportion to the house, to make it feel warmer and such. >I'd like to say thank you for being able to adapt and reuse the forms of this house. We're seeing two story homes that are really tall; this home and design has taken great advantage of a split -level opportunity to be able to update something but not make it a lot bigger. So, I commend the owner and the team for really putting forth a really good adaptive solution on this project. I can support this and love to see it go forward. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 1City of Burlingame June 13, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 June 24, 2022 City of Burlingame Attn: Erika Lewit, Senior Planner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Response to Planning Commission’s comments per meeting On June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission, We thank you for your concerns and suggestions made with regard to our application for design review for the proposed new residence located at 34 Dwight Road. We too, are architecturally sensitive and very eager to address your concerns. We had responded to your comments either verbally or per plans. We hope that you find the revised project acceptable for approval. Please see below for response to changes. In response to your particular comments and or recommendations: 1.Commissioner Tse: “Comment regarding height of window. a)GCD Response: Reduced height to mathc adjacent door . 2.“Commissioner Pfaff: “Comment regarding vegetation on side of property. a)GCD Response: We added shrubs to driveway left and right side. Thank you for this opportunity to further consider our proposed addition. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650-703-6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geurse Principal Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single-unit dwelling at 34 Dwight Road, Zone R-1, Piotr Gorski and Suzan Nguyen, property owners, APN: 029-301-230; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 11, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301(e)(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. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of July, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 34 Dwight Road Effective July 21, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 1, 2022, sheets T1.0 through AD.2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and sheets SP1, A1, and A7 date stamped June 24, 2022; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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; (not necessary if FAR is 200 SF + feet under max). EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 34 Dwight Road Effective July 21, 2022 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; (new houses only) 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; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would 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. 34 Dwight Road 300’ noticing APN: 029-301-230 City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1425 Castillo Avenue Meeting Date: July 11, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single- unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc. APN: 027-174-050 Property Owner: Rajiv Gujral Lot Area: 6,100 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and currently contains a single-unit dwelling and a detached garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-unit dwelling and detached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage with an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The total proposed floor area would be 3,341 SF (0.55 FAR), where 3,355 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for building height (34’-8” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed without approval of a Special Permit). Planning staff would note that the lot slopes upward approximately 12’-0” from the front property line to the rear, with the finished floor proposed at 10’-8” above average top of curb. There would be a total of four bedrooms in the proposed house. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The proposed detached garage (13’-9” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space and one uncovered space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes building a new 432 SF detached ADU at the rear of the lot (attached to the detached garage). Review of the ADU application is administrative and not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff would note that one parking space (may be covered or uncovered) is required for the ADU (ADU is located more than one-half mile walking distance of public transit and therefore is not exempt from providing parking). Per C.S. 25.48.030. L.2., the parking space may be provided as tandem parking; the ADU parking space is provided in the driveway. Staff has determined the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ▪ Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.010(A)(1)(a); and ▪ Special Permit for building height (34’-8” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.78.020(A)(3)). Item No. 8b Regular Action Design Review and Special Permit 1425 Castillo Avenue 2 1425 Castillo Avenue Lot Size: 6,100 SF Plans date stamped: June 28, 2022 1 (0.32 x 6,100 SF) + 1,100 + 303 SF = 3,355 SF (0.55 FAR) 2 Special Permit for building height (34’-8” proposed, where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites • Doors: aluminum clad wood doors • Siding: shingle lap siding • Roof: asphalt shingle • Other: wood corbels, stone veneer, wood guardrail Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on June 13, 2022, 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 June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 18’-8” (to covered porch) 24’-10” 18’-6” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setback (left): (right): 11’-4” 4’-0” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 44’-5” 46’-1” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,204 SF 36% 2,440 SF 40% FAR: 3,341 SF 0.55 FAR 3,355 SF ¹ 0.55 FAR Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (13’-9” x 20’-0” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 1 covered (10’ x 18’) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 34’-8” 2 30'-0" Plate Height (1st flr): (2nd flr): 9’-0” 8’-0” 9’-0” 8’-0” DH Envelope: Complies C.S. 25.10.055. A.1. Design Review and Special Permit 1425 Castillo Avenue 3 The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 27, 2022, and revised plans date stamped June 28, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed new, two-story single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, with the exception of the building height for which a Special Permit is being requested; the proposed style of the house will blend with the existing neighborhood based on the proposed massing and variety of exterior building materials; the driveway and uncovered parking provided along the left side of the house is consistent with the parking pattern in the neighborhood; and the proposed architectural details, such as the covered front porch, aluminum clad wood windows and exterior doors, and shingle lap siding complement the architectural style of the house and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 Design Review and Special Permit 1425 Castillo Avenue 4 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. 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 well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. 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 that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit for Building Height: 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new two-story single-unit dwelling are consistent with the character of the street and neighborhood which consists of two-story single-unit dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and massing. 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new single- unit dwelling are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood in that the hip and gable roof configurations and pitches, shingle lap siding, stone veneer chimney, and porch columns are consistent with those architectural features found on existing structures in the neighborhood; the building height exceeds the 30’-0” height limit (34’-8” proposed) in part because the lot slopes upward from the front property line to the rear of the lot by approximately 12’-0 and therefore the structure sits several feet above the average top of curb level; the encroachment suits the architectural style of the house and the request for the height beyond the 30-foot height is for the roof ridges. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City in that the proposed structure is compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria as noted above. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's Special Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for 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 and date stamped June 28, 2022, sheets SP1, A.1 through A.6, G.1 through G.3, LS.1, Topographic Survey; 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 which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; Design Review and Special Permit 1425 Castillo Avenue 5 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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. Fazia Ali Design Review and Special Permit 1425 Castillo Avenue 6 Assistant Planner c. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc., applicant and designer Rajiv Gujral, property owner Attachments: June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter to the Planning Commission, dated June 27, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 1, 2022 Area Map City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 1556 Cypress Avenue Meeting Date: July 11, 2022 Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form+One APN: 028-295-080 Property Owners: Kasey and Bill Schuh Lot Area: 7,500 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Staff Comments: This project was originally approved prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. History and Background: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage at 1556 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2019 (see attached October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued in June 2020. Construction is complete except for a final inspection approval from the Building and Planning Divisions. Planning staff was contacted to perform a final inspection for the project in July 2021 and during this inspection, a number of as-built revisions were noted. Staff prepared an FYI for Commission review at the November 22, 2021 meeting where the applicant was requesting approval of as-built changes. The Planning Commission called this FYI up for review and requested that this project be reviewed as a Design Review Amendment at a public hearing (see attached November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Commission noted that none of the changes were acceptable and that the project seems to be a stripped-down version of what was previously approved. Amendment to Design Review Action Hearing #1: At the first Regular Action meeting on December 13, 2021 for the proposed amendment, the applicant requested approval of several as-built changes. The Commission did not approve the as-built changes and voted to continue the project with direction that it be brought back for review once their concerns had been addressed (see attached December 13, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes). Below is a summary of the concerns noted by the Commission:  Return with a proposal that works with the as-built changes;  Character and details are missing;  Corbels were a nice touch and detail;  Box area over the arched entry is missing detail, needs something to provide scale. Amendment to Design Review Action Hearing #2: To address the Commission’s concerns noted at the December 13, 2021 meeting, the applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped March 7, 2022 and a letter of explanation, dated March 9, 2022 (see attached). At the second Regular Action meeting on March 14, 2022, the Commission did not approve the as-built changes proposed and voted to continue the project with direction that it be brought back for review once their concerns had been addressed (see attached March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). To address the Commission’s concerns, the applicant submitted revised plans (dates stamped June 22, 2022) and a response letter, dated June 22, 2022 (see attached). Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Amendment to Design Review 1556 Cypress Avenue -2- The following request is required for the proposed as-built revisions to the approved design:  Amendment to Design Review for as-built changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010(a)(2)). Description of Previously Approved Project: The approved project included a first floor addition at the front of the house and rebuilding and enlarging the second floor. The existing detached garage was replaced with a new 461 SF detached garage in the same location on the lot. The house and detached garage totals 3,873 SF (0.52 FAR) where 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this application, the number of bedrooms decreased from five to four (first floor office does not qualify as a bedroom because one of its wall is open by more than 50%). Two off-street parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20'-1” x 20'-1” clear interior dimensions) and an uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2019:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unt dwelling and new detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010(a)(2)). The following Development Table provides information for the previously approved project; there are no changes to these items with the proposed amendment application. 1556 Cypress Avenue Lot Area: 7,500 SF EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19'-6" 42’-6” 29’-10” 39’-8” 20’-6” (block average) 20'-6" (block average) Side (left): (right): 10’-3” 4’-1” No change 4’-1” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 64’-10” 70’-5” 63’-4” 61’-10” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,330 SF 31.1% 2,543 SF 33.9% 3,000 SF 40% FAR: 3,031 SF 0.40 FAR 3,873 SF 0.52 FAR 3,900 SF ¹ 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (18’-4” x 18’-4” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20'-1” x 20'-1” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 1 covered (10' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 25’-5” 29’-11” 30'-0" Amendment to Design Review 1556 Cypress Avenue -3- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED DH Envelope: not applicable complies using window enclosure exception along right side of house (CS 25.26.075 (b)(2)) CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 7,500 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,900 SF (0.52 FAR) Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the as-built changes to the architectural details are similar in style so that the overall design of the site is cohesive; that the as-built changes are not structural so that the building envelope, mass and bulk of the house are consistent with the previously approved project; and that the as-built changes match the existing architecture of the existing house and is compatible with the character of other homes in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 22, 2022, sheets T1.0, A1.0 through A5.0, and A9.0; 2. that the 64 SF (6’-9” x 9’-5”) uncovered balcony (second floor) at the rear of the house shall not be covered, unless covering or enclosing this area does not exceed the maximum allowed floor area ratio (FAR) or there is approval of a Variance for exceeding the maximum allowed FAR; 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 basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall Amendment to Design Review 1556 Cypress Avenue -4- 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, in effect at time of building permit submittal, 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Tim Raduenz, applicant and designer Attachments: March 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter to the Planning Commission, dated June 22, 2022 December 13, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes Letter of Explanation, dated March 9, 2022 Letters of Support November 22, 2021 and October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter to the Planning Commission, dated November 3, 2021 Amendment to Design Review 1556 Cypress Avenue -5- Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 1, 2022 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated July 16, 2019 DPR 523A *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code 6Z Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date_______________ Page 1 of 17 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress 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 1556 Cypress Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-313-030 *P3a. Description: 1556 Cypress Avenue (APN 028-295-080) is located on rectangular lot, 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep. The subject property is located in the Burlingame Heights subdivision of what is now the Burlingame Park neighborhood, on the west side of Cypress Avenue, between Barroilhet and Central avenues. Completed in 1922 by architect and owner Albert F. Roller, 1556 Cypress Avenue is a one-and-a-half-story wood-frame single-family residence set on a concrete foundation.1 The primary façade of 1556 Cypress Avenue faces slightly southeast of true east, but for the purposes of this report the facades will be referred to as primary (east), south, rear (west), and north. The simplified Mediterranean Revival style residence features stucco-clad walls and a cross- gabled roof with asphalt shingles tiles. The roof has no eaves and terminates in a molded wood fascia; a metal gutter system runs along the south edge of the roof, as well as sections of the west edge. Solar panels are mounted on the front (east) portion of the south-facing slope of the roof, parallel to the slope of the roof. 1556 Cypress Avenue features an exterior brick chimney at the east end of the south façade, and an interior brick chimney located on the ridge of the roof. The residence has several window types, but the majority are one-over-one, wood-sash, double-hung windows with ogee lugs; these windows will hereafter be referred to as “typical windows.” (See Continuation Sheet, page 2.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: HP2. Single Family Residence, HP4. Ancillary Building *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) Primary façade, July 8, 2019. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both 1922 (Building & Engineering News, Completion notice October 1922) *P7. Owner and Address: Kasey Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: July 16, 2019 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive *P11. Report Citation: 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) 1 “Building Contracts, San Mateo County,” Building & Engineering News (July 22, 1922), 30; and “Completion Notice, San Mateo County,” Building & Engineering News (October 28, 1922), 32. P5a. Photo State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 17 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description (continued): Primary (East) Facade The primary façade of 1556 Cypress Avenue faces east, fronting Cypress Avenue (Figure 1). Figure 1. Aerial photograph of 1556 Cypress Avenue. Approximate boundary of subject property outlined in orange. Source: Google Maps, 2019. Edited by Page & Turnbull. The primary façade features a prominent, central projecting bay. The projecting bay has a gable roof with typical molded wood fascia and no eaves. A large central round arch window with a grid of wood divided lites is flanked by two smaller round arch wood- sash casement windows with divided lites. Below the three windows is a metal balconette. Above the central arch is an applied plaster crest ornament. The primary entrance to 1556 Cypress Avenue is located in a recessed covered portico, south (left) of the central projecting bay. The primary door is a fully glazed wood door with divided lites that is flanked by sidelites (Figure 2). A chain-suspended light fixture is located at the center of the portico. The entra nce is accessed via concrete steps with a metal railing, through a round arch porch opening. To the north (right) of the central projecting bay is a brick patio which is accessed via two sets of paired, fully-glazed wood-sash doors with divided lites on each the primary (east) façade and north façade (Figure 3). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 17 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 2. Primary entry door, which faces south, within the entry portico. Figure 3. Brick patio at northeast corner of residence, looking southwest. South Facade The south façade faces the concrete and dirt driveway. Read from west (left) to east (right), the façade features a bank of two typical windows and two banks of three typical windows (Figure 4 and Figure 5). Below the third bank of windows, just above the ground, are three horizontal windows at the unfinished basement level. Above the third bank of windows is a gable roof dormer with a window covered by a roll-down screen (Figure 6). Like the main roof form, the dormer has no eaves and a molded wood fascia. East (right) of the dormer is an L-shaped array of solar panels, installed parallel with the roof slope. East (right) of the windows is a round arch opening into the entrance portico, spanned by a metal railing. A stepped, exterior brick chimney is located at the north end of the south façade, on the south-facing side of the front projecting central bay (Figure 7). The chimney has metal flashing at the top, and only extends just above the fas cia of the roof. Figure 4. Partial view of south façade, including three banks of typical windows, looking northeast. Figure 5. Partial view of south façade, looking northeast. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 17 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 6. Gable roof dormer on south-facing slope of the residence, looking northeast. Figure 7. Exterior brick chimney at the east end of the south façade, looking north. Rear (West) Facade The rear (west) façade of the subject property faces a rear yard and is organized into three bays (Figure 8). The north (left) bay includes paired, fully glazed wood doors with divided lites, accessed via two flagstone steps, flanked by typical windows. The central bay is one-and-a-half stories, capped by a gable roof. At the ground level of the central bay are paired, six-lite wood-sash casement windows covered by a metal and fabric awning, and at the upper level are two eight -lite vinyl-sash casement windows with simulated divided lites. The south (right) bay projects out and is capped by a gable roof. The south bay has a single fully glazed wood door with divided lites and a typical window; on the north side of the projecting bay is one typical window. Figure 8. Rear (west) façade, looking east. North Façade The north façade of the subject property faces a narrow side setback. Described from east (left) to west (right), the ground level of the north façade has two typical windows, two smaller typical windows, and one typical windo w (Figure 9). In the gable end is a vinyl-sash casement window and sidelite, both with simulated divided lites (Figure 10). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 17 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 9. Partial view of north façade, looking east. Figure 10. Non-original vinyl-sash window with simulated divided lites at the gable peak on the north façade. Site Features The subject property has a front lawn, surrounded by a perimeter of hedges, with flowering bushes in front of the primary (east) façade balconette (Figure 11). At the northeast corner of the residence is a brick patio, surrounded by a low brick wall. A driveway runs along the south end of the property; the driveway is concrete with a flagstone walkway up to the entry portico. A wood gate spanning the driveway is located just west of the entry portico, after which point the driveway is dirt. The rear yard includes a flagstone patio, partly surrounded by low stone walls, and a lawn (Figure 12). A detached garage with a gable roof is located at the southwest corner of the property (Figure 13). A section of gravel driveway is located in front (east) of the garage, which has overhanging eaves, asphalt shingle roofing, and stucco siding. A single wood canopy garage door is located on the east façade of the garage, and a sliding glass window, which is missing ele ments of its wood sash, is located on the north façade. At the northwest corner of the property is a prefabricated playhouse and a wood treehouse (Figure 14). Figure 11. Front lawn with perimeter bushes, looking northeast. Figure 12. Rear flagstone patio, looking north. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 6 of 17 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 13. Detached garage, located at the southwest corner of the property, looking southwest. Figure 14. Playhouse and treehouse at the northwest corner of the property, lookint west. Neighborhood Setting The subject property is located on the west side of Cypress Avenue, between Central and Barroilhet avenues, in the Burlingame Heights subdivision within the Burlingame Park neighborhood. The subject block of Burlingame Heights includes several homes from the early twentieth century, often with Craftsman style details, and was largely developed in the 1920s and 1930s with homes of a variety of Revival styles, generally one to two stories in height. The adjacent property at 1560 Cypress Avenue was built in 1926 in a Tudor Revival style (Figure 15).1552 Cypress Avenue, also adjacent to the subject property, was built in 1915 as a stone-clad bungalow with Craftsman style elements, and has a later second-story addition (Figure 16). Across the street from the subject property, at 1555 Cypress Avenue, is a two-story house built in 2003 with stylistic references to early twentieth century Shingle and Craftsman architectural styles (Figure 17). Also across the street from the subject property is a modest Midcentury Modern residence built in 1951 (Figure 18). Figure 15. 1560 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, a Tudor Revival style residence built in 1926, adjacent the subject property. Figure 16. 1552 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, a residence built in 1915 with Craftsman details, adjacent the subject property. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 7 of 17 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 17. 1552 Cypress Avenue, built in 2003 with references to early twentieth century Shingle and Craftsman styles, across the street from the subject property. Figure 18. 1561 Cypress Avenue, built in 1951 in a modest Midcentury Modern style, across the street from the subject property. DPR 523B *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 8 of 17 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # (assigned by recorder) 1556 Cypress Avenue B1. Historic name: N/A B2. Common name: 1556 Cypress Avenue B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Simplified Mediterranean Revival *B6. Construction History: The subject property was originally subdivided as Lot 36 in the Burlingame Heights subdivision (Figure 19). An original construction permit application for 1556 Cypress Avenue (APN 028-295-080) is on file at the Burlingame Community Development Department, dated July 13, 1922, and lists A. F. Roller as the owner. Albert F. Roller is listed as the architect and owner of the property in a building contract for a one-story residence and garage at the cost of $7,340, posted in Building & Engineering News on July 22, 1922, as well as a water tap record dated July 15, 1922 on file at the Burlingame Historical Society (Figure 20 and Figure 21).2 According the building contract notice, the contractor for the residence was Leadly & Wiseman. A completion notice was posted in Building & Engineering News in October of the same year.3 No historic photographs of the residence at 1556 Cypress Avenue are on file at the Burlingame Historical Society. However, a 1941 aerial photograph of Burlingame shows a gable roof residenc e with projecting bay at the front façade (Figure 22). A dormer is visible on the south-facing slope of the roof and a cross-gable roof form at the north side of the residence. It is not known if the dormer is an original feature of the house. In the 1941 photograph, a gable-roofed detached garage was located at the southwest corner of the property. The 1949 Sanborn fire insurance map, the first and only Sanborn fire insurance map to illustrate 1556 Cypress Avenue, shows a one-story residence with the same footprint as the 1941 aerial photog raph. (See Continuation Sheet, page 9.) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Detached garage. B9a. Architect: Albert F. Roller b. Builder: Leadly & Wiseman (contractor) *B10. Significance: Theme: Residential Architecture Area Burlingame Heights Period of Significance N/A Property Type N/A Applicable Criteria N/A 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 Burl ingame’s death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston’s business partner, William Sharon. (See Continuation Sheet, page 9.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (HP4) – Ancillary building (detached garage) *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet, page 14. B13. Remarks: Subject property was not evaluated to determine if it 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 may warrant further study. *B14. Evaluator: Hannah Simonson, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: July 16, 2019 2 “Building Contracts, San Mateo County,” Building & Engineering News (July 22, 1922), 30. 3 “Completion Notice, San Mateo County,” Building & Engineering News (October 28, 1922), 32. Source: San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder, 2019. Property highlighted in orange. Modified by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 9 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B6. Construction History (continued): An open structure labeled “lattice,” also indicated in the 1921 Sanborn fire insurance map, was located where the detached garage is seen on the aerial photograph (Figure 23 and Figure 24). Despite this discrepancy on the Sanborn fire insurance maps, based on the fact that a garage is specified in the original 1922 building contract and appears in the 1941 aerial, it appears likely that the garage was part of original construction. A 2000 aerial photograph illustrates a kidney-shaped pool in the rear yard, built in 1975 and later demolished in 2011 (Figure 25). A reroofing permit from 1975 appears to indicate that the house originally had wood shingle roofing, which has since been replaced with asphalt shingles. The overall massing and footprint of the residence does not appear to have been significantly altered since the 1940s, as illustrated in the 1941 aerial photograph a nd 1949 Sanborn fire insurance map. Building permit applications on file at the Burlingame Community Development Department record the following alterations: Date Permit # Owner Architect/Builder Description 7/13/1922 650 A. F. Roller Owner (architect) New construction. 9/21/1936 798 D. G. Lynch C. B. McClain (builder) Alterations to roof plumbing. 6/4/1969 R 722 E. M. Indahl Bay Pest Termite Control (contractor) Termite repair. 7/25/1969 R 825 Richard S. Nedwick Owner Kitchen remodel. 6/10/1975 V 420 R. S. Nedwick Anthony Pools (contractor) Construction permit for pool. 8/1/1975 V 623 Nedwick Ace Roofing Co. (contractor) Roof on house. Remove all layers of asphalt shingles down to wood shingles and cut away. Over existing shingles, install asphalt shingles. 8/11/1980 1898 Richard S. Nedwick Helios Solar (contractor) Solar for pool. 11/12/1996 9601851 William T. Bohlken Simpson Roofing Service (contractor) Tear off existing and install ½ inch plywood. Install 30# felt and Elk Prestique Plus composition shingles. 4/6/2011 D11- 0003 William Schuh and Kathleen Bohaboy Scott’s Demolition (contractor) Pool demolition. 4/16/2012 E12- 0030 Bill Schuh Rec Solar Inc (contractor) Solar 2.94 kw. *B10. Significance (continued): Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. I n 1893, William Sharon’s trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi- rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small -scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small vi llage of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy esta te owners. Burlingame began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. Howev er, the 1906 earthquake and fires had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village’s population grew from 200 to 1,000. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 , annexed the north adjacent town of Easton. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame’s population had increased to 4,107.4 Burlingame Heights Subdivision The house at 1556 Cypress Avenue was constructed in the Burlingame Heights subdivision, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Park and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were formerly part of Rancho San Mateo. These were the earliest residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Heights is a small, three block subdivision bounded by El Camino Real to the north, Cypres s Avenue to the east, and Barroihet and Crescent Avenue to the south. The western boundary is formed by the eastern half of the block bounded by El Camino Real, Newlands, Crescent, and Howard avenues. 4 Joanne Garrison, Burlingame: Centennial 1908-2008 (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, 2007). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L On May 18, 1905, the land that would become Burlingame Heights was purchased from the Occidental Land & Improvement Company by Antoine Borel. Within a month, Borel had hired surveyor D. Brofield to subdivide the land and lay out a street gri d, and the resulting subdivision map was field with the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office on June 3, 1905. Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps indicate that within the first five years of its creation, Burlingame Heights had begun to develop as a reside ntial area primarily composed of small cottages. At this time, approximately 25 percent of the lots had been developed, many with houses featuring Craftsman style designs. By 1921, the neighborhood was approximately 50 percent developed, including four houses on the western side of Cypress Avenue between Barroilhet and Central avenues. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom beginning in the early 1920s, and the majority of the residences in Burlingame Heights were completed over the following decade —typically in one of a variety of revival styles—including the subject property at 1556 Cypress Avenue. The neighborhood also grew denser with the construction of several apartment buildings and flats, mostly concentrated on the north side of the block near El Camino Real. Generally speaking, most of the Burlingame Hei ghts subdivision appears to have been built out prior to World War II, as only two empty lots remain visible on the 1949 Sanborn map. The Burlingame Heights subdivision is located within what is now known as the Burlingame Park neighborhood, named after an adjacent early subdivision. 1556 Cypress Avenue Owner and Occupant History The first owners and occupants of 1556 Cypress Avenue were Albert F. Roller and his wife, Clara Roller.5 Albert F. Roller, an architect, designed the residence at 1556 Cypress Avenue; Roller’s professional career is discussed in greater detail in a later section. The Rollers divorced in 1935 and sold the property to Daniel G. Lynch, a manufacturing agent, and his wife, Mildred.6 The Lynchs resided at the property until 1942, when they sold it to Norman A. Indahl and his wi fe, Eleanora. In addition to their two sons, the Indahls lived with Eleanora’s parents, Ellis and Marie Tyrrell, until their deaths i n 1944 and 1943 respectively.7 Norman A. Indahl, who was born in Philadelphia and educated at University of Pennsylvania, b egan his career at Shell Oil Company as a yardman in 1938.8 He rose through the ranks, worked in sales and marketing at the company, before becoming the office supervisor at Shell’s San Francisco district office in Millbrae, a position that he held until his retirement in 1962. In 1969, several years after Norman’s retirement, the Indahls sold the property to Richard S. Nedwick, a paint contractor, and his wife, Susan M. Nedwick, née Kleinert. The Nedwicks listed the residence for sale in 1989, and are listed as residing at the property in Haines Criss-Cross directories until 1990.9 In 1994, William T. Bohlken and Kathy Adams purchased the property and resided there until 2011, when they sold to the current owners, William Schuh and Kasey Bohaboy Schuh. The following table outlines the ownership and occupancy history of 1556 Cypress Avenue, compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Grantor-Grantee Index available online, building permit applications on file at the Burlingame Building Division , Ancestry.com, and City of Burlingame Ownership Cards on file at the Burlingame Historical Society: Years of Ownership/Occupation Occupant(s) (known owners in bold) Occupation 1922 – 1935 Albert F. Roller Clara Roller Mary Widman Architect Not listed Maid 1935 – 1942 Daniel G. Lynch Mildred Lynch Manufacturing agent Not listed 1942 - 1969 Norman A. Indahl Eleanora Indahl Ellis Tyrrell (d. 1944) Marie Tyrrell (d.1943) Salesman, Shell Oil Company Not listed Accountant Not listed 1969 – 1994 Richard S. Nedwick Susan M. Nedwick Paint Contractor Not listed 1991 – 1993 No listing Not listed 5 Clara Roller’s name appears to have been misprinted in a 1935 San Francisco Examiner article as “Claire”; see “Architect’s Wife Seeks Divorce,” San Francisco Examiner, April 28, 1935, 17. She is listed as Clara in the 1920 United States Federal Census and multiple city directories in both San Francisco and Burlingame. 6 “Architect’s Wife Seeks Divorce,” San Francisco Examiner, April 28, 1935, 17. 7 1940 United States Federal Census, accessed via Ancestry.com; “Ellis Tyrrell,” obituary, The Times, January 17, 1944; and U.S. Find A Grave Index, 1600s-Current, accessed via Ancestry.com 8 “Shell Employe [sic.] Retires,” The Times, May 7, 1962, 10. 9 “Classified Marketplace,” San Francisco Examiner, August 6, 1989. 1556 Cypress Avenue is not listed in the Haines Criss-Cross Directories from 1991 to 1993, which may indicate that the Nedwicks had moved to a different residence while their house remained on the market. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Years of Ownership/Occupation Occupant(s) (known owners in bold) Occupation 1994 – 2011 William T. Bohlken Kathy Adams Not listed Not listed 2011 – present William Schuh Kasey Bohaboy Schuh Not listed Not listed Albert F. Roller (Architect) Albert F. Roller (1891-1981), was born in San Francisco and attended Lowell High School.10 Roller did not receive a college degree, but worked as a draftsman and received an official license from the California State Board of Architecture in 1926.11 Roller worked for several Bay Area architecture firms, including Coxhead & Coxhead in 1910; Ward & Blohme in 1911 and 1914 to 1915; and M.G. West Co., Bank Planning Division, from 1915 to 1926. Additionally, Roller worked for the firm Ripley & Davis in Hono lulu, Hawaii from 1911 to 1914.12 Roller married his wife, Clara, in 1915, and lived in San Francisco before building a home for his family of four children at 1556 Cypress Avenue in Burlingame (subject property) in 1922.13 Roller and his wife Clara lived in Burlingame until 1935, when they divorced. Roller moved back to San Francisco and later remarried a woman named Dorothy Brandt.14 Roller is credited with a number of high-profile commercial and institutional projects in the Bay Area, and proved adaptable to changing trends in architectural design, from the revival styles of the 1920s and 1930s to modernist styles such as the International Style in the post-World War II period. Notable projects include Oak Hill Mausoleum in San Jose (1929) and the following projects in San Francisco: Sommer and Kaufmann shoe store at 838 Market Street with interiors by Kem Weber (1930, since demolished); the National Broadcasting Company (NBC) Radio City Building at 420 Taylor Street (1940; later Supergraphic murals by Barbara Stauffacher Solomon since removed), Nob Hill Masonic Building, 1111 California Street (1958); Bethlehem Steel Building, 100 California Street, with Welton Becket (1959); Automobile Association Inter -Insurance Bureau (AAA Building), 155 Hayes Street (1959); the Federal Building at 450 Golden Gate Avenue with John Carl Warnecke and Stone, Marraccini & Patterson (1959); and the Scottish Rite Temple San Francisco, 2850 19th Avenue, with Millard Sheets (1963) (Figure 26 - Figure 29).15 Roller also designed the Sunnydale public housing development in Visitation Valley (1941) with Roland Stringham. Roller continued to work on plans for CSAA Insurance Group (formerly California State Automobile Association), until his death in 1981.16 Significance Evaluation: The property at 1556 Cypress 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 is not listed in the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County, indicating that no record of previous survey or evaluation is on file with OHP. The most recent update to the Historic Property Data File for San Mateo County was in April 2012. The City of Burlingame does not currently have a register of historic properties beyond the Downtown Specific Plan Draft Inventory of Historic Resources, on which the subject property is not listed, and therefore the property is not listed locally.17 Criterion A/1 (Events) 1556 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A or 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. The residence was completed in 1922, during a period of rapid development in Burlingame Heights in the 1920s and 1930s; however, the subject property does not stand out as an early or unique individual example within the broad context of residential development in Burlingame or Burlingame Heights. No significant historical events are known to have taken place at the subjec t property. The property does not appear to rise to a level of significance necessary to be individually eligible for the National Register or California Register under Criterion A/1. 10 Kelley & VerPlanck, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 B Forms, 155 Hayes Street, May 1, 2010, accessed July 1, 2019, via San Francisco Planning Information Map, http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/. 11 “Granted Certificates,” The Architect & Engineer (February 1926), 121. 12 Mary Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement (prepared for San Francisco Planning Department, January 12, 2011), 261-2. 13 “Architect’s Wife Seeks Divorce,” San Francisco Examiner, April 28, 1935, 17. 14 “Architect’s Wife Seeks Divorce,” San Francisco Examiner, April 28, 1935, 17; 1940 United States Federal Census, via Ancestry.com 15 Brown, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 261-2; Kelley & VerPlanck, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 B Forms, 155 Hayes Street, May 1, 2010; and Christopher Long, Kem Weber: Designer and Architect (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 254. 16 Kelley & VerPlanck, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 B Forms, 155 Hayes Street, May 1, 2010. 17 Carey & Company, “Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan,” October 6, 2008. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Criterion B/2 (Persons) 1556 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B or the California Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). Albert F. Roller designed the residence at 1556 Cypress Avenue, in addition to being an original owner and occupant of 1556 Cypress Avenue, along with his wife, Clara. Roller was a notable local architect based in San Francisco at the time, but came into greater prominence in the 1940s to 1960s. Roller did not conduct his architectural practice out of the residence in 1556 Cypress Avenue, but rather maintained an office in San Francisco, and the couple divorced in 1935, at which point Albert Roller moved back to San Francisco. Thus, Roller’s professional accomplishments are closer associated with his architectural office. The architectural merits of the subject property are discussed below under Criterion C/3. The subsequent owners, Daniel G. Lynch, a manufacturing agent, and his wife, Mildred, resided at 1556 Cypress Avenue from 1935 to 1942; little information was uncovered about the Lynches, who do not appear to have had a significant impact on local, state, or national history. Norman Indahl and his family purchased the property in 1942, and resided in the home until 1969. Indahl worked at Shell Oil Company from 1938 until his retirement in 1962, working his way up the company ladder from a yardman to the office supervisor at Shell’s San Francisco district office in Millbrae. Indahl’s career trajectory and company loyalty were commonplace in the mid-twentieth century, and Indahl does not appear to have had a significant impact on the Shell Oil Company, or local, state, or national history. Richard S. Nedwick, a paint contractor, and his wife, Susan, owned and occupied 1556 Cypress Avenue from 1969 to at least 1990, but little i nformation was uncovered about the Nedwicks beyond their professional titles, and they do not appear to have had a significant impact on local, state, or national history. Likewise, little information was uncovered during the course of research about subsequent owners and occupants—William T. Bohlken and Kathy Adams, and William and Kasey Bohaboy Schuh—and sufficient time has not passed to adequately understand their potential historical significance, if any exists. Therefore, research indicates that 1556 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing under Criterion B/2 (Persons). Criterion C/3 (Architecture) 1556 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C or the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The residence has several features that are indicative of the Mediterranean Revival Style, including stucco cladding, arched wood windows, an arched portico, a balconett e, and ornamental plaster crest—however, the building lacks more elaborate architectural features and details that would be typical of a full expression of the style , and does not possess high artistic value. The residence is, therefore, best described as a simplified Mediterranean Revival style residence. Designed and built by Albert F. Roller in 1922, the style was one of several revival styles that were popular in Burlingame and throughout California at the time. While Roller proved his competence in revival style architecture, most notably with the Oak Hill Mausoleum (1929) in San Jose, he is best known for his Modernist institutional and commercial buildings from the 1940s to 1960s —which represents the most prolific and acclaimed period of his career. Aside from a multi-family public housing project in San Francisco’s Visitation Valley neighborhood, Roller is not known to have worked on many residential projects and is best known for his work in various Modernist styles. While Roller has been identified as a local master architect, the subject property is not representative of his best work. The property may be eligible as a contributor to an historic district, but the evaluation of a potential district is outside the scope of this report. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for individual listing under Criterion 3/C. Criterion D/4 (Information Potential) 1556 Cypress Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D or the California Register under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) as a building that has the potential to provide information important to the prehistory or history of the City of Burlingame, state, or nation. It does not appear to feature construction or material types, or embody engineering practices that would, with additional study, provide important information. Page & Turnbull’s evaluation o f this property was limited to age-eligible resources above ground and did not involve survey or evaluation of the subject property for the purposes of archaeological information. Integrity Evaluation: In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape m ust possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity by the survi val of certain characteristics that existing during the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance.”18 As the subject building does not appear to be significant under any of the above listed criteria, detailed analysis of its historic integrity is not included.19 18 California Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001) 11. 19 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, revised 2002). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 13 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Conclusion The single-family residence at 1556 Cypress Avenue was completed in 1922 within the Burlingame Heights subdivision, built by original owner and architect Albert F. Roller in a simplified expression of the Mediterranean Revival style. No significant events are associated with the property, nor do any owners or occupants appear to be have contributed to history in a significant way such that the residence would be considered significant in association. The residence is not a particularly strong representation of the Mediterranean Revival architectural style in Burlingame and therefore is not considered individually significant for is design or construction. Although associated with a local master architect, the building does not represent Albert F. Roller’s portfolio of work, as he was best known for his institutional and commercial buildings in various Modernist styles, primarily from the 1940s to 1960s. As such, the California Historical Resource Status Code (CHRSC) of “6Z” has been assigned to the property, meaning that it was “Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation.”20 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 may warrant further study. Additional research and evaluation of the Burlingame Park neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods as a whole would need to be conducted to verify the neighborhood’s eligibility as a historic district. 20 California Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, November 2004), 5. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 14 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References: Ancestry.com. Brown, Brown. San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement. Prepared for San Francisco Planning Department, January 12, 2011. Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Building & Engineering News. 1922. Burlingame City Directories, 1922-1980. Available at the Burlingame Public Library. Burlingame Community Development Department, Building Permit Records, 1556 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Burlingame Ownership Cards. Burlingame Historical Society. California Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation. Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, September 4, 2001. California Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation. Technical Assistance Bulletin No. 8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, November 2004. Carey & Company. “Inventory of Historic Resources: Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan.” Prepared for the City of Burlingame. October 6, 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. Haines Criss-Cross Directories, San Mateo County, 1980-2018. Available at the Burlingame Public Library. Kelley & VerPlanck. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 B Forms, 155 Hayes Street, May 1, 2010. Accessed July 1, 2019, via San Francisco Planning Information Map, http://propertymap.sfplanning.org/. Long, Christopher. Kem Weber: Designer and Architect. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2015. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin Number 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation . Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Revised 2002. “Preliminary Historic Resources Inventory: City of Burlingame.” Reviewed by the Planning Commission. July 26, 19 82. San Francisco Examiner. San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder. Assessor Property Maps. San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder. Grantor-Grantee Index. The Times (San Mateo, CA). Sanborn Map Company. Insurance Maps of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California. March 1921, Sheet 24; March 1921 - November 1949, Sheet 24. Available through the San Francisco Public Library. University of California, Santa Barbara Library, Special Research Collections. Aerial Photography FrameFinder. https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos/aerial-photography-information. Water Tap Record. 1556 Cypress Avenue, Burlingame, CA. July 15, 1922. Burlingame Historical Society. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 15 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Historic Maps and Drawings: Figure 19. Assessor’s Map, County of San Mateo, Calif., Burlingame Park. Subject property outlined in orange. Source: San Mateo County Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Property Maps Portal. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 20. Water tap record for 1556 Cypress Avenue. Source: Burlingame Historical Society. Figure 21. Building contract notice listing architect and owner Albert F. Roller for Lot 36 in Burlingame Heights, 1556 Cypress Avenue. Source: “Building Contracts, San Mateo County,” Building & Engineering News (July 22, 1922), 30. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 16 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 22. 1556 Cypress Avenue, aerial view (1941). Approximate current subject property boundary outlined in orange. Source: Aerial photograph of Burlingame, Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-6660, Frame 275, March 23, 1941. Figure 23. 1921Sanborn fire insurance map. Approximate current subject property boundary indicated by orange line. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Figure 24. 1949 Sanborn fire insurance map. Approximate current subject property boundary indicated by orange line. Source: San Francisco Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 17 of 17 Resource Name or # 1556 Cypress Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date July 16, 2019  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 25. 1556 Cypress Avenue, aerial view (2000). Approximate current subject property boundary outlined in orange. Source: Aerial photograph of Burlingame, Hauts-Monts Inc., Flight HM-2000-USA, Frame 1121-391, June 25, 2000. Figure 26. 1970s postcard of Oak Hill Mausoleum in San Jose, designed by Albert Roller, built in 1929. Source: Picclick.com. Figure 27. National Broadcasting Company (NBC) Radio City Building at 420 Taylor Street, San Francisco, designed by Albert Roller, built in 1940. Source: Bayarearadio.org. Figure 28. Bethlehem Steel Building, 100 California Street, San Francisco, designed by Albert Roller and Welton Becket, built in 1959 (date of photograph unknown). Source: Rofo.com. Figure 29. Scottish Rite Masonic Center, 2850 19th Avenue, San Francisco, designed by Albert Roller with Millard Sheets, built in 1963. Source: Scottish Rite Masonic Center, http://www.sfscottishrite.com/. HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR T.O.P.2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE2'-11"9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8"26'-3 3/8"29'-11 11/16"(N)EGRESSCASEMENT(E) / (N)FIXED(E) / (N)FIXED(N)(FIXED)(N)EGRESSFRENCH DOOR(E) LOT LINE (E) LOT LINE 12'-9" 12'-0"10'-3"4'-1"(E) RESIDENCE7'-6"(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(E) FENCE(PROTECT DURINGCONSTRUCTION)(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) ARCHITECTURALASPHALTSHINGLES GRACEUNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORSROOF EAVES SHALLNOT PROJECT WITHIN2" OF THE PROPERTYLINE WHERE SETBACKIS 4' PER 2016 CRC §TABLE R302.1 (1) OR2016 CBC TABLE 705.2(N) 6X6 DECORATIVEBRACKETS(N) BEVOLO FRENCHQUARTER ELECTRICLIGHTS, TYP.(N) STOOP(E) BRICKWALL & BRICKPATIO TO BEREFINISHED(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(E) FENCE(PROTECT DURINGCONSTRUCTION)(N)FIXED(E) TRIM DTL.(E) LIVING T.O.P10'-0"1287.7512EL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 100.93'LEFT D.H.E.EL. 101.23'RIGHT D.H.E.EL. 102.12'6'-8"4'-0"(E) / (N)FIXED(N)FIXEDAVERAGE T.O.C.EL. 100.15'30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'(N) D.S.(N)D.S.6'-0" 6'-0"2'-6"4'-6"(N) 4" WEEPSCREED, TYP.45°(E)(N)1556(E) OR (N) NUMBERS + ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW + EXISTING BUILDING IN SUCH A POSITIONAS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE + LEGIBLE FRONT THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. SAIDNUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, SHALL BE A MIN. ONE-HALF INCH STROKE BY FOURINCHES HIGH, AND SHALL BE EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEWCONSTRUCTION, ALTERAITIONS OR REPAIR OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCHILLUMINATION SHALL NOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. CITY OF BURILINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE 18.08.010.2019 CBC 502.1TRUSS SUPPLIER +CONTRACTOR TO REVIEWW/ HIGHEST RIDGE HEIGHTBEFORE ORDERING, TYP.EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'45°(E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO BE RAISEDW/ (N) DECOR. CAP, BY OWNER(E)HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR T.O.P.2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE1'-5" 9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8" 26'-3 3/8" 29'-11 11/16" (E) LOT LINE (N) ENTRY DR.(N)EGRESSCASE.(N)FIXED(N)EGRESSFRENCHDR.(N)SLIDING DOOR(N)CASE.(E) LOT LINE10'-3"4'-1"(E) RESIDENCE(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(N) STUCCO TO MATCHEXISTING FINISH(N) 5.5" CORNER TRIM(N) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORS(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) BEVOLO FRENCHQUARTER ELECTRICLIGHTS, TYP.(N) CONC. STEPS W/ TILE FINISH(E) CONC. STEPS W/ TILE FINISH(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(N) DECORATIVE WOODGABLE END(N) 6X6 DECORATIVEBRACKETS, TYP.(N) STEEL RAILING,42" H, PER CODE(E) FENCE(PROTECT)(N) DECORATIVE WOODFRAME/SHUTTER(REMOVED BY OWNER)(E) FENCE(PROTECT)(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)EL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 102.43'14'-0" 12'-0" 7'-6"LEFT D.H.E.EL. 101.23'RIGHT D.H.E.EL. 102.12'2'-0"4'-6" 7'-0"5'-0"AVERAGE T.O.C.EL. 100.15'30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'30'-0"(N)D.S.6'-0" 6'-0"(N) WEEPSCREED, TYP.45°DHL AS PEREXCEPTION#4 (PLANNING CODE)45°(N) 2X10 HEADEREL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR T.O.P.2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE1'-5" 9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8" 26'-3 3/8" 29'-11 11/16" (E) LOT LINE (N) ENTRY DR.(N)EGRESSCASE.(N)EGRESSFRENCHDR.(N)SLIDING DOOR(N)CASE.(E) LOT LINE10'-3"4'-1"(E) RESIDENCE(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(N) STUCCO TO MATCHEXISTING FINISH(N) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORS(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) BEVOLO FRENCHQUARTER ELECTRICLIGHTS, TYP.(N) CONC. STEPS W/ TILE FINISH(E) CONC. STEPS W/ TILE FINISH(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(N) STEEL RAILING,42" H, PER CODE(E) FENCE(PROTECT)(N) DECORATIVE WOODFRAME/SHUTTER(REMOVED BY OWNER)(E) FENCE(PROTECT)(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)EL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 102.43'14'-0" 12'-0" 7'-6"LEFT D.H.E.EL. 101.23'RIGHT D.H.E.EL. 102.12'2'-0"4'-6" 7'-0"5'-0"AVERAGE T.O.C.EL. 100.15'30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'30'-0"(N)D.S.6'-0" 6'-0"(N) WEEPSCREED, TYP.45°DHL AS PEREXCEPTION#4 (PLANNING CODE)45°EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'(N) FYPON CLV14X22DECORATIVE CATHEDRALLOUVER(N) 6X6 DECORATIVEBRACKETS, TYP.(N)CASE.(N) FYPON DTLB5X8X10 DECORATIVEBRACKETS, TYP.HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR T.O.P.2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE2'-11"9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8"26'-3 3/8"29'-11 11/16"(N)EGRESSCASEMENT(E) / (N)FIXED(E) / (N)FIXED(N)(FIXED)(N)EGRESSFRENCH DOOR(E) LOT LINE (E) LOT LINE 12'-9" 12'-0"10'-3"4'-1"(E) RESIDENCE7'-6"(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(E) FENCE(PROTECT DURINGCONSTRUCTION)(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) ARCHITECTURALASPHALTSHINGLES GRACEUNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORSROOF EAVES SHALLNOT PROJECT WITHIN2" OF THE PROPERTYLINE WHERE SETBACKIS 4' PER 2016 CRC §TABLE R302.1 (1) OR2016 CBC TABLE 705.2(N) BEVOLO FRENCHQUARTER ELECTRICLIGHTS, TYP.(N) STOOP(E) BRICKWALL & BRICKPATIO TO BEREFINISHED(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(E) FENCE(PROTECT DURINGCONSTRUCTION)(N)FIXED(E) TRIM DTL.(E) LIVING T.O.P10'-0"1287.7512EL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 100.93'LEFT D.H.E.EL. 101.23'RIGHT D.H.E.EL. 102.12'6'-8"4'-0"(E) / (N)FIXED(N)FIXEDAVERAGE T.O.C.EL. 100.15'30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'(N) D.S.(N)D.S.6'-0" 6'-0"2'-6"4'-6"(N) 4" WEEPSCREED, TYP.45°(E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO BE RAISEDW/ (N) DECOR. CAP, BY OWNER(E)(N)1556(E) OR (N) NUMBERS + ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW + EXISTING BUILDING IN SUCH A POSITIONAS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE + LEGIBLE FRONT THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. SAIDNUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, SHALL BE A MIN. ONE-HALF INCH STROKE BY FOURINCHES HIGH, AND SHALL BE EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEWCONSTRUCTION, ALTERAITIONS OR REPAIR OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCHILLUMINATION SHALL NOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. CITY OF BURILINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE 18.08.010.2019 CBC 502.1TRUSS SUPPLIER +CONTRACTOR TO REVIEWW/ HIGHEST RIDGE HEIGHTBEFORE ORDERING, TYP.EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'45°(E) W.I. RAILING (PROTECTED)(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) G.S.M.NOW INSTALLED(PAINTED)(E)(N) FYPON DTLB5X8X10DECORATIVE BRACKETS,TYP. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions oneDESIGN PLANNING form4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. & Mrs. Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :03/05/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_007Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-295-080 Contractor : PLANNING SET Bill & Kasey Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RESPONSE TO BUILDING COMMENTS 03-11-20 JOB SITE CLARIFICATIONS / REVISIONS 07-13-20 PLANNING EXT. CHANGES 10-25-21 Existing + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1(APPROVED) FRONT ELEVATIONA3.03A3.0(APPROVED) REAR ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2(PROPOSED) FRONT ELEVATIONA3.04A3.0(PROPOSED) REAR ELEVATION33333333 (N)FIXED2ND FLR T.O.P.HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE1'-8"9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8"26'-3 3/8"29'-11 11/16"(N)FRENCH DR.(N)CASE.(N)EGRESSCASE.(E)DOUBLEHUNG(N)CASE.(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(N) DIAMOND SHAPEDARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORS(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED) @ GASFIREPLACE ENCLOSURE(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) CONC. STEPS(E) BRICK WALL &BRICK PATIO TO BEREFINISHED(N) BEVOLO FRENCHQUARTER ELECTRICLIGHTS, TYP.(E) LIVING T.O.PRETRO FIT (E) OPENING10'-0"(N) STUCCO WALLFINISH SMOOTH,(PAINTED)127.75EL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 102.19'(N) (E)3'-3"(E) (N)5'-7"2'-6"4'-0"(R)EGRESSSINGLE HUNG(E)DOUBLEHUNG(N)CASE.(N)AWN.AVERAGE T.O.C.EL. 100.15'30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'(N) D.S.(R)EGRESSDOUBLE HUNG3'-0"4'-6"3'-0"4'-6"(N) 4" WEEPSCREED, TYP.10'-0"(N) GAS FIREPLACE DIRECT VENT,TYP. PER MANUFACTURER10'-0"TRUSS SUPPLIER +CONTRACTOR TO REVIEWW/ HIGHEST RIDGE HEIGHTBEFORE ORDERING, TYP.EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'(N)FIXED2ND FLR T.O.P.HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE1'-8"9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8"26'-3 3/8"29'-11 11/16"(N)FRENCH DR.(N)CASE.(N)EGRESSCASE.(E)DOUBLEHUNG(N)CASE.(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(N) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORS(N) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED) @ GASFIREPLACE ENCLOSURE(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(N) CONC. STEPS(E) BRICK WALL &BRICK PATIO TO BEREFINISHED(N) BEVOLO FRENCHQUARTER ELECTRICLIGHTS, TYP.(E) LIVING T.O.PRETRO FIT (E) OPENING10'-0"(N) STUCCO WALLFINISH SMOOTH,(PAINTED)127.75EL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 102.19'(N) (E)3'-3"(E) (N)5'-7"2'-6"4'-0"(R)EGRESSSINGLE HUNG(E)DOUBLEHUNG(N)CASE.(N)AWN.AVERAGE T.O.C.EL. 100.15'30'-0"30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'(N) D.S.(R)EGRESSDOUBLE HUNG3'-0"4'-6"3'-0"4'-6"(N) 4" WEEPSCREED, TYP.10'-0"(N) GAS FIREPLACE DIRECT VENT,TYP. PER MANUFACTURER10'-0"TRUSS SUPPLIER +CONTRACTOR TO REVIEWW/ HIGHEST RIDGE HEIGHTBEFORE ORDERING, TYP.EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'(N) FYPON CLV12X24 DECORATIVECATHEDRAL LOUVER Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions oneDESIGN PLANNING form4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. & Mrs. Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :03/05/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_007Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-295-080 Contractor : PLANNING SET Bill & Kasey Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RESPONSE TO BUILDING COMMENTS 03-11-20 JOB SITE CLARIFICATIONS / REVISIONS 07-13-20 PLANNING EXT. CHANGES 10-25-21 Existing + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.1(APPROVED) PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2A3.1(PROPOSED) PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION33 HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR T.O.P.2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE1'-5"9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8"26'-3"29'-11 11/16"(N)CASE.(N)CASE.(N)CASE.(N)FIXED(N)AWN.(N)CASE.(N)FIXED(N)CASE.(N) STEEL RAILING,42" H, PER CODE(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(N) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORS(E) BRICK CHIMNEY WITH(N) COPPER TOP OR CLAY,DESIGN TO BE PER SHOPDRAWING, BY DESIGNER(NOTE: BRICK COURSESTO THE EXISTINGCHIMNEY TO MAKE WITHINSCALE OF PROJECT(E)(E)(E)(E) STEEL RAILING(N) CONC. STEPS W/ TILE FINISH(E) DRIVEWAY GATE (PROTECT)(N) DECORATIVE WOODGABLE END(N) 6X6 DECORATIVEBRACKETS, TYP.(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)127.757.7512(E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO BEREBUILT/ REPAIRED +PAINTEDEL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 102.43'(N)CASE.(E)(E) CONC. STEPS(N)CASE.(N)CASE.(N)CASE.30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'AVERAGE T.O.C.30'-0"EL. 100.15'(N) D.S.(N)D.S.(N)D.S.(N) 4" WEEPSCREED, TYP.(N) 2X12 HEADER(N) 2X12 HEADER(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(E)(N)(E) STUCCO FINISH(E) STUCCO FINISH(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTINGTRUSS SUPPLIER +CONTRACTOR TO REVIEWW/ HIGHEST RIDGE HEIGHTBEFORE ORDERING, TYP.EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16'HIGHEST RIDGE2ND FLR T.O.P.2ND FLR F.F.1ST FLR T.O.P.1ST FLR F.F.GRADE1'-5"9'-1"1'-2 3/4"8'-1"7'-10 5/8"26'-3"29'-11 11/16"(N)CASE.(N)CASE.(N)CASE.(N)FIXED(N)AWN.(N)CASE.(N)FIXED(N)CASE.(N) STEEL RAILING,42" H, PER CODE(N) G.S.M.GUTTERS (PAINTED)(N) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(N) (TYPICAL) WD./CLADS.D.L. SIERRA PACIFICWINDOWS + DOORS(E) BRICK CHIMNEY WITH(N) COPPER TOP OR CLAY,DESIGN TO BE PER SHOPDRAWING, BY DESIGNER(NOTE: BRICK COURSESTO THE EXISTINGCHIMNEY TO MAKE WITHINSCALE OF PROJECT(E)(E)(E)(E) STEEL RAILING(N) CONC. STEPS W/ TILE FINISH(E) DRIVEWAY GATE (PROTECT)(N) FYPON CLV14X22DECORATIVE CATHEDRALLOUVER(N) FYPON DTLB5X8X10DECORATIVE BRACKETS,TYP.(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(N) 2X10 TRIM BOARD(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)127.757.7512(E) BRICK CHIMNEY TO BEREBUILT/ REPAIRED +PAINTEDEL. 103.85'EL. 130.13'EL. 102.43'(N)CASE.(E)(E) CONC. STEPS(N)CASE.(N)CASE.(N)CASE.30' HEIGHT LIMITEL. 130.15'AVERAGE T.O.C.30'-0"EL. 100.15'(N) D.S.(N)D.S.(N)D.S.(N) 4" WEEPSCREED, TYP.(E) STUCCO FINISHSMOOTH, (PAINTED)(E)(N)(E) STUCCO FINISH(E) STUCCO FINISH(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTINGTRUSS SUPPLIER +CONTRACTOR TO REVIEWW/ HIGHEST RIDGE HEIGHTBEFORE ORDERING, TYP.EL. 112.93'EL. 122.24'EL. 114.16' Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions oneDESIGN PLANNING form4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Mr. & Mrs. Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :03/05/2019Drawn :TIM RADUENZ19_007Job No. : Owner : APN#: 028-295-080 Contractor : PLANNING SET Bill & Kasey Schuh 1556 Cypress Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RESPONSE TO BUILDING COMMENTS 03-11-20 JOB SITE CLARIFICATIONS / REVISIONS 07-13-20 PLANNING EXT. CHANGES 10-25-21 Existing + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.2Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1A3.2(APPROVED) PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2A3.2(PROPOSED) PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONScale: N/A3A3.2FYPON BRACKET CUT SHEET333333Scale: N/A4A3.2FYPON LOUVER CUT SHEET333 City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 1345 Vancouver Avenue Meeting Date: July 11, 2022 Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved project for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Jason Wong APN: 027-151-110 Designer: Joseph Ho (original designer); Wilson Ng Lot Area: 6,012 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Staff Comments: This project was originally approved prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage at 1345 Vancouver Avenue, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2019 (see attached October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on November 19, 2020 and the project is currently under construction. The applicant submitted revisions to their existing building permit in April 2022 which required review and approval by the Planning Commission. Staff prepared an FYI for review at the June 13, 2022 meeting. The Planning Commission called this FYI up for review and requested that this project be reviewed as a Design Review Amendment at a public hearing (see attached June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Commission expressed a concern with proposed changes to exterior and balcony and noted that there was no explanation given of why the changes were being proposed. They requested that the plans show the originally approved and proposed elevations on the same sheet and that the plans clearly label previously approved and proposed elevations. Please see the applicant’s explanation letter, dated June 16, 2022, for more detailed information about the proposed changes they are requesting (see attachments). The following request is required for the proposed revisions to the approved design:  Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved project for a new, two- story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010(a)(1)). Description of Previously Approved Project: The originally approved project includes building a new, two- story single family dwelling and detached garage. The house and detached garage total 3,399 SF (0.57 FAR) where 3,412 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including a 104 SF front covered porch exemption). There are a total of four bedrooms in the house. A total of two off-street parking spaces are required, one of which must be covered. The detached garage provides one covered parking space (17’-6” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) and an uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Amendment to Design Review 1345 Vancouver Avenue -2- A Special Permit for building height (33’-8” proposed where 30’ is the maximum allowed without approval of a Special Permit) was also approved for the project. The following applications were approved by the Planning Commission on October 28, 2019:  Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and  Special Permit for building height (33’-8” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.26.060 (a) (1)). The following Development Table provides information for the previously approved project; there are no changes to these items with the proposed amendment application. 1345 Vancouver Avenue Lot Area: 6,012 SF PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 22’-5” 22’-5” (block average) (2nd flr): 23’-5½” Side (left): (right): 13’-11” 6’-4⅛” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 27’-4⅛” 43’-10⅛” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,195 SF 36.5% 2,405 SF 40% FAR: 3,399 SF 0.57 FAR 3,412 SF ¹ 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (17’-6” x 20’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 33’-8” 2 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies CS 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 6,012 SF) + 1,100 SF + 389 SF= 3,413 SF (0.57 FAR) 2 Special Permit for building height (33’-8” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: None. Amendment to Design Review 1345 Vancouver Avenue -3- Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the project contains a variety of materials including metal roofing, smooth stucco, wood stained doors, and aluminum windows with flat grids; that the articulation provides visual interest on all elevations and the architectural elements compliment the neighborhood ; and that the proposed architectural revisions do not diminish the character of the original design and do not alter the originally approved building envelope. For these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 20, 2022, sheets CS-1a, CS-1b, A-2.0a through A-4.0a; 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; that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flies 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; 7. 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; Amendment to Design Review 1345 Vancouver Avenue -4- 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the 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; 10. 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; 11. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural ce rtification that the architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been build according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Jason Wong, applicant and property owner Attachments: June 13, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Letter of Explanation, dated June 16, 2022 List of Proposed Revisions Application to the Planning Commission October 28, 2019 Planning Commission Minutes Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 1, 2022 Area Map A-3.0aScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED (NORTHEAST) FRONT ELEVATION1LLC SJA DEVELOPMENT- DESIGN DIVISION RESIDENCE OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY ADDITION FOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1345 VANCOUVER AVE.1345PREVIOUS APPROVAL3 Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED (NORTHEAST) FRONT ELEVATION1WALL REVISIONS3ASPYR COLLECTION BY JAMES HARDIEartisan siding/trim & REVEAL panel systemNEW EXTERIOR SIDING:LAP SIDING - EXTERIOR COLOR: WHITEKELLY-MOORE: Exterior Paint & EnamelsAcryShield - Exterior Color: WHITE Illuminated address signage. Numbers andaddresses shall be placed on the house/building front the street road fronting the property. Said a minimum of one-half inch stroke by four inches high, in all new construction alterations or repair of existingbe normally switchable City of BurlingameMunicipal Code 18.08.010. 2016 CBC 501.2ADDRESS SIGN NOTE:in such a position as to be plainly visible and legiblenumbers shall contrast with their background, shall beand shall be eitherinternally or externally illuminated construction. The power of such illumination shall not Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED (SOUTHWEST) REAR ELEVATION2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"SIDING @ BAY WINDOW3 Illuminated address signage. Numbers andaddresses shall be placed on the house/building front the street road fronting the property. Said a minimum of one-half inch stroke by four inches high, in all new construction alterations or repair of existingbe normally switchable City of BurlingameMunicipal Code 18.08.010. 2016 CBC 501.2ADDRESS SIGN NOTE:in such a position as to be plainly visible and legiblenumbers shall contrast with their background, shall beand shall be eitherinternally or externally illuminated construction. The power of such illumination shall not Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED (SOUTHWEST) REAR ELEVATION2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"SIDING @ BAY WINDOW3PREVIOUS APPROVAL3WALL REVISIONS3A-3.0bLLC SJA DEVELOPMENT- DESIGN DIVISION RESIDENCE OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY ADDITION FOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1345 VANCOUVER AVE.ASPYR COLLECTION BY JAMES HARDIEartisan siding/trim & REVEAL panel systemNEW EXTERIOR SIDING:LAP SIDING - EXTERIOR COLOR: WHITEKELLY-MOORE: Exterior Paint & EnamelsAcryShield - Exterior Color: WHITE Illuminated address signage. Numbers andaddresses shall be placed on the house/building front the street road fronting the property. Said a minimum of one-half inch stroke by four inches high, in all new construction alterations or repair of existingbe normally switchable City of BurlingameMunicipal Code 18.08.010. 2016 CBC 501.2ADDRESS SIGN NOTE:in such a position as to be plainly visible and legiblenumbers shall contrast with their background, shall beand shall be eitherinternally or externally illuminated construction. The power of such illumination shall not A-3.1aScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATION 2LLC SJA DEVELOPMENT- DESIGN DIVISION RESIDENCE OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY ADDITION FOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1345 VANCOUVER AVE.WILSON J. NGScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT (SOUTHEAST) ELEVATION 2WALL REVISIONS3PREVIOUS APPROVAL3 A-3.1bScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION 1LLC SJA DEVELOPMENT- DESIGN DIVISION RESIDENCE OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY ADDITION FOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1345 VANCOUVER AVE.PREVIOUS APPROVAL3Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT (NORTHWEST) ELEVATION 1WALL REVISIONS3 A-4.0aScale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED FRONT (NE) ELEVATION3Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED REAR (SW) ELEVATION4Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT (SE) ELEVATION5Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT (NW) ELEVATION6LLC SJA DEVELOPMENT- DESIGN DIVISION RESIDENCE OF NEW SINGLE FAMILY ADDITION FOR BURLINGAME, CA 94010 1345 VANCOUVER AVE.8-7-Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLAN1Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED GARAGE ROOF PLAN2Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED FRONT (NE) ELEVATION3Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED REAR (SW) ELEVATION4Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED LEFT (SE) ELEVATION5Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT (NW) ELEVATION6PREVIOUS APPROVAL3WALL REVISIONS3PREVIOUS APPROVAL3 City of Burlingame Conditional Use Permit Address: 1251 California Drive Meeting Date: July 11, 2022 Request: Application for Conditional Use Permit to convert the first floor of an existing commercial building to an eight-room hotel. Applicant and Ar chitect: Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture APN: 026-092-040 Property Owner: Paul Dimech Lot Area: 4,408 SF General Plan: California Mixed Use Zoning: CMU (California Mixed Use) Environmental Review Status: This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303, Class I of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that the operation repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing including but not limited to (a) interior or exterior alternations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, is exempt from environmental review. Project Description: The site contains an existing two-story building with a 3,626 SF ground floor commercial space previously used as a dry cleaners and an existing second floor with a 1,306 SF two-bedroom residential unit. The total floor area on the site is 4,932 SF. The existing building is setback 7’-2” from the left side property line, where there is a paved alley on that side that extends for approximately 75% of the length of the building. The existing gas meter for the subject building is in an easement located along the south side of the adjacent lot at 1255 California Drive. The applicant is proposing tenant improvements to convert the first floor of the existing building to a boutique hotel that will have a total of eight rooms. The first floor tenant space previously occupied by a dry cleaner has been vacant for over two years. The proposed hotel will consist of a reception lobby at the front and eight single-bed, single-bath hotel rooms located beyond the lobby. The hotel will have an indoor lounge area for guests along the left side of the building, adjacent to the existing alley open space. At a future date the alley will be improved to include planters and seating to create a patio for guests. The hotel will be marketed primarily to airline employees from San Francisco International Airport, which is located 2.5 miles north of the project site. Most of the anticipated airline employee guests will be staying no more than 24 hours in the hotel and will not have personal vehicles. The hotel will also be available for a more general clientele of out-of-town guests, however the hotel business model anticipates that due to the proximity to the airport and the Caltrain station, as well as to the compact hotel room design, both airline and general hotel guests will be utilizing mass transit or rideshare vehicles to shuttle to the hotel from the airport for short visits between flights. The hotel business model is based on the existing use patterns of the airline employees that currently occupy the second floor apartment unit. Please see the applicant's Conditional Use Permit application for additional details about potential hotel guests. The existing 2,620 SF dry cleaning business and associated 1,006 SF of storage area require a total of eight on- site parking spaces (1 parking space required for every 400 SF business service use and one parking space required for every 1,000 SF storage use). The existing on-site parking is non-conforming, where eight on-site parking spaces are required and no on-site parking is provided. The proposed hotel use requires one parking space for every hotel room, for a total of eight parking spaces. Code Section 25.58.010(A) states that for any nonconformity with respect to parking spaces, the additional parking required for a change in use shall be in full compliance with parking provisions in Chapter 25.40. Because the proposed change to a hotel use requires the same total number of on-site parking spaces as the Item No. 9e Regular Action Item Conditional Use Permit 1251 California Drive -2- existing business service use (eight total spaces), there is no intensification of use and no additional parking required for the proposed change in use. No changes are proposed to the height or envelope of the existing building or to the exterior materials. No changes are proposed to the interior of the second floor residential unit. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Conditional Use Permit to convert the first floor of an existing commercial building to a hotel use (eight rooms proposed) (C.S. 25.14.020 and Table 25.14-1); in the CMU Zoning District hotels are restricted to fewer than 20 rooms. Staff Comments: The proposed project complies with the required California Building and Uniform Fire Codes. The Planning Division notes that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as Regular Action Item since the project involves only a tenant improvement to the interior of the existing first floor and there is no intensification with respect to off-street parking. Should the Planning Commission determine that further review of the project is required, the application can be scheduled for an additional action hearing. Staff Comments: Staff would note that the subject property is not on the Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List. The Cortese List is a document used in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The proposed project does not include any grading or excavation for the proposed improvements (all improvements are provided above existing grade). Required Findings for Conditional Use Permit: Any decision to approve a Conditional Use Permit application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.66. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: A. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. B. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed activity will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. D. The site is physically suitable in terms of: 1. Its design, location, shape, size, and operating characteristics of the proposed use to accommodate the use, and all fences, landscaping, loading, parking, spaces, walls, yards, and other features required to adjust the use with the land and uses in the neighborhood; 2. Streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to accommodate public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access; 3. Public protection services (e.g., fire protection, police protection, etc.); and 4. The provision of utilities (e.g., potable water, schools, solid waste collection and disposal, storm drainage, wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal, etc.). E. The measure of site suitability shall be required to ensure that the type, density, and intensity of use being proposed will not adversely affect the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare, constitute a nuisance, or be materially injurious to the improvements, persons, property, or uses in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Suggested Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: That the proposed mixed use project with a hotel use on the first floor and an existing residential use on the second floor is consistent with both the General Plan and designations of California Mixed Use zoning district; that the proposed boutique hotel with eight rooms is compatible with the adjacent Broadway Commercial Area which will provide retail and dining amenities within Conditional Use Permit 1251 California Drive -3- walking distance for hotel guests; and that the proposed location of the hotel adjacent to a Caltrain stop encourages use of public transit so that hotel guests will not need personal vehicles or parking spaces that might create an adverse impact the surrounding zoning district. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the Conditional Use Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped July 5 , 2022, sheets A0.0 through A5.2 and L2.1; 2. that any increase in the number of hotel rooms (exceeding eight rooms) shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and an evaluation of the parking based on Zoning Code requirements; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition 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; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Conditional Use Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 1, 2022 Area Map Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE 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 Conditional Use Permit for interior improvements to the existing first floor commercial space to convert it to a hotel use at 1251 California Drive, Zone CMU, Paul Dimech, property owner, APN: 026-092-040; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on July 11, 2022, 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, Class I of the CEQA Guidelines. which states that the operation repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that previously existing including but not limited to (a) interior or exterior alternations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances, is hereby approved. 2. Said Conditional Use Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Conditional Use Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th day of July, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit 1251 California Drive Effective July 21, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped July 5, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A5.2 and L2.1; 2. that any increase in the number of hotel rooms (exceeding eight rooms) shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and an evaluation of the parking based on Zoning Code requirements; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition 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; 5. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 6. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 1251 California Drive 300’ noticing APN #: 026-092-040 Item No. 9a Design Review Study Address: 713 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: July 11,2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for first and second story plate heights and second story balcony for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Audrey Tse, lnsite Design lnc. APN:. 029-272-010 Property Owners: Kevin and Christine Chung Lot Area: 5,247 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and currently contains a single-unit dwelling and a detached garage. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-unit dwelling and detached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The total proposed floor area would be 3,129 SF (0.60 FAR), where 3,179 SF (0.61 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and basement exemptions). The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for a 9'-6" plate height at the first floor (where g'-0" is the maximum allowed) and an 8'-6" plate height at the second floor (where 8'-0" is the maximum allowed). A Special Permit is also being requested for a 75 SF second story balcony at the rear of the house (Special Permit required for any second story balcony; 75 SF maximum allowed). The proposed project includes a 600 SF basement. Because the basement does not exceed 600 SF and the top of the finished floor above the basement is less than 2 -0" above existing grade, the basement is exempt from floor area. There would be a total of four bedrooms in the proposed dwelling. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The proposed detached garage (19'-6" wide x 20'-0" deep clear interior dimensions) provides one covered parking space (the proposed garage does not qualify for a two-car garage since the interior clear width dimension is 19'-6" where 20'-0" is required for a two-car garage); one uncovered space (9'-0" x 18'-0") is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the poect is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes building a new, 327 SF detached accessory dwelling unit at the rear of the lot (attached to the detached garage). Review of the ADU application is administrative and not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Per C.S. 25.48.030(LX3Xa) no parking is required for the ADU because it is located within one- half mile walking distance of public transit. Staff has determined the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following applications Design Review for a 25.68.020(c)(1)(a)); new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. Special Permit for first and second story plate heights (9'-6" first floor plate height proposed where 9'-0" is allowed; 8'-6" second floor plate height proposed where 8'-0" is allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.7 8.o20. (A)(6)); ano Special Permit for second floor balcony (75 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25."10.030 and 25.78.020(A)(7)). City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Design Review and SpecialPermits 713 Howard Avenue 713 Howard Avenue Lot Size: 5,247 SF Plans date stamped: July 5,2022 1 Q32x5,247 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,179 SF (0.61 FAR)2 Special Permit for first and second story plate heights.3 Special Permit for second floor balcony (75 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: . Windows: aluminum clad with simulated true divided lites. Doors: aluminum clad garage door. Siding: batten and board. Roof: standing seam metal roofingr Other.'decorative wood knee braces, wood fascia 2 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Front Sefback (1"1 flr): (2'd flr): 17'-6" (to covered porch) 20'-0" 15'-7" (block average) 20'-0" Side Setback (left): (right): 4',-10" 10'-g' 4'-0" 4'-0' Rear Sefback (1"1flr): (7d flr): 33',-3', 48',-5', 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage:2,099 SF 40o/o 2,099 SF 40% FAR:3,129 SF 0.60 FAR 3,179 SF 1 0.61 FAR Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (19'-6" x 20'-0" clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (10'x 18') 1 uncovered (9'x 18') Building Height:29',-1"30'-0' Plate Height (1"t flr): (?d flr): 9',-6" 2 8',-6',2 9',-0" 8'-0" DH Envelope:Complies c.s. 25.10.055(AX1) Second Floor Balcony: 75SF3 (8'-4" left side setback & 27'-4" right side setback) 75 SF (8'-0" side setbacks) Staff Comments: None. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Design Review and Special Permits 713 Howard Avenue Design Review Griteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 arc outlined as follows: Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; lnterface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and ln the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. ln making such determination, the following findings shall be made: The pro.ject is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. ln making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 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 well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; The variety of roof line, fagade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 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 that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Audrey Tse, lnsite Design lnc, applicant and architect Kevin and Christine Chung, property owners 1 2 1 2 3 4 J Design Review and Special Permits Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed July 1, 2022 Area Map 713 Howard Avenue 4 City of Burlingame o Community Development Department r 501 Primrose Road I (650) 55&7250 r planninsdept@burlineame.ors Project Application - Planning Division TypeofApplication: @ Accessory Dwelling Unit Design Review Special Permit fl Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit [- Uitlriau Area Construction Permit f] variance t/E uinol. Modification f]o*'".tr Proiect Address:713 Howard Avenue Assessor's Parcel #: Project Description: New 2-story home with detached garage and detached ADU 029284060 R1 Applicant Name: Address: Property Owner Audrey Tse, lnsite Design lnc.Name:Kevin and Christine Chung 1534Plaza Lane, #318 Burlingame, CA 94010 Architect/Designer Name: Audrey Tse, lnsite Design lnc. Same as aboveAddress: 650-235-9566 Phone: E-mail: Authorization to Reproduce Proiect Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to 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. ( lnitials of Architect/Designer)audrey@ insite2desig n.com Burlingame Business License #:91 81 91 * Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License Applicant: I hereby certify u nder penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief Date:a4t22122 Applicant's signature Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division 04t22122 Property owner's signatu re: City of Burlingame o Community Development Department I 501 Primrose Road . P (650) 558-7250 r www.burlinpame.ors City of Burlingame Special Permit Application (R-1 and R-2) The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). 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. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. L 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. Untiil recently, plate heights of 9'6" and 8'6" in this neighborhood were customary and often granted without comment. The proposed design provides greater balance and scale with increased plate heights beyond 8'0". The neighborhood has a mix of old one-story homes and some remodeled 2-story homes. Washington Elementary School is on the next block just a few structures away and has a large presence and building height. This proposed house is supportable and balances the massing of the neighborhood in context with the school. rrII Explain how the variety of roof Iine, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The neighborhood has an eclectic collection of architectural style homes with no predominant style. The proposed gable-roofed farmhouse style home fits into the neighborhood in that context with interesting articulation and scale of windows/materials that blend into the fabric of the neighboi'hood. E How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? The proposed home meets design review guidelines, meets all Planning guidelines and offers a design that matches elements in the nieghborhood such as front porches, detached garage, painted wood siding, gabled roof. E Explain how the remova! 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 large trees are proposed to be removed. Only small trees in the area of construction in the backyard are to be removed and replaced with trees in the front yard to be enjoyed by the neighboorhood. 2. 3. 4. 7 Exploin why the blend of mass, scole dnd domindnt strudurol chorocteristics oI the new construction or dddition drc consistent with the existing suucturc's design ond with the existing street dnd neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? lf neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from nelghboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? lf there is no change to the structure, say so. lf a new structu re is proposed, com pa re its size, a ppeara nce, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2.Exploin how the variety oI tool line, Iocade, exterior linish materials and elevations of the proposed new strudurc or dddition dre consistent with the existing structurc, strcet dnd neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? lf it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. lf you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residentiol design guidelines adopted by the City? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 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. 4.Exploin how the removol of ony uees located within the Iootp nt ol dny new strudure or dddition is necessary ond is consistent with the civs reforestdtion requirements. Whdt mitigdtion is proposed for the removdl ol any trees? Explain why this mitigation is dppropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? lf so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. lf no trees are to be removed, say so. City of Burlingame o Community Development Department r 501 Primrose Road . P (650) 558-7250 r www.burlinqame.ors City of Burlingame Special Permit Application (R-1 and R-2) The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Chapter 25.781. 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. Refer to the end 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. 2. 3. 4 The proposed primary bedroom roof balcony is tucked behind the bedroom oriented towards the backyard. lt is set in on both sides from the sides of the house and is a small size just to give the homeowners a little place of retreat where one can relax and read a book or have a cup of tea. The design of it is consistent with the design of the house with a private guardrail matching that of the exterior walls on the house. This provides privacy for both the homeowners as well as reduced visual impact for neighboring properties. EI 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 location of the primary bedroom balcony should not create any adverse effects on neighboring properties. The balcony is approximately 75sf and is oriented towards the backyard and away from surrounding neighbors. lts design correlates with the proposed design of the house. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? The addition of the primary bedroom balcony is consistent with the General Plan and meets guidelines in terms of size and orientation. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the Cit!/s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. No trees are proposed to be removed to create this element. 7 Explain why the blend ol mass, scale dnd dominont strudural charaderistics oI the new construction ot oddition ore consistent with the existing structure's design ond with the existing street dnd neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? lf neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? lf there is no change to the structure, say so. lf a new structure is proposed, compare itssize, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. Explain how the variety oI tool line, focode, exteiot linish materials ond elevations ol the proposed new sttucturc or dddition dre consistent with the existing strudurc, strcet dnd neighborhood, How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? lf it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How willthe structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. lf you don't feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residentiol design guidelines ddopted by the City? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your proiect meet these guidelines? 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. lnterface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4.Exploin how the removol of ony trees located within the ,ootpint of any new structure or addition is necessdry ond is consistent with the civs relotestation rcquircments. Whot mitigdtion is ptoposed lor the removal ol any trees? Expldin why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? lf so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.05), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. lf no trees are to be removed, say so. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (5s0) 558-7250 wwwburlinga me.org The fily of Burlingome Plonning Commission onnounces lhe following virluol public heoring vio Zoom on ,Vlondoy, July I I, 2022 ot 7:00 P.M. You moy o(cess lhe meeting online ot www.zoom.us/ioin or bY Phone ol (3{6) 248-7199: lleeting lD: 854 9123 0621 Posscode: 625375 Descriplion: Applicolion for Design Review ond 5peciol Permils for plote height ond second floor deck for o new, lwo story single-unil dwelling ond detoched g0I0ge. l,lembers of lhe public moy provide wrillen comments by emoil to: oubliccommenl@hurlingome.orq. ftloiled: July 1,2022 (Pleose refer to other side) PUBTIC HEARING NOTICE Citv of Burlinaame - Public Hearina Notice lf you have any questions about lndividuals who require sPecial or would like to schedule an plans, please send an email to disability-related have a disab modification or ility and wish toaccommodation to Participate in request an alternative format for the otice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed, should conta ct the Planning Division at planninsdept@burlinsame.ore or (550) 558-7250 by 10 am on the day of the meeting. lf 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. Kevin Gardiner, AICP Community DeveloPment Director (Pleose refer to other side) 713 Howard Avenue 300'noticing APN: 029-272-010 v .': )o % Q,, d)__ a-- ae ot.() (/ , '-aQ oo '-h-s\ Llr*t> -c\ "Dq^_ dr<l A\a, -L$ ,..t)ort} r;!{ i4\'1r. b'''' ^G.a'1,Y& - t),ry dp <) i4^,(} tP r$ "O,,"o ^e) ^v!qF}- o-. <r) _-'t'21 -:1 ir'\t',..trtn*o €)^ ,o s'D^ 3\ ,go*(u^rnU"P$ %6\ +o _.fii \t) ^Gd)-,+. q$)- dp a.\ ,\+" 'c{ ':, "0 '# +ss ^*')*"r& ^4loNt qph \,% f)u.^(2-- {.) e'$ % ,fi ,fs drF f, dP9 6r' % q,0 ^f ar$ n o* Item No. 9b Design Review Study City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 2229 Adeline Drive Meeting Date: July 11, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a two and a half story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Form One, Tim Raduenz APN: 027-161-160 Property Owners: Cameron and Shannon Foster Lot Area: 5,190 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot which slopes down approximately four feet between the front and rear property lines. Due to this slope, the existing house has three separate living levels, consisting of a lower lev el (at the rear only), a main living (1st floor at front) and a second floor. The existing single-unit dwelling has four bedrooms and is 2,727 SF in floor area, including a detached garage. The applicant is proposing a rear addition to all living levels. The lower floor addition would include an expansion at the rear of the house. This space is currently used as a den and would be converted to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The proposed addition also includes a small e xpansion to the main living level at the rear onto the existing rear deck, as well as a second story addition that would be located at the rear of the existing second story. There is no construction or changes proposed to the existing detached garage. While the proposed addition would add approximately 500 SF at the rear, because the lower floor would be converted to an ADU and that square footage is not counted toward the overall FAR, the total floor area is being reduced with the proposed addition from 2,727 SF (0.50 FAR) to 2,624 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,160 SF (0.60 FAR) is the maximum allowed. With this application, the number of bedrooms would be remain at four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on site. The existing detached garage has two separate garage doors for two covered off-street spaces. However, because the interior dimensions measure 17-7” wide by 22’-6” deep (18’ x 18’ clear interior dimensions required for an existing two-car garage), the existing detached garage is only counted as a one-car garage; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. The existing left side of the second floor currently encroaches into the declining height envelope along the left side. Given the downward slope on the property, the proposed second floor addition would continue this encroachment into the declining height envelope. Therefore, the application includes a request for a Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope since 169 SF of the left side of the proposed second floor addition would encroach into the declining height envelope. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes building a new attached 467 SF ADU by converting a portion of the existing lower level and by adding 174 SF at the rear of the lower floor to accommodate the new ADU. Review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the regulations in Code Section 25.48.030 (Accessory Dwelling Units). Among those regulations is an exemption from both lot coverage and FAR for ADUs that are 850 SF or less in size. Therefore, this proposed attached ADU did not count towards the overall lot coverage or FAR for this project. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a two and a half story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)); and Design Review and Special Permit 2229 Adeline Drive 2  Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope (DHE) along the left side of the house (169 SF of the proposed additio n would extend beyond the DHE) (C.S. 25.10.055). 2229 Adeline Drive Lot Area: 5,190 SF Plans date stamped: June 29, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (Lower flr): (Main flr): (Upper flr): N/A 15’-0” 35’-10" * No change No change No change 15'-0" 15’-0” 20’-0" Side (left): (right): 4’-3" 10’-2" * 4’-3" to add main / upper addtn & 7’-3” No change 4’-0 4’-0 Rear (Lower flr): (Main flr): (Upper flr): 48’-1" 48’-1” 48’-1” 40’-9" 31’-5” 40’-9” 15’-0" 20’-0" 20’-0" Lot Coverage: 1,822 SF 35.0% 1,948 SF 38% 2,760 SF 40% FAR: 2,727 SF 0.50 FAR (3,212 SF – 588 SF ADU) = 2,624 SF 0.50 FAR 3,160 SF 1 0.60 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 No change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (17’-7” x 22’-6” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) No change 1 covered (9’ x 18’ clear interior for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 28’-0” No change (New height < E @ 26’-7”) 30'-0" Plate Height (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-3” 8’-4” 8’-3” (matching) 8’-4” (matching) 9’-0” 8’-0” DH Envelope: Encroachment 2 Special Permit requested for DHE encroachment on left side 3 C.S. 25.10.055 1 (0.32 x 5,190 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,160 SF (0.60 FAR). 2 Existing nonconforming DHE along left side. 3 Special Permit requested for Declining Height Envelope (169 SF encroachment into the DHE on left side of house). Design Review and Special Permit 2229 Adeline Drive 3 Staff Comments: While the new Zoning Code requires a Special Permit for upper floor plate heights exceeding 8’-0”(C.S. 25.10.035(A)(6)), staff has made a determination that a Special Permit would not be required for second floor additions where the plate height of the addition matches the existing plate height up to 8’-6” above second floor. This will be incorporated into the Zoning Code with the next code update. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: Wood clad windows with simulated true divided lites with wood trim around windows. • Siding: Stucco. • Roof: Terracotta barrel tiles. • Other: Wood railing and wood decking. Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. 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 well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and Design Review and Special Permit 2229 Adeline Drive 4 4. 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 that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Form One – Tim Raduenz, applicant and architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed July 1, 2022 Area Map ADU in existing basement + lower addition, also special permit for Declining Height Envelope + adu in exisitng basement w/ addition City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P (650) 558-7250  www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application (R-1 and R-2) The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). 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. Refer to the end 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. 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. 3.How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? 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. DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE - "SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DHE" 2229 Adeline Drive 300’ noticing APN: 027-161-160 GRADE/TYPCHIM/TYP6'-8 1/2"6'-8" 7'-4 1/2"STUCCO/TYPVENT(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) LOT LINE4'-3"(E) LOT LINE11'-10 1/2"(E) DRIVEWAYD.S.D.S.3.75121215:12 SLOPEFIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.RIDGEFIRST FLR. TOP PLATESECOND FLR. TOP PLATEBASEMENT TOP PLATE4'-1 1/2"8 1/2"8'-3 1/2"1'-1"8'-4 1/2"5'-5"28'-0" OVERALL HEIGHT (NO CHANGE)70.10'(E) GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'69.39'30' HEIGHT LIMIT30'-0"78.39'79.48'87.85'93.24'95.24'(E) GRADE7'-6" 7'-6"D.H.E. LEFT SIDE63.74'14'-0"D.H.E. LEFT SIDE@ 7.5' OFFSET FROM 2ND FLR77.74'45°D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE66.29'D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE@ 12' HEIGHT78.29'12'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE@ 7.5' OFFSET FROM 2ND FLR77.74'D.H.E. LEFT SIDE@ 14' HEIGHT77.74'45°EGRESS3'-3"4'-1 1/2" 6'-5 1/2" 6'-6" 6'-8" 6'-8" 6'-10" 6'-9" 6'-8"GRADE/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPSTUCCO/TYP(E) LOT LINE D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(E) DRIVEWAY30' HEIGHT LIMIT95.24'(E) LOT LINE(E) GRADE(E) GRADE7'-6"D.H.E. LEFT SIDE63.74'14'-0"D.H.E. LEFT SIDE@ 7.5' OFFSET FROM 2ND FLR77.74'45°D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE66.29'D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE@ 12' HEIGHT78.29'12'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE@ 7.5' OFFSET FROM 2ND FLR77.74'D.H.E. LEFT SIDE@ 14' HEIGHT77.74'45°7'-6"5'-0"BASEMENT LEVEL F.F.E.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.FIRST FLR. TOP PLATE78.39'79.48'FIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.BASEMENT TOP PLATE70.10'69.39'RIDGESECOND FLR. TOP PLATE87.85'93.24'7'-1 1/2" 8 1/2" 8'-3 1/2" 1'-1" 8'-4 1/2"5'-5"62.27'2'-0"AVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'GRADE/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPSTUCCO/TYPTEMP.(N)(N)20'-5" (ADDITION)13'-9" (EXISTING)(N)(N)TEMP.(N)(N)(E)(N) DECK4'-3"11'-10 1/2"(E) STUCCO(E) SPANISH TILE ROOF (ADDITION) (EXISTING)(N) ROMEO + JULIET, BALCONY(N) STUCCOMATCH (E)(N)(N)(E)TEMP.(N)(N)(N)(N)3'-6" RECYCLING(E) DRIVEWAYD.S.D.S.(N) ROOF TOMATCH (E) ROOFW/ HIDDEN TILE(BARREL) VENTSSIERRA-PACIFICWOOD/CLAD WDS. +DRS, PUTTY SDL5:12 SLOPE5123:12 SLOPEMATCH (E) TRIM(N) WOOD DECK W/TILE FINISH(N) WOOD RAILING(E) LOT LINE BASEMENT LEVEL F.F.E.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.FIRST FLR. TOP PLATE78.39'79.48'FIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.BASEMENT TOP PLATE70.10'69.39'RIDGESECOND FLR. TOP PLATE30' HEIGHT LIMIT87.85'93.24'95.24'7'-1 1/2" 8 1/2" 8'-3 1/2" 1'-1" 8'-4 1/2"5'-5" 30'-0"62.27'(E) LOT LINE 7'-6"D.H.E. LEFT SIDE63.74'14'-0"D.H.E. LEFT SIDE@ 7.5' OFFSET FROM 2ND FLR77.74'45°D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE66.29'D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE@ 12' HEIGHT78.29'12'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE@ 7.5' OFFSET FROM 2ND FLR77.74'D.H.E. LEFT SIDE@ 14' HEIGHT77.74'45°7'-6"5'-0"EGRESS4'-6"7'-0"TEMP.(N)LOWERPATIO(E) GRADE(E) GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'28'-0" NO CHANGE TO OVERALL HEIGHTTEMP.TEMP.3'-0"1'-0"(N)(N) Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. AND MRS. CAMERON FOSTER 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :12-22-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_40Job No. : Owner : APN#: 027-161-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 MR. + MRS. Cameron Foster 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 05.16.22 05.19.22 RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 06.03.22 06.06.22 Existing + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONA3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONA3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"3PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 6'-8" 6'-8 1/2" 6'-8 1/2" 6'-9 1/2" 6'-5"GRADE/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPVIEW BLKD BYMTL GATE/TYPSTUCCO/TYP6'-8"VENTVENTFNDTN ACSVENTD.S.D.S.FIRST LEVEL F.F.@LIVINGFIRST FLR TOP PLATE@ LIVING ROOM78.89'69.48'FIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.RIDGEFIRST FLR.TOP PLATESECOND FLR. TOP PLATEBASEMENTTOP PLATE4'-1 1/2"8 1/2"8'-3 1/2"1'-1"8'-4 1/2"5'-5"28'-0" OVERALL HEIGHT (NO CHANGE)70.10'AVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'69.39'30' HEIGHT LIMIT30'-0"78.39'79.48'87.85'93.24'95.24'2'-0"FRONT YARDREAR YARD6'-8" 6'-8 1/2"GRADE/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPVIEW BLKD BYMTL GATE/TYPSTUCCO/TYP6'-8"VENTVENTFNDTN ACSVENT(N)(E)(E)(E)(E)(N)(R)WINDOW REPLACED FORWD/CLAD, EXISTING ISALUM. WINDOW NOTIN KEEPING W/ ARCH.(N)(N)(N)(LOWER PATIO)GARBAGERECYCLINGD.S.D.S.(E) (N) (EXISTING) (ADDITION)10'-2" (ADDITION)43'-6 1/2" (EXISTING)(N) STUCCOMATCH (E)(N) ROOF TO MATCH(E) ROOF W/ HIDDENTILE (BARREL) VENTSSIERRA-PACIFICWOOD/CLAD WDS. +DRS, PUTTY SDL3.75:12 SLOPE5125:12 SLOPE312MATCH (E) TRIM +DETAILS OF (E)DINING RM WINDOW(N) WOOD DECK W/TILE FINISH(N) WOOD RAILINGFIRST LEVEL F.F.@LIVINGFIRST FLR TOP PLATE@ LIVING ROOM78.89'69.48'FIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.RIDGEFIRST FLR.TOP PLATESECOND FLR. TOP PLATEBASEMENTTOP PLATE4'-1 1/2"8 1/2"8'-3 1/2"1'-1"8'-4 1/2"5'-5"28'-0" OVERALL HEIGHT (NO CHANGE)70.10'AVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'69.39'30' HEIGHT LIMIT30'-0"78.39'79.48'87.85'93.24'95.24'2'-0"FRONT YARDREAR YARD2'-9"4'-8"EGRESS(N)EGRESS2'-6"3'-7 1/2"(E) GRADE(E) GRADETEMP. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. AND MRS. CAMERON FOSTER 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :12-22-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_40Job No. : Owner : APN#: 027-161-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 MR. + MRS. Cameron Foster 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 05.16.22 05.19.22 RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 06.03.22 06.06.22 Existing + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION 6'-5 1/2" 6'-9" 6'-8" 6'-8" 6'-9 1/2" 6'-9"GRADE/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPSTUCCO/TYPVENTFNDTN ACSFIRST LEVEL F.F.@LIVINGFIRST FLR TOP PLATE@ LIVING ROOM(E) GRADE(E) GRADE78.89'69.48'9'-5"BASEMENT LEVEL F.F.E.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.FIRST FLR. TOP PLATE78.39'79.48'FIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.BASEMENT TOP PLATE70.10'69.39'(E) RIDGESECOND FLR. TOP PLATE30' HEIGHT LIMIT87.85'93.24'95.24'7'-1 1/2"8 1/2"8'-3 1/2"1'-1"8'-4 1/2"5'-5" 30'-0" (HEIGHT LIMIT)62.27'2'-0"REAR YARDFRONT YARDAVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'28'-0" NO CHANGE TO OVERALL HEIGHT 6'-5 1/2" 6'-9" 6'-8" 6'-8"GRADE/TYPCHIM VENT/TYPSTUCCO/TYPVENTFNDTN ACS(E)(E)(E)(E)10'-2" (ADDITION)43'-6 1/2" (EXISTING)(N)(N)FILLING IN FOR PRIVACYWINDOW REMOVED FORPRIVACY OF NEIGHBORWINDOW REPLACED FORWD/CLAD, EXISTING ISALUM. WINDOW NOTIN KEEPING W/ ARCH.AWNING IN FOR PRIVACY(N)5'-0"4'-0"STUCCO/TYP(MATCH E)LOWER PATIOD.S.(E)(N) (EXISTING) (ADDITION)(N) STUCCOMATCH (E)(N) ROOF TO MATCH(E) ROOF W/ HIDDENTILE (BARREL) VENTSSIERRA-PACIFICWOOD/CLAD WDS. +DRS, PUTTY SDL5:12 SLOPE5123.75:12 SLOPEMATCH (E) TRIMMATCH (E) TRIMBASEMENT LEVEL F.F.E.SECOND FLR. FIN. FLR.FIRST FLR. TOP PLATE78.39'79.48'FIRST FLR. FIN. FLR.BASEMENT TOP PLATE70.10'69.39'RIDGESECOND FLR. TOP PLATE30' HEIGHT LIMIT87.85'93.24'95.24'7'-1 1/2"8 1/2"8'-3 1/2"1'-1"8'-4 1/2"5'-2"30'-0"62.27'FIRST LEVEL F.F.@LIVINGFIRST FLR TOP PLATE@ LIVING ROOM78.89'69.48'9'-5"REAR YARDFRONT YARDEGRESS3'-3"3'-7 1/2"EGRESS(E) GRADE(E) GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.65.24'2'-0" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. AND MRS. CAMERON FOSTER 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :12-22-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_40Job No. : Owner : APN#: 027-161-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 MR. + MRS. Cameron Foster 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 05.16.22 05.19.22 RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 06.03.22 06.06.22 Existing + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.2A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT ELEVATIONA3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION A3.11A3.01A3.21A3.02(E) TERRACOTTA(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECTTILE ROOF(E) TERRACOTTA(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECTTILE ROOF3.7512(E) SLOPE3.75 12(E) SLOPE 112(E) SLOPE(E) RIDGE(E) RIDGE 12(E) SLOPE512(E) SLOPE512(E) SLOPE512(E) SLOPE512(E) SLOPE5(E) F.P.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(E) COPPERGUTTERS &DOWNSPOUTSSAVE & REUSEK-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASS K-108-3ANTIQUEFAUCETBRASS D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.A3.12A3.01A3.22A3.03(E) TERRACOTTA(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECTTILE ROOF(E) TERRACOTTA(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECTTILE ROOF3.75 12 (E) SLOPE 3.75 12 (E) SLOPE 112(E) SLOPE(E) RIDGE(E) RIDGE 512(E) SLOPE12(E) SLOPE512(E) SLOPE5(E) F.P.5 12 (N) SLOPE 12(E) SLOPE5(N) TERRACOTTA(N) CLASS A: FIRE RATED( TO MATCH EXISTING )TILE ROOF(N) RIDGE(N) VALLEY(N) VALLEY12 (N) SLOPE 312(N) SLOPE5D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(N) COPPERGUTTERS &DOWNSPOUTS(REUSE EXISTING)(N) COPPERGUTTERS &DOWNSPOUTS(REUSE EXISTING)D.S.(N) HIDDEN TILE(BARREL) VENT(TYP.)Existing + Proposed Roof Plan See DetailsA2.2PLUMBING & HVAC NOTE:1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHER WHENPOSSIBLE & LOCATE ON ROOFS SLOPING TO THE REAROF HOUSE TYP. VERIFY LOCATION W/ DESIGNER.VENTILATION CALC:SQ. FT. OF (N) ROOF: 308.05 SQ. FT.(N) 308.05/150 = 2.05 SQ. FT. OF VENTILATION IN NEW ROOF(N) ROOF VENTS (4 ea. X .75 SQ. FT.) = 3.00 SQ. FT.TOTAL VENTILATION INSTALLED = 3.00 SQ.FT. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. AND MRS. CAMERON FOSTER 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :12-22-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_40Job No. : Owner : APN#: 027-161-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 MR. + MRS. Cameron Foster 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 05.16.22 05.19.22 RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 06.03.22 06.06.22A2.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING ROOF PLANA2.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED ROOF PLANNOTES:1. (EXISTING)(OGEE) G.S.M. GUTTERS, & (3" GSM)DOWNSPOUTS (MATCH EXISTING AS REQUIRED),LINE ALL VALLEYS WITH GSM, AT LEAST 20" WIDEWITH 1/4" EDGE TURNED OVER AND FASTENEDWITH CLEATS. LAP JOINTS AT LEAST 4"M BUT DONOT SOLDER.2. WHEN INSULATION IS INSTALLED IN ENCLOSEDRAFTER SPACES WHERE CEILINGS ARE APPLIEDDIRECT TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, AMINIMUM AIR SPACE OF 1 INCH MUST BEPROVIDED, INSULATION BAFFLE NEEDED.3. FLASHINGS AND COUNTER FLASHINGS SHALLNOT BE LESS THAN 0.016-INCH (28-GAUGE)CORROSION RESISTANT METAL, AND VALLEYFLASHING.4. AT THE JUNCTURE OF THE ROOF & VERTICALSURFACES, FLASHING & COUNTER FLASHINGSSHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (26 GAUGE).NOTES CONT:5. TERMINATION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AIRDUCTS SHALL BE A MIN. OF 3'-0" FROM PROPERTYLINES OR ANY OPENING INTO THE BUILDING (I.E.DRYERS, BATH & UTILITY FANS, ETC., MUST BE3'-0" AWAY FROM DOORS, WINDOWS, OPENINGSKYLIGHTS OR ATTIC VENTS, PER CODE6. ATTIC VENTILATION AT CALIFORNIA FRAMINGTO RECEIVE LOW PROFILE VENTS OR OPENING INTHE ROOF SHEATHING BELOW.7. (AS REQUIRED) ALL TRUSS/RAFTER BLOCKINGTO RECEIVE 2" DIA. HOLES IN EVERY BLOCKTYPICAL FOR EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF AIR FLOW.8. ATTIC IS GETTING NEW INSULATION, VERIFY (E)FANS/VENTS TO WHAT IS REQUIRED PERCURRENT CODE. PROPERTY LINE 110.00' PROPERTY LINE 110.00'PROPERTY LINE 44.36'PROPERTY LINE 50.00'CHIMNEY(E) CHIMNEY(E) PAVERDRIVEWAY(PROTECT)CONCRETE SIDEWALKWATERMETEROHEOHEOHEOHEOHEUTILITYPOLEUTILITYPOLEUTILITYPOLE(E) 12"EVERGREENPEAR PYRUS(PROTECT)(E) 6" CREPEMYTRLE(PROTECT)(E) 4"PALM(PROTECT)(E) (4)4" OLIVE(PROTECT)(E)BRICK(PROTECT)(E) CONC.WALL(PROTECT)(E) CONC.WALL(PROTECT)(E) GARAGEEL=63.90(N) 1ST FLRDECK7" CREPEMYRTLE(PROTECT)(E) HEDGE(PROTECT)(E) CONC.WALL(PROTECT)(E) 6" ITL. CYPRESS (PROTECT)(E) CONC.WALL(PROTECT)(E) CONC.WALL(PROTECT)(E) LAWN(E) LAWN(E) 3" TREE(PROTECT)CONCRETE GUTTERA D E L I N E D R I V E( 5 0 ' R / W )AREA=5,190SQ. FT.ADDITION @1ST + 2NDNEIGHBOR'S 2ND STORYBALCONY OVERLOOKING2229 YARD4'-0" SIDE SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK15'-0" FRONTSETBACK15'-0" REAR SETBACK20'-0" REAR SETBACK(2ND FLR)(E) 2ND FLOOR(E) 1STFLOOR(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(E) PAVERDRIVEWAY(PROTECT)(E) GATE(PROTECT)(349 SQ. FT.)(PROTECT)40'-9" (N) LOWER, 1ST & 2ND ADDITION) 48'-1" (E) LOWER, 1ST & 2ND FLRS 31'-5"7'-3"4'-3"15'-0"REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY, AND SIDEWALKFRONTING SITE. PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWERLATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL TOCITY SEWER CLEANOUT. NEW WATER SERVICE TO WATERMETER. WHEN APPLICABLE WATER LINES ABOVE 2" AND ALLFIRE SERVICES OF ANY SIZE ARE TO BE INSTALLED BYAPPLICANT AND PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDSPECIFICATIONS.SEWERCLEANOUT(N) GAS METER(U/ DECK)(N) ELEC.METER (U/ DECK)NO REAR ACCESS FROMPROPERTY TO 10' CITY ALLEYNO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAININGWALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS, MAILBOXES,ETC) ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED BEYONDTHE PROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY8"(1ST FLR)20' FRONT SETBACK (2ND FLR)65.77'61.71'64.58'68.01'35'-10"(NO WORK)9'x18' UNCOVEREDPARKING Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098MR. AND MRS. CAMERON FOSTER 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame CA 94010 Title : Project : Date :12-22-21Drawn :TIM RADUENZ21_40Job No. : Owner : APN#: 027-161-160 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 MR. + MRS. Cameron Foster 2229 Adeline Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 05.16.22 05.19.22RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 06.03.22 06.06.22RESPONSE TO PLANNING DEPT COMMENTS 06.24.22 06.24.22 Site Plan See DetailsA1.0GENERAL NOTES & SCOPE1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED.2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BEREMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) NOTREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT.3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCE LANDSCAPE WILLNOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS.4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORM WATERDRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.35. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS6. (N) A/C EQUIPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL OF 60 DBADAYTIME (7AM-10PM OR DBA NIGHTTIME (10 PM-7 AM) AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTYLINE. PER BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE 25.58.050.7. (E) LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN AND SHALL BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION. LANDSCAPESHALL BE REHABILITATED POST-CONSTRUCTION IF NEEDED.8. IF PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRES SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT, POLICY FOR EXPANDING WIDTH OFPLANTER STRIP NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED.STREET TREES1. PROTECT ALL STREET TREES DURING CONSTRUCTIONPUBLIC WORKS NOTES1. TO REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITIES, AN 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 OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BEINSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION.(4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF WAY.2. GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.3. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERAL OR WATER SERVICE SHALL BE DISCONNECTED AT THE MAINAND PER CITY STANDARDS, AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED.4. ANY WORK IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY, SUCH AS PLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN IN STREET, WORK INSIDEWALK AREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ANENCROCHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. PORTA POTTY'S ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BEPLACED IN CITY RIGHT OF WAY.5. SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF ANY NEWSEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE #1710, THE SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE ISREQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT.6. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINEPROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS PROCEDURES AND MATERIALSSPECIFICATION. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED,ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALLUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUNDFIRE SERVICES PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVALSTORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATER FORIRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE.2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS.3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTO VEGETATEDAREAS.4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES.5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASED DETENTION.6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND MINIMIZECHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OR EQUIVALENT.8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSE SPECIESAPPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/OR DISEASE-RESISTANT,DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS. (C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDESAND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS.9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE OR SANITARYSEWER.10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENTEROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED.11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS,SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TO BE PROTECTED ANDRETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES.12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THE FOLLOWING: (A)CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS,INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS AND SCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION,FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , AND STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED ORCLEARED MATERIAL, (C) SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDEMETHODS AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FORTEMPORARY AND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEWATERING ANDOBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G.BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS)16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS, EARTHENDIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS OR JUTE MATS, COVERSFOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC.17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFF AROUND THESITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES)18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTIONIMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS,DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS.20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED AREAWHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED.21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES PROPERLY TOPREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALLEMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S.23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDINGPAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUMPRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURALCOPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES.1. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL E CONNECTED TO THEEXISTING LATERAL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE PER MUNCIPAL CODE 15.08.050, NO SUB-LATERALTO THE MAIN SEWER IS PERMITTED.2. A SEPARATE ADDRESS TO THE ADU IS REQUIRED, PLEASE COMPLETE THE APPLICATION FORMFOUND AT: WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG.PUBLIC WORKS ADU NOTESScale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANA1.03 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: July 6, 2022 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: July 11 , 2022 FROM: Erika Lewit, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF REVISIONS REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCITON PERMIT PROJECT AT 2758 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1. Summary: An application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction permit for first and second story additions to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling at 2758 Summit Drive, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on June 27, 2022 (see attached June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Planning Commission approved the application with the following condition of approval to address their concerns listed below:  that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing planters at the sides of each of the three decks and a more developed landscape plan to provide screening along the right side property line between the two single unit dwellings; In review of the project, the Planning Commission noted the following concerns: - planters should be added at the sides of all three decks in order to provide privacy between the subject property and the neighbor to the right; and - a landscape plan showing additional plantings along the right side property line should be provided to investigate further opportunities for new landscaping that can provide enhanced privacy. The applicant submitted revised plans (sheets A202, A203, and A207) and an explanation letter dated July 1, 2022 , to show planters on both sides of the upper level decks and on the right side of the lowest level deck. A proposed tree/large-scale shrub is shown to be planted on the right side property line. The proposed tree/shrub species, a Cherry Laurel (or similar) is noted to be fast-growing and to reach heights of 20-25 feet, which at maturity should place it approximately level with the lower half of the kitchen window on the neighbor’s property. The proposed species should thrive even in the shade cast by the existing tree on the neighbor’s property and by the houses. No additional changes beyond those requested by the Commission are proposed to the approved design of the house. If the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Attachments: Community Development Department Memorandum July 6, 2022 Page 2 June 27 , 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated July 1, 2022 Revised Plans (sheets A202, A2 03, and A207) dated July 1 , 2022 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, June 27, 2022 c.2758 Summit Drive, R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit 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. (Raymond Frank, applicant and architect; Charles Chiparo and Laura Rupenian, property owners) (77 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2758 Summit Dr - Staff Report 2758 Summit Dr - Attachments 2758 Summit Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Raymond Frank, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide drawings to show the location of the neighbor ’s kitchen and bedroom windows so we can have a better idea of how those windows relate to the proposed addition and decks. >It’s greatly improved from the last time. I appreciate that it looks more together and is a tighter design . We received the e -mail from the neighbor regarding trees and staff responded to it. Suggest helping the neighbor, who appears very close to this project, by planting additional landscaping to make this work out for her, that would be greatly appreciated. The project has come along nicely. >I would echo that, thanks to the applicant and the architect for listening to all the comments and making all of those changes. It fully reflects the conversation we had at the last meeting. >Planters should be added at the sides of all three decks in order to provide privacy between the subject property and the neighbor to the right. I would like to make sure we do see those permanent planters put on the decks with the final plan; that could potentially come back as an FYI. >I would also like to see a more developed landscape plan. It is pretty bare between the two houses and if you go into the neighbor's house on the right, you look right out at the deck. It would be a benefit to both parties, especially if this deck is going to be increased in size, if the applicant would add trees on that property line. A landscape plan showing additional plantings along the right side property line should be provided to investigate further opportunities for new landscaping that can provide enhanced privacy. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application with Page 1City of Burlingame June 27, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, an FYI application shall be submitted showing planters at the sides of each of the three decks and a more developed landscape plan to provide screening along the right side property line between the two single-unit dwellings. Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfaff, and Tse5 - Absent:Lowenthal, and Schmid2 - Page 2City of Burlingame July 1, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 2758 Summit Drive To Whom It May Concern: As requested by the Planning Commission, we have provided a landscape plan to show a new screening shrub to be planted at the right side of the property, adjacent to the proposed deck. The proposed planting is a Cherry Laurel, which is a fast-growing plant that has a mature height at 20 feet to 25 feet. This would be sufficient to address the concerns of the neighbor. We have also indicated that there will be permanent planters on both sides of the new decks at the main and lower level 1. Lower level 2 will have a permanent planter installed at the right side only. I trust this information has been sufficient to satisfy your questions and concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any further questions or require any further information. Sincerely, Raymond D. Frank Jr. EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR0"EXISTING ROOF11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL 1-9' -0"PROPOSEDLOWER LEVEL 2-18' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD FASCIA & TRIM TO REMAINMILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK FRAME (TYP.) ALUMINUM PIPE RAILING (TYP.)NEW FIBERGLASS EXTERIOR DOOR, BLACK FRAME (TYP.)MILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK TRIM (TYP.) STAINED WOOD PLANK SIDING SIDE PROPERTY LINESIDE PROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE12' - 0"POINT OF DEPARTUREPOINT OF DEPARTURE12' - 0"7' - 6"-25' - 7"-23' - 4"HARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANEL & BELLY BANDCOLOR: COBBLESTONE7' - 6"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE9' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"PLATE HEIGHTPLATE HEIGHTPLATE HEIGHTEXISTING FIRSTFLOOR LEVEL0"EXISTING ROOFLEVEL11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL-9' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR: BEIGEEXISTING VINYL WINDOWWHITE TRIM (TYP.)HORIZONTAL PIPE RAILING (TYP.)SHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20211/22/21RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCEREAR ELEVATION2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING REAR ELEVATION EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR0"EXISTING ROOF11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL 1-9' -0"PROPOSEDLOWER LEVEL 2-18' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD FASCIA & TRIM TO REMAINHARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANEL & BELLY BANDCOLOR: COBBLESTONEALUMINUM PIPE RAILINGHARDIE BOARD ARCHITECTURAL PANELCOLOR: COBBLESTONEMILGARD V250 VINYL WINDOWBLACK FRAME (TYP.) STAINED WOOD PLANK SIDING PROPERTY LINEEXISTING FIRSTFLOOR LEVEL0"EXISTING ROOFLEVEL11' -6"EXISTING LOWERLEVEL-9' -0"EXISTING BUILT UP ROOFING TO REMAINPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR: BEIGEEXISTING VINYL WINDOWWHITE TRIM (TYP.)HORIZONTAL PIPE RAILING (TYP.)PROPERTY LINESHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20303/07/22RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCELEFT SIDE ELEVATION2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT SIDE ELEVATION LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL ON-SITE UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. ANY DAMAGE OR INTERUPTION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILTIY OF THE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR EXISTING TREES BY INSTALLING TEMPORARY FENCING AROUND THE TREES AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE DRIPLINE.2.FINISH SUBGRADE FOR ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE GRADED WITHIN ±0.1' OF PROPOSED FINISH GRADE AND FREE OF ALL TRASH AND DEBRIS.3.ALL TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED IN PITS TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE BALL AND NO DEEPER THAN THE DEPTH OF THE BALL. SCARIFY ALL TREE PIT SIDES PRIOR TO PLANTING. ALL TREES ARE TO PLANTED PLUMB AND AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE FINISH GRADE. ALL TREE PITS ARE TO HAVE A 3" WATERING SAUCER FORMED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PIT. ALL TREE PITS ARE TO BE TOP DRESSED WITH A 3" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. 4.TREES SHALL BE STAKED WITH TWO PRESSURE TREATED 2" DIA. POLES. TREE TRUNK SHALL BE SECURED WITH TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS FORMING A FIGURE-EIGHT BETWEEN TRUNK AND STAKE..5.TILL THE EXISTING SOIL OF ALL PLANTING BEDS TO A MINIMUM OF 6". ADD A 4" LAYER OF PREMIUM COMPOST AND TILL INTO THE TOP 6" OF THE EXISTING SOIL. INSTALL ALL SHRUBS 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE AND FERTILIZE WITH SLOW RELEASE FERTILIZER TABLETS OR EQUIVALENT WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RATES OF APPLICATION. TOP DRESS ALL PLANTING BEDS WITH A 2" LAYER OF SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH.6.SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED AS NECESSARY. SOIL AMENDMENT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. ROCKS LARGER THAN 1 INCH DIAMETER WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN TYPICAL NATIVE PLANT LANDSCAPE AREAS.7.ALL TURF AREAS AS INDICATED ON THE PLAN SHALL BE SOLID SODDED WITH A SPECIES NORMALLY GROWN IN LOCALITY, LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOUR OF THE LAND. ALL SOD IS TO BE LAID WITH TIGHT JOINTS AND WITH ALL JOINTS STAGGERED. ALL JOINTS SHALL BE TOPDRESSED WITH A SAND/SOIL MIX ROLL ALL SOD WITH A WATER BALLAST LAWN ROLLER AFTER INSTALLATION AND FERTILIZE WITH A COMPLETE FERTILIZER (13-13-13) AT THE RATE OF 1.5# PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET. WATER ALL SOD THOROUGHLY.BOTANICAL NAMESIZE/ SPACINGCLPRUNUS LAUROCERASUS15 GALLONCOMMON NAMEABBR.1QTY.CHERRY LAURELGROWTHFASTSUMMIT DRIVE(50' WIDTH)85.46'201.89'233.00'20.61'45.0'NON-FRUIT & NON-NUT BEARING TREE (TYP)(E) LANDSCAPE TREES (TYP.)EXISTING SIDEWALK2758 SUMMIT DRIVEEXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCENEW ADDITIONATOC = EL. 208.475NEW SCREENING PLANT.SEE PLANT SCHEDULE.PROVDE PERMANENT PLANTER BOXES AT BOTH SIDES OF NEW DECKS AT MAIN LEVEL AND LOWER LEVEL 1 AND LEFT SIDE ONLY OF LOWER LEVEL 2SHEETDATEDRAWN BY:REVISIONSRAYMOND D. FRANK JR, R.A.PHONE: 650.387.8307RAYMOND@FRANKARCHITECTURE.COMALTHOUGH EVERY ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE PREPARATION OF THESE FORMS AND PLANS TO AVOID MISTAKES, THE MAKER CANNOT GUARANTEE AGAINST HUMAN ERROR, NEITHER THIS PLAN, NOR ANY PORTION OF THIS PLAN, SHALL BE COPIED, (UNDER FS HR5490 OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING ACT OR ITS EQUAL). THE CONTRACTOR, BUILDER AND/ OR OWNER SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL APPLICABLE CODES, LAWS, SIZES, DIMENSIONS, DETAILS, QUANTITIES, FINISHES, ETC, AND SHALL BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME. THE CONTRACTOR IS URGED TO COMPLETELY REVIEW ALL INTENDED WORK WITH THE OWNER AS THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE ORDERS APPROVED OR ACCEPTED BY THE OWNER BASED ON "NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS" OR "MISTAKE ON THE PLANS". FURTHER, THE OWNER AND/ OR CONTRACTORS ALSO AGREE TO COVER ANY AND ALL LEGAL FEES, EXPENSES, AWARDS, ETC. ARISING FROM ANY PROBLEMS OR LITIGATIONS. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FASCIA EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE CONDITIONS.RAYMONDFRANKA R C H I T E C TA20706/30/22RDFREMODEL & ADDITION TO RESIDENCELANDSCAPE PLAN2758 SUMMIT DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"PLANTING SCHEDULE3/32" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLAN - LANDSCAPINGCHERRY LAUREL SAMPLE PHOTONOTE:PROPOSED PLANTING SHALL BE CHERRY LAUREL OR OTHER REASONABLY COMPARABLE SPECIES, IF AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, THE PROPOSED VARIETY IS NOT AVAILABLE OR CANNOTBE REASONABLY PLANTED IN THE PROPERTY'S SLOPING TERRAIN.CL