The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2022.10.11Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online7:00 PMTuesday, October 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 September 19, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 114-2022 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 114-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the October 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 October 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 10/6/2022 October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 830 2039 5883 Passcode: 880447 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 830 2039 5883 Passcode: 880447 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. 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 Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study - Presentationa. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items for review. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/6/2022 October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for 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. (Michael Guillory, Kotas /Pantaleoni Architects, applicant and architect; Sarah and Theo Wong, property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi a. 1805 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to 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. (Michael and Raquel Seitz, applicants and property owners; Julio Guerrero, Guerrero Design, designer) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 1305 Rollins Road, zoned I /I - Application for Commercial Design Review for exterior facade improvements to an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(William Hagman, applicant and architect; Black Mountain Properties, LLC, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon c. Consideration and Recommendation of a Repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Bayfront Development Fee, and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee. (published notice) Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner d. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There are no Design Review Study Items for review. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of October 3, 2022 1 Adrian Ct - FYI for changes to a previously approved Design Review application for a new 265-unit mixed use residential development. a. 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/6/2022 October 11, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 Tuesday, October 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 October 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 October 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 10/6/2022 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 12, 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 August 15, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 099-2022 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 099-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the September 12, 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 September 12, 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 1City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 864 9704 7133 Passcode: 301476 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 864 9704 7133 Passcode: 301476 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, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.August 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes August 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the 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. Page 2City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.230 and 234 Victoria Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Lot Line Adjustment, Lot Frontage, and Lot Width Variances for 234 Victoria Road, and Floor Area Ratio Variance for the Existing Single -Unit Dwelling at 230 Victoria Road. (Ted Catlin, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and architect; Joshua Einhorn and Melissa Nemer, property owners) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 230 and 234 Victoria Rd - Staff Report 230 and 234 Victoria Rd - Attachment 230 and 234 Victoria Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke with the neighbor across the street. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones and Ted Catlin, architects, and Josh Einhorn and Melissa Nemer, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Kieran and Finola Muldowney, 235 Victoria Road: We don't want this to be an us against them type of thing and we didn't want to feel like we were blindsiding anybody in the meeting. We think that's the neighborly thing to do, to be upfront and honest. I think a lot of you know us from around the neighborhood. I want to be conscious of your time so you'll get right to the point. On the variance application Section D, my opinion is that's not quite accurate how that's being determined there. If you look on the map that was provided and go to Victoria Road, Bancroft Road, Channing Road, Stanley Road and Dwight Road, as you continue up all those streets that are parallel they actually are 50-foot lots. They don't change the lots that are less than 50 wide until you go perpendicular and that would be Howard Avenue, Burlingame Avenue and so forth. We're talking about something that I don't feel is accurate in the application. On Section B, I don't understand what the rush is here. We don't know what they're going to do with the property once these lines are divided and there is just too much ambiguity. It's tough as neighbors to get behind and be agreeable to something that we don't know what the end result will be . You come to an application and there's a single -family home there. To be honest, I would prefer not to have another house across the street from me, but it's their right to build this. If that's their right, good for them, but it's going to get sold. That's great for Josh and Melissa, but I don't know if it's necessarily good for the neighborhood. Parking is a significant issue in our neighborhood. Just in the area of Humboldt Road and Howard Avenue before you get onto Rollins Road, we have 16 businesses there and all those workers need somewhere to park; you need to look at that also. The biggest message here was in its current form, this needs more time and we would appreciate it if you would consider that. Thank you for your time. >Adam and Davina Chall, 616 Lexington Way: My wife and I live in the neighborhood with the Einhorn and Nemer family. We had to go before the Planning Commission to renovate our own home. I want to say it was actually a fantastic experience and I never came on to say thank you. The Commission sent us back once with a front porch which we enjoy. We recognize the important work you do in considering these proposals. I just wanted to say thanks for the great experience we had. We're here to speak in support of the Commission granting this variance. We have known Josh and Melissa for quite some time and they are great members of the community and candidly, dear friends. We have studied the proposal . We have read the application and staff report in detail and reviewed the plans as well. As Mr. Terrones pointed out, this was originally two lots. Obviously, the original owners built the home over the middle of it, Page 3City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes so putting Josh and Melissa in a pickle. Removing a portion of their home is clearly a hardship that would be unreasonable to expect anybody to undertake. We have a 5,000 square foot lot here, we love our home and we're really happy to have the opportunity to be part of this community. The proposal in front of you, while it creates an irregular lot because that's what they are able to do, does create a 5,000 square foot new lot. I heard Josh clearly say, he doesn't know what might happen with it, but clearly I think we might all expect that a new single -family home would get built on this surplus land. I believe that's a common sense proposal that we take 12,000 square feet of land and create two lots so two families can have homes on. I know that we're just so grateful to be here. California has a severe housing shortage and Burlingame does a good job of recognizing we need to do our part. Supporting this so that a new home can get built on that new land is the right thing to do here. So just wanted to again say thank you for our experience and thank you for hearing me out. >Sean and Olivia Canniffe, 223 Victoria Road: Thanks for the hearing and allowing us to speak. We have known Josh and Melissa for over a year and they have been a nice family. We get along with them fine. We’re not here to create alarm or anything. It's that there's just so much uncertainty around the neighborhood about what can be done with the property. I know your time is short so I ’ll get straight to the point. We live in a neighborhood which for the last 18 years has been a family -friendly neighborhood. We have block parties, Halloween parties, Christmas and holiday get -togethers and it has been like that always. The danger here is if the two lots are separated and approved the way it's being proposed and there's no plans to do anything with it, what is to stop a developer from buying both lots and developing them both as apartments under SB 9. If we have that situation, it will completely destroy the character of the neighborhood that we brought our kids up in. I hope that doesn't happen. I heard Josh earlier on saying that isn't the intention. I hope that's the case, I have no reason to disbelieve that. However, obviously that's a concern. The second concern that we have is regarding parking; parking around here is abysmal. We have the new park which we're grateful for, we have Victoria Park, we have a lot of light industrial buildings on Rollins Road, and we have Kitchentown. Most days when we come home from work, it's really difficult to find a parking space on the block, and this will make it even worse. We only actually heard about this project last week. My wife has been out recently because her mother died and I'm busy at work. We seem to have been given a really short period of time to digest all this information or get our heads around it. I would really appreciate if the Commission would continue it for a couple of weeks to at least figure out what we're going to say or even if we have any objections. And it also would give the time to the City to do a parking survey which is really important. Thanks for your time. >Public comment sent via email by Ken and Marilyn Dittman: By way of introduction, my name is Ken Dittman. My wife, Marilyn, and I have enjoyed living on the corner of Victoria Road and Burlingame Avenue for 37 years. In that time, we have seen families change along with the development and improvement which often accompanies them. Anyone living on Victoria Road can attest that the families in our neighborhood have fostered a community where everyone is welcomed and appreciated, and everyone has a voice. To the matter at hand, our home is located across the street from 230 and 234 Victoria Road. We are writing to formally express our concerns regarding this application and proposed project . Apparently, this project has been underway behind the scenes for many months, yet as a long -time homeowner literally within feet of the project we are just learning about it via a postcard from the City of Burlingame Community Development Department, posted on the Friday afternoon of a three -day holiday weekend. The timing of the City’s notice certainly does not allow much time prior to the Public Hearing to review and understand the full impact of the proposal. While we do not purport to be familiar with the City’s Planning Department or its processes, in our opinion, there needs to be more clarity as to what, exactly, the intentions of the owner /developer of this property are. We are not necessarily concerned with what we do know, it is what we do not know that is very unsettling. Any Municipal Code issues aside, to the lay person the lot line adjustment (s) identified in the Variance Application seem to be straightforward as to intent; however, final disposition of Parcel A is not addressed at all. Statements include that the “dilapidated” structure on Parcel A may be renovated or may be removed and may be replaced with a single unit dwelling or may be sold for development by others. We appreciate that no one has a crystal ball, but we strongly believe the approval of these variances puts us on the edge of a very slippery slope . We respectfully request the Planning Commission allow additional time for further discussion on this Page 4City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes matter to provide clarity to those of us that not only have a significant vested interest in the future of the neighborhood, but the entire Burlingame community. >Public comment sent via email by Sean and Olivia Canniffe, 223 Victoria Road: We are writing this letter to the Commission because of our concerns over the proposed variances being discussed, and possibly granted, at tonight ’s Public Hearing regarding dividing the lot at 230 and 240 Victoria Road. We are very worried that granting the variances necessary to divide the lot has the potential to change the entire character of the neighborhood. It is our understanding that recent legislation passed in Sacramento would allow the current or future owners to subdivide the resulting new lots once more, and that in the worst case scenario those lots could be used to build multiple residential units. We have lived at our home on Victoria Road for 18 years and have brought our three children up here. Our block, and the surrounding blocks, have been the perfect location for young families, and that is the main reason we moved here. The recent renovation of Victoria Park was welcomed by all the neighbors as it gives other young families the same chance to enjoy the neighborhood as we did, and still do. It is impossible to overstate the strength of the community we have all built in this little corner of Burlingame. As well as the potential to destroy the family -orientated nature of our neighborhood, we also have deep concerns about the parking situation on our block. It is already bad. We own two cars and when we are all at home at least one is parked in our driveway, meaning we only need to find space on the block for one car . Unfortunately that is not possible a good percentage of the time. Many people who work in the light industrial buildings on or near Rollins Road use our block to park, as do many of the people who work at and frequent Kitchentown on Bayswater. As well as this, people who use Victoria Park use our block to park their vehicles, particularly so as an entrance was made into the park from our block. Another concern we have is the speed at which this appears to be moving through the planning process. We received the postcard about the hearing only last Thursday, September 8th. As we were away that day, we effectively only got to know about all this on Friday, September 9th, leaving us just three days to ingest all the information and possibilities. We have no idea what the intentions of the current owners are right now, but we do know some of the options that they or any future owner would have. In order to grant the variances the Planning Department would have to overlook some fairly significant longstanding City codes . Those codes have guided the planning process for many years and are there to protect the integrity of neighborhoods such as ours. We urge the Planning Commission to put this decision on hold for at least two weeks. In the scheme of things that delay will not significantly affect the plans of the homeowners of 230 Victoria Road, but it will give everyone else on the block some time to gain a better understanding of what is being proposed and what the final intentions are. We also ask that the City of Burlingame carry out a parking survey of our neighborhood in that time. We also ask that survey includes weekends when the park is being used the most. We appreciate that the decisions of the Planning Committee are always made in the best interests of the City of Burlingame and its residents. We just ask for enough time to make sure that the decision is not made without input from the neighbors who will be affected. Thank you for your time in reading and considering this. >Public comment sent via email by Tony and Cris Toti, 224 Victoria Road: Hello Burlingame Commissioner, We have lived and raised our two girls here for over 20 years. We absolutely adore Burlingame and all that the community offers. The only concern we have with the application for Project Site 230 & 234 Victoria Road zoned R-1, is that if it is granted, that there would be a multi -family units being built there. We feel that it would change the dynamics of this charming single -family home neighborhood. Thank you for your time and we appreciate all that you do for the City of Burlingame. >Public comment sent via email by Daniel, 225 Victoria Road: I just received a postcard informing me that the hearing is for tonight (9/12) at 7pm. Is there a possibility that the hearing could be delayed and /or additional time (days/weeks) could be granted before a decision is made? The reason for this request is that: 1) my family can learn more about this proposed change, and 2) since we just found out about this notice, we're struggling to figure out how we can attend. There isn't a lot of time to understand these changes, and we have concerns about the impact to the lack of parking in the area and potential construction. If this is possible, we'd appreciate it greatly. As a family of four, we value how our street is family-friendly, and we'd like to preserve the feel of our area if possible. Thank you, Page 5City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public comment sent via email by Kieran and Finola Muldowney, 235 Victoria Road: We live across the street from 230 and 234 Victoria. My wife Finola Muldowney and I have some concerns regarding the application for the lot line adjustment and variances for Floor Area Ratio for the second lot. We have lived at our current home since 2003 and have lived in Burlingame since 1994. The Lee family who lived at 230 Victoria Road built the house in 1947 and lived there until 2020; they were wonderful neighbors. When our new neighbors, the Einhorn's moved in a little more than a year ago, we were very happy to see a new family in the neighborhood. The Einhorn's have been a great neighbors and we are happy to have them in the neighborhood. My wife and I have been active in the Burlingame Community for many years and intend to continue doing so for many years to come. This email is not intended to be necessarily against what the Einhorn's are applying for but there's also a big picture that we think needs to be considered. We are very much for improving our neighborhoods here in Burlingame but also see the need to maintain the guidelines set forth in our Municipal Code which we believe are in place to conserve and protect the integrity of our neighborhoods. We believe that the Einhorn's intent is good here and this is an unusual situation. The reality is also that sometimes circumstances change, and this is where we believe it's important to look at what could potentially happen if this application is passed in its current form. For this reason, we would ask that more time to given so that the residents of Victoria Road would have time to understand the application and have a little more clarity as to the end result. Looking at this application there are several things that don't comply with the Burlingame Municipal Code, or at least that is our interpretation. We think these should be considered in the overall big picture. Table 25.10.2 – Density 25.10.090 – Lots shall have an average width of not less than 50 feet 25.10.060 – Max Floor Area ratio 25.10.2 – Setback requirements 25.10.055 - Declining height envelope 25.52.020 – Legal nonconforming lots may not be modified in any manner that increases the degree of nonconformity For the purpose of being mindful of everyone's time, we have sent those separately through the Planning Department and each commissioner should have got a copy. >(Terrones: First of all, this application has not been rushed. If Josh and Melissa had their way, we would have been on our way much sooner than is now. In regards to any sort of sense of rushing, this step is what's necessary for Josh and Melissa to get to a next step of some certainty in order to figure out what can happen on that property. Without this consideration, there's a risk that dilapidated portion of their lot will sit and remain fallow because they have no desire to develop there. In fact, they have plans that they are working through, as Josh mentioned, for landscaping and improvements to their existing house. The fact that they are committing to improving their existing house actually addresses neighbors’ concerns over the danger of some intense development. In fact, that danger exists now. Regardless of this application, Josh and Melissa could sell this lot and a developer would love to have this lot to split, create more density and more parking situations in that neighborhood. Instead, Josh and Melissa are committing to their portion of the property at 230 Victoria Road and just looking to do something that brings it more into conformity in terms of the several nonconformities and then allows them to do something with the other portion of that lot that they don't need. And it can contribute to, as a modest property in the neighborhood.) >(Catlin: I’ll also add, on top of what Richard was saying with the concerns about SB 9, we should be very clear that it is currently two existing lots and this lot line adjustment would not affect their eligibility for SB9. Currently, there are two lots on this subject site that are eligible for SB 9 and after this proposed lot line adjustment, there will still be two lots, so that concern might be a little bit misstated.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 6City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I wanted to make a statement that this is not an R 2 zone. So, the idea that this is going to become an apartment complex, I don't think is possible given that it's actually zoned R 1. As was stated, the lots are the same and the fear of SB 9 is the same. It doesn't change anything, so it's no different than any of these lots that are facing this lot. They all have the same risks of SB 9 that these lots have. I don't know that this changes any of that. What I do see is that it does make the new lots more conforming. They are not perfect, but it is better than the existing condition now. I agree with Mr. Terrones in that if they don't have some certainty about this property line, there's no reason to do anything other than to let that second house rot. It actually is a danger as other people will break into it, so this is a step forward for this property. I don't think it puts any of the neighbors in any more risk. It's not changing their parking area. I'm sorry their area is challenging. There are a lot of areas in Burlingame that have similar challenges with parking but this is not an action that's going to change that. So, I ’m in support of approving this so that they can move forward. >First of all, I appreciate all of the community input. Clearly, there's passion around it. I don't see what an alternative is. Having more time to study it doesn't help, if there were options that would be different than this outcome, then maybe that would make sense. I think Richard Terrones made some good points . The floor area ratio is still going to govern that smaller site, so it would encourage a smaller house which is good for Burlingame in terms of affordable housing. If there were some alternatives that somehow were going to be brought up, then maybe it requires more time but it seems that this is an improvement from a nonconforming situation and we're still going to be able to have control over what gets developed on that smaller lot. > I too see that this is a step forward for the property owner. The architect has done extensive work and there's been a lot of discussion about all the technical opportunities or limitations that they face with this property. They essentially are trying to make these nonconforming conditions conform to existing code . We have some guidelines in place for addressing it in the future, if the larger home was to be demolished, it would need to return to a standard FAR for the property. Those are all protective elements for the future, either reconstruction on that property or for both properties. I do think that the smaller property is a little bit more challenging to build a new home on because of this narrower lot size, however, it is definitely possible with our planning guidelines. I would think that with the shortage of housing in California that it would be great to see this kind of empty lot be developed into a new or a better home for another family to move into. So, I too support this project moving forward. I do also appreciate all of the community comments and thoughts to help with this decision. >I'm going to go on a different direction. I'm really having a problem with the variances because they are big asks to me. One of the variances has to be granted to grant the next one. You have to have the lot width variance to get over to the FAR variance. It seems like too many steps to me. It is two lots, it's not unheard-of in this town to buy a lot and tear an entire house down and build a house that is conforming. I’m not asking that, but a creative remodel could bring the bigger house into conformance because it can use some help. I was noticing that there are six bedrooms in that house, so would that require a three -car garage or two-car garage? They still don't have off -street parking, they would need an additional parking space for six bedrooms. There are other issues that are coming up. As was stated by some of the neighbors, really and truly all lots in this neighborhood are 50-feet wide. When you start going to that, then I go to the required findings for a variance. Maybe I can make the argument for where there are exceptional extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or that don't apply to the property in the same district. But in my opinion, this can easily be solved by a creative remodel . Granting the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of property rights of the applicant; I don't see that at all because the applicant obviously has been meaning to do something if they are able to afford the property. The granting of the application would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity will not be detrimental to public health safety and general welfare; I think that it will because it's going to create more of a parking issue. I think it is changing the character of the neighborhood. This is the most convincing, the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity; I don't see that at all. Again, there's going to be work done on these properties, so why don't we work with the existing structure, keep the lot line where it is, and make both of the lots and both houses conforming. I can't get over the amount of variances that are needed to make this work. >This is really difficult. I am having trouble with it because I don't know what's coming. I think they Page 7City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes should use the current lot line. It’s true, everybody in Burlingame with a minimum 3,000 or 1,500 square foot lot, I don't remember, can build and use SB 9. I’m also having trouble with it because I would have had a better feel about it. We all know that Mr. Terrones is an incredible architect and I would have loved to have seen this come as a project either with the lot as -is and the changes on the current house, a house or no house, but something done already so that I could also make the leap that this was not going to be turned into some large project that had been taken down to the studs because that happens in Burlingame. Not to accuse the Einhorn ’s of having malicious intent, not all. Usually when these are done, it's with a project in mind and this would not be a problem if I can see what is coming next. I have some concerns about this project also. >I too have enjoyed the community involvement on this. Obviously, it struck a nerve with several folks and we certainly appreciate the words. I have a hard time trying to restrict these owners when a house was previously built and approved in an incorrect way. Obviously, there probably wasn't a Planning Commission around to approve this house back in the day and now these folks are having to deal with those repercussions. All over Burlingame you get some of these issues where structures may have been built over property lines and it can create several issues with neighbors. I do agree though that this project would probably be a lot easier for me to go forward with it if it was attached to another project. I totally understand the limitations. So the only limitation I have on approving this is why are we doing this? I understand and Mr. Terrones made a great point, but why? All of the reasons make sense, but why are we actually doing this? What is it going to do to change anything? Whether you split the lot or not, the house, the dilapidated property can exist or not exist. It doesn't change anything. It can sit there and nothing in this is requiring it to be torn down or remedied. It's a tough one but at the end of the day, my conclusion is, I don't want to hold these homeowners accountable for a previous decision and that's where I’m leaning. >I’m still having trouble that we're having to grant one variance to get to another variance and grant that . But again, people buy houses all the time that have issues and need work done on them and we'll see a couple tonight that are remodels. I’m really struggling with the amount of variances and the types that they are. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application with the following amended condition: >that if the floor area ratio on Lot 23, 230 Victoria Road is increased at a later date, or the existing house is proposed to be altered so that it is considered a new structure or is demolished, that the Floor Area Ratio Variance shall become void. Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse4 - Nay:Gaul, and Pfaff2 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.209 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 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jorge Carbonell, Carbonell, architect; Melissa and Glen Kirk, property owners) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 209 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 209 Dwight Rd - Attachments 209 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 8City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Jorge Carbonell, designer, and Melissa and Glen Kirk, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project has been improved and the proportions look better; it looks more like it was originally built this way. It could be a real asset to the neighborhood. It reuses an existing property cleverly and I like the additional landscaping that was not there last time. It's very nicely done. >I’ll echo my fellow commissioner's points. They heard the comments about the windows and the proportions and everything matches a lot better than it did before. The addition of the landscaping shows the intent of making this a nice-looking project. I find it very supportable. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.2669 Martinez Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a 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. (David Kuoppamaki, applicant and designer; Grace and Larry Ngai, property owners) (80 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2669 Martinez Dr - Staff Report 2669 Martinez Dr - Attachments 2669 Martinez Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. David Kuoppamaki, designer, and Grace and Larry Ngai, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Byron and Miriam Maldonado, 1 Toledo Court: My wife sent an email maybe last week with a couple of pictures showing the new poles that we put up. If you did see it, you should be able to tell that the new proposed modification to the structures will block our view. The architect made a comment that they want larger windows because they want to enjoy the view. With the same principle, that's what we have from our window facing east including the master bathroom, and the reason we have larger windows is because we want to enjoy the view that we currently have. If they do approve this new construction, obviously, it ’s going to block our view. We all know here in Burlingame that views are an asset to the property, every property Page 9City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes owner enjoys the view that they have. If this is going to be something that's going to get in the way that we no longer get to enjoy this view, we cannot approve or we cannot just let him do it because you take advantage of enjoying the view against our view. From that point on, we will no longer have what we have been enjoying for the last 20 something years. So, my suggestion is that they have to either lower the roof so it doesn't block at all our current view. I don't think we should compromise in any way, shape or form to have a partially blocked view from this new construction. I wonder if you did see the email that we sent and I suggest that you take a second look and see how you feel about it because as we speak, we don't really think that this new proposal should move forward. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Correct drafting errors to properly match the floor plan windows with the elevations. >Concerned about the cricket and the long length of roof that is north facing side. If there's any water or leaves trapped under the eave in that area, that can create a nightmare. >Consider matching the size of the corner windows at the rear elevation to five feet in height. >To address Mr. Maldonado’s questions and concerns, our code states that the view preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to the San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas. I was not able to get to his house to see that view and I don't know if any other commissioners had ex -parte communications or able to get into his house so see. From the pictures that were submitted, I don't see a view blockage of the bay, of the airport or of Mills Canyon. I see a slight view blockage of some office buildings. I am actually really pleasantly surprised to see the improvement in the architectural design in going away from the flatter roof. It's a much better looking project and I’m impressed that the pitch of the roof is kept flat enough not to block the views but that's my take on it. >Similarly, I did read the neighbor ’s email, looked at the photos very closely, and I appreciate the effort that both parties did on this with both the story poles and the view. Any changes, of course, to a view is sad and it's a change. But I really wouldn't be able to call it a blockage of the bay. What I see is a blockage of the BART residential complex that's coming up there. I didn't see a blockage of any other view. If I’m being honest, I thought it was also an improvement with the roof. Personally, it's not make or break, but the windows could be vastly improved if they break up the glass a little bit in a modern way. It could look really nice. You still have your view and the alignment on that corner; it could look more cohesive if that were fixed, it comes five feet in height around the corner it would look better. Otherwise, I’m more satisfied with this than the first one we saw. >I support what my fellow commissioner has said. The new roof is much better than the shed roof that was originally proposed. The fact that the house looks exactly the same from the street is a plus. The photos are appreciated, but I concur with my fellow commissioner that the view blockage is not, in my view, an issue. The rear windows don't bother me that much. They have been aligned and a little bit more cohesive, but I’m inclined to let the architect and the owner decide since it's in the rear yard. >I agree, it has gotten better. I hiked all over that hill from half the street further up, across the street at the other neighbor's house and really found it very difficult to see the story poles. I appreciate the photos being sent in because that is one of the hardest things for us on these kind of designs; either we need to invade your space or you need to submit good photos. Of the photos we received, these are some of the best. However, it does speak to the point that the view blockage is really in the foreground and not of the distant views as the code requires. So, I can support this project moving forward. >I appreciate the effort from the applicant to try to explain the story of the trees, that's great. When I commented last time about the lack of trees in the front I meant the public trees. I did go there, drove by and have been to the site three times trying to figure things out. I see there are a number of trees on your property that are marked as Maple but the one in the front is not a Maple. It's very small and I ’m not really sure that's what I would call a significant tree that adds to the public space. I get that nobody wants huge trees there. I understand that because of the view, but I just ask you whatever that little tree is, it needs some tender loving care if it's going to even look improved over what it is. I know it's a plum or something like that, it's not a big tree but if I ask you if this goes through to pay attention to that tree because it Page 10City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes sounds like you do not intend to put in any more trees, which is disappointing not to have something there . But I did want to acknowledge that I appreciate your answer about the trees in the back. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.1785 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)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Qifeng Lei, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer) (87 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1785 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report 1785 Sebastian Dr - Attachments 1785 Sebastian Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Horan noted that he had an ex -parte communication with an uphill neighbor. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >David Newman: Good evening Commission. In the past, I have heard Commissioner Gaul taking into consideration not just the look of the house or the scale relative to lot size, but also the impact to the environment and how property can cause problems for the neighborhood. As a citizen, I'm grateful for that . The Commission has heard the prior concerns about the unsafe activities of the owners. I know many of the concerning activities fall outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission so I'll hold off on speaking on those. With that said, I do want to raise the unsafe parking situation that persists at this home. As the Commission knows I'm sure from their visits, there are typically four to five passenger cars and industrial vehicles parked up and down the block belonging to these applicants that create an unsafe situation for bikers. Ms. Ann Young, who lives next door, is elderly and has to reverse out of her driveway and there's a typically a massive industrial vehicle there, so I hope that's been noticed. The garage functions as an industrial storage and the current driveway is not lengthy enough to accommodate more than one of their vehicles. I'm worried even with these new plans, the large vehicles that the applicants have won't fit on the proposed driveway. Can we look at the length of the driveway in the plans and whether it provides enough parking for their additional vehicles? From what I can see on the plans, a larger driveway would be a great addition to ensure a safe parking situation. I would love more rigorous study on that topic and an additional site visit from the commissioners. Also, I remember in the last meeting that the architect made a funny statement that he could not articulate the design or aesthetic style. It is nice to see the design look more house-like without the gaudy balconies. With that said, there are very real safety issues here and nothing about the design does anything to address these existing safety concerns with regards to parking. The parking variance stipulation seem like they should be looked at. Grandfathering such little parking for what is a known problem site with regard to vehicles and industrial activity feels like an oversight. I'm also concerned about the size and number of trees given the extensive size of the addition and how the property looms over the neighborhood. I would appreciate the commissioners making another visit to Page 11City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes observe these topics. I would like the City Attorney to take note of this concern should ever an unfortunate event like a fatality arise prior to construction, beginning or after construction is completed, based on these vehicles. These are very important safety reasons that the neighbors on all sides are continuing to speak out about this project and we appreciate the Commission taking one more round to consider the risks given the unique location of the property so close to Trousdale Drive and on a critical walking path that kids take to Burlingame Elementary and Burlingame Intermediate School. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We have all seen that big trucks were parked on the street there. There were some code enforcement issues that apparently have been mitigated and resolved, so I don't know that it is a problem any longer . But the neighbors are certainly able to contact the City if they do see any further problems. As far as I can tell, the parking issue is existing and nonconforming so we let that stand as it is. It's because there's one legal spot in the garage. Typical of Burlingame, people don't put their cars in the garage anyway. So I think that would just be something the neighbors would need to monitor. But at this point, I don't know that we can enforce anything as a Planning Commission. Other than that, the design is much improved from the last time. I don't fault the applicant for taking so long because it took work to get it to where it is and it looks better. I can see this project moving forward. >I agree. It looks to be 25 feet from the garage to the property line which is appropriate for many of these garages that actually face out on to the street and not detached in the back third. So for a garage, that's a typical layout. They actually do have more paved space in front of their garage and it appears that they get a good two to three cars in their off site. I understand the number of cars, but that's not really anything that's relative to Planning Commission ’s guidelines and anything that we have purview to. I do think that the design has gotten much better. It looks very cohesive and I like it. The rendering does a great job of showing the intent. I don't think it's going to be too large in that area. It really looks like many of the other homes in that area that are two levels. The work on the front to reduce the size of the glass facing across the street and removing the doors and the balconies is a huge step in making this fit in a lot better. So, I'm in support of this project and I like to see it move forward. >I went there expecting to see all kinds of trucks and activity. Maybe it was the day that I went, but it was very quiet. It doesn't mean it's always that way. I understand all of us in various neighborhoods have things, that when you live there, know what's going on. I’m sorry about that but it just sounds like that's really something that needs to be dealt with by code enforcement and it's frustrating, I realize that. I really thank the designer, this plan is three hundred percent better. It sits in that little valley area really nicely. I just think it's one of your really better projects. It looks excellent because I remember the first round as well and just want to thank you for being responsive. I know you don't go through the code issues, but I really appreciate the design alterations to reflect many of our comments. >Just to reiterate what my fellow commissioners said, given the purview of the Planning Commission, the resubmission is a much better project than the original. It doesn't discount all of the neighbors ’ complaints and certainly they should continue to pursue those complaints through the right channels. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.720 Newhall Road, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Special Permit for first story plate height for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and new detached garage. (Carlos Rojas, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; John Page 12City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 720 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 720 Newhall Rd - Attachments 720 Newhall 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. Carlos Rojas, designer, and John and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Jen Hoogeveen: The applicants for the project do not live there. Thank you so much Commissioner for bringing up those points. We definitely strongly oppose a large metal roof. We bought our house because we had two very small houses on each side. We really like the views and the light that we get . We have only one small window on the upper side of the bathroom facing south and their house will completely block all of that light that we get on that side of the house. We have a couple of major issues that need to be brought up first. We have a ten year old son that has a severe allergy to sawdust. We had no idea about this until the house behind us being built. Our dear friend Steve was awesome. When he took down the tree, he didn't know what happened but we ended up in the emergency room. Our son was covered head to toe in a rash and it impacted his breathing. Then we figured out it was because the tree was taken down and that the rashes were coming from sawdust from other projects around the area. We were unaware of this and now we are very attuned to it. We blow any sawdust there is and we're very careful. Both my husband and I work from home from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and our jobs involve talking to people. I’m talking to patients and doctors and he's talking to clients. We do believe that any kind of construction from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm would impact our jobs or us keeping our jobs because that's what we have, we need to maintain our house. We do not have any insulation on the south side of our house, so that's just studs and stucco. We hear everything and any kind of project would impact our working day, therefore, putting our jobs at risk and the ability for us to keep our house. We also repaved the front of our house because we had a lot of construction on the block, people parked in front of our house and caused major damage. With our kids playing outside riding bikes it was a safety issue. We paid $2,000 to repave it. We do not want a single car parking in front of our house. We also have just views that would be obstructed. You can imagine going and looking at a large metal roof with a very large front window that is a very monstrous window. We just want to make sure you're highlighting this. I have expressed my views with the Planning Division staff to let them know we're very concerned about this. We've got really awesome neighbors all the way around but we don't have very good communication with these neighbors . We hope that when our kids hit a ball over, they do pass it over within 48 hours. So, thank you so much for your time. Thank you for considering this and thank you for considering the health of our son. >Public comment sent via email by Jen and Eric Hoogeveen: Hello, we would like to provide a public comment for the 720 Newhall Road. We have a number of concerns: 1. Noise - Both my husband and I work from home from 8-5pm and we are on calls throughout the day . We do not have insulation on the south side of our house, which will be exposed to loud and disruptive remodeling noise. We are concerned the noise will not allow us to perform our work tasks successfully therefore, putting both of our jobs at risk. 2. Sawdust - Our 10 year old son has a severe allergy to sawdust. We were unaware of this allergy until our neighbors took down two 100 foot redwood trees and we had to take our son to the emergency room four years ago. We noticed our son's body was covered in a visible rash and he suffered from shortness of breath. We ask that the project work to keep the saw dust to a minimum by putting up a 15-foot fence on the property line to keep the dust at a minimum. We would also like the dust to be swept and cleaned Page 13City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes daily to minimize the dust in the air. 3. Parking - We would like to request additional construction vehicles to not park in front of our house as we had to pay $2000 to repave our property. If there are cars on the property, and damage to the property in front of our bushes, we will ask the neighbors to pay for this property to be repaved to be brought back to its current state. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider reducing the size of the street facing window at the primary bedroom upstairs. It's a beautiful window, but I’m struck by how large it is and how the face of the second story takes over and reduces or dwarfs the first floor area. >Overall I like the quality of the drawings and the project. I do agree that the window in the front seems to be a little overbearing in comparison to the rest of the scale of the elevation. I did take a good look at the upper windows and what they are looking towards, they seem to have done a pretty good job of minimizing large window spaces on either side to the neighbors. It's a two -story home like many of the homes in the area and we are on smaller lots so it fits with the neighborhood; I don't feel that it's out of scale. Given the down slope of the lot going backwards, I can support the height variance. They are not trying to go higher but lower, so that seems straightforward to me. So with some finessing of the windows and maybe doing some coordination with neighbors, this is a good project to move forward. >I would agree, this is a house that they are trying to save and it has good story that goes along with it . This could easily have been a tear down, but the renovation looks good and I love the front porch. I do agree with the front window comments. I also am not sure about the seam metal roof for this style of house, but it looks good. >I’m pleased with the design and I agree with my fellow commissioner regarding the upper floor window, it does seem odd. I feel like a 3D rendering would help a lot in understanding the scale of that window with the porch because it certainly seems massive over the top. I'd like to see more detail on the port hole louvered attic vents. I don't know if they are going to continue with louvered attic vents or it's going to be a window or other material. So we need more clarity there. >Overall, this is a very charming home. I've already made my comments earlier about the couple of items of concern; the large window and I ’m not certain the standing seam metal roof may be the right choice for this home. But it was a very crafty raised height area, how the rear of the house has been tucked in for the addition, I think that's a nice design. I definitely appreciate working with the existing home, expanding it and minimizing those full demolition of an entire home. I just wanted to add the positive thoughts that I have for this project. >I like the project overall. I appreciate saving what you can of an older home and it's a nice quality home. I’m also not one hundred percent sure on the standing seam metal roof, but a rendering goes a long way to bolster your argument. So if it could come back, a 3D rendering might be helpful. Overall, it's a nice project. >I completely agree with my fellow commissioners on everything including the window and the metal roof. I love the story, I happen to know the applicants. It's a nice story and they've done a really beautiful job of reusing an existing structure. I hope things work out with the neighbors. We're all impacted by this small lot so I get it. Commissioner 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:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.1317 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for first and second story plate heights, and Minor Use Permit for detached garage plate height Page 14City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Ardalan Djalali, applicant and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1317 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 1317 Paloma Ave - Attachments 1317 Paloma Ave - 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. Ardalan Djalali, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Reconsider the different siding from the first floor to the second floor on the East Elevation. Those walls are stacked on top of each other and on the same plane, and that small roof is just going to project out a foot or so and go along the edge there. I think that's one of the spots where that detail becomes a little odd. >On the West Elevation, consider keeping the same width of that chimney through the plane of the roof and terminating it at the same height. >I make the findings for the extra half foot of plate height on the lower and upper floors of the house nor for the garage. Because of the strong verticals, it would be better to have it down a little bit, it's not much but it will help. I want to agree with the comment about the chimney. It would be really nice to see that continue up further where it has a more logical end. >On the plate heights, I actually understand the request, not so much based on the doors, but because the kitchen/dining/family area is a huge open space. It's an editorial comment, but since every project is requesting a special permit for plate height we might want to look at increasing that in the Zoning Code because high ceilings in very expensive houses are something people desire. I don't find the driver for that on the garage. I don't think you would notice it is six inches shorter. It is set back and it's a detached garage so I don't agree on the garage, but I understand the request on the first floor. I love front porches, but at 3'-6" wide looks like a faux front porch. I don't think it's very useable and that's a shame because I think the purpose of a front porch is to have chairs and hang out. >I like the look of the project, but the plate heights and the windows are all out of scale. The reason we have those guidelines are so that the houses don't get bigger like this. We have found over the years that many of these projects with the higher plate heights don't look well when they get done. We really want the architects to be creative, to be able to have a well broken up and scaled elevation. When I look at the person standing on the porch, he's dwarfed by the house and that really is something that the applicant should be looking at and getting this back to a human scale. I agree with the chimney and a few of the other things that my fellow commissioners are bringing up, but overall the scale was an issue. I don't support the special permit request for the change in plate height. This one is completely different than the one that we looked at earlier where it was going down, not going up. I would like to see the plate heights looked at again before the project comes back. >I was just driving around that street, in particular that block, and felt there was a really nice quaintness to that neighborhood. Somehow, proportionately the increased plate heights don't work so well for this street. Maybe I could support the main floor but I don't think the upper floor is really necessary. You can utilize the attic space for some volume ceilings to get a little bit more height. I definitely don't think the Page 15City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes garage needs to have an increased plate height, so that's certainly not going to be noticeable as a detached garage in the rear of the property that needs to harmonize with the main floor of the house. I'm not sure if there's too much going on. I appreciate all of the renderings, it helps a little bit. It looks better in the renderings than the elevations. There are too many lines, horizontal and vertical lines, and there are shutters, there are muntin details in the windows, and there are the decorative gable ends. I’m wondering if the applicant might want to take a look at that again and see if it's necessary to have so much detail. I want the front porch to feel more welcoming, a little bit more comfortable for one to use, a little more like the one we saw on a project earlier, it's a little tall. I can see, from what the human figure shown in the elevation, that proportionately it seems like a cold porch. Not one you want to sit down and enjoy ice cream or lemonade on a front porch or anything. I don't know if the stacking on the first floor on the left-hand side is not helping this case too, making the house feel a little boxy and blocked. Certainly, they don't have a declining height envelope issue on that side with a driveway, but I would love to see a little bit more articulation on that side to also improve the wrap around roof that they are attempting on that left elevation. >I would have to agree, there's too much going on. I like some of the details like the gable ends and the knee bracing at the front porch, but I agree with my fellow commissioner's comment, the front porch could be bigger. The stacked wall with the change of siding is where I ’m having a problem with. If there was just the horizontal siding around it would look more traditional like the homes on that block. I don't think I can support the request for a special permit for plate heights because it is a new house and we have not typically approved that. As what my fellow commissioner said, it doesn't give it much of a human scale, it makes it a little too big. I would like to see the plate heights brought down and again like what my fellow commissioner said, the upper floor could be vaulted if you want more volume. 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:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - c.1312 Montero Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for second floor deck for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Kate and Joel Rosenquist, property owners) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1312 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1312 Montero Ave - Attachments 1312 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Richard Terrones, architect and Kate Rosenquist, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 16City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >The style is fabulous; it is a wonderful project. It's great that the property owner wants to reuse the structure completely and is keeping all of the landscaping. >This is a very beautiful and charming design; love the very natural expansion of the home at the rear . It's great that you were able to talk to the neighbor to the right and get their consensus on the project . This is a perfect project to go to the Consent Calendar. >I can support the Special Permit for the second floor deck because 75 SF is allowed and there are 10 -foot wide alleys on two sides of the property, which helps to separate the neighbors. It sounds like they have support from the neighbors. Chair Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - d.2836 Mariposa Drive, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permit for second floor deck for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Audrey Tse, InSite Design Inc ., applicant and architect; Vikram Rao and Sonam Prakash, property owners) (104 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 2836 Mariposa Dr - Staff Report 2836 Mariposa Dr - Attachements 2836 Mariposa Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she is the architect for the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, representing the architect, and Vikram Rao and Sonam Prakash, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Concerned about potential view blockage on the uphill neighbor at 2840 Mariposa Drive. >It is a great looking project. I didn ’t find any issues with regards to views or other impacts from being on the hillside. There is currently a lot of vegetation out there and there isn ’t a lot of view corridors that this project affects, so I can support that. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The proportions are done really nicely on this project. The different materials and the proportions complement each other. >It is a really good project. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 17City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Tse1 - e.777 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Second Review of 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) (24 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. Commissioners Horan, Schmid and Tse noted that they had met with the developer and the architect on site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Marc Huffman, Ben Tranel and Jacob Petersen, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Adrienne Leigh: The giant rectangle I saw when I opened the plans is what struck me first. I request the Commission work at adding some charm, natural feeling, and softening of the project to its exterior shape. It appears purely utilitarian. My comments pertain to neighborhood friendliness, land use, and amenities the building will offer. First, I ’d like to insure that all street and walkway lighting along this project be ark Sky compliant. That all sidewalks are lit with low level pedestrian friendly light fixtures. That the crosswalks and places where driveways cross sidewalks have brighter light on the area to illuminate the pedestrians from the rest of the area. All crosswalks should be high visibility with advance stop lines placed 4 feet in front of crosswalks and perpendicular to vehicular travel direction. All sidewalks should be a minimum of 8 feet wide plus they should be separated by a 4 -foot minimum parkway the entire length of the project. Bollards should be placed at corner of Anza Boulevard and Airport Boulevard to insure no vehicle can drive up over the curb when people are standing there. Sidewalks should have 4-foot wide parkways with a mixture of native Northern California trees and plants to encourage local wildlife to live along Bayfront. Will there be a small gym for the workers to use? Outdoor lunch sitting areas with tables out of the wind? The area where the project is adjacent to the creek should have a few benches for viewing the herons and egrets I have seen wading there where the creek hits the bay. The shoreline should stay natural but be comfortably viewable to the public. The cafe should have tasteful exterior signage to encourage members of the public to visit the cafe. People who work in other buildings or walk the Bay Trail should feel welcomed by the front of the cafe. Again, it should look charming and inviting, not utilitarian. There should be a convenient exterior bike rack for the people who do not work in 777 Airport Boulevard but want to visit the cafe or a friend in the building. I would like to see childcare added to the building. Space set aside for a childcare company to assist parents who work nearby. Additionally, the building should add a roof top restaurant with a beautiful view of the bay . The bay shore is sorely lacking commercial amenities for Burlingame residents to enjoy. Will there be any offices zoned for medical space? Small medical practices have very few choices in Burlingame. And others specifically for small businesses? Is there any first floor retail? We need to think of this as part of a neighborhood and design it to add amenities to the neighborhood. Are there any offices that are Page 18City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes live/work? I’d like to see Burlingame encourage mixed use zoning. Are there EV chargers in the garage? Outside in the stalls? Thank you for your time and attention to my comments. And though I am a commissioner on the TSP Commission, these are my personal comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's heading in the right direction. It's almost like the first plan was a bait and switch. It was really tall and boxy, it's a huge improvement now. I like the articulation of the fa çade, the promenade that's covered would be inviting. As with the other projects, it's figuring out how the public amenity is enough to give back and I’m not sure that one cafe is going to do it. Encourages the developer to think of ways to keep that area lively. The Bay Trail in this area extends under Anza Boulevard, I would like to see if they can help make sure that it is safe with proper lighting. But other than that, they've addressed our preliminary comments at the last meeting and it's much improved. >This has come a long way, a positive way from what we saw and I really do appreciate all the efforts that the team has gone to really listen to the Commission. I also really appreciate that you were able to get the height down because height doesn't have to be necessarily an issue, but when the building is too blocky, it just looks even larger. Very much appreciate pushing that pinched corner back as well. Suggest that perhaps for the pillars or columns around the building and between the stories, if there's a way to be really creative and use a material so a vine can climb up and you have this green element attaching the building to its base and making it feel more organic. It's probably not impossible but I ’m looking at it, it might be really cool and something different, just putting that out for the applicant to consider. I appreciate all the effort you've done. >I really appreciate how this process is working and this is a really good example of how the public and Commission process works for design of a building. It has come around so much in a better form and shape. I really like the scalloping detail, the articulation of the building and the effect of what looks like sails. It definitely does look like a much lighter structure. I did get a chance to see that the model that was prepared, it looks quite nice. It's a challenging site. The height of the building proportionately looks taller because it's a skinnier site. The waterfront view that you put together was very helpful for us to see from a bigger picture across the Bayfront and how your project compares to others currently in the pipeline, so thank you for that doing. Looking at the landscape plans and some of the photographs for some of the furniture, amenities and equipment that may be utilized in the project, we like to see a unifying style to pull it all together. Some images show just tables with four square legs on the corners and others have more design interest. It is preliminary, but I would love to see a more defined set of landscape plans that pull together all the outdoor equipment and furniture in a more unified sense going forward. I thought Adrienne Leigh ’s letter was interesting for a lot of the things she mentioned, but the rooftop restaurant idea certainly is a good one to consider, if there's any ability to bring that into the program of the building that would draw a lot more interest to the area. We have some beautiful views there on the Bayfront and could certainly bring a lot of attention and interest to that part of our City. So, something to consider if you can. I still would also like to see some more street side amenities for the public with either retail space or other additional support spaces, such as a gym or a daycare, something that will definitely work together with the public in a sense of wanting to go to this place as a destination and not that you just happening to be there, so pushing that a little further would be great. Overall, the building is really coming together. I appreciate the reduced height and wish you good luck in trying to get to that December 31st deadline so we can maintain the shortest building that we can, but meet all your program. >I would like to thank the team because you did a really great job of coming back and focusing on the items that were discussed. We had an opportunity to meet and discuss on site and look at the drawings which really helped, being able to see the things that you're working on. The project has come a long way . You've gotten some good feedback tonight. I hope that we can move the project forward and be able to get it going. I support it and I think that there's a lot of good things with this project. >I agree with everything my fellow commissioners have said. The project really looks beautiful. The scallop details and the sail goes well, specifically offsetting the rectangular box we were presented with before. It's a night and day difference and so I ’m pleased with that. I'm pleased with the community Page 19City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes benefits to the Bay Trail. It's really important to me and several folks I have talked to. The waterfront and Bay Trail are dear to the Burlingame community and Peninsula, so I ’m excited about that. It did catch my eye though about the sea level rise infrastructure. It hasn't been designed yet and they are referring to a geotechnical engineer which will refer this to FEMA rules, and I ’m concerned and the riprap can get large . The resilience is through the mid -century, that is only 25 years from now. I would certainly like to see more longevity than mid-century. On paper, the community space looks gorgeous. I love the community space, but now my eyes are caught to the sea level rise infrastructure change and I think we're going to be presented with several of these bayfront properties. I personally might do more research on it, but I like the way the project is going. >I am encouraged by the changes in design, the lightness of the design is encouraging to me. I'm still a bit stuck on the height because on a realistic perspective, I don't know that you can get this in time to get that reduction of 32 feet. If we're going to the steel structure as opposed to concrete, we're only going to lose 15 feet, so the building looks tall and skinny to me and that's probably the problem I have. I like the idea of maybe a top floor restaurant and I brought that up on a couple of other projects, we'll see if the applicant can pull it off. One thing I would encourage the other commissioners to do is walk around the Burlingame Point project. We started out with 20,000 square feet of retail space, but as you walk around what they have done is the same thing they are proposing here and that is to have this amenity space, but it's not accessible to the public. So, at Burlingame Point you have a bike shop and coffee shop, neither on the Bay Trail or along the water. The bike shop is in towards the canal. It didn't come out the way I thought and I reviewed that project from the beginning. I thought we were going to have an amenity space that will be open to the public. I would encourage more public amenity space. We’re trading this height limit for public benefit. There are a lot of users beside the residents of Burlingame who are going to use this. People in hotels would like to take walks and walk along the Bay Trail. I like what's happening with the walking space and the Bay Trail will continue on, but that part of the Bay Trail is a dead end, there's an overpass and there's been some questionable activity down there. I don't know if people would want to go down that way, so we give them another reason to come whether it is something else happening on the ground floor. It doesn't have to be coffee, it can be anything and people come down to see that there is a nice restaurant. Kincaid's is out there all by itself along the waterfront and there are a lot of times you can't get a seat in that place. So if you have something that's nice and workable, people will come. The application is required to return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes environmental review. No vote was taken. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that the City Council reviewed the Design Review project at 1345 Vancouver Avenue (Planning Commission action was appealed by applicant) at their meeting on September 6, 2022. The City Council remanded the application to the Planning Commission for further review. a.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - FYI review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1548 Westmoor Rd - Memo and Attachments 1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners noted the following concerns: Concerned with proposed changes to the second story bay window and scaling of windows at the front of the house. 12. ADJOURNMENT Page 20City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The meeting was adjourned at 10:38 p.m. 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, September 12, 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 September 12, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. September 22, 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 21City of Burlingame 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 6a MEETING DATE: October 11, 2022 To: Planning Commission Date: October 11, 2022 From: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director Subject: Presentation on Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study PRESENTATION: Given that the Planning Commission recently reviewed several proposed Office/R&D and Life Science development projects in the Bayfront area, the Commission expressed interest in receiving a presentation/update on the Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study. Brian Fletcher, president of Callander Associates, will be presenting an overview of the Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study and will be available to answer questions. A copy of the presentation is attached for reference. The full Feasibility Study, dated June 2022, may be viewed at the following link: Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study. Staff would note that the City Council decided not to include the improvements/guidelines for the Bay Trail. This Feasibility Study is only a first step in realizing improvements along Old Bayshore Highway, a portion of Airport Boulevard, and the adjacent Bay Trail. For developers this document is meant to provide a framework to guide planning applications and required frontage improvements. For the City, this study further progresses improvements in the area by crystallizing community and stakeholder input into a new vision for the corridor. This vision can be utilized to identify and secure funding for public improvements and springboard additional required design work leading towards implementation. BACKGROUND: The Old Bayshore Highway Corridor Feasibility Study is a part of an effort to create an overall concept plan for the portion of Old Bayshore Highway that spans from the northern City limits to Broadway (does not include the Bayshore area south of Broadway). The Study also provides a foundation for the final design and serves as a guide for private development along the corridor. The City worked with a design team and engaged with various public and private stakeholders through online surveys to develop potential concepts along the corridor. The online surveys presented the project's context, opportunities, and constraints while obtaining feedback that allowed the design team to determine and refine the community's priorities for the corridor. The preferred concept was selected through public feedback at the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meetings on August 12, 2021 and October 14, 2021. An update to the City Council was presented on February 7, 2022. Attachments: Presentation – Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FEASIBILITY STUDY City Council Presentation BKF CALA City of Burlingame February, 2022 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT DRIVERS • General Plan identified Bayshore Highway as an area primed for redevelopment. • The Feasibility Study is a first step in transitioning the roadway into a more complete street that will support the type of development envisioned. • A corridor that works well for bicycles, pedestrians, mass transit, and vehicles alike while also improving the corridors sense of place. • Additionally, it recognizes the Bay trail as part of the corridor by providing analysis and conceptual designs. FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT GOALS • Engage the community and project stakeholders. • Identify streetscape improvements that will create more convenient and comfortable vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian connections along the corridor. • Explore opportunities to enhance the aesthetics of the corridor to be more inviting and pleasing to residents, employees and visitors. • Analyze and provide conceptual design solutions to close the existing gap in the Bay Trail immediately north of Airport Boulevard. PRESENT PREFERRED / DRAFT CORRIDOR PLAN FOR BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL PRIOR TO PREPARATION OF THE FINAL REPORT EXISTING CONDITIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 1 COMMUNITY SURVEY 1 PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES COMMUNITY SURVEY 2 TSPC MEETING PREFERRED / DRAFT CORRIDOR PLAN TSPC MEETING #2 COUNCIL MEETING FINAL PLAN MEETING GOALS PROCESS ALTERNATIVE 1 3 11 Feet 14 Feet 10 Feet ALTERNATIVE 2 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 4Travel Lanes Turn Lane Typical Sidewalk Width, Inclusive of Planting Strips and Tree Wells Class 2 Buffered Bike Lane Bus Pull-Outs In-Lane Bus Stops Sidewalk Planting Strips Trees In Tree Grates Planted Medians PRELIMINARY OPTIONS OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY ALTERNATIVE 2 - PREFERRED two travel lanes with a center turn laneBAY TRAILBURLWAY RDB U R LWA Y RD SITE FURNISHINGS LEGEND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING BUFFERED BIKE LANE TWO LANE + TURN LANE PAVEMENT TRAIL INDICATORS WIDENED SIDEWALK WITH TREES IN PLANTING STRIPS PEDESTRIAN REFUGE RAISED CYCLE TRACK (AT BUS STOPS ONLY)DECORATIVE RAILING AT EXISTING BRIDGE PLANTED MEDIAN HIGH-VISIBILITY PAINT BUS PULL - OUT IN-LANE STOP WITH SHARED CYCLE TRACK BUS LOADING PLATFORM 1 2 2 5 8 12369 11 13 3 4 8 10 1312 5 6 7 9 11 1 4 7 10 DRAFT GUIDELINES BAY TRAIL OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY SAN FRANCISCO BAYSAN FRANCISCO BAY SIDEWALK SEE ALTERNATIVE PLANS VERTICAL ACCESS WHERE POSSIBLE, ADA COMPLIANT. DESIGNATED BAY TRAIL PARKING WITH ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL CONNECTIING TO BAY TRAIL EXISTING BUILDING EXISTING BUILDING POCKET PARK/ SEATING NODE SEA WALL LANDSCAPE BUFFFER WITH SHORELINE - APPROPRIATE PLANT MATERIAL 12’-0” WIDE ASPHALT BAY TRAIL ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH BAY TRAIL STANDARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT, PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS ARE ENCOURAGED. IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT EXISTING DEVELOPMENTEXISTING DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT EXISTING DEVELOPMENTEXISTING DEVELOPMENT DRAFT GUIDELINES BAY TRAIL BFE CURRENT BFE 2050 BFE 2100 MSL EXISTING GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL. MODIFICATIONS TO WALL HEIGHT TO BE ESTABLISHED. ASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAIL. MAINTAIN TEN FEET OF VERTICAL CLEARANCE. TRAIL ELEVATION TO BE MODIFIED IF NEEDED SUCH THAT TRAIL ELEVATION IS BETWEEN 36 AND 42 INCHES BELOW TOP OF GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL. LANDSCAPE BUFFER. BAY TRAIL AMENTITIES SUCH AS SEATING ARE ENCOURAGED IN THIS ZONE. RIPRAP EXISTING GRADE EXISTING BUILDING OR PARKING LOT MSL 2050 MHT 12’- 0” ≤ 30’-0” ABBREVIATIONS: BFE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MHT: MEAN HIGH TIDE MSL: MEAN SEA LEVEL OL D B A Y S H O R E H I G H W A Y OL D B A Y S H O R E H I G H W A Y EASTON CREEKEASTON CREEKMEA N H I G H T I D E ( M H T ) MEA N H I G H T I D E ( M H T ) AVER A G E S E T B A C K AVER A G E S E T B A C K BCD C J U R I S D I C T I O N BCD C J U R I S D I C T I O N ENHANCED ACCESS POINT WITH BAY TRAIL STANDARD DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. ENHANCED PAVEMENT, PLANTING AND SITE FURNISHINGS ARE ENCOURAGED. EXISTING BAY TRAIL VERTICAL ACCESS WHERE POSSIBLE, ADA COMPLIANT.75’-0’75’-0’25’-0’25’-0’BRIDGE 12’-0” BAY TRAIL WITH 3’ SHOULDERS SAN FRANCISCO BAYSAN FRANCISCO BAY BRIDGE SEATING NODE REMOVABLE BOLLARDS BAY TRAIL IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT NEW DEVELOPMENTNEW DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT GUIDELINES AT NEW DEVELOPMENTNEW DEVELOPMENT BAY TRAIL ELEVATION OF NEW DEVELOPMENT RIPRAP PLANTED BUFFER FUTURE GUARDRAIL/ FLOOD WALL AS NEEDED ASPHALT MULTI-USE TRAIL WITH 3’ CLEAR SHOULDER BOTH SIDES. EXISTING GRADE PUBLIC REALM ENHANCEMENTS LANDSCAPED BUFFER, POCKET PARKS AND SEATING AREAS. BFE CURRENT BFE 2050 BFE 2100 MSL MSL 2050 MHT 75’-0”AVERAGE SETBACK 100’-0”BCDC JURISDICTION 15’- 0”MAX.3’- 0”12’- 0”3’- 0” ABBREVIATIONS: BFE: BASE FLOOD ELEVATION MHT: MEAN HIGH TIDE MSL: MEAN SEA LEVEL OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY PREFERRED PLANS City of Burlingame pedestrian benches trash receptacles concrete seatwall - precast concrete seatwalls - poured in place bus shelter - coordinate with local agencies ‘hi-low’ street lighting pedestrian level lighting street lighting MATERIAL OPTIONS HIGH VISIBILITY PAINT HI-LOW LIGHT BUFFERED BIKE LANE CENTER TURN LANE PLANTED MEDIAN WIDENED SIDEWALK WITH PLANTING STRIPS PEDESTRIAN REFUGE HIGH VISIBILITY CROSSWALK, 10’ WIDE BUS PULL-OUT WITH SHELTER AND BIKE CHANNEL PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING COST EVALUATION NEW DEVELOPMENTNEW DEVELOPMENT BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Segment Name Estimated Costs Millbrae to Mitten Road $ 1,414,000 Mitton Road to Malcolm Road $ 1,777,000 Malcolm Road to Stanton Road $ 1,123,000 Stanton Road to Hinckley Road $ 1,751,000 Hinckley Road to Mahler Road $ 1,393,000 Mahler Road to Burlway Road $ 1,467,000 Burlway Raod to Airport Way $ 3,758,000 Total Estimated Costs $ 12,683,000 (including contingencies + design fees) COST EVALUATION BAY TRAIL Segment Name Estimated Costs El Porto Canal to Marriott $ 1,916,000 Marriott to Shorebird Sanctuary $ 2,544,000 Shorebird Sanctuary to Eaton Creek $ 2,884,000 Eaton Creek to Airport Boulevard $ 1,819,000 Total Estimated Costs $ 9,163,000 (including contingencies + design fees) QUESTIONS & FEEDBACK City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 1548 Westmoor Road Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Michael Guillory, Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects APN: 025-242-260 Property Owners: Sarah and Theo Wong Lot Area: 5,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), 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 Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage at 1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 2021 (see attached November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on June 9, 2022 and the project is currently under construction. The applicant submitted revisions to the building permit in August 2022 which required review and approval by the Planning Commission as an FYI item. On September 12, 2022, the Planning Commission called this FYI up for further review and requested that this project be reviewed as a Design Review Amendment at a public hearing (see attached September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Commission expressed a concern with proposed changes to the second story bay window at the front of the house and scaling of the window at the front entrance. The applicant has since made revisions to the proposed changes. Please see the applicant’s explanation letter, dated September 28, 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 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 originally approved project includes a first floor addition at the rear of the house and a new second floor (1,194 SF). The existing attached garage and right side of the house would be demolished to make room for a new driveway that leads to a new detached garage at the rear, right side of the lot. The house and detached garage total 3,071 SF (0.61 FAR) where 3,085 SF (0.62 FAR) is the maximum allowed. 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 (12’-9” x 27’-0” clear interior dimensions) and an uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway leading to the garage. Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Amendment to Design Review 1548 Westmoor Road -2- The following applications were approved by the Planning Commission on November 22, 2021:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family 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. 1548 Westmoor Road Lot Area: 5,000 SF EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): 19’-11” 19’-11” 19’-8” (block average) (2nd flr): n/a 22’-5” 20'-0" Side (left): (right): 5’-0” 2’-10” ² 5’-0” 13’-8 ¼” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-11 ½” n/a 16’-4” 21’-2 ½” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,562 SF 31.2% 1,977 SF 39.5% 2,000 SF 40% FAR: 1562 SF 0.31 FAR 3,074 SF 0.61 FAR 3,085 SF 1 0.62 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (8’-1” x 18’-10”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (12’-9” x 27’-0”) 1 uncovered (9’ x 20’) 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 17’-5½” 26’-0¼” 30'-0" DH Envelope: not applicable complies Window enclosure exception applied to left side C.S. 25.26.075(b)(2) ¹ (0.32 x 5,000 SF) + 1,100 SF + 385 SF = 3,085 SF (0.62 FAR) ² Existing nonconforming right side setback. 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; Amendment to Design Review 1548 Westmoor Road -3- 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 Amendment to Design Review: That the proposed changes and architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring hip and gable roofs, composition shingle roof, proportional plate heights, aluminum clad wood windows and doors, Hardie lap siding, board and batten and river rock details), including the design of the detached garage, is compatible with the character of the neighborhood and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties . 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 September 28, 2022, sheets A1.0 through A4.0, and building elevations; 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 Ordin ance 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; Amendment to Design Review 1548 Westmoor Road -4- 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 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 d ocumenting 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 roo f ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Tony Pantaleoni, Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects, applicant and architect Sarah and Theo Wong, property owners Attachments: September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes November 22, 2021 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Letter of Explanation, dated September 28, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – September 30, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 12, 2022 a.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - FYI review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1548 Westmoor Rd - Memo and Attachments 1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners noted the following concerns: Concerned with proposed changes to the second story bay window and scaling of windows at the front of the house. Page 1City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 22, 2021 a.1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family 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. (Tony Pantaleoni, Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects, architect; Sarah and Theo Wong, property owners) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1548 Westmoor Rd - Staff Report 1548 Westmoor Rd - Attachments 1548 Westmoor Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was not present at the October 25th meeting, but did review the meeting minutes. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Tony Pantaleoni, project architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The project improved quite a bit; reducing the verticality of the project helped a lot; we appreciate you addressing that. The facades are much less plain and much more articulated; these are pretty good changes. I wasn't sure at first about the vertical siding that was proposed, but it's growing on me the more I look at it. It helps to distinguish those elements well. I’m pleased with the changes. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. The changes are for the better. The massing has been reduced and the elevations are more articulated. So the project is approvable at this point. >I do like most of the changes, although I'm uncomfortable with the second floor bay window at the front of the house. I’m not sure if that's the right type of bay window. I would like to hear from the other commissioners. Everything else looks pretty good, but that element looks tacked on. It looks like it doesn't belong on the front of the house, but I'll defer that to some of the architects on the commission. >I have that same thought as my fellow commissioner, especially after knowing it's a shower projection . It's a three-foot projection, which is fairly deep and right over the entrance at the front door. Also, the vertical siding tends to elongate it and makes it feel extra tall. It's about the depth of the projection and the overall height of it that seems heavy. It gives the appearance that it could fall off the house and land on somebody coming into the front entry. It's putting a little tension on the arch just below it. Perhaps the Page 1City of Burlingame November 22, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes height and depth of the bay could be reduced; there could be a bench in the shower to help reduce the height of the bay projection. Otherwise, I agree on the other elevations. We appreciate you addressing the comments that were brought up at the last meeting. Chair Schmid reopened the public hearing. >(Pantaleoni: Can reduce the overall height and depth of the bay window.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. >I'm struggling with it as well, but I'm struggling with the fact that the front doors look like they're in the front bedroom and the entry is not really looking like an entry. The pop -out accentuates it even more . There's some room on the pop -out to delineate that a little bit better. A lot of the other pop -outs on the house work pretty well. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the second floor bay at the front of the house shall be reduced in depth and height so that it is compatible with the design of the house (staff level approval or FYI to be determined by Planning staff). Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, Schmid, and Larios7 - Page 2City of Burlingame City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  (650) 558-7250  planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project 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. _________ (Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Property Owner Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: E-mail: E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #: * Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): Architects Kotas/Pantaleoni 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco CA 94107 Telephone 415 ⚫ 495 ⚫ 4051 Fax 415 ⚫ 495 ⚫ 6885 www.kp-architects.com ⚫ design@kp-architects.com September 28, 2022 Amelia Kolokihakaufisi City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1548 Westmoor Rd Front Elevation Revision Application #: B22-0069 Ms. Kolokihakaufisi, The changes to the building are due to the following reasons: 1. The bay window on the South Elevation located in the Main Bathroom has been lowered 1’-0” be flush with the 2nd floor framing. The structural plans have the floor of the bay window flush with the 2nd floor framing. The overall proportion of the bay will remain the same in width and shorten at the bottom by 4”. The structural engineer has approved the use of 2x8 floor joists in place of the original 11 5/8 TJI floor joists which allows for the 4” reduction. 2. Window sill heights on North Elevation in New Family Room have been raised to provide built in cabinets and additional wall space. 3. Window sill heights on West Elevation in New Family Room have been raised to match those on North elevation. 4. Main bathroom layout has been altered per client request. See 2nd Floor Plan. 5. Windows on East Elevation of Main Bathroom have been altered in size and location in coordination with the bathroom layout. 6. Window on North Elevation of Main Bedroom has been reduced in height to keep top plate height aligned with the rest of the 2nd floor. 7. Living Room window at entry has been enlarged from a 5’-0”x5’-0” to a 7’-0”x5’-0” to provide additional light in the space due to the North facing 5’-0” deep overhang above. 8. The window adjacent to the garage door was removed to allow room for a required structural shear wall. 9. The upper most window at the 2nd Floor stair landing was removed as it would be non- functional. The ceiling height in the 2nd floor hallway is 9’-0” therefore the window was not needed. Thank You, Michael Guillory 415.495.4051x218 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Amendment to Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new detached garage at 1548 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1; Sarah and Theo Wong, property owners, APN: 025-242-260; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 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. It is hereby found that the project set forth above is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Q uality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. 2. Said Amendment to Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Design Review is 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 October, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1548 Westmoor Road Effective October 21, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 28, 2022, sheets A1.0 through A4.0, and building elevations; 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: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1548 Westmoor Road Effective October 21, 2022 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 framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1548 Westmoor Road 300’ noticing APN: 025-242-260 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A1.0 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Project Info: SITE & CITY INFO. Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 & < @ C # P ABV AC ADJ A.F.F. AL. APPROX. ARCH. BD. BLDG. BLK. BLKG. BM. B.W. CAB. CEM. CER. CLG. CL. CLR. COL. CONC. CONT. CTR. DBL. DEPT. D.F. DET. DIA. DIM. DN. DTL. DW DWG. (E) EA. EL. ELEC. ELEV. EQ. EQPT. EXP. EXT. FAU F.D. AND ANGLE AT CENTERLINE DIAMETER OR ROUND POUND OR NUMBER PROPERTY LINE ABOVE AIR CONDITIONER ADJUSTABLE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR ALUMINUM APPROXIMATE ARCHITECTURAL BOARD BUILDING BLOCK BLOCKING BEAM BOTTOM OF WALL CABINET CEMENT CERAMIC CEILING CLOSET CLEAR COLUMN CONCRETE CONTINUOUS CENTER DOUBLE DEPARTMENT DRINKING FOUNTAIN DETAIL DIAMETER DIMENSION DOWN DETAIL DISHWASHER DRAWING EXISTING EACH ELEVATION ELECTRICAL ELEVATOR EQUAL EQUIPMENT EXPANSION EXTERIOR FORCED AIR UNIT FLOOR DRAIN FDN. FIN. FL. FLUOR. F.O.C. F.O.F. F.O.C. FT. FTG. FURR. FUT. GA. GALV. GD. GYP. H.B. H/C H.C. HDW. HDWD. H.M. HT. HWH INSUL. INT. JAN. JT. LAM. LAV. LT. MAX. MECH. MEMB. MFR. MIN. MISC. M.O. MTD. (N) N.I.C. NO. OR # N.T.S. O.C. O.D. PL. P.LAM. PLYWD. PR. P.T. FOUNDATION FINISH FLOOR FLUORESCENT FACE OF CONCRETE FACE OF FINISH FACE OF STUDS FOOT OR FEET FOOTING FURRING FUTURE GAUGE GALVANIZED GRADE GYPSUM HOSE BIB HANDICAPPED HOLLOW CORE HARDWARE HARDWOOD HOLLOW METAL HEIGHT HOT WATER HEATER INSULATION INTERIOR JANITOR JOINT LAMINATE LAVATORY LIGHT MAXIMUM MECHANICAL MEMBRANE MANUFACTURER MINIMUM MISCELLANEOUS MASONRY OPENING MOUNTED NEW NOT IN CONTRACT NUMBER NOT TO SCALE ON CENTER OUTSIDE DIAMETER PLATE PLASTIC LAMINATE PLYWOOD PAIR PRESSURE TREATED PT. PTN. R. R.D. REF. REINF. REQ. RM. R.O. RWD. R.W.L. S.C. SCHED. SECT. SHT. SIM. SPEC. SQ. SST. STD. STL. STOR. STRL. SUSP. SYM. S.S.D. T T.B.D. T.B.S. T.C. TEL. T&G THK. T.P. T.W. TYP. U.O.N. V.I.F. VERT. W/ W.C. W/D WD. WDO. W/O WP. WT. POINT PARTITION RISER ROOF DRAIN REFRIGERATOR REINFORCED REQUIRED ROOM ROUGH OPENING REDWOOD RAIN WATER LEADER SOLID CORE SCHEDULE SECTION DRAWING SHEET SIMILAR SPECIFICATION SQUARE STAINLESS STEEL STANDARD STEEL STORAGE STRUCTURAL SUSPENDED SYMETRICAL SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS TREAD TO BE DETERMINED TO BE SELECTED TOP OF CURB TELEPHONE TONGUE & GROOVE THICK TOP OF PAVEMENT TOP OF WALL TYPICAL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED VERIFY IN FIELD VERTICAL WITH WATER CLOSET WASHER/DRYER WOOD WINDOW WITHOUT WATERPROOF WEIGHT 1. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF STUD, FACE OF CONCRETE, OR FACE OF BLOCK, U.O.N. VERTICAL DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO TOP OF SLAB, FLOOR JOISTS OR FLOOR FRAMING. 2. CONTRACTOR AND SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK. 3. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE. CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN FIELD CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS/CONDITIONS SHOWN IN THESE DRAWINGS. 4. MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND SPRINKLER PERMITS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THOSE SUBCONTRACTORS. 5. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IS TO BE PERFORMED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT OBTAINED BY THE FIRE PROTECTION SUBCONTRACTOR. FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE DESIGNED TO BE ZONED BY FLOOR. FIRE ALARM ZONED BY FLOOR AND DEVICE. 6. STREET AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE CONDUCTED UNDER SEPARATE PERMITS. 7. SHORING AND UNDERPINNING WORK, IF REQUIRED, TO BE UNDER SEPARATE PERMITS. 8. THE BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH VENTILATION REQUIRMENTS. SEE CBC SECTION 1203.1. UTILITIES ELECTRICAL SERVICE NEW RELOCATION MUST BE APPROVED BY P.G & E.: 18” BURIAL DEPTH FOR SUB- FEED AS APPROVED BY P.G. & E. SEE ELECTRICAL SHEETS AND GENERAL NOTES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. ELECTRICAL GROUND PROVIDE AN ELECTRODE ENCASED BY AT LEAST 2 INCHES OF CONCRETE, LOCATED WITHIN AND NEAR THE BOTTOM OF A CONCRETE FOUNDATION OR FOOTING THAT IS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE EARTH, CONSISTING OF AT LEAST 20 FT OF ONE OR MORE BARE OR ZINC GALVANIZED OR OTHER ELECTRICALLY CONDUCTIVE COATED STEEL REINFORCING BARS OR RODS OR NOT LESS THAN ½ INCH IN DIAMETER, OR CONSISTING OF A LEAST 20 FT OR BARE COPPER CONDUCTER NOT SMALLER THAN NO. 4 AS PER NEC 250-81 (C). A GROUND ROD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. PARKS DEPARTMENT NOTES 1. LANDSCAPE PLAN IS REQUIRED TO MEET ‘WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS’. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY (HOURS) NO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTER, OR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING HOURS. HOLIDAYS ARE THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, THE THIRD MONDAY OF FEBRUARY, THE LAST MONDAY OF MAY, THE FORTH OF JULY, THE FIRST MONDAY OF SEPTEMBER, THE ELEVENTH OF NOVEMBER, THE FORTH OF THURSDAY IN NOVEMBER AND THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER, OR IF THE TWENTY - FIFTH DECEMBER FALLS ON A SUNDAY THE FOLLOWING MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY. 1. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY: 7 AM TO 7 PM 2. SATURDAYS: 9 AM TO 6 PM 3. SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: 10 AM TO 6 PM HIDDEN CONDITIONS “ANY HIDDEN CONDITION THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WORK OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER CITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION”. THE BUILDING OWNER, PROJECT DESIGNER, AND/OR CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A REVISION TO THE CITY FOR ANY WORK NOT GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED IN THESE PLANS PRIOR TO PERFORMING THIS WORK. GAS LINE THE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE A SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION AND ANY INSTALLATION PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK AND APPROVAL IS AT THE CONSRACTOR’S RISK. - PROVIDE SINGLE LINE DRAWING OF THE GAS LINE AND INDICATE THE DISTANCE FROM THE METER TO EACH GAS-FIRED APPLIANCE. INCLUDE THE SIZE OF THE GAS PIPE TO EACH APPLIANCE. GAS PIPE SIZING TO BE PER TABLE 12-8. 2007 CPC 1217. PUBLIC WORKS 1. REPLACE ALL DEFECTIVE SIDE WALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS WHERE REQUIRED BY THE CITY. ALL NEW SIDEWALK, CURBS & GUTTERS SHALL BE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS. A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED. 2. PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR ANY STREET OPENINGS, SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND STREET PAVEMENT. SEWER & WATER DEPARTMENT 1. CONTACT WATER DEPARTMENT FOR DISCONNECT OF WATER SERVICE PRIOR TO DEMOLATION OF DWELINGS. 2. NEW 1’’ (OR LARGER) SERVICE TO BE DETERMINED BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. REQUIRED FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS. NEED DOUBLE CHECK VALUE (USC APPROVED) AND CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVED ON FIRE LINE. 3. WATER DEPARTMENT TO DISCONNECT EXISTING SERVICE AT CITY MAIN. 4. INSTALL NEW SEWER LATERAL AS PER CITY SEWER DEPT. SPECIFICATIONS ABANDON THE EXSTING SEWER LATERAL AT THE MAIN AS PER SEWER DEPARTMENT SPECS. 5. ALL EXTERIOR HOSE BIBS SHALL HAVE APPROVED NON-REMOVABLE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. 6. WATER SERVICE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FULLWAY VALVE CONTROLLING ALL OUTLETS AND INSTALLED ON THE DISCHARGE SIDE OF THE WATER METER AS PER UPC 605.3. 7. NEED PROPER BACKFLOW DEVICE ON IRRIGATION SYSTEM. BUILDING DIVISION TO SIZE, METER AND SERVICE SIZE. ALL BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE TESTED AND TOGGED BY SM COUNTY CERTIFICATED TESTER. CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAIN ALL WATER CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERAIL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2’’ AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION ORDINANCE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL INFORMATION AS NECESSARY FOR THE BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION ORDINANCE, #1710. ALL FORMS AND INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, BUILDING DIVISION. BMC 15.12.110 THESE FORMS MUST BE FILLED OUT AND APPROVED BY THE RESPONSIBLE DEPERTMANT PRIOR TO THE GRANTING OF A BUILDING PERMIT. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL THE SEWER LATERAL MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO BE TESTED. TESTING INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND ON THE CITY OF BURLINGAME WEBSITE. IF TESTED SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER SEWER ORDINANCE TEST ORDINANCE, #1329. BMC 15.12.110 TESTING INFORMATION IS AVAILABE AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT COUNTER. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WHENEVER THE CITY’S PORTION OF THE SEWER LATERAL OR CITY CLEANOUT IS TO BE LAID AND / OR CONNECTED TO THE SEWER MAINS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN EVIDENCE OF THE APPROVAL AND THE DATE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. WASTE REDUCTION PLAN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARATION OF A WASTE REDUCTION PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF BURLINGAME. CONTACT THE RECYCLING SPECIALIST AT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME (650)558-7271 FOR FORMS AND GUIDANCE. THESE FORMS MUSTBE FILLED OUT APPROVED BY THE RESPONSIBLE DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE GRANTING OF A BUILDING PERMIT. STORM WATER NO STORM WATERS, UNDERGROUND WATERS DRAINING FROM ANY LOT, BUILDING, OR PAVED AREAS SHAL BE ALLOWED TO DRAIN TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOT SHALL THESE WATERS BE CONNECTED TO THE CITY’S SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM. THESE WATERS SHALL ALL DRAIN TO EITHER ARTIFICIAL OR NATURAL STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES BY GRAVITY OR PUMPING REGARDLESS OF THE SLOPE OF THE PROPERTY. MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.08.010(i). LANDSCAPING / TREES EXISTING TREES NO REMOVAL, KILLING OR TRIMMING OF TREES SHALL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PERMIT FROM THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION THAT ARE AT LEAST 48” CIRCUMFERENCE AT A POINT 54” ABOVE GRADE. ALL EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN MUST BE PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION BY APPROVED METHODS. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES THE FOLLOWING TREE PRESERVATION MEASURES APPLY TO ALL TREES TO BE RETAINED: • NO STORAGE MATERIAL, TOPSOIL, VIHECLES OR EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE TREE ENCLOSURE AREA. • THE GROUND UNDER THE AROUND THE TREE CANOPY AREA SHALL NOT BE ALTERED. • TREES TO BE RETAINED SHALL BE IRRIGATED AND MAINTENED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE SURVIVAL. NEW TREES FROM OFFICIAL STREET TREE LISTS PROVIDE TREE AS NOTED ON PLANS FROM CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVED STREET TREE LIST. OWNER SHALL CONSULT WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME LANDSCAPE CONSULTANT FOR NUMBER OF NEW TREES, EXACT LOCATION, SPECIES AND CONTAINER SIZE. UNDERFLOOR AREAS UNDER FLOOR AREAS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY LIVING PURPOSES, INCLUDING SLEEPING ROOMS, OFFICES, COOKING, BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY ROOMS, WORKSHOP, INTERTAINMENT ROOMS AND OTHER SIMILAR USES. IF UNDER-FLOOR AREA IS INTENDED TO BE HABITABLE SPACE, THEN THE SPACE CAN NOT BE FINISHED TO LOOK AS IF IT WERE GOING TO BE USED AS HABITABLE SPACE. THE UNDER-FLOOR AREA IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE CONDITIONED SPACE. THIS SPACE SHALL NOT BE INSULATED. ILLUMINATED STREET NUMBER APPROVED NUMBERS OR ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. SAID NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, SHALL BE A MINUMIUM OF ONE-HALF (1/2) INCH STROKE BY TWO AND ONE HALF (2 ½) INCHES HIGH, AND SHALL BE EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIR OF EXISTING CONSRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCH ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE 18.08.010.2007 CBC 501.2. HEIGHT VERIFICATIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE HEIGHT VERIFICATION THAT THE FOLLOWING HEIGHTS CONFORM TO THE PLANS: - FINISHED FIRST FLOOR PRIOR TO FOUNDATION POUR. - RIDGE HEIGHTS PRIOR TO ROOF FRAMING. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SPECIAL IMSPECTION AND TESTING AGREEMENT AS PROVODED BY THE CITY. CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUCH AS PLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN IN STREET, CONSTRUCTION PARKING, WORK IN SIDEWALK AREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. PORTA POTTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PLACED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. WORK WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE THE PERMIT FEE. CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 5:00 PM FOR ALL ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING HAULING). 1548 WESTWOOD ROAD ASSESSOR’S PARCEL #: 025242260 ZONING: R-1 HT. LIMIT: 30 FEET OCCUPANCY: R-3 CONSTRUCTION: VB SPRINKLERS: YES, UNDER SEPERATE PERMIT BUILDING DATA LOT SIZE: 5,000 SF ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO: 3,085 SF ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 2,000 SF EXISTING FIRST FLOOR (HABITABLE AREA): 1,290 SF ATTACHED GARAGE: 267 SF COVERED PORCH (TO BE REMOVED): 16 SF EXISTING FLOOR AREA RATIO: 1,290+267 = 1,557 SF EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 1,557+16 = 1,773 SF PROPOSED (N) GARAGE: 385 SF (N) PORCH: 56 SF FIRST FLOOR (HABITABLE AREA): 1,401 SF SECOND FLOOR (HABITABLE AREA): 1,044 SF NEW FLOOR AREA RATIO: 385+1,488+1,201= 3,074 SF NEW LOT COVERAGE: 385+56+1,495= 1,936 SF BUILDING CODE: ALL WORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE NATIONAL & LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES GAS LINE THE PLUMBING CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE A SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AT THE TIME OF INSPECTION AND ANY INSTALLATION PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK AND APPROVAL IS AT THE CONSRACTOR’S RISK. - PROVIDE SINGLE LINE DRAWING OF THE GAS LINE AND INDICATE THE DISTANCE FROM THE METER TO EACH GAS-FIRED APPLIANCE. INCLUDE THE SIZE OF THE GAS PIPE TO EACH APPLIANCE. GAS PIPE SIZING TO BE PER TABLE 12-8. 2007 CPC 1217. PUBLIC WORKS 1. REPLACE ALL DEFECTIVE SIDE WALKS, CURBS AND GUTTERS WHERE REQUIRED BY THE CITY. ALL NEW SIDEWALK, CURBS & GUTTERS SHALL BE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS. A CITY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED. 2. PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR ANY STREET OPENINGS, SUCH AS SIDEWALKS, CURBS AND STREET PAVEMENT. SEWER & WATER DEPARTMENT 1. CONTACT WATER DEPARTMENT FOR DISCONNECT OF WATER SERVICE PRIOR TO DEMOLATION OF DWELINGS. 2. NEW 1’’ (OR LARGER) SERVICE TO BE DETERMINED BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT. REQUIRED FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS. NEED DOUBLE CHECK VALUE (USC APPROVED) AND CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVED ON FIRE LINE. 3. WATER DEPARTMENT TO DISCONNECT EXISTING SERVICE AT CITY MAIN. 4. INSTALL NEW SEWER LATERAL AS PER CITY SEWER DEPT. SPECIFICATIONS ABANDON THE EXSTING SEWER LATERAL AT THE MAIN AS PER SEWER DEPARTMENT SPECS. 5. ALL EXTERIOR HOSE BIBS SHALL HAVE APPROVED NON-REMOVABLE BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES. 6. WATER SERVICE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FULLWAY VALVE CONTROLLING ALL OUTLETS AND INSTALLED ON THE DISCHARGE SIDE OF THE WATER METER AS PER UPC 605.3. 7. NEED PROPER BACKFLOW DEVICE ON IRRIGATION SYSTEM. BUILDING DIVISION TO SIZE, METER AND SERVICE SIZE. ALL BACKFLOW DEVICES MUST BE TESTED AND TOGGED BY SM COUNTY CERTIFICATED TESTER. CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAIN ALL WATER CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND CLIENT Sarah & Theo Wong 1548 Westmoor Road. Burlingame, CA. 94010 714-745-8844 ARCHITECT Tony Pantaleoni Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects 70 Zoe Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA. 94107 415-495-4051 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bob La Rocca Robert La Rocca & Associates Urban Design-Landscape Architecture 2431 Urban Street, San Francisco, CA. 94123 415-777-5363 415-399-0244 FAX SURVEYOR Rick Seher Frederick T. Seher and Associates, Inc. 841Lombard Street San Francisco, CA. 94133 415-921-7690 415-921-7655 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER Cliff Bechtel Clifford Bechtel and Associates, Inc. 1321 254th Place, SE Sammamish, WA 98075 650-333-0103 GREEN POINT RATER Fergus O'Sullivan Fosco Environmental PO BOX 590132 San Francisco, CA. 94159 415-240-5588 GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLIST WE WILL PROVIDE TWO COMPLETED COPIES OF THE GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLIST WITH SUBMITTAL OF PLANS FOR BUILDING CODE PLAN CHECK. CLIENT Sarah & Theo Wong 1548 Westmoor Road. Burlingame, CA. 94010 714-745-8844 ARCHITECT Tony Pantaleoni Kotas/Pantaleoni Architects 70 Zoe Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA. 94107 415-495-4051 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Bob La Rocca Robert La Rocca & Associates Urban Design-Landscape Architecture 2431 Urban Street, San Francisco, CA. 94123 415-777-5363 415-399-0244 FAX SURVEYOR Rick Seher Frederick T. Seher and Associates, Inc. 841Lombard Street San Francisco, CA. 94133 415-921-7690 415-921-7655 FAX CIVIL ENGINEER Cliff Bechtel Clifford Bechtel and Associates, Inc. 1321 254th Place, SE Sammamish, WA 98075 650-333-0103 GREEN POINT RATER Fergus O'Sullivan Fosco Environmental PO BOX 590132 San Francisco, CA. 94159 415-240-5588 CITY INFORMATION GENERAL NOTESDRAWING SCHEDULE PROJECT DIRECTORYVICINITY MAP SYMBOLS ABBREVIATIONS DOOR NO. WINDOW NO. DETAIL NO . SHEET NO. SECTION NO. SHEET NO. ELEVATION NO .INTERIOR & EXTERIOR SHEET NO. SHEET NO. INTERIOR ELEV. NO. ROOM NAME ELEVATIONEL=164'-2" DINING ROOM 3 1 4 2A-1 A-3 5 3 8 A-1 6 A-4 4 ARCHITECTURAL A1.0 SITE & CITY INFO. A1.1 EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANS A1.2 CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A1.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A1.4 TITLE 24 A1.6 TITLE 24 A1.6 TITLE 24 A2.0 EXISTING 1ST FLOOR & DEMO PLANS A2.1 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN A2.2 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS A3.0 EXISTING& PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONS A3.1 EXISTING & PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS A3.2 EXISTING & PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS A3.3 EXISTING & PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONS A4.0 PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS A4.1 NEIGHBOR PHOTOS E1.0 LIGHTING AND POWER CIVIL SHEET 1 SURVEY C-1 GRADING, DRAINAGE AND UTILITY PLAN C-2 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL & STAGING C-3 CIVIL DETAILS TOTAL SHEET COUNT : 31 SCOPE OF WORK REMODEL & 2ND FLOOR ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PROPOSED PROJECT TO INCLUDE RELOCATION OF GARAGE , KITCHEN & ADDITION OF FAMILY ROOM . NEW 2ND FLOOR TO INCLUDE BEDROOM SUITE, 2 BEDROOMS, BATH & LAUNDRY.FIRE SPRINKLERS UNDER SEPERATE PERMIT LANDSCAPE L3.1 SCHEMATIC LANDSCAPES L3.2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L3.3 CHECKLIST STRUCTURAL S0.0 GENERAL NOTES S1.0 FOUNDATION PLAN S1.1 FLOOR FRAMING S1.2 ROOF FRAMING S2.0 1ST FLOOR SHEAR S2.1 2ND FLOOR SHEAR S3.0 DETAILS S3.1 DETAILS S3.2 DETAILS S3.3 DETAILS S3.4 DETAILS S3.5 DETAILS S3.6 DETAILS STRUCTURAL DAVID ARDELEAN HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING INC. 117 BERNAL RD. STE 70-648 SAN JOSE, CA 95119 TITLE 24 TITLE24EZ.COM IGOR PICHKO, CEA ENERGY CONSULTANT LLC. (424) 247-7658 NATURAL GAS WILL NOT BE USED FOR SPACE HEATING, SPACE COOLING , WATER HEATING , OR CLOTHES DRYING. 1 PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION , AN INITIAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT. THIS PERMIT IS REQUIRED. ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER . ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUCH AS PLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN IN STREET, CONSTRUCTION PARKING, WORK IN SIDEWALK AREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS, IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. PORTA POTTY 'S ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PLACED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY. WORK WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE THE PERMIT FEE. ALL CORNERS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION OR REINSTALLED BEFORE THE BUILDING FINAL. THE PROPERTY CORNERS NEED TO BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE CHECKED BY CITY INSPECTOR. IF AND CONSTRUCTION DOES OCCUR OVER PROPERTY, THE CONTRACTOR WILL NEED TO MAKE ALL CORRECTIONS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY INSPECTOR . AND DISTURBED PROPERTY CORNERS WILL BE REPLACED BY THE PROJECT PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION. SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO. 1710. THE SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND THE BACKWATER DEVICE MUST BE PLACED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE SANITARY SEWER LATERAL (BUILDING SEWER) SHALL BE TESTED PER ORDINACE CODE CHAPTER 15.12. (ANY NEW FIXTURE , INCLUDING OUTDOOR KITCHEN WITH SINK, RELOCATION OF EXISTING FIXTURES, ETC.). PV SYSTEM OF SPECIFIED SIZE IN TITLE-24 REPORT TO BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A1.1 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Project Info: EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 N 5'-0" 1ST FL. 11'-6" 5'-0" (N) 9'-6" DRIVEWAY 4"19'-11"1ST FLOOR22'-5"2ND FLOOR13'-8 1/4" 1ST FLOOR 13'-8 1/4" 2ND FLOOR4"21'-2 1/2"2ND FLOOR9'-0" 2ND FLOOR 16'-4"1ST FLOOR12'-0"6"4'-0"7'-6"(E) GAS METER (E) WATER METER AND LINE RELOCATED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICE T.O.C. (E) 20.33 T.O.C. MATCH (E) 20.59 T.O.C. MATCH (E) 20.78 T.O.C. (E) 21.12 19.23 DHE AVERAGE ELEVATION 17.97 DHE REAR ELEVATION 20.49 DHE FRONT SPOT ELEVATION T.O.C. 20.70 T.O.C. 20.89 T.O.C. 20.87 T.O.C. 21.06 (N) CURB CUT (E) SEWER MANHOLE AND SEWER LINE (N) GAS LINE TO HOUSE, SEE C-1 (E) SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT/ VENT (E) TOP OF CURB (E) FLOW LINE (E) EDGE OF CONCRETE (N) BOLLARDS, SEE C-1 (N) SANITARY SEWER LINE AND CLEANOUT, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS (N) BACKFLOW DEVICE, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS (N) AREA DRAIN, TYP. SEE C-1 (E) TREE (E) TREE 50'-0"50'-0"50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0"50'-0"100'-0"100'-0"1552 WESTMOOR ROAD ( 1 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ) 1544 WESTMOOR ROAD ( 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ) WESTMOOR ROAD 50'-0" PL NEW LANDSCAPING, SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN (E) SIDE WALK PL PL PL PL PL PL PL (E) GUTTER NEW ADDITION SECOND FLOOR NEW GARAGE NEW ADDITION FIRST FLOOR (FAMILY ROOM ) NEW PATIO SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN W G 1548 WESTMOOR ROAD ( 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ) ((E) F.L. 20.62)((E) F.L. 20.79)NOTE: REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK, FRONTING SITE. PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONCECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. 1 20.99 DHE FRONT SPOT ELEVATION 19.26 DHE REAR SPOT ELEVATION N4'-6"2'-10 3/4"16'-11 1/2"5'-0"19'-11"13'-8 1/4"38'-0"(E) 9'-0" DRIVEWAY (E) GAS METER AND LINE (E) SEWER MANHOLE AND SEWER LINE (E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICE (E) WATER METER AND LINE (E) SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT/ VENT (E) TOP OF CURB (E) FLOW LINE (E) EDGE OF CONCRETE (E) EXTERIOR WALL BELOW (E) TREE (E) TREE 1548 WESTMOOR ROAD ( 1 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ) PL (E) LANDSCAPE 50'-0"50'-0" 50'-0"50'-0"100'-0"100'-0"1552 WESTMOOR ROAD ( 1 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ) 1544 WESTMOOR ROAD ( 2 STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ) WESTMOOR ROAD 50'-0" PL (E) SIDE WALK PL PL PL PL PL PL (E) GUTTER (E) LANDSCAPE W G LOT COVERAGE: MAXIMUM ALLOWED: .40 * 5,000 S.F. = 2,000.00 S.F. PROPOSED: HOUSE: 1,492.15 S.F. FIREPLACE: 3.27 S.F. PORCH: 56.09 S.F. TRELLIS: 40.54 S.F. GARAGE: 385.00 S.F. TOTAL: 1,977.05 S.F. **NOTE: NO ROOF OVERHANGS EXCEED 2'-0" FLOOR AREA RATIO (F.A.R.): MAXIMUM ALLOWED: (.32 * 5,000 S.F.) + 1,100 S.F. +385 S.F. = 3,085.00 S.F. PROPOSED: GARAGE: 385.00 S.F. 1ST FLOOR: 1,488.00 S.F. 2ND FLOOR: 1,201.00 S.F. TOTAL: 3,074.00 S.F. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING SITE PLAN AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK ADDRESS FRONT SETBACK 1560 WESTMOOR ROAD 18'-8" 1556 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-9" 1552 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-9" 1548 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-11" (SUBJECT PROPERTY) 1544 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-9" 1540 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-9" 1536 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-9" 1532 WESTMOOR ROAD 18'-7" (LOWEST) 1528 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-7" 1524 WESTMOOR ROAD 19'-9" 1520 WESTMOOR ROAD 20'-1" (HIGHEST) AVERAGE OF 9 LOTS: 19'-7 9/16" SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A2.0 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Floor Plans: EXISTING 1ST FLOOR & DEMO PLANS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 90.28 sq ft REF W D 21'-3"40'-1"38'-8"8'-11"2'-4" 11'-8"19'-2 1/4"10'-9 1/2"4'-11 1/2"14'-4 1/2"11'-8"15'-2 1/2"11'-0"13'-5"11'-8"7'-10 1/2" 7'-9"3'-9"8'-7 1/2"4'-11 1/2"6'-0"7'-0"4'-0"5'-0"16'-5"14'-9 1/4"9'-0"4'-9 3/4"2'-6"45'-6 1/2"15'-7 1/2"9'-3 1/2"11'-9"22'-2 1/4"8'-8" 21'-3"8'-7 1/2"3'-6"9'-10" 10'-2" 3'-7" 1 1 A3.1 3 A3.3 1 A3.2 RETURN AIR (E) FIRE PLACE (E) GATE (E) GATE DEMO ALL WALLS & FIXTURES (DASHED) (E) GAS METER DEMO ALL WALLS & FIXTURES (DASHED) DEMO WINDOW (DASHED) DEMO DOOR (DASHED) (E) STEPS TO BE REMOVED DEMO ALL CONC. (DASHED) #6 (E) WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED, TYP. #1 #9 #8 #7 (E) DOOR TO BE REMOVED, TYP. (E) WINDOW TO BE DEMOLISHED, TYP. #3 #4 #2 (E) ELECTRICAL PANEL #5 (E) FENCE (E) TREE 100'-0"100'-0"ENRTY (E) LIVING ROOM (E) DINING AREA (E) KITCHEN(E) BEDROOM (E) BEDROOM (E) BATH LINEN LINEN (E) HALL WAY CLOSET CLOSET CLOSET W/ H DN 3" (E) BEDROOM (E) BATH UP 7" UP UP 4 1/2" CLO DN 7" UP DN CH ±8'-9" CH ±8'-5 1/2" (E) GARAGE CH ±8'-1" (E) REAR YARD (E) LANDSCAPE (E) DRIVE WAY (E) LANDSCAPE (E) LANDSCAPE GRAVEL 1544 WESTMOOR1552 WESTMOOR(E) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE REMOVED: (SEE KEYNOTE #S ON DEMO PLAN) #1: 10'-9 1/2" x 9'-5" = 101.62 S.F. #2: 45'-6 1/2" x 9'-5" = 428.85 S.F. #3: 8'-11" x 9'-5" = 83.97 S.F. #4: 11'-9" x 9'-5" = 110.65 S.F. #5: 2'-4" x 9'-5" = 21.97 S.F. #6: 9'-3 1/2" x 9'-5" = 87.50 S.F. #7: 8'-8" x 10'-5" = 90.28 S.F. #8: 2'-0" x 10'-5" = 20.83 S.F. #9: 22'-2 1/4" x 10'-5" = 231.12 S.F. TOTAL: 121'-5 1/4" LINEAR FEET 1,176.79 S.F. DEMOLITION WALL: EXISTING WALL NO CHANGE EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED (DASHED) EXISTING WALL NO CHANGE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL: EXISTING INTERIOR WALL: WALL TYPES : N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 (E) 1ST FLOOR PLAN & DEMO SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A2.1 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Floor Plans: PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 REFD/WT/C16'-0"19'-0"3'-6"5'-0"16'-11"23'-8"16'-4"REAR YARD SETBACK13'-9" 4"28'-0"4"2'-1"4'-0"5'-5"4'-6" 6'-0" 14'-0"4'-0"5'-6"12'-6"13'-8"18'-4 1/2"3'-6"8'-1"11'-0 1/2"18'-10 3/4"31'-4" GARAGE SETBACK1 A4.0 2 A4.0 1 A3.3 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 4 A3.0 3 A3.0 6 A3.0 385 sq ft NEW ROOF OVERHANG NEW GATE (E) FENCE TO REMAIN 6'-6" H. GATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. 4'-0" H. GATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. NEW ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE RELOCATED OVERHEAD ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE AND CABLE SERVICE MAILBOX (N) GAS LINE TO HOUSE (N) SANITARY SEWER LINE AND CLEANOUT, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS (E) GAS METER TO REMAIN (E) GAS LINE (N) ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP (N) ELECTRIC WATER HEATER. RHEEM\XE50T10H4 5UO (50 GAL). HOT WATER PIPE INSULATION REQUIRED 3/4" OR LARGER. OUTLET DUCT TO EXTERIOR W/ .75" AIR GAP UNDER DOOR PER. MANUFACTURE. NEW RIVER ROCK STONE BASE NEW RIVER ROCK STONE BASE ROOF OVERHANG BAY WINDOW ABOVE 1-HR WALL (N) EV CHARGER LEVEL 2 (N) EV CHARGER LEVEL 1 PROVIDE A DEDICATED 208/240V, 50A RECEPTACLE WITHIN THREE FEET PROVIDE A RECEPTACLE WITH EQUIVALENT CAPCITY WITHIN 3 FEET PROVIDE A RECEPTACLE WITH EQUIVALENT CAPCITY WITHIN 3 FEET PROVIDE A RECEPTACLE WITH EQUIVALENT CAPCITY WITHIN 3 FEET PROVIDE A RECEPTACLE WITH EQUIVALENT CAPCITY WITHIN 3 FEET LOCATE BACKFLOW PREVENTER FOR FIRE & IRRIGATION AFTER HOUSE VALVE. PROVIDE A DEDICATED 208/240V, 50A RECEPTACLE WITHIN THREE FEET NEW WINDOW 1-HR WALL (N) 200AMP ELECTRICAL PANEL NEW DOOR NEW 6' HIGH FENCE/GATE (E) FENCE TO REMAIN EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN EXISTING LIVING ROOM BEDROOM 1 REMODELED KITCHEN REMODELED DINING ROOM NEW FAMILY ROOM NEW DECK 1ST FLOOR AREA = FIRE PIT WH OVEN UP (E) ENTRY DNDN 2'-6"DN NEW GARAGE NEW DECK 30" HT. CABINET BBQ SHOES/ COATS 1544 WESTMOOR1552 WESTMOOR(N) BATH (N)POWDER DN PLPLPLPL G (N) PORCH 7'-0"x5'-0" 2'-0" SILL HT. DBL SH 2'-6"x5'-0"3'-0" SILL HT.SH6'-0"x5'-0"3'-0" SILL HT.DBL SH6'-0"x5'-0" 3'-0" SILL HT. DBL SH 4'-0"x5'-0" 3'-0" SILL HT. DBL SH 3'-0"x5'-0"3'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT3'-0"x3'-0"5'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT4'-0"x3'-0"5'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x4'-0"4'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-0"x5'-0"CSMNT2'-0"x5'-0"CSMNTGAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS H.B.H.B.H.B.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4'-0"x5'-0" 3'-0" SILL HT. DBL SH 30" HT. CABINET 3'-0"x5'-0"3'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x5'-0"3'-0" SILL HT.SH2'-6"x1'-0"7'-0" SILL HT.FIXED2'-6"x1'-0"7'-0" SILL HT.FIXED2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 A3.0 2 A3.1 5'-0"x8'-0"6'-0"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"2'-0"x8'-0" 3'-0"x8'-0"2'-6"x8'-0"3'-0"x8'-0" 9'-0"x7'-0" 3'-0"x7'-0"14'-0"x8'-0"3'-0"x6'-0"5'-6"12'-6"5'-0"2'-0"2'-0"2'-0"A4.0 (7) NEW 18"W. BOLLARDS SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. 4'-0" H. x 5'-0" W. GATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. 6'-6" H. GATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. 4'-0" H. GATE SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. NEW HEDGES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. (CLOUDED)NEW HEDGES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. NEW HEDGES SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN, TYP. NEW ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE MAILBOX (E) WATER METER AND LINE(E) SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT/ VENT (N) BACKFLOW DEVICE, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS (N) SANITARY SEWER LINE AND CLEANOUT, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS (E) GAS LINE NEW RIVER ROCK STONE BASE NEW RIVER ROCK STONE BASE BAY WINDOW ABOVE LOCATE BACKFLOW PREVENTER FOR FIRE & IRRIGATION AFTER HOUSE VALVE. NEW WINDOW NEW DOOR (E) TREE WESTMOOR ROAD 50'-0" BEDROOM 1 (E) ENTRY DN NEW DECK1552 WESTMOOR(N) BATH DN NEW LANDSCAPING SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN PL PL PL PL W (N) PORCH 7'-0"x5'-0" 2'-0" SILL HT. DBL SH4'-0"x3'-0"5'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x4'-0"4'-0" SILL HT.CSMNTH.B.12'-6"x5'-0"3'-0" SILL HT.SH2 2 2 2 2 A3.05'-0"x8'-0"6'-0"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"3'-0"x8'-0" EXISTING WALL NO CHANGE WALL TYPES : EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL: EXISTING INTERIOR WALL: EXISTING WALL NO CHANGE DEMOLITION WALL: EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED (DASHED) NEW NON-RATED INTERIOR WALL: 2X WOOD OR METAL STUDS WITH ONE LAYER 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. BOARD ON BOTH SIDES. S.S.D. FOR STUD SIZES & SHEAR REQUIREMENTS. USE 2x6 FOR PLUMBING WALLS. SEE H, WALL TYPES . MIN. R-19 BATT. INSULATION EXT. FINISH, SEE ELEVATIONS FOR MATERIAL PLYWOOD, S.S.D. FOR THICKNESS (2) LAYERS 15# BLDG. PAPER PAINT GRADE BASEBOARD, PROFILE T.B.D., TYP. 2x WD. STUDS. @ 16" O.C., S.S.D. FOR STUD SIZES 1 LAYER 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYP. BD., EACH SIDE PLAN INTERIOR; ONE LAYER 5/8" GYP.BOARD OVER 2X WOOD STUDS EXTERIOR; WOOD SIDING OR CEMENT PLASTER (SEE ELEVATIONS) OVER 2-LAYERS 15# BUILDING PAPER OVER PLYWOOD S.S.D., W/ R-19 BATT INSULATION, S.S.D.. SEE J, WALL TYPES NEW NON-RATED EXTERIOR WALL: NEW ONE-HOUR RATED EXTERIOR WALL: SEE DETAIL 2/A2.1 (2) LAYERS 15# BLDG. PAPER EXT. FINISH, SEE ELEVATIONS FOR MATERIAL PAINT GRADE BASEBOARD, PROFILE T.B.D., TYP. (E) OR (N) CONCRETE CURB, S.S.D. FOR SIZE IF (N) Z-FLASHING OVER WATER PROOF MEMBRANE, MIN. 4" OVERLAP 2x WOOD SILL PLATE, ATTACHED TO CONCRETE CURB AS REQUIRED 2x WOOD DOUBLE TOP PLATE, NAILED AS REQUIRED (E) 2x SECOND FLOOR FRAMING (E) SECOND FLOOR FRAMING (E) EXTERIOR WALL FINISH 1 LAYER EACH SIDE 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYP. BD. SECTION Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"2 1Hr Rated Exterior Wall - Wood Framing NOTES: 1. EV LEVEL 2 READY CIRCUIT EQUIPPED WITH RACEWAY, WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND ELECTRICAL CAPACITY, WITH A MINIMUM 208/240V, 40 AMP CIRCUIT WITH A RECEPTACLE LABELED "EV VEHICLE OUTLET." OR, WITH ELECTRICAL VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT WITH A MINIMUM OUTPUT OF 30 AMPS. 2. EV LEVEL 1 READY CIRCUIT EQUIPPED WITH RACEWAY, WIRING, RECEPTACLE AND ELECTRICAL CAPACITY TO THE EV CHARGING STATION. A MINIMUM 110V, 20 AMP CIRCUIT WITH A RECEPTACLE LABELED "EV VEHICLE OUTLET." OR, ELECTRICAL VEHICLE SUPPLY EQUIPMENT . 3. HEAT PUMP UNIT NOT TO EXCEED 60DBA DAYTIME (7AM-10PM) OR 50DBA NIGHTTIME (10PM-7AM) AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 4. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM OF THE GAS LINE AND DISTANCE FROM THE METER TO EACH GAS-FIRED APPLIANCE AT TIME OF INSPECTION. ANY INSTALLATION PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK AND APPROVAL IS AT CONTRACTOR'S RISK. INCLUDE SIZE OF THE GAS PIPE TO EACH APPLIANCE. GAS PIPE SIZING TO BE PER TABLE 1215.2(1) 2019 CPC. 5. WATER HAMMER ARRESTORS REQUIRED AT ALL APPLIANCES THAT HAVE QUICK- ACTING VALVES (I.E. DISHWASHER HOT WATER LINE AND THE HOT/COLD LINES FOR THE CLOTHES WASHER) 2019 CPC 609.10. 6. PROVIDE SAFETY GLAZING FOR WINDOWS WHERE THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE GLASS IS WITHIN 60 INCHES OF A STANDING SURFACE OR DRAIN INLET OF A BATHTUB OR SHOWER. ANY GLAZING THAT IS LESS THAN 60" FROM THE FLOOR AND WITHIN 60" HORIZONTALLY FROM THE TUB OR SHOWER WILL ALSO NEED TO BE TEMPERED GLASS. 2019 CRC R308.4.5. 7. HOT WATER PIPING INSULATION REQUIRED: 3/4 INCH OR LARGER. 2019 CEC §150.0 (J) 2 A i, ii, iii 1 PLUMBING FIXTURE FLOW RATES: PER 2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (CGBSC): 1. WATER CLOSET : A. EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME SHALL NOT EXCEED 1.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH. B. TANK-TYPE WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO THE CRITERIA OF THE U.S. EPA WATERSENSE SPECIFICATION . C. EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF DUAL-FLUSH TOILETS IS DEFINED AS THE COMPOSITE, AVERAGE FLUSH VOLUME OF TWO REDUCED FLUSHES AND ONE FULL FLUSH. 2. URINALS: A. EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME IS .5 GALLONS PER FLUSH. 3. SHOWER HEADS: A. SINGLE SHOWER HEADS SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF NOT MORE THAN 2.0 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 80 PSI. B. SHOWER HEADS SHALL BE CERTIFIED TO THE CRITERIA OF THE U.S. EPA WATERSENSE SPECIFICATION. C. WHEN MULTIPLE SHOWER HEADS SERVE A SINGLE SHOWER, THE COMBINED FLOW RATE OF ALL SHOWER HEADS AND/OR OTHER SHOWER OUTLETS CONTROLLED BY A SINGLE VALVE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 80 PSI, OR THE SHOWER WILL BE DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY ONE SHOWER OUTLET TO BE INOPERATION AT A TIME. D. A HANDHELD SHOWER SHALL BE CONSIDERED A SHOWERHEAD . 4. FAUCETS: A. RESIDENTIAL LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.2 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 60 PSI. THE MINIMUM FLOW RATE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN .8 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 20 PSI. B. LAVATORY FAUCETS IN COMMON AND PUBLIC USE AREAS (OUTSIDE OF DWELLING OR SLEEPING UNITS) IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF .5 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 60 PSI. C. METERING FAUCETS IN RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SHALL NOT DELIVER MORE THAN .2 GALLONS PER CYCLE. D. KITCHEN FACUETS SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.8 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 60 PSI. KITCHEN FAUCET MAY TEMPORARILY INCREASE TO 2.2 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 60 PSI AND MUST DEFAULT TO A MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.8 GALLONS PER MINUTE AT 60 PSI. WERE COMPLYING FAUCETS ARE UNAVAILABLE, AERATORS OR OTHER MEANS MAY BE USED TO ACHIEVE REDUCTION. 5. PLUMBING FIXTRES AND FITTINGS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, AND SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS REFERENCE IN TABLE 1401.1. 2 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A2.2 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Floor Plans: PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 1,190 sq ft1 A4.0 2 A4.0 1 A3.3 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 4 A3.0 3 A3.0 6 A3.0 8'-0" HT. OPENING SKYLIGHT ROOF VENT ROOF VENT ROOF VENT ROOF VENT ROOF VENT ROOF VENT 10'-6" CEILING HT. IN BAY WINDOW 12'-0"11'-11 1/2"13'-9"4'-0" 11'-6"11'-0"6'-6"3'-6" 7'-0 1/2"6'-0 1/2"3'-6"2'-0"7'-8 1/2" 14'-1 1/4" 14'-10 3/4"17'-11 1/2"7'-0"3'-9 1/2"28'-9"2'-6 1/2"21'-2 1/2"20'-8 1/2"8'-2 1/2"27'-2"12'-5" 14'-10 3/4" 12'-11"13'-7 1/2"13'-7 1/2"1'-0"3'-2" NEW ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE NEW ROOF OVERHANG ABOVE OUTLINE OF WALL BELOW (DASHED) SKYLIGHT OUTLINE OF WALL BELOW (DASHED) OUTLINE OF WALL BELOW (DASHED) DN MAIN BEDROOM W.I.C. 2ND FLOOR AREA = BEDROOM 3 BEDROOM 2 BATH 3 1'-6" HT. BENCH ROOFROOF ROOFROOF ROOFROOF LAUNDRY 1544 WESTMOOR1552 WESTMOORLINEN NEW GARAGE ROOF 6'-0"x4'-0"DBL CSMNT TEMP.ATTIC ACCESS AIR HANDLER ABOVE 9'-0" CEILING HT. SHADED AREA 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 MAIN BATH 6'-TUB2 2 2 A3.0 2 A3.1 RIDGE VENT RIDGE VENT ROOF3'-0"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT6'-0"x3'-0" 4'-0" SILL HT. DBL SH 2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-0"x4'-0" 3'-0" SILL HT. SH 2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT4'-0"x2'-0"5'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT6'-0"x7'-6" 2'-9" SILL HT. DBL CSMNT2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT2'-6"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT6'-0"x4'-0" 4'-0" SILL HT. DBL CSMNT 4'-0"x2'-0"6'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT3'-0"x3'-0"4'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT3'-0"x3'-0"4'-0" SILL HT.CSMNT6'-0"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0" PKT 2'-8"x8'-0"2'-0" x 8'-0" 2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0" PKT 2'-8"x8'-0"2'-8"x8'-0"7'-0"x8'-0" (GAS WILL NOT BE PROVIDED FOR DRYER) 3'-6"x2'-0" 5'-0" SILL HT. DBL CSMNT SKYLIGHT2'-8"x8'-0"1'-6"x3'-6"3'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT4'-0"x4'-6"2'-6" SILL HT.CSMNT1 A4.0 2 A4.0 1 A3.3 2 A3.2 2 A3.3 4 A3.0 3 A3.0 6 A3.0 DOWNSPOUT TYP. GUTTER TYP. SLOPE 5:12 PLPL 1 1 2 A3.0 2 A3.1 2ND FLOOR WALL BELOW 1ST FLOOR WALL BELOW 2'-0", TYP. U.O.N. 2'-0", TYP. U.O.N.1'-0"1'-0"4'-0" x 2'-0" SKYLIGHT 4'-0" x 4'-0" SKYLIGHT RIDGE VENT RIDGE VENT RIDGE VENT RIDGE VENT AREA FOR PV SYSTEM AREA FOR PV SYSTEM 2'-0" x 4'-0" SKYLIGHT SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE5:12SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE4:12SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 SLOPE 5:12 FLAT ROOF 2 EXISTING WALL NO CHANGE EXISTING WALL NO CHANGE EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL: EXISTING INTERIOR WALL: WALL TYPES : (N) EXTERIOR WALL: NEW INTERIOR WALL: Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN NOTES: 1. A WHOLE -BUILDING EXHAUST FAN REQUIRED PER CODE. MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM VENTILATION RATE ACCORDING TO THE 2019 CEC 150,12(o). 1 2 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A3.0 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Exterior Elevs: EXISTING & PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATIONS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 2'-0"8'-9"7'-4 1/2"(E) FENCE GARAGE FLOOR 1ST FLOOR PLATE 8'-9" 0'-0" -2'-0" PEAK 16'-1 1/2" GATE GATE PLPL 12'-0"7'-6"50'-0"26'-0 1/4"12'-0"7'-6"3" GUTTER 4" 45° 45° 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X4 P.G. TRIM 6X6 KNEE BRACKET GUTTER 2X6 P.G. FASCIA PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. 30'-0' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FROM AVERAGE TOP OFCURB AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE RIVER ROCK 6X6 KNEE BRACKET COMPOSITION SHINGLES ROOFING HORIZONTAL PAINTED LAP SIDING, TYP. PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. HOLMES LODGEWOOD SEMI-CUSTOM PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITES @ UPPER WINDOWS MARVIN ALUM CLAD WOOD DOORS & WINDOWS 2X8 P.G. FASCIA ILLUMINATED HOUSE NUMBERS. MIN. 4" TALL 1/2" STROKE ALUMINUM EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GRADE = -1'-6" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" T.O. PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" 12 5 12 5 12 5 P L P L T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" 6 A4.0 7 A4.0 1 1 9'-0"2'-9 7/8"11'-1 7/8"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" ROOF PEAK = 11'-9" T.O. PLATE = 9'-0"7'-10"3'-11 7/8"11'-1 7/8"3" GUTTER 4" HOLMES LODGEWOOD SEMI-CUSTOM PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITES @ UPPER WINDOWS AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" ROOF PEAK = 11'-9" T.O. PLATE = 7'-10" 1 P L 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 7'-10"3'-11 7/8"11'-1 7/8"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" ROOF PEAK = 11'-9" PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING T.O. PLATE = 7'-10"8'-0"3'-9 7/8"11'-1 7/8"2X6 P.G. FASCIA AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" ROOF PEAK = 11'-9" T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" P L Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 (E) SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED GARAGE WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"6 PROPOSED GARAGE EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"5 PROPOSED GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION 2 2 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A3.1 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Exterior Elevs: EXISTING & PROPOSED WEST ELEVATIONS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 1'-6"8'-9"7'-4 1/2"(E) GATE(E) FENCE PLPL 1ST FLOOR PLATE 8'-9" 0'-0" PEAK 16'-1 1/2" FRONT YARD SIDEWALK 100'-0" 16'-4"2'-0"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 SKYLIGHT D.S. D.S. SKYLIGHT GATE 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2'-0" OVERHANG ABOVE DOOR 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L REAR YARD FRONT YARD SIDEWALK COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" D.S. PAINTED METAL GUTTER & D.S., TYP. PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING, TYP. Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 (E) WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 2 2 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A3.2 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Exterior Elevs: EXISTING & PROPOSED EAST ELEVATIONS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 1'-6"8'-9"7'-4 1/2"PLPL 1ST FLOOR PLATE 8'-9" 0'-0" PEAK 16'-1 1/2" SIDEWALK 100'-0"1'-5 3/4"3'-0"2'-6"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 SKYLIGHT 6'H. REDWOOD FENCE & GATE PAINTED METAL GUTTER & D.S., TYP. D.S. D.S. 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2'-0" OVERHANG ABOVE DOOR 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L FRONT YARD SIDEWALK PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. RIVER ROCK, TYP. T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" OPEN D.S. PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING, TYP. Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 (E) EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 2 2 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A3.3 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Exterior Elevs: EXISTING & PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATIONS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 50'-0"12'-0"7'-6"12'-0"7'-6"26'-0 1/4"2'-0"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 30'-0' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FROM AVERAGE TOP OFCURB AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE D.S. 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X8 P.G. FASCIA PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GARAGE = -2'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 21'-8"23'-0 1/4"D.S. D.S.PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP.2'-0"8'-9"7'-4 1/2"PLPL GARAGE FLOOR 1ST FLOOR PLATE 8'-9" 0'-0" -2'-0" PEAK 16'-1 1/2" GATE Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION @ FAMILY ROOM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 (E) NORTH ELEVATION 2 22 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 A4.0 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: Sections: PROPOSED CROSS SECTIONS Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 1'-6"10'-0"9'-0"5'-8"12'-0"7'-6"50'-0"30'-0"9'-0"1'-0"12'-0"7'-6"11'-0 3/8"9'-0"1'-6"4'-0"45° 45° AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GRADE = -1'-6" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF WALL = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L (E) LIVING ROOM PANTRY MAIN BEDROOM HALL STAIR STORAGE1'-6"5'-6 3/4"13'-5 1/4"5'-8"11'-10"7'-8"50'-0"9'-0"1'-0"8'-0"4"30'-0"12'-0"7'-6"9'-0"1'-0"8'-0"45° 45° AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE (E) DROPPED CEILING 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GRADE = -1'-6" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF WALL = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L (E) LIVING ROOM (E) BATH 1 MAIN BATHW.I.C.HALLLAUNDRY HALL 3 A4.0 5 A4.0 R-30 BATT INSULATION VENTED AIR SPACE BRANDGUARD CONTINUOUS GALV. STEEL SOFFIT VENT, TYP. R-19 BATT INSULATION 4" METAL GUTTER W/ GUTTER GUARD, TYP. BORAL TRUEXTERIOR BEADBOARD, TYP. P.G 2x6 FACIA, TYP. LAP SIDING, TYP. 8" HARDIPLANK BLIND NAILED LAP SIDING, SMOOTH FINISH. PAINTED CALICO ROCK BRANDGUARD ROOF VENT W/ 1/8" MAX SCREEN, TYP. SEE ROOF PLAN. DRILL (4) 1" DIA. HOLES FOR CROSS VENTILATION R-19 INSULATION GYP. BD. INTERIOR 4- INTERIOR LAP SIDING, TYP. R-30 BATT INSULATION VENTED AIR SPACE BRANDGUARD CONTINUOUS GALV. STEEL SOFFIT VENT, TYP. R-19 BATT INSULATION 4" METAL GUTTER W/ GUTTER GUARD, TYP. BORAL TRUEXTERIOR BEADBOARD, TYP. P.G 2x6 FACIA, TYP. INTERIOR BLDG. PAPER 8" HARDIPLANK BLIND NAILED LAP SIDING, SMOOTH FINISH. PAINTED CALICO ROCK STARTER BLOCK AS NEEDED FOR SIDINGGALV. METAL FLASHING UNDER BLDG. PAPER COMPOSITION SHINGLE 3"2'-1"1 1/2"3"2'-2 1/2"6X6 45 DEG. CHAMFER 3X6 3X6 INTERIOR FRY REGLET PAINTED ALUM. "X" MOLDING; PRIME AND PAINT TO MATCH ADJACENT SIDING SIDING/CEMENT PLASTER SEE ELEVATIONS SIDING/PLASTER SEE ELEVATIONS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 CROSS SECTION @ STAIRS SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 CROSS SECTION @ LIVING & MASTER BATH SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"3 WESTMOOR EAVE SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"5 WESTMOOR EAVE SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"4 WESTMOOR EAVE SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"6 KNEE BRACE DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2"= 1'-0"7 X - CORNER SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: 24X36 SOUTH ELEVATION SIDE-BY-SIDE Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 12'-0"7'-6"50'-0"26'-0 1/4"12'-0"7'-6"3" GUTTER 4" 45° 45° 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X4 P.G. TRIM 6X6 KNEE BRACKET GUTTER 2X6 P.G. FASCIA PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. 30'-0' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FROM AVERAGE TOP OFCURB AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE RIVER ROCK 6X6 KNEE BRACKET COMPOSITION SHINGLES ROOFING HORIZONTAL PAINTED LAP SIDING, TYP. PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. HOLMES LODGEWOOD SEMI-CUSTOM PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITES @ UPPER WINDOWS MARVIN ALUM CLAD WOOD DOORS & WINDOWS 2X8 P.G. FASCIA ILLUMINATED HOUSE NUMBERS. MIN. 4" TALL 1/2" STROKE ALUMINUM EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED. 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GRADE = -1'-6" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" T.O. PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" 12 5 12 5 12 5 P L P L T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" 6 A4.0 7 A4.0 1 112'-0"7'-6"50'-0"26'-0 1/4"12'-0"7'-6"45° 45° 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X4 P.G. TRIM 6X6 KNEE BRACKET GUTTER 2X6 P.G. FASCIA PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. 30'-0' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FROM AVERAGE TOP OFCURB AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE RIVER ROCK 6X6 KNEE BRACKET COMPOSITION SHINGLES ROOFING HORIZONTAL PAINTED SIDING PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. HOLMES LODGEWOOD SEMI-CUSTOM PAINTED WOOD GARAGE DOOR W/ TRUE DIVIDED LITES @ UPPER WINDOWS MARVIN ALUM CLAD WOOD DOORS & WINDOWS 2X8 P.G. FASCIA ILLUMINATED HOUSE NUMBER 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GRADE = -1'-6" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" T.O. PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" 12 5 12 5 12 5 P L P L T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 APPROVED SOUTH ELEVATION 2 ENTRY WINDOW 7'-0"X5'-0" SILL 3'-0" ENTRY WINDOW 7'-0"X5'-6" SILL 1'-6" SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: 24X36 NORTH ELEVATION SIDE-BY-SIDE Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 50'-0"12'-0"7'-6"12'-0"7'-6"26'-0 1/4"2'-0"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 30'-0' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FROM AVERAGE TOP OFCURB AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE D.S. 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X8 P.G. FASCIA PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GARAGE = -2'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 21'-8"23'-0 1/4"D.S. D.S.PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. 50'-0"12'-0"7'-6"12'-0"7'-6"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 19.23 30'-0' MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT FROM AVERAGE TOP OFCURB AVERAGE ELEVATION BETWEEN FRONT AND REAR PROPERTY LINES = 20.13 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE D.S. 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X8 P.G. FASCIA PAINTED BOARD & BATTEN @ 12" O.C. 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GARAGE = -2'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L T.O. PLATE = 9'-0"23'-0 1/4"D.S. D.S. PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION @ FAMILY ROOM SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 APPROVED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"4 APPROVED EAST ELEVATION @ FAMILY ROOM 22 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: 24X36 WEST ELEVATION SIDE- BY-SIDE Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 100'-0" 16'-4"2'-0"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 SKYLIGHT D.S. D.S. SKYLIGHT GATE 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2'-0" OVERHANG ABOVE DOOR 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" REAR YARD FRONT YARD SIDEWALK PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING, TYP. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" D.S. PAINTED METAL GUTTER & D.S., TYP. 100'-0" 16'-4"2'-0"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 SKYLIGHT D.S. D.S. SKYLIGHT GATE 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2'-0" OVERHANG ABOVE DOOR 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L REAR YARD FRONT YARD SIDEWALK COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" D.S. PAINTED METAL GUTTER & D.S., TYP. PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING, TYP. Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 APPROVED WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION 2 2 SARAH & THEO WONG RESIDENCEREMODEL & ADDITION1548 WESTMOOR ROADBURLINGAME, CA 94010BM 4-121 BLDG. PERMIT REVISION 3.22.22 MGG 10.27.21 Drawn By: Job Number: Sheet Title: 24X36 EAST ELEVATION SIDE - BY-SIDE Date: Revisions By Kotas/ Pantaleoni Architects Anthony A. Pantaleoni LEED AP 70 Zoe Street Suite 200 San Francisco, California 94107 t. 415 495 4051 f. 415 495 6885 design@kp-architects.com 1 100'-0"2'-11 7/8"3'-0"2'-6"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 SKYLIGHT 6'H. REDWOOD FENCE & GATE PAINTED METAL GUTTER & D.S., TYP. D.S. D.S. 2X6 P.G. FASCIA D.S. 2'-0" OVERHANG ABOVE DOOR 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L FRONT YARD SIDEWALK PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING, TYP. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. RIVER ROCK, TYP. T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" OPEN 100'-0"1'-5 3/4"3'-0"2'-6"26'-0 1/4"AVERAGE T.O. CURB = 20.73 SKYLIGHT 6'H. REDWOOD FENCE & GATE PAINTED METAL GUTTER & D.S., TYP. D.S. D.S. 2X6 P.G. FASCIA 2'-0" OVERHANG ABOVE DOOR 1ST FLOOR = 0'-0" GARAGE SLAB = -2'-0" 2ND FLOOR = 10'-0" TOP OF PLATE = 19'-0" ROOF PEAK = ± 24'-8" P L P L FRONT YARD SIDEWALK PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING, TYP. RIVER ROCK, TYP. T.O. PLATE = 9'-0" OPEN D.S. PAINTED HARDI LAP SIDING, TYP. Construction Revision 8.2.22 MGG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION 2 2 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1805 Easton Drive Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Property Owners: Michael and Raquel Seitz APN: 026-171-330 Designer: Julio Guerrero, Guerrero Design Lot Area: 8,417 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Note: This application was submitted prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. 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 tha t additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant is proposing a first and second floor addition at the rear of the house. The total proposed floor area would increase from 3,190 SF (0.38 FAR) to 3,705 SF (0.44 FAR), where the maximum allowed is 3,793 SF (0.45 FAR). The existing second floor has a nonconforming encroachment into the declining height envelope along both sides of the house. The proposed second floor addition complies with declining height envelope regulations. There are a total of four bedrooms in the existing house. With this application, the number of bedrooms would not change. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The attached garage measures 15’-2” x 19’-5” (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking for the four-bedroom house; an uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes converting the existing laundry room area on the first floor of the house into a 341 SF junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). Review of the JADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the JADU complies with the ADU Ordinance. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(2)). 1805 Easton Drive Lot Area: 8,417 SF Plans date stamped: September 26, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-0” 21’-5” no change no change 15'-0" or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 6’-10” 2’-8” 8’-0” (to addition) 12’-2” (to addition) 4'-0" 4'-0" Item No. 8b Design Review Study Design Review 1805 Easton Drive -2- 1805 Easton Drive Lot Area: 8,417 SF Plans date stamped: September 26, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ'D Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 91’-5” 91’-5” 75’-0” 75’-0” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,082 SF 24.7% 2,657 SF 31.6% 3,367 SF 40% FAR: 3,190 SF 0.38 FAR 3,662 SF 0.44 FAR 3,793 SF ¹ 0.45 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (15’-2” x 19’-5” clear interior) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 1 covered (9 ’x 18’ for existing conditions) + 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 25’-0” 25’-0” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: nonconforming encroachment complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 8,417 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,793 SF (0.45 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: Aluminum clad wood with simulated divided lites  Doors: Wood entry door  Siding: Stucco  Roof: Asphalt shingle roofing Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on February 14, 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 February 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter (see attachments), dated September 30, 2022, and revised plans, date stamped September 26, 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. 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; Design Review 1805 Easton Drive -3- 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, asphalt shingle roofing, aluminum wood clad windows with simulated divided lites, stucco siding, and wood doors) is compatible with the character of the neighborhood, and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. 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 p lans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 26, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A3.5; 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 Planni ng 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; Design Review 1805 Easton Drive -4- 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 flo or area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Michael and Raquel Seitz, applicants and property owners Julio Guerrero, Guerrero Design, designer Attachments: February 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Letter of Response to Planning Commission, dated September 30, 2022 Email from Michael Wright, dated October 6, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Photos of the neighborhood Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 30, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 14, 2022 b.1805 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Michael and Raquel Seitz, applicants and property owners; Julio Geurrero, Guerrero Design, designer) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1805 Easton Dr - Staff Report 1805 Easton Dr - Attachments 1805 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Julio Guerrero, designer, and Michael and Raquel Seitz, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Windows should have similar grid patterns throughout the house. >On the East Elevation, the center section of the house looks very blank, consider reconfiguring the closet and bathroom upstairs. If you were to put the closet towards the center of the house, you can get the bathroom to the exterior wall and get a window along that elevation. It's a little deceptive because you're showing the filled in windows as having some texture, but it is actually part of the blank wall. The neighbor is not going to like looking at a big blank wall. You can do window treatments and frosted glass, there’s a lot of options to give that blank wall something. >We need to get some definitive analysis from staff on the JADU. The concern is that it is not a separate dwelling unit that the community can take advantage of. It looks like an adjunct living space that doesn't meet the spirit of what the intentions are for an JADU. Ask that staff provide an interpretation on that because the project is slightly below the allowable maximum FAR. >I also have the same concerns from a design review standpoint on the East Elevation. Effectively, once you have ignored the heavy poch é, all we have is a stucco wall that flows from the second floor all the way to the living room; we end up with these large media walls. The only thing breaking up that big blank wall is the lattice that's on the living room portion of the first floor. Consider revisiting that side because from a design review standpoint, it's out of scale with the rest of the house. It doesn't have a breakup of the mass with some windows or openings to provide relief. My fellow commissioner raises a good point in terms of the second floor window being large. I understand wanting maximum height into the spaces, but the proportions of the windows have to work within themselves. It's losing the charm and Page 1City of Burlingame February 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes delicacy that we see in the Easton Addition. From a design review standpoint, we;re concerned mainly with the East Elevation and how the windows are going to operate in terms of the double -hung operation; the center rail is going to be larger than a muntin. >I would like to echo my fellow commissioner ’s comments and would like to add that the window wells we spoke about should probably show up on the second floor plan as they encroach into the lower roof on sheet A1.4; that would be helpful to understand. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. It feels like we have this big wall. Having a 3D rendering might be helpful in this situation just to get a real feel of how things were laid out and what type of materials are being used to get a better sense of the house. I agree that the East Elevation definitely needs some work. >Looking at the photos of the house online it has a very cute look and presence on the street . Unfortunately, the drawings as elevations are flat and give no personality to this house, so it's hard to see how some of the addition pieces are working with the house or not. It really feels like it's going to be taped together at the moment. I’m not seeing the cohesiveness of what a house would look like if it were done . What I’m seeing is a remodel that is being patched together and that doesn't mean it can't be a good looking house that way. It's just that the drawings, not being 3D and not having anything other than simple line weights to them, aren't helping me fall in love with the addition. There needs to be some more communication with this one to make me feel comfortable with some of the things that are being changed. We're adding in the back, but we have a cut off roof in the middle which could be corrected with a hipped roof pretty easily. Again, it's just not going to turn out very cohesive the way we're going. >Request that the applicant to provide a little more clarification on that garage when they come back, it seems to have a very short header. I need to understand how they're using it because I don't know if you can get a car in that garage. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Schmid, and Pfaff6 - Absent:Loftis1 - Page 2City of Burlingame September 30th, 2022 To: Burlingame Planning Commission City of Burlingame Building Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Planning Commission Re: Response to Feb 14, 2022 Feedback on PROJECT ADDRESS: 1805 EASTON DRIVE We are respectfully submitting updated plans for the addition at 1805 Easton Drive. We have been working diligently to address the Commission’s concerns raised back in February of this year. • Feedback 1: Proposed East Elevation – address blank wall on upper floor; add windows and detailing, need to break up mass. • Response 1: Shown on A3.2, we have added two full size windows on the upper floor, one in the walk-in closet, and one in the shower of the primary bathroom. On the ground floor, we also added two windows to the media wall. • Feedback 2: Second floor window wells – windows seem large and out of proportion, revisit; show window wells on the second story floor plan. • Response 2: We reduced the size of the windows so that window wells will not be necessary. • Feedback 3: Window grid pattern – some windows are not consistent with the grid patterns of other windows (new first floor windows on east elevation and second floor window on left side new south elevation). • Response 3: Thank you for the comment. We changed the design so that all the windows are either re-used from the existing structure, or match those of the existing windows. • Feedback 4: Garage door height – dimension door height from grade; does not seem that a car can fit through garage door. • Response 4: Garage opening measures 73” and fits homeowners’ mid-sized SUV as shown in A3.0. • Feedback 5: Drawings – would like to see more cohesiveness with additions and existing house. • Response 5: We have addressed the outages mentioned and feel the revised design is cohesive with the existing home. We have also shared our designs with our neighbors and have incorporated their feedback. The new design shown on elevations A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, and A3.3 are a significant improvement versus existing home design. • Feedback 6: Rendering – provide 3D renderings with different perspectives of the proposed house. • Response 6: Provided on A3.4 and A3.5. • Feedback 7: JADU reconfigure layout so that it is more private and separated from main dwelling. • Response 7: As seen on A3.3, we have added a dedicated entrance to the JADU, two additional windows, as well as a private hallway as shown on A1.3. Respectfully, Raquel & Michael Seitz – homeowners Julio Guerrero - Architect From: Michael Wright [mailto:michaelwwright@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2022 12:01 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners <PlanningCommissioners@burlingame.org> Subject: 1805 Easton Drive Burlingame Planning Commission This email is submitted in support of the pending permit at 1805 Easton Drive. As a long-time Burlingame resident, who has had many interactions with nearly every department, the level of service in Burlingame is exceptional. It's also important that the Planning Commission and City Council in Burlingame help shepherd the individual homeowners through the challenging process, not just the large developers. Given the submission of the required documents that satisfy all of the requirements at 1805 Easton Drive, I would like to voice my support for the project. Sincerely, Michael Wright 415-637-7516 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 1805 Easton Drive, zoned R-1; Michael and Raquel Seitz, property owners, APN: 026-171-330; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 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. It is hereby found that the project set forth above is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Q uality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition, 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 is 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 October, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1805 Easton Drive Effective October 21, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 26, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A3.5; 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: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 1805 Easton Drive Effective October 21, 2022 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 framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1805 Easton Drive 300’ noticing APN: 026-171-330 SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/221805 EASTON DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010PROJECT DIRECTORYA.1HGL#F-#C-1ROOM NAME101EQUIPMENT TYPEGRID LINE REFERENCEKEY NOTEFLOOR ASSEMBLYCEILING ASSEMBLYROOM NAMEROOM NUMBER1- Hr. Rated2 - Hr. RatedSCOPE OF WORKPROJECT DATA / CODESTEMPORARYNORTHARROWDRAWING TITLESCALE:DRAWINGTITLE TAGELEVATION NUMBERSHEET NUMBEREXTERIORELEVATION TAGELEVATION NUMBERSHEET NUMBERINTERIORELEVATION TAGDETAIL NUMBERSHEET NUMBERDETAILREFERENCELEASE LINEDRAWING INDEXDEFERRED SUBMITTALSTHE FOLLOWING SCOPES MAY REQUIRE SEPARATE ADDITIONAL PERMITS. SCOPESINCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO:ELEVATION TAGBenchmark TitleBenchmark ElevationDATUMDOOR TAGCEILING FINISHCEILING HEIGHTA.F.F.CEILING TAGTYP.FINISH TAGSHEET KEY NOTESTRUCTURAL GRIDWALL TAGWINDOW TAGREVISION TAG11'-6"FIRE EXTINGUISHERFLOOR DRAINJ BOXWALL RECEPTACLEFLOOR OUTLET BOXARCHITECTURAL SYMBOLS KEYABBREVIATIONS1.SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE SUBMITTED ATINITIAL PLAN REVIEW.2.STORMWATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT TO BESUBMITTED AT INITIAL PLAN REVIEW.ADDRESS:1805 EASTON DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010CODES:2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN STANDARDS CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODEYEAR BUILT: 1942ZONING: RESIDENTIAL R1CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VSTORIES: TWO AND ONE-HALFLOT AREA: 8,417 S.F.HOME AREA: 2,021 S.F.NEW ADDITION AREA: 804 S.F. ON REAR BUILDING ELEVATIONAPN: 026-171-330SPRINKLED: NO(E) BLDG SIZE: 2, 821 S.F.GROUND FLOOR = 1, 635 S.F. + 2ND FLOOR = 1, 186 S.F.1.ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY, SUCH AS PLACEMENT OF DEBRIS BIN INSTREET, WORK IN SIDEWALK AREA, PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS,IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.PORTA POTTY’S ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PLACED IN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY.2.THE PLANS INDICATE THE GENERAL EXTENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION NECESSARYFOR THE WORK, BUT ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE ALL-INCLUSIVE. ALL DEMOLITIONAND ALL NEW WORK NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR A FINISHED JOB IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE INTENTION OF THE DRAWING IS INCLUDED REGARDLESS OF WHETHERSHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR MENTIONED IN THE NOTES. ALL WORK IS NEW,U.O.N.3.DIMENSIONS ARE TO EDGE OF SLAB, FACE OF STUD, CENTER OF DOOR, CENTER OFWINDOW, AND CENTER OF PLUMBING FIXTURE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.4.DIMENSIONS ON REFLECTED CEILING OR ELECTRICAL PLANS ARE FROM FACE OFFINISH OR CENTER LINE OF COLUMN TO CENTER LINE OF FIXTURE OR GROUP OFFIXTURES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.5.ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR CONFLICTS FOUND IN THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THEOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THEWORK.6.ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRELINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDMATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS.7.ALL WORK SHALL BE INSTALLED TRUE, PLUMB, SQUARE, LEVEL, AND IN PROPERALIGNMENT.8.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLDIMENSIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECTTHE EXISTING PREMISES AND TAKE NOTE OF EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TOSUBMITTING PRICES. NO CLAIM SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR DIFFICULTIESENCOUNTERED WHICH COULD HAVE REASONABLY BEEN INFERRED FROM SUCH ANEXAMINATION.9.ALL DIMENSIONS NOTED "VERIFY" AND "V.I.F." ARE TO BE CHECKED BYCONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IMMEDIATELY REPORT ANY VARIANCESTO THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR RESOLUTION.10.VERIFY ALL ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS WITH CIVIL, STRUCTURAL,MECHANICAL/PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND DESIGN/BUILD DRAWINGS BEFOREORDERING OR INSTALLATION OF ANY WORK.11.VERIFY CLEARANCES FOR FLUES, VENTS, CHASES, SOFFITS, FIXTURES, ETC.BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION, ORDERING OF, OR INSTALLATION OF ANY ITEMS OFWORK.12.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS.13.COORDINATE ALL WORK WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITEDTO: IRRIGATION PIPES, ELECTRICALE CONDUIT, WATER LINES, GAS LINES,DRAINAGE LINES, ETC.14.PROTECT ALL EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE CONDITIONS TO REMAIN INCLUDINGBUT NOT LIMITED TO WALLS, TREES AND SHRUBS, PAVING, CABINETS, FINISHES,ETC.15.SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THEINSTALLATION OF ANY NEW SEWER FIXTURE PER ORDINANCE NO. 1710.16.WHERE LOCATIONS OF WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE NOT DIMENSIONED, THEYSHALL BE CENTERED IN THE WALL OR PLACED AS REQUIRED FOR THE FRAME TOCLEAR THE ADJACENT FINISH, AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.17.ALL CHANGES IN FLOOR MATERIALS OCCUR AT CENTERLINE OF DOOR OR FRAMEDOPENING UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.18.INSTALL ALL FIXTURES, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS PER MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.19.INSTALL SMOKE DETECTORS AND FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESPECIFICATIONS AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH LOCAL FIRE MARSHALREQUIREMENTS.20.ALL NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACED BYWATER-CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES WHERE APPLICABLE.21.NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS, MAILBOX,ETC) PROPOSED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY.22.GLASS SUBJECT TO HUMAN IMPACT SHALL BE OF SAFETY GLAZING MATERIAL TOMEET STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.23.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE AND PROPER SHORING TO THE NEWAND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION THROUGH OUT ALL CONSTRUCTION PHASES. THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF ANYTEMPORARY BRACING, INCLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED TO LATERAL FORCE RESISTINGELEMENTS REQUIRED TO RESIST WIND, EARTH OR EARTHQUAKE FORCES DURINGCONSTRUCTION. MAINTAIN SAFE CONDITIONS AT ALL TIMES UNTIL STRUCTURALELEMENTS ARE PERMANENTLY ATTACHED. DRAWINGS INDICATE STRUCTURE INFINAL FORM CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING DESIGN LOADINGS.24.PER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE ARTICLE 1101.4 AND CALGREEN SECTION 301.1, FORALL BUILDING ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPERTY, EXISTING PLUMBING FIXTURES IN THE ENTIRE HOUSE THAT DO NOTMEET COMPLIANT FLOW RATES WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADED. WATER CLOSETSWITH A FLOW RATE IN EXCESS OF 1.6 GPF WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITHWATER CLOSETS WITH A MAXIMUM 1.28 GPF. SHOWER HEADS WITH A FLOW RATEGREATER THAN 2.5 GPM WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH A MAXIMUM 1.8 GPMSHOWER HEAD. LAVATORY AND KITCHEN FAUCETS WITH A FLOW RATE GREATERTHAN 2.2 GPM WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH A FAUCET WITH MAXIMUM FLOWRATE OF 1.2 GPM (1.8 GPM FOR KITCHEN FAUCETS).1805 EASTON DRIVE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010SEITZ RESIDENCEPARTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSISTING OF A NEWJUNIOR - ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN, DINING AND LIVINGROOM REMODEL. REMOVING EXISTING FIXTURES, CABINETS, APPLIANCES, WALLS,HARDWARE AND FLOORING. INSTALLING NEW STRUCTURE FOR AN OPEN FLOOR PLAN,NEW KITCHEN CABINETRY AND APPLIANCES.SECOND FLOOR SCOPE OF WORK TO INCLUDE PRIMARY ROOM AND BATHROOMRENOVATION.EASTON DRIVEPROJECT LOCATIONVICINITY MAPBLOCK PLANBUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGECABRILLO AVEDRAKE AVEBROADWAY SHERMAN AVE GROUND LEVELBUILDING AREAEXISTING BUILDING (SF)NEW BUILDING (SF)1, 635512(E) PORCH(200)-(E) ENTRY59-(E) LIVING320-(E) TOILET & BATH26-(E) STAIRWELL / MECHANICAL67-(E) STORAGE36-(E) KITCHEN / DINING425-(E) LAUNDRY AREA408-UPPER LEVEL1, 186270(E) HALLWAY57-(E) TOILET & BATH(E) BEDROOM 1(E) BEDROOM 2(E) BEDROOM 3(E) PRIMARY BEDROOM(E) TOILET & BATH / WICTOTAL41-228-163-228-251-177-2, 821 SF782 SF* (N) TOTAL BUILDING AREA = 2, 821 SQ FT ((E) + (N) 374 SF AT 1ST FLOOR + (N) 227 SF AT2ND FLOOR ADDITION)LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONLOT COVERAGE: .4 X 8,417 SF= 3,366.8 SF(E) FIRST FLOOR = 1,820.65 SFPORCH OVERHANG = 193.50 SFBALCONY = 62.60 SFTOTAL: 2,076.75 SF2076.75/8419= 24.7%(E) FIRST FLOOR = 1,820.65 SFPORCH OVERHANG = 193.50 SFBALCONY = 62.60 SF(N) ADDITION = 504 SF(N) DECK OVERHANG = 149 SFTOTAL: 2,729.75 SF2,729.75/8419= 32.4%FLOOR AREA CALCULATION(E) GARAGE294-(N) LIVING ROOM-343(N) DINING ROOM-169(N) PRIMARY BEDROOM-270(E) TOILET & BATH41-A0.0COVER SHEET &PROJECT DATAOWNER:MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506A0.0COVER SHEET, INDEX & PROJECT DIRECTORYA0.5A3.0 - A3.3A2.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSSECOND FLOOR FURNITURE, FINISHES & EQUIPMENT PLANEROSION CONTROL PLANSECOND FLOOR PLANA1.0EXISTING & DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.1FIRST FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLANA1.2EXISTING & DEMOLITION ROOF PLANTITLESHEETFIRST FLOOR PLANA2.3FIRST FLOOR FURNITURE, FINISHES & EQUIPMENT PLANARCHITECT:GUERRERO DESIGN2322 LARKIN STREETSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109CONTACT: JULIO GUERREROguerrero.design@mail.com415.815.8419A1.1EXISTING & DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.2SECOND FLOOR REFLECTED CEILING PLANA1.3A1.4STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:JEFFREY D. BLOCK, P.E.BOULDER COEMAIL: jdblock3@frontier.com208.699.0080ROOF PLANA1.5A3.4 - A3.5PROJECT EXTERIOR RENDERINGSA0.1CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES SHEETA0.2SURVEY SITE PLANGENERAL NOTESWEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M.SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M.SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS.)(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYSAND NON-CITYHOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.NOTE: CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUST NOW BEINCLUDED ON THE PLANS.CONSTRUCTION HOURSFIRE DEPARTMENT NOTESA0.3EXISTING & DEMOLITION SITE PLANA0.4NEW SITE PLAN(E) FIRST FLOOR = 1,820.65 SF(E) SECOND FLOOR = 1,435.85 SFTOTAL: 3,256.50 SF3,256.5/8419= 0.39 FAR(N) FIRST FLOOR = 2,324.65 SF(N) SECOND FLOOR = 1,731.05 SF(N) JUNIOR ADU = ( 310.8 SF)TOTAL: 3,744.9 SF3,744.9/8419= 0.44 FAR(.32 x 8,417 SF) + 1,100 SF= 3,793.44 SF= (0.45) FARRECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISIONREVISED SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A0.1CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES A0.2SURVEYSITE PLANSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22 SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A0.3EXISTING AND DEMOLITIONSITE PLANSITE PLAN NOTES1(E) HOME ENTRANCE TO REMAIN2(E) CITY SIDEWALK TO REMAIN3(E) TREE TO REMAIN4(E) GARAGE ENTRY TO REMAIN5(E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY DRIVE, TO REMAIN6(E) DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN, REPAIR AS REQUIRED7(E) LAWN8(E) SEWER CONNECTION AND CLEANOUT, TO REMAIN9(E) ELECTRICAL METER10 (E) GAS CONNECTION, AND GAS METER TO REMAINEASTON DRIVE (80' WIDE)GRADE SLOPEGRADE SLOPE11/8" = 1'-0"EXISTING AND DEMOLITION SITE PLAN11 (E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN16(N) ADDITION OUTLINE. GC TO REMOVE ALL (E) BRICK PAVERS, CONCRETE,LAWN AND SUBGRADE AS REQUIRED18(E) FENCE TO REMAIN19(E) LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN20PARKING SPOT AT STREET TO REMAIN21REMOVE (E) ROOF AND JOISTS FOR (N) ADDITION22(E) WATER CONNECTION TO REMAIN17GC TO REMOVE (E) FENCE, RAISED TERRACES, RETAINING WALLS ANDSTAIRWAYS. PREPARE AREA FOR GRADE INFILL12 (E) ELECTRICAL UTILITY CONNECTION TO HOME13 (E) WATER HOSE BIB TO REMAINPROPERTY LINE0'-0"(E) LOWERGREEN AREAPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E) WALK(E) COVERED PORCH(E) BACK PATIO1018894612722021153181913191913141871617171671817317172118152'4'8'14'0N55˚04'00"W 174.85'N55˚04'00"W 162.27'N34˚57'48"E 49.94'N20˚49'00"E 51.49'327(E) DRIVEWAY382547.6TREE LEGENDAPLUM TREEBEUCALYPTUS TREECSOUTHERN MAGNOLIADMADRONE TREEEASH TREEFCOASTAL REDWOOD47.647.65ABDCEFFF47.4D.H.E48.0D.H.E46.8D.H.E47.2D.H.E47.15D.H.E47.1D.H.E35.235.6262325232414(E) HVAC UNIT TO REMAIN2324252627REMOVE (E) CURB, GUTTER AND DRIVEWAY FRONTING EASTON ROADFROM PROJECTED PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARIESREMOVE (E) SANITARY SEWER LATERAL, WATER AND FIRE LINES.DISCONNECT AND PLUG ALL (E) CONNECTIONS AT THE MAIN PER CITYSTANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONSREMOVE (E) SIDEWALK FRONTING EASTON ROAD FROM PROJECTEDPROPERTY LINE BOUNDARIESREMOVE AND SAVE (E) WOOD GATEREMOVE AND SAVE (E) WOOD FENCE BETWEEN EASTON ROAD ANDPROPERTY LINE FRONTAGE28REMOVE (E) SIDEWALK AND EXCAVATE GRADE TO MEET (N) JADU ENTRYTHRESHOLD15(E) HOSE BIB TO BE REMOVED28 SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A0.4NEW SITE PLANAREA OF WORK6GRADE SLOPE711/8" = 1'-0"NEW SITE PLAN0'-0"103114171922SITE PLAN NOTES1(E) HOME ENTRANCE TO REMAIN2(E) STONE PAVER WALK TO REMAIN3(N) 4” CONCRETE SLAB, MATCH (E) DRIVE WAY BOUNDARIES(N) CURB AND GUTTER FRONTING EASTON ROAD, PER CITY STANDARDSAND SPECIFICATIONS5(N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK, PER CITY STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS6(N) LAWN INFILL, REF. RETAINING WALL DRAWINGS7(E) LAWN TO REMAIN9(E) ELECTRICAL METER10 (E) GAS CONNECTION, AND GAS METER TO REMAIN14(E) HVAC UNIT TO REMAIN15(E) CONCRETE CULVERT TO REMAIN16(N) ELEVATED WOOD DECK18(N) FENCE19(E) CREEK TO REMAIN17(N) DECKPROPERTY LINE18189111320(N) RETAINING WALL2020-3'-10"2'4'8'14'0PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEN55˚04'00"W 174.85'N55˚04'00"W 162.27'N34˚57'48"E 49.94'N20˚49'00"E 51.49'1647.647.747.6535.235.647.547.547.747.247.9GRADE SLOPE158454(N) SANITARY SEWER LATERAL, WATER AND FIRE LINES. CONNECT TOTHE MAIN CITY LINE, PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDSPECIFICATIONS. GC TO APPLY FOR AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT PRIORTO WORK COMMENCING8SITE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCUATIONSPRE-CONSTRUCTION·(E) FRONT DRIVEWAY= 437.8 S.F.·(E) FRONT SIDEWALK= 173 S.F.·(E) FRONT PORCH=193.5 S.F.·(E) HOME FOOTPRINT=1,820.7 S.F.·(E) EAST SIDE SIDEWALK=178.7 S.F.·(E)WEST SIDE SIDEWALK=122.5 S.F.·(E)REAR PATIO=704.5 S.F.TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA=3,666.7 S.F.LOT AREA= 8,417 S.F.(E) PERVIOUS AREA=4,750.3 S.F.IMPERVIOUS AREA %=43.6%POST-CONSTRUCTION(N) FRONT DRIVEWAY= 437.8 S.F.(E) FRONT SIDEWALK= 173 S.F.(E) FRONT PORCH=193.5 S.F.(E) HOME FOOTPRINT=1,820.7 S.F.(N) HOME ADDITION=576 S.F.(N) EAST SIDE SIDEWALK=232.9 S.F.(E)WEST SIDE SIDEWALK=122.5 S.F.(N) BACK DECK=445.2 S.F.(N)REAR DECK=435.4 S.F.(N) TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA=4,437 S.F.LOT AREA= 8,417 S.F.(N) PERVIOUS AREA=3,980 S.F.IMPERVIOUS AREA %=52.7%2111(E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN21(N) DETENTION AREA, UNDER (N) DECK. 1,070 SF IMPERVIOUSAREA FOR STORMWATER22PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS (DECK, RETAINING WALL, POOL, SHED,DWELLING FOUNDATION, DRIVEWAY PAD, ETC.) THAT ARE CONSTRUCTEDWITHIN 25’ OF THE CREEKS TOP OF BANK SHALL STABILIZE THESURROUNDING AREA TO PREVENT EROSION DUE TO STORMWATERDISCHARGE FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS. IN ADDITION, VEGETATION THATMAY IMPACT THE CREEK MUST BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITHSTABILIZED MATERIAL12(E) ELECTRICAL UTILITY CONNECTION TO HOME13(E) WATER HOSE BIB TO REMAIN100 YEARFLOOD ZONE LINE SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A0.5EROSION CONTROLPLANEASTON DRIVE (80' WIDE)GRADE SLOPEGRADE SLOPE11/8" = 1'-0"SITE PLAN0'-0"(E) LOWERGREEN AREAPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE(E) WALK(E) COVERED PORCH(E) BACK PATIO2'4'8'14'0N55˚04'00"W 174.85'N55˚04'00"W 162.27'N34˚57'48"E 49.94'N20˚49'00"E 51.49'(E) DRIVEWAY47.647.647.65SITE ENTRANCECOVERED DEBRIS BOXCONCRETE WASHOUT, SEENOTES ON THIS SHEETEROSION BLANKETSILT FENCE EXISTING FIRST PLAN NOTESDEMOLITION FIRST PLAN NOTESWALL LEGENDSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/2211/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING AND DEMOLITION FIRST FLOOR PLANA1.0EXISTING AND DEMOLITIONFIRST FLOOR PLAN2'4'8'14'0 EXISTING SECOND PLAN NOTESDEMOLITION SECOND PLAN NOTESWALL LEGEND11/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING AND DEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLANA1.1EXISTING AND DEMOLITIONSECOND FLOOR PLANSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22014'8'4'2' EXISTING ROOF PLAN NOTESDEMOLITION ROOF PLAN NOTES11/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING AND DEMOLITION ROOF PLANA1.2EXISTING AND DEMOLITIONROOF PLANSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22(E) COVERED PORCH (E) RESIDENCE(E) COVERED PORCH2'4'8'14'04:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:124:12 4:124:124:12 FIRST FLOOR PLAN NOTESPLAN LEGENDGENERAL NOTES FOR NEW BATHROOMS0'-0"0'-0"-1'-4"0'-0"(N) JADU - NATURAL LIGHT CALCULATION’”’”’”’”’”’”WINDOW SCHEDULE’”’”’”’”’”’”SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LI C E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/2211/4" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR PLANA1.3FIRST FLOOR PLAN2'4'8'14'0 SECOND FLOOR PLAN NOTESGENERAL NOTES FOR NEW BATHROOMSPLAN LEGEND11/4" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLANA1.4SECOND FLOOR PLANSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/222'4'8'14'0 ROOF FLOOR PLAN NOTES11/4" = 1'-0"ROOF PLANA1.5ROOF PLANSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/224:12 4:124:124:124:12 4:124:12 4:124:124:12 4:12 4:124:12 4:12014'8'4'2'4:12 GRADE SLOPE 2%GRADE SLOPE 2%4:12 ELEVATION NOTESSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A3.0EXTERIORELEVATION11/4" = 1'-0"NEW NORTH ELEVATION21/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION2'4'8'14'0014'8'4'2'44.4'D.H.E.44.15'D.H.E. (47.6' + 40.7')/2 = 44.15'3NTSEXISTING GARAGE PHOTOGRAPHS ELEVATION NOTESSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A3.1EXTERIORELEVATION11/4" = 1'-0"NEW SOUTH ELEVATION21/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION04'2'014'8'4'2'8'14'44.4'D.H.E.44.15'D.H.E. (47.6' + 40.7')/2 = 44.15'47.1'46.8'47.1'46.8' ELEVATION NOTESSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A3.2EXTERIORELEVATION11/4" = 1'-0"NEW EAST ELEVATION21/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING EAST ELEVATION2'4'8'14'02'4'8'14'0 ELEVATION NOTESSUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LI C E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A3.3EXTERIORELEVATION11/4" = 1'-0"NEW WEST ELEVATION21/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING WEST ELEVATION2'4'8'14'02'4'8'14'0 SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC E NSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A3.4PROJECT EXTERIOR RENDERINGS SUBMITTAL/REVISIONSSHEET NUMBERSEITZ RESIDENCE 1805 Easton Drive BURLINGAME, CA 94010PERMIT RESUBMITTAL09/07/21LIC ENSED ARCHITECTSTATE OF CALIFORN IA MICHAEL & RAQUEL SEITZ1805 EASTON DRIVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010mseitz@gmail.com650.714.0506APN: 026-171-330PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0201/21/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0306/06/22PERMIT RESUBMITTAL #0409/26/22A3.5PROJECT EXTERIOR RENDERINGS Item No. 8c Regular Action City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Address: 1305 Rollins Road Meeting Date: October 11, 2022 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for exterior facade improvements to an existing multi- tenant commercial building. Property Owner: Black Mountain Properties, LLC APN: 026-132-080 Applicant and Architect: Steven Stept, Feldman Architecture Lot Area: 42,136 SF General Plan: Innovation Industrial Zoning: I/I (Innovation Industrial) Current Use: Industrial (Vehicle Service and Vehicle Repair) & Office Uses Proposed Use: No change in uses under this application. Allowable Use: Light industrial, research and development, business services and service commercial uses (such as automobile repair and maintenance). Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review. Project Summary: The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Rollins Road and Marsten Road and is zoned Innovation Industrial (I/I). North Carolan Avenue is located at the rear of the property, so there are three street frontages for this corner lot. The site measures 42,136 SF and contains a one story multi-unit commercial building. The building has five (5) separate tenant spaces and totals 23,871 SF in area. Currently, three of the existing five tenant spaces are vacant. Existing uses include automotive repair, automotive body work, office, and light industrial uses (see table on page 2 for detailed information). The proposed project includes exterior façade upgrades to the existing commercial building; no new floor area is being proposed and there would be no change in the overall building height. The scope of work includes demolition of the existing exterior finishes, plywood soffit at the entrances, existing storefronts, and overhead garage doors. New exterior materials would be installed including corrugated metal and stucco exterior siding, aluminum storefront windows, metal clad canopies, and new aluminum and glass overheard doors. There would be limited site work and would include new disabled-accessible parking spaces, parking space re- striping, new walkways, and new path of travel with truncated domes. Commercial Design Review is required when there are proposed changes to more than 50% of the building facades. The proposed exterior façades would include keeping all of the openings in the same locations on all three street facing façades, however all existing exterior materials would be changed to modernize the building. The changes are mainly focused on the Rollins Road and Marsten Road elevations. The façades of the existing building primarily contains a stucco finish. The Rollins Road frontage serves are the primary building frontage with recessed aluminum storefront entrances (for each unit) and windows with wood soffits above. There is prominent stone cladding at the Marsten Road and Rollins Road corner. Each of the units has a metal overhead, roll-up door for the garage/warehouse portion of the unit along the Rollins Road frontage; there is also a roll-up door on the North Carolan Avenue frontage. Each of the openings for the unit entrances and overhead roll-up doors on the Rollins Road frontage are angled to widen at the bottom. The proposed project would include squaring the openings on the Rollins Road frontage. The overhead roll up doors on North Carolan Avenue would remain, however the Rollins Road overhead roll up doors would be replaced with new aluminum and glass overhead doors (in the same openings); each would have a stucco surround that would project slightly beyond the façade. The proposed front elevation (Rollins Road) would include a new stucco base, corrugated metal siding with new metal coping at the top, and a metal canopy above the unit entrances. Commercial Design Review 1305 Rollins Road Page 2 of 6 The existing site contains 35 parking spaces. The parking demand is driven by the uses proposed in each of the respective five (5) tenant spaces. Given that some of the spaces are currently vacant, the parking requirement will need to be revisited for each new tenant; if additional parking is required then there would be a separate parking variance application independent of this design review project. The proposed project includes improvements to the parking and site conditions, with upgrades to the disabled-accessible parking resulting in a loss of one on-site parking space. For commercial uses, the code requires that vehicles turn around and exit the site in a forward direction. Currently, the project site is nonconforming because there are eight (8) parking spaces at the rear of the building (abutting North Carolan Avenue) that are parallel spaces and exit the site by backing onto the street. However, these spaces are considered existing nonconforming with no changes proposed. The following application is required for this project:  Commercial Design Review for exterior façade changes to an existing commercial building (Code Section 25.68.020(C)(3)(e)). 1305 Rollins Road Lot Area: 42,136 SF Plans date stamped: September 20 and September 27, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Use: 1305-1307 Rollins Rd: 4,953 SF Martin Auto Color (Vehicle Services) No change Uses per C.S. 25.12.020 1309 Rollins Rd: 5,597 SF Mercedes Benz Auto Repair (vacant since 7/22) Will be marketed for similar use Uses per C.S. 25.12.020 1315 Rollins Rd: 4,447 SF Vehicle Services (Vacant) Will be marketed for similar use Uses per C.S. 25.12.020 1323 Rollins Rd: 4,447 SF SM Co. Mosquito Abatement District (office) No change Uses per C.S. 25.12.020 1331 Rollins Rd: 4,985 SF (Vacant since 1/22) No change Uses per C.S. 25.12.020 TOTAL: 23,871 SF No change 31,602 SF 1 (0.75 FAR) ¹ 0.75 x 42,136 SF = 31,602 SF Table continues on next page. Commercial Design Review 1305 Rollins Road Page 3 of 6 1305 Rollins Road Lot Area: 42,136 SF Plans date stamped: September 20 and September 27, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Setbacks: Front (Rollins Rd): 47’-6” No change 10'-0" Side (Martsten Rd): (interior): 10’-0” 0’-0” 1 No change 10’-0” 10’-0” Rear (N. Carolan Ave): 9’-10” No change 0’-0” Lot Coverage: 23,871 SF 56.6% No change 29,495 SF 70% Building Height: 22’-1” No change 35’-0” Landscaping in Front setback area: 3,502 SF 8.3% No change 6,320 SF 15% Parking: Off-Street Parking: 35 ² 34 (1 space lost to comply with ADA requirements – no variance required) Parking is determined by use ratios 1:300 SF – office 1:800 SF – auto repair 1:1,500 SF – light industrial Additional parking may be required for intensification of use Exiting: 8 existing vehicles back onto street to exit site 3 (N. Carolan side) No change Vehicles must exit in forward direction Drive Aisle Width: Rollins Rd – 24’ N. Carolan - 23’-4” 3 No change 24’-0” Parking Space Dimension Area: 9’-0” x 16’ -0” 4 9’ x 18’ 8’-6” x 17’-0” ¹ Existing, nonconforming interior side setback; no change. ² Existing, nonconforming parking; no change (uses/parking will be analyzed with each new tenant). 3 Existing, nonconforming exiting for parallel parking spaces at the rear of the building; no change. 4 Existing, nonconforming parking space dimension. Commercial Design Review 1305 Rollins Road Page 4 of 6 Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 26, 2022, the Commission discussed the proposed project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action calendar when all of the required information has been submitted (see attached September 26, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant responded to the Commission’s questions in a letter and facade detail sheet, dated September 27, 2022 (see attached). 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. For mixed-use developments having two-thirds or more of the total gross floor area dedicated to residential use, compliance with the objective design standards adopted by ordinance or resolution; 2. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles in the area in which the project is located; 3. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity in commercial and mixed-use zoning districts by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage and by locating off-street parking areas so that they do not dominate street frontages; 4. For commercial and industrial developments on visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 5. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of surrounding development and appropriate transitions to adjacent lower-intensity development and uses; 6. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure and restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features; and 7. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that complement on- site development and enhance the aesthetic character of district in which the development is located. 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. Commercial Design Review 1305 Rollins Road Page 5 of 6 Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed exterior façade improvements are 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. That the new stucco base, corrugated metal siding with new metal coping at the top, and metal canopy above each of the unit entrances would bring a new modern look to the existing building façade which is dated and the modernized façade is consistent with the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the City’s industrial area; and that the overhead roll up doors on Rollins Road would be replaced with new aluminum and glass overhead doors (in the same openings), each would have a stucco surround that would project beyond the façade creating articulation and depth to this main façade. 2. The project will be constructed on an existing 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 because the proposed project does not affect any zoning district development standards. 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 date stamped September 20, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A4.0 and with a façade detail sheet, date stamped September 27, 2022; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that 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; Commercial Design Review 1305 Rollins Road Page 6 of 6 6. 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. William Hagman, applicant and architect Black Mountain Properties, LLC, property owner Attachments: September 26, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Response Letter from Applicant, dated September 27, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission 2D Rendering 3D Rendering Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 30, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 26, 2022 d.1305 Rollins Road, zoned I /I - Application for Commercial Design Review for exterior facade improvements to an existing commercial building. (William Hagman, applicant and architect; Black Mountain Properties, LLC, property owner) (49 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1305 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1305 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1305 Rollins Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. William Hagman, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide a detail on the transition of the different materials for the proposed and the existing facades to show how the corrugated metal will be closed off. >This is a nice addition to an outdated building. The uses are good as long as they can find the tenants and the building functions well for this. I would like to see the reuse of it and the adaptation, it ’s going to be good. I can see the overhangs going over the entry doors because you might need four feet from the door to the overhang to fulfill the cover over an entry door. You may then have to consider using tiebacks to hold it up. Otherwise, it is a good project. >To clarify what my fellow commissioner said, I believe the front doors with overhangs are sufficiently set back so that there is plenty of depth. 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, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Gaul1 - Page 1City of Burlingame 09.27.22 1305 Rollins Rd. Burlingame, Ca. Commercial Design Review for façade changes APN: 026-132-080 Itemized Response Letter Per the request of the planning commission please find our response to the façade details requested. Detail A shows the condition where the proposed metal siding terminates at the face of the adjacent property wall at the Rollins Rd facade. Detail B shows the transition from the proposed metal siding to the existing concrete wall at the point along the N. Carolan Ave. facade where the existing building angles back to the rear façade. END OF ITEMIZED RESPONSE LETTER Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND COMMERCIAL 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 Commercial Design Review for exterior façade improvements to an existing multi-tenant commercial building at 1305 Rollins Road, Zoned I/I, BMP Rollins LLC, property owner, APN: 026-132-080; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 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 - Existing facilities, Class 1(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Commercial Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial 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 October, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Commercial Design Review 1305 Rollins Road Effective October 21, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 20, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A4.0 with a façade detail sheet, date stamped September 27, 2022; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 3. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 4. that 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 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9. 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. 1305 Rollins Road 300’ noticing APN: 026-132-080 Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT REGULAR ACTION (Public Hearing): Consideration and Recommendation of a Repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Bayfront Development Fee, and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee MEETING DATE: October 11, 2022 AGENDA ITEM: 8d ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: With the repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the City of Burlingame General Plan will be considered the guiding policy document for the respective specific plan areas. The adoption of the City of Burlingame General Plan was evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) through an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and no further environmental analysis is required pursuant to CEQA. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the following resolution, consider all public testimony (both oral and written) and, following conclusion of the public hearing, consider recommending adoption of the following resolution and ordinance by the City Council: A RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL REPEALING THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN AND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND RECOGNIZING THAT CERTAIN PREVIOUSLY-ENTITLED PROJECTS MAY CONTINUE TO PAY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PLANS; AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REPEALING THE BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FEE AND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEE Repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan October 11, 2022 2 BACKGROUND The Bayfront Specific Plan was first adopted in 2004 (Resolution 26-2004), with amendments in 2006 (Resolution 58-2006) and 2012 (Resolution 44-2012). The Bayfront Development Fee was adopted in 2004 (Ordinance 1739), with the intention of providing funding for roadway improvements within the Bayfront Specific Plan area. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was first adopted in 2004 (Resolution 85-2004), with amendments in 2007 (Resolution 13-2007). The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee was adopted in 2005 (Ordinance 1751), with the intention of providing funding for roadway improvements within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area. In 2015 the City of Burlingame initiated a multi-year process focused on a community-led effort to update the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, called “Envision Burlingame.” The City Council adopted the General Plan in 2019, and the Zoning Ordinance in 2021. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are the City’s two documents that regulate all land use, environmental, and transportation decisions made by City leaders. The General Plan is intended to supersede the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. With the repeals, the General Plan will be considered the guiding policy document for the respective specific plan areas. Furthermore, a new specific plan (the North Rollins Specific Plan) is currently being prepared for the northern portion of the Rollins Road area. The North Rollins Specific Plan will be an implementation of the General Plan, and is anticipated to be adopted in late 2022 or early 2023. Certain improvements envisioned by the former North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and funded by the plan development fees will be included in the new North Rollins Specific Plan. DISCUSSION Specific Plans. The adoption of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance have provided goals, policies, programs, and development standards that apply to the Bayfront, Rollins Road, and North Burlingame areas that had previously been regulated by the respective specific plans: • The Bayfront Specific Plan area is now regulated by the Bayfront Commercial and Innovation Industrial land use districts in the General Plan; and the Bayfront Commercial (BFC) and Innovation/Industrial (I-I) zoning districts in the Zoning Code. • The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area is now regulated by the North Burlingame Mixed Use, Live/Work, and Innovation Industrial land use districts in the General Plan; and the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU), Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU), and Innovation/Industrial (I-I) zoning districts in the Zoning Code. Because the City has updated its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, these specific plans are no longer necessary. Development Fees. The Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee were adopted to provide funding for roadway improvements within the respective specific plan areas. Subsequent to these fees being adopted, the City adopted citywide Public Facilities Repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan October 11, 2022 3 Impact Fees in 2008. The Public Facilities Impact Fees include fees for General Facilities and Equipment, Libraries, Police, Parks and Recreation, Streets and Traffic, Fire, and Storm Drainage. For new development projects within the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan areas, the specific plan development fees have been assessed together with all of the Public Facilities Impact Fees, with the exception of the Public Facilities and Equipment Fee and the Streets and Traffic Fee. (Since the specific plan development fees are used for roadway improvements, projects within the plan areas are not subject to these two fees that would be used for those same improvements.) With the repeal of the specific plans and the specific plan development fees, the Public Facilities and Equipment Fee and the Streets and Traffic Fee would be assessed together with the rest of the applicable Public Facilities Impact Fees. The City intends to repeal the entirety of both specific plans but allow certain developers with already- entitled projects that have not yet pulled building permits (i.e. have not yet paid their required specific plan development fees) to remain subject to these lower fees instead of having to pay the higher, citywide Public Facilities and Equipment and Streets and Traffic impact fees when they pull building permits. The specific plan development fees remaining in the accounts (and/or that will be paid by entitled projects) will continue to be used for the purposes identified in the specific plans. In particular: • Bayfront Development Fees: The Bayfront Specific Plan includes a project “Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction.” This project is continuing with the current name “Old Bayshore Highway Feasibility Study” and will be further implemented as a streetscape improvement plan. The new project will include median reconstruction as anticipated in the specific plan, together with additional landscaping features. • North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fees: The North Burlingame Specific Plan includes three projects, “Rollins Road Gateway,” “Rollins Road Streetscape,” and “El Camino Real Streetscape.” The Rollins Road projects will continue as part of a new streetscape envisioned as part of a new specific plan for the northern portion of Rollins Road. Again, the specific plan development fees would only be collected from previously approved development projects that obtained entitlements prior to this repeal. These projects are: • Topgolf • 567 Airport Boulevard • 1 Adrian Court • 30 Ingold Road • 1870 El Camino Real • 1868 Ogden Drive • 1814-1820 Ogden Drive The City intends to apply the citywide public facilities fees to all other development projects within the former specific plan areas. As part of the repeal, the City will continue to track and account for fee proceeds collected through the Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee to ensure that they are used to fund the public improvements within the respective planning areas for which they were originally collected. The City is also contemplating an update to its current citywide Public Facilities and Equipment Impact Fees, given that the fees were adopted in 2008 and have not changed since that time. The update would Repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan October 11, 2022 4 incorporate the development areas and the improvements/facilities associated with the specific plan fees (including provisions that would “earmark” previously collected specific plan fees for public improvements for which they were collected). Prepared by: Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director Attachments: Specific Plan Maps General Plan Land Use Map BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN NORTH BURLINGAME/ ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 2004, 2006, 2012 2004, 2007 Trousdale Dr.E. Poplar Ave.Old Baysh ore H ig h w a y Millbrae Ave. Cali f o r n i a D r . Airport Blvd.Peninsula Dr.Burlingame Ave.Howard Ave.P r im r o s e R d . S a n M a t e o D r . El C a m i n o R e a l Ro l l i n s R d .BroadwayHillside Dr.Ralston Ave.Ba l b o a Palo m a Dr a k e M a g n o l i a Be r n a l Co r t e z EastonLag u n a BayswaterAdelineSummi t Se q u o i a DavisAnza CarmelitaShermanEastonLo y o l a Toy o n D w i g h t H u n t Va n c o u v e r Se b a s t i a n Oak Grove VernonPlymouth ConcordCa p u c h i n o P a r kHaleChapin P e p p e rChapin Arguello L o r t o n Bl o om ﬁ e l d A r u n d e l D w i g h t Gi l b r e t h Co l u m b u s W a l n u t Be n i t o Cr e s c e n t P r im r o s e Occidenta lRivera H i g h l a n d Poppy Ca s t e n a d a S t a n l e y Mariposa Edgehill C h a n n i n g Aca c i a Atwater Alcazar Vi c t o r i a De S o t o Qu e s a d a C l a r e n d o nMillsChu l a V i s t a LexingtonMitten Ca r l o s Mar i n MartinezB a n c r o f t SanchezSanchezGroveCowanEas tMyr t l e Al v a r a d o Ma r c o P o l o E s c a l a n t e StantonAviadorAl b e m a r l e Lang MorrellLarkspur F a i r ﬁ e l d Cro s s w a yMahlerW e s t m o o r HinckleyCa s t i l l oValdiviaM o n t e r oDevereuxO g d e n BurlwayDavidRay Las s e n La M e s a Al t u r a s Lo s M o n t e s Newlandsh Lin d e n Lau r e l L o s A l t o s Beach Ma r s t e n OxfordAr c AlmerCambridgeDolores S k y v i e w DufferinDonnellyCorbittEl QuanitoLas Piedr a s MajillaKenmarEdwardsMc d o n a l d Ea s t w o o d Caro l Ans e l Aza l e a Margarita Cos t a R i caJuanitaCadillac C um b e r l a n dRhinetteMe a d o w Mo n t e c i t o SummerKillarneyWhit e h o r n Ne u c h a t e l BelvedereMarquitaBellevueRiveraTiberonLincolnA n i t aPalmCar o l a n Lin d e n ParkCa b r i l l oBroderickIngoldGuittard 280 101US City of San Mateo City of Hillsborough City of Millbrae San Francisco Bay 1,500750 3,000 FT 0 N Broadway Mixed Use Downtown Speciﬁc PlanHigh Density Residential General Commercial California Mixed UseLow Density Residential Medium Density Residential Medium/High Density Res. Live/Work Innovation IndustrialBayfront Commercial BaylandsNorth Burlingame Mixed Use Parks and Recreation Low Density Residential-SOI Open Space Easement Rail Corridor Open Space Easement-SOI City Limits Sphere of Inﬂuence Multi-Family Residential Overlay Burlingame General Plan Figure CC-1 Land Use Plan Public/Institutional 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FINDING THAT REPEAL OF THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN, THE BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified on January 7, 2019, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Update to the Burlingame General Plan (the “General Plan EIR”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Burlingame City Council determined that any subsequent actions or approvals to implement the proposed Update to the Burlingame General Plan shall be based on and subject to the findings, conclusions, mitigation measures, and statements set forth in the in Table 2-1 of the General Plant EIR; and WHEREAS, with the repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the City of Burlingame General Plan will be considered the guiding policy document for the respective specific plan areas; and WHEREAS, development pursuant to the City of Burlingame General Plan was evaluated by the General Plan EIR, and therefore no further environmental analysis is required for the specific plan areas once the specific plans are repealed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council finds that a Resolution of City Council repealing the Bayfront Specific Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame repealing the Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee were adequately evaluated pursuant to CEQA in the General Plan EIR since the repeal of the specific plans and fees do not alter the mix of land uses or policies evaluated in the General Plan EIR, and that no further environmental analysis is required by CEQA. Chairperson I, , Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission, 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 October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2 _________________________ Secretary 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL A REPEAL OF THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN, THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN, THE BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT FEE, AND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD DEVELOPMENT FEE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, on January 7, 2019, the City Council adopted the Burlingame General Plan (hereinafter “General Plan”) following the certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter “EIR”) and adoption of findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65356, the General Plan was adopted by resolution, and took effect on February 7, 2019; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2021, the City Council adopted an ordinance providing a comprehensive update of Title 25 (Zoning) of the Burlingame Municipal Code and an update of the City of Burlingame Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65850, the zoning code and map were adopted by ordinance, and took effect on January 5, 2022; and WHEREAS, the Bayfront Specific Plan was first adopted in 2004 (Resolution 26-2004), with amendments in 2006 (Resolution 58-2006) and 2012 (Resolution 44-2012); and WHEREAS, the Bayfront Development Fee was adopted in 2004 (Ordinance 1739), with the intention of providing funding for roadway improvements within the Bayfront Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was first adopted in 2004 (Resolution 85-2004), with amendments in 2007 (Resolution 13-2007); and WHEREAS, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee was adopted in 2005 (Ordinance 1751), with the intention of providing funding for roadway improvements within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area; and WHEREAS, The General Plan and Zoning Code are intended to supersede the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and adoption of the General Plan and Zoning Code have made these specific plans obsolete; and WHEREAS, the Bayfront Specific Plan area is now regulated by the Bayfront Commercial and Innovation Industrial land use districts in the General Plan; and the Bayfront Commercial (BFC) and Innovation/Industrial (I-I) zoning districts in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area is now regulated by the North Burlingame Mixed Use, Live/Work, and Innovation Industrial land use districts in the General Plan; and 2 the North Burlingame Mixed Use (NBMU), Rollins Road Mixed Use (RRMU), and Innovation/Industrial (I-I) zoning districts in the Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee were adopted in 2004 and 2005 respectively to provide funding for roadway improvements within the respective specific plan areas; and WHEREAS, the City subsequently adopted citywide Public Facilities Impact Fees in 2008 to address impacts to General Facilities and Equipment, Libraries, Police, Parks and Recreation, Streets and Traffic, Fire, and Storm Drainage; and WHEREAS, for new development projects within the Bayfront Specific Plan and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan areas, the specific plan development fees have been assessed together with all of the Public Facilities Impact Fees, with the exception of the Public Facilities and Equipment Fee and the Streets and Traffic Fee; and WHEREAS, the City intends to repeal the entirety of both specific plans but allow certain developers with already-entitled projects that have not yet pulled building permits (i.e. have not yet paid their required specific plan development fees) to remain subject to these lower fees instead of having t o pay the higher, citywide Public Facilities and Equipment and Streets and Traffic impact fees when they pull building permits; and WHEREAS, such already-entitled projects consist of Topgolf (250 Anza Boulevard), 567 Airport Boulevard, 1 Adrian Court, 30 Ingold Road, 1870 El Camino Real, 1868 Ogden Drive, and 1814-1820 Ogden Drive; and WHEREAS, the specific plan development fees remaining in the accounts (and/or that will be paid by entitled projects) will continue to be used for the purposes identified in the specific plans, with the Bayfront Development Fees designated for the “Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction” project and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fees designated for the “Rollins Road Gateway” and “Rollins Road Streetscape” projects; and WHEREAS, the City intends to apply the citywide public facilities fees to all other development projects within the former specific plan areas; and WHEREAS, the City will continue to track and account for fee proceeds collected through the Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee to ensure that they are used to fund the public improvements within the respective planning areas for which they were originally collected; and WHEREAS, the repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Bayfront Development Fee, and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the City, and will ensure vertical consistency between the new General Plan and Zoning Code, and therefore the repeals will be in the public interest; and WHEREAS, by allowing previously-entitled projects to pay the fees applicable at the time the projects were approved, the repeal of the Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins 3 Road Development Fee will not impact the economic viability of those projects and will still allow for those projects to contribute to the improvements necessitated by their development, which serves the public interest; and WHEREAS, the repeal of the Bayfront Specific Plan, the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the Bayfront Development Fee, and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee were presented to the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 11, 2022, at which time the commission reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that it adopt: A. A Resolution of City Council repealing the Bayfront Specific Plan and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and recognizing that certain previously-entitled projects may continue to pay fees associated with these Plans; and B. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Burlingame repealing the Bayfront Development Fee and the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee. Chairperson I, , Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission, 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 October, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _________________________ Secretary BURLI CITY OF BURLINGAME Co m m u nity Deve lopment Depaftment MEMORANDUM Odober 4,2022 Directo/s Report Planning Commission tleeting Date: October 11 , 2022 Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager FYI - REVIEW OF CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 265.UNIT i,IXED USE PROJECT AT 1 ADRIAN COURT, ZONED RRiIU. Summary: An application for Design Review, Density Bonus, Approval of Community Benefit Bonuses, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for construction of a new 265-unit mixed use development at 1 Adrian Court was approved by the Planning Commission on September 23, 2019. A building permit was issued in December 2021 and construction is undeMay. During the initial review of the project, the Commission asked the applicant to provide a solution for the blank curved concrete wall enclosing the parking garage, which faces the dog park at the rear of the site. ln September 2020, the Commission reviewed and accepted an FYI for the design on the curved wall, which included poppies constructed from offsetting layers (1-inch offset) of colored metal panels (see attached plans stamped 'Original Approval'). This design concept was proposed by the previous developer, SummerHill Apartment Communities. Carmel Partners, the new developer of the project, is requesting that the Planning Commission consider a new concept for the art wall. The proposed design includes a stylized geometric art installation that uses birds as the subject matter. lt would include one-dimensional painted art using repetition and negative space to create visually interesting patterns (see attached proposed plans, date stamped September 22,2022). The applicant notes that "While the birds relate to the adjacent park and natural Burlingame landscape, the notion of flight evokes optimism, peace and hope.' Please refer to the attached letter and plans submitted by the applicant, dated September 22, 2022, for a detailed explanation of the proposed graphics. lf the Commission feels there is a need for more study or discussion, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. c. Lisa Phyfe, Carmel Partners, applicant Attachments: Project Application Form Explanation Letter from Applicant, dated Seplember 22, 2022 Proposed Plans, date stamped Seplember 22, 2022 Originally Approved Plans, stamped "Original Approval" DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City of Burlingame . Community Development Department . 501 Primrose Road . (650) 558-7250 . planninEdept@burlinEame.orq Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: E Accessory Dwelling Unit ! Design Review E Special Permit E conditional Use/Minor Use Permit ! Hillside Area Construction Permit ! variance Minor Modification Other Project Address: 1 Adrian court Assesso/s Parcel #:02 5- 169-380 zoning:RRMU Project Description: l Adrian Court is currently under construction to construct 265 apartment units. This application is to modifv the approved art wall for the project to a new design concept. Applicant Name: Address: Lisa Phyfe 1000 Sansome Street First Floor 5an Francisco, CA Property Owner Name: CP Vll Adrian, LLC 466r"rr. 1000 Sansome Street First Floor San Francisco, CA Phone: E-mail: 4t5-912-L4t8 Lphyfe@carmelpartners.com P ho ne: E-mail: 4L5-273-2900 Lphyfe@carmelpartners.com Architect/Desitnel Name: Justin Warner 466r"rr. BDEArchitecture 934 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: 4L5-677-O966 E-mail: jwarner@bdearch.com Burlingame Business License #: Authorization to Reproduce Pro iect Plans: Date: 932887 Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature:9/22/2022 Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Di"r'i^^ Property owne/s signature RECEIVED sEP 222022 CIIY OF BURLINGAME CDO+LANNING DIVISION Dote Applicotion Received (stdlI only): 9122/2022 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' JW (lnitials of Architect/Designer) * Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Date: September 22,2022 Ruben Hurin Plann ing Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED sEP 222022 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION RE: Adrian Court Mixed-Use Project Art Wall PYlto Planning Commission Submittal On behalf of CP Vll Adrian, LLC (Carmel Partners), please find plans for the Adrian Court Mixed- Use Project's Art Wall enclosed. These are intended for use in an FYI to the Planning Commission per Condition of Approval #4 of the project's approval. Description of Art Wall Previously, the art wall concept was a series of poppies. The poppies were an oversize scale and intended to promote a sense of place and add a colorful pop to the park. ln creating a new concept for the wall art for One Adrian, our design intent is to capture the natural surroundings of the "City of Trees" with a stylized geometric art installation that uses birds as the subject matter. While the birds relate to the adjacent park and natural Burlingame landscape, the notion of flight evokes optimism, peace and hope. Capturing this concept would be a large one-dimensional painted art installation that utilizes repetition and negative space to form visually interestinB patterns that are both aesthetically pleasing and playful to the eye. Earthy paint tones and a matte finish would be used for a timeless look that relates to the park and pays homage to Burlingame's beautiful natural surroundings. lmages shown in the enclosed drawing set are conceptual only. Upon concept approvaldue diligence would be given to locating an artist that can emulate the unique style of this approach and create a finaldrawing set based on both the inspiration provided and their own set of observations of the surrounding context in which the art will live. Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional information as you review the attached plans. Thank you, Lisa Phyfe Development Associate Dear Ruben, tury SITE PLAN 1.0-01 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 PROJECT SITE PLAN VICINITY PLAN FOCAL POINT VIEWING AREA 6’ tall solid fence, corrugated metal 4’-5’ tall mesh fence around dog park RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION SEP 22 2022 LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-01 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-11 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” 4’-5’ tall mesh fence around dog park 5'-0" LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-21 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 22'-7" 6’ Solid Fence 5’ Mesh Fence 125'-6" SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” 22'-2" VIEWING DISTANCE FROM CORNER FOCAL POINT 3'-2" 3'-2" Natural earth tones complemented with color accents from the project’s brand palette. LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-01 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” SITE PLAN 1.0-01 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 PROJECT SITE PLAN VICINITY PLAN FOCAL POINT VIEWING AREA 6’ tall solid fence, corrugated metal 4’-5’ tall mesh fence around dog park LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-01 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 WEST ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-11 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” 4’-5’ tall mesh fence around dog park 5'-0" LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES No Background 2.0-21 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 22'-7" 6’ Solid Fence 5’ Mesh Fence 125'-6" SOUTH ELEVATION Scale: 3/32” = 1’-0” 22'-2" VIEWING DISTANCE FROM CORNER FOCAL POINT 3'-2" 3'-2" LARGE ABSTRACT POPPIES PANEL DETAILS 3.0-01 BURLINGAME 1 ADRIAN COURT BURLINGAME, CA SCHEMATIC DESIGN JULY 31, 2020 FRONT VIEW Scale: 3/8” = 1’-0” SIDE VIEW Scale: 3/8” = 1’-0” PANELS: ALPOLIC® Metal Composite Materials, Effects Color Line NNG Orange Gold DQO Pearlescent Orange MRT Magma NLG Lime Gold RXT Harvest Moon Individual layers stood off the wall 1” from eachother Bottom layer flush mounted to wall SHIMMER SERIESPEARLESCENT SERIESPRISMATIC SERIES1 3 4 2 5 1 3 3 4 2 20'-10 1/2"