Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2022.10.24Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online7:00 PMMonday, October 24, 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 October 17, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 000-2022 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 000-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the October 24, 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 24, 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 10/20/2022 October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 850 0771 4538 Passcode: 388194 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 850 0771 4538 Passcode: 388194 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft September 26, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA The public is permitted to speak on items that are listed under the Consent Calendar, Commissioner ’s Reports, Director Reports, Requests for Future Agenda Items, new items, or items not on the agenda . Public comments for scheduled agenda items should wait until that item is heard by the Planning Commission. Persons are required to limit their remarks to three (3) minutes unless an extension of time is granted by the Chair. Please use the Raise Your Hand feature in Zoom during this item to speak under Public Comments. Speakers desiring answers to questions should direct them to the Planning Commission and, if relevant, the Commission may direct them to the appropriate staff member. 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 6. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items for review. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items for review. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/20/2022 October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(2).(Carlos Rojas, TRG Architects, applicant and architect; John and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. 1317 Paloma Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for a second story plate height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage . This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Ardalan Djalali, applicant and designer; Behzad Hadjian, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali b. 1549 Burlingame Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for removal of more than 50 percent of exterior walls (substantial construction) of an existing two -story, single-unit dwelling with a new detached garage, Side Setback Variances, and Special Permit for declining height envelope. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Dario Avram and Karen Goff, applicants and property owners; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, designer) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi c. 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road, zoned I-I: Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Height and for Community Benefits for Increased FAR, Parking Variance, and Tentative Parcel Map for a new research and development campus in one seven -story building, one eight-story building, and a parking garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (King Bayshore Owner LLC, Peter Banzhaf, applicant and property owner; Perkins and Will, Derek Johnson, architect) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit d. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1441 Alvarado Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for building height and new attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing split -level single-unit dwelling. (Joshua Larson, architect and applicant; Mikayla and Robert Cameron, property owners) (101 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz a. 912 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; SF21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner; KTGY Architecture and Planning, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 10/20/2022 October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of October 17, 2022 620 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - FYI review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review project. a. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, October 24, 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 24, 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 November 3, 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 10/20/2022 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 26, 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 September 26, 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 26, 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 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 826 6118 3096 Passcode: 934909 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 826 6118 3096 Passcode: 934909 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent6 - GaulAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1). (Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc ., applicant and architect; Kate and Joel Rosenquist, property owners) (120 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 2City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1312 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1312 Montero Ave - Attachments 1312 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.2836 Mariposa Drive, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(1). (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 - Attachments 2836 Mariposa Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Tse1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1205 Burlingame Avenue, zoned BAC - Application for a Master Sign Program for a sign above the ground floor and to exceed allowable sign area on an existing commercial building. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15311 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (David Ford, applicant and designer; Ronald Karp, property owner) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1205 Burlingame Ave - Staff Report 1205 Burlingame Ave - Attachments 1205 Burlingame Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff did speak to the applicant or somebody who worked for the sign firm and the owner of the building several months ago. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. David Ford, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Page 3City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I happened to know about the sign, so just for the public's interest, this is probably the fifth reuse or so of the original sign. It was originally the Burlingame Hotel. The word “Hotel” was running downward and then the word “Burlingame” being in script on the bottom part which still exist. The very first version was without the little bottom part and it was way at the top of the building, but a blade sign. Then it was moved down and there was the script part added. Each time the font changed a little bit, so it has been altered quite a bit. When Sephora opened up, it was nice. They reused the original metal work and left it on the corner. I thought it was quite lovely. A little disappointed that we can't have neon or something unusual. I understand that corporate likes everything to match, so I personally don't have a problem with this item and or this proposal. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Gaul1 - b.1855 -1881 Rollins Road, zoned RRMU - Application for Design Review, Density Bonus with Incentive and Waiver, and Community Benefit Bonuses for a new, 420-unit multi-unit residential development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Scott Youdall, The Hanover Company, applicant; Jon Ennis, BDE Architecture, architect; SJ Amoroso Properties Co, E and S Property LLC, and ANRM Holdings LLC, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Staff Report 1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Attachments 1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Plans 1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Categorical Exemption Title 25 - Density Bonus Title 25 - RRMU Zoning Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid had a preview with the Hanover Company of the drawings before this meeting. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Scott Youdall, Ian Murphy and John, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: Page 4City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Public comment sent via email by Doug Bojack: I'm not satisfied with two of the community benefits proposed as a density bonus for the project. Although, I ’m generally in favor of allowing greater housing density in Burlingame and permitting even higher density bonuses as this project could illustrate. The community benefit of the public plaza, Plaza A seems minimal. It appears more like street frontage that is advertising the leasing office rather than providing a meaningful community benefit. I also have concerns about the efficacy of the proposed TDM plan. The expectation is that the TDM measures create a 25 percent reduction in vehicle trips, but this seems at odds with the construction of a parking garage that exceeds the city's parking space requirements while proposing to construct the smallest allowed of bicycle parking allowed. This housing development is in a location with some of the highest walking and bicycling scores in the city. I would much rather see the developer satisfy the density bonus by saving money not constructing additional parking spaces. Each space for gone would likely save at least tens of thousands of dollars per unit. Millions of dollars for the overall project cost and instead spend those millions making offsite streetscape improvements to improve public safety around the site and its proximity to a major multi-modal hub. If Burlingame committed an even higher density bonus and held developers to a commensurate higher standard, we would be able to replace at least a portion of that parking garage building envelope with apartments, generating more economic activity and with safer streets for our new residents. Thank you. >Scott, Local 467 Plumber: I’m with the San Mateo Building Trades as well as Plumbers Union. My question is for Mr. Youdall. We like the project. We would like to discuss possibly using the many members we have that work here in Burlingame. We would like Mr. Youdall to have a conversation with us . We have left e-mails and voice messages and maybe we have a bad contact. I'm hoping there's a commitment tonight that you might make some time to sit down and have a conversation with us. Is that a possibility? >Joe Sostaric: I am with a company called The Conco Companies and we have been around since 1959. We're a concrete contractor and have done a lot of projects throughout the bay area. I just wanted to speak out briefly on behalf of Hanover Company. We have worked with them many times and one thing about us is that we're signatory with many of the trades and they have always treated us very well. With our group, we have carpenters, cement masons, iron workers and operating engineers and we found them to be a very fair company to do business with. They have treated us well and because of the work that they have done, they've been able to give us a lot of work for our union families. I just wanted to make a brief comment in support of this project and in support of the Hanover Company, thank you. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I like the direction that the project is taking. I like the changes made to the corner architecture. I like the shadowing and the layering of the materials that they have chosen to do. It has made it a lot more interesting than it was back in March. The new parcel in the back has allowed them to achieve a little better result on the circle around the property, so it's functioning better. I like the addition of the coffee business on the ground floor, which will help boost a little bit along Rollins Road. Overall, the project is going in the right direction. >It's a good looking project, though it looks like every other one that's going up. The public space is just a wide sidewalk from my perspective. I don't see it as a huge amenity to call it a plaza, it seems a bit overstated. I’m not sure architecturally in height whether they really are taking into account the future context of that street. With the Alexandria biotech campus going up right next door, it's going to be 120 to 150 feet tall, this building will be dwarfed by the neighborhood in the future. The last comment, coffee is great but there's a soccer practice facility right across the street, so I ’m sure those kids would like acai bowls or smoothies as well, they might have customers. >I don't mind the aesthetic, I think its okay. I like the density of the building. I’m a little off put by the public benefit. I tend to agree that the plaza seems overstated, I don't see much benefit at all there. The coffee kiosk is nice, but you're talking about hundreds or thousands of people living here along with the other new buildings going up and there's almost no retail or restaurants in that area. You have In -N- Out, a gas station and a Mexican restaurant. There's not a lot there. I'm concerned, we're putting thousands of Page 5City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes folks right on top of each other without a supermarket or a retail spot. >I hope the developer, now that our governor signed AB 2097, will take a look at that parking structure and re-think it. Having 1.3 parking spaces per unit is not applicable anymore, given the proximity to one of the best transit hubs in the Bay Area. That needs to be rethought. There could be a lot better done with that parking section. The dog park is nice but that's kind of scratching the surface, in my opinion. I agree with my fellow commissioner that it's going in the right direction, but I don't think the community benefit here is bold enough. >This project has come a long way. They've done some nice architectural details, but we are missing the element of community in this area. For me, a little coffee kiosk isn't going to do it for these folks. We need a laundromat, a grocery store, someplace where someone can get some milk, coffee, bread for the morning or some eggs and we're not creating that. We have the cute little market on the corner of Paloma Avenue and Broadway where they've got the smoothies. It's a market, a deli and you can get anything you kind of need. I grew up on Paloma Avenue and we would run to the grocery store to get milk and we don't have that here. >I agree, let's look at this parking and see if we can get some more community benefit in this area, not just for this project but every project that will come before us. We need to look at what it's doing to the community in those particular areas because you're not going to take your car across El Camino Real to go to the grocery store. We need something over there and if we're looking at this as a master plan, it's really important to get this right. >I think that the project has come along from the very first meeting, we thought it was in a really good position to move forward. I don't see as much improvement this time around as what is being presented . The whole gateway approach with this building at the northern most point of this area on Rollins Road really has a nice opportunity, not only with the public plaza on that northeast corner but also just as a statement with something architecturally, sculpturally beyond a little piece of sculpture on the ground, but something architecturally on that corner that shows you have arrived here in Burlingame. >The applicant could have looked at something more creative on the corner at Broderick Road and Rollins Road. I don't agree with that corner being established as a larger living unit on that corner. It really makes more sense that it can be like the corner market that my fellow commissioner was stating. Some other type of support retail space that goes with the coffee kiosk whether it's a bakery or market, something to go with hand -in-hand with that coffee kiosk. There's plenty of opportunity for those two corners that could be further developed to improve that public community space that the developers are attempting to develop here. >I agree that with all the extra parking, there are 50-something odd spaces that are beyond the required number of parking spaces that have been created. I would love to see more living units, widen the development and have some more units or at least a bigger bike storage room that's located in a more accessible location. I don't agree that a cyclist will want to go so far, almost the farther most point of the property, to park one's bike after a day's work or workout. Some more thought is needed in terms of how one would use the bike storage spaces and access to that be closer to the multi -modal transportation node. But some nice things are developing for sure. I'm not sold that we're there yet and would love a little bit more push on the creative side. (Gardiner: I want to remind the commission that this is an action item, not a study item. So there does need to be a decision this evening. I know some of the comments are suggesting further changes, but this project is up for action.) (Spansail: Just to add on that, there's the Housing Accountability Act, and I can push back to Director Gardiner and he can talk about the conforming plan but as mentioned earlier, this is up for action tonight and I want to make sure we're considering that.) >I am reminded that with almost a thousand people in this building who might want to go to In -N-Out or the other restaurants there, I didn't notice any provisions for pedestrian crossing at Rollins Road. I know that road can be a bit tricky, people running across between blocks, so that is a concern. >I agree with everything that has been said. Personally, as far an action item, I don't think this one is right. For all the additional space they got to get one more low income unit, I don't know the term. I understand what they are doing, they ’ve got 35 units instead of 34 units for the chunk of land they got. The dog park has not been thought out completely, it's rather boring. It looks better than it did before but as far as design review, it doesn't pass with me, personally. It could be a lot better. I would have liked to have Page 6City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes seen exploration of some height variability in the same style if that's what is preferred. That could have worked and gotten units out of it and have the green space back. >We're creating a community out there and this is probably the most important parcel, at least that I can foresee, and it's just not there. It's just barely satisfying the requirements or in some cases are not. I would have rather seen that the back is a bit higher in some other areas where the building and the units could be accommodated, but give the community something back, whether it's retail or just something of a community benefit. It's almost like a little city on to itself. I don't see a lot of interactions happening in any way, so I don't really know how to handle this one. Personally, I would not be able to approve it as we are seeing this evening. >(Spansail: Vice-chair Pfaff, if you would like to, it may be worth considering because this is a project for housing and there's strict laws that govern this. If you ’d like to, we should ask the applicant whether or not they would like to have it continued or have action on the item tonight.) Acting Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing. >We need to be a little conscious here of the purpose. The purpose is building housing, which is what they are focused on and they are focused on delivering the affordable units. What makes the affordable units happen is having enough density of regular priced units and making that work. So, we need to be careful on how much we push on amenities and things in which there's a whole Rollins Road that people should be developing towards having those grocery stores, restaurants and things, plus there are other businesses on Rollins Road. Maybe a little different than our conversation out on Airport Boulevard or Bayshore Highway where some of our new office buildings are a lot more isolated. It's going to take time, but this area will eventually develop because people will see that there's housing there and there is a need to fill. >It's difficult to say that we need to push the businesses on to the housing developers when their focus is housing, especially when you look at our retail streets, we've got a lot of empty retail spaces. So, it's hard from an economic development standpoint to say that we need to be sticking on that and force them to develop the whole neighborhood. This is a pretty good solid project that is delivering a lot of housing opportunity. The comments about parking, they are good ones. I was hoping to see a little bit more on our TDM surveys on how successful these TDM plans have been in reducing the need for cars. Just because you're close to the multi-modal station doesn't mean you don't want a car. I haven't seen data that says just because you're near the BART station means you don't need to provide any parking. Those are my concerns about some of the comments I have seen in us actually shutting down this project. >I don't know that anyone here wants to shut the project down. Some comments were made and I don't know they went far enough with them. I don't think they would have lost units, personally. >I wanted to say the same thing. There's no push to reject the project whatsoever. It's a wonderful project being proposed. Like we said, the first time around we were impressed with what we saw. I speak only for myself, I wanted to see some of the comments that we had brought up last time be pushed further for a project to be approved tonight. I don't know if the applicant can answer the question, whether they could reduce the amount of the parking? You have a parking overage, which is wonderful for those who have cars and want to park, but are you able to provide more housing with less parking? >(Youdall: This is being built at the maximum density of 70 units/acre with a 20% density bonus. I heard a lot of comments about a trade -off between parking and units and I wanted to inform the commissioners, I don't think there's a trade -off that exist. As we've advanced through our design, we have looked at dropping parking spaces. I would like there to be a vote tonight candidly. But if there's a condition that we would study, I ’ve talked about a slight parking reduction with city staff and make sure that's okay if we decided to remove spaces from the garage as long as it was above the Burlingame code requirement. Hearing your sentiments tonight, it sounds like there would be no objection if ultimately what's submitted for permit is below the amount. As we have had those conversations with lenders and equity partners, ultimately, those are the sources of capital that help build these projects. The path to no parking projects will be faster than some people want and not as rapid as others want. Unfortunately, in the financing world, when I float lower parking ratios in this location despite the proximity to the Caltrain, there's hesitance because of more work from home and Covid, there's questions about long -term transit ridership. We believe that will happen. Glad we have what is largely an electrified garage and to the extent Page 7City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes we can reduce spaces, we're going to, because frankly we don't want to spend money on concrete spaces that no one is going to use. But I do want to make it clear that if we do make that decision, if we made the building taller, I couldn't put more units there. We basically tried to respond to the design aesthetic comments that we heard were important and we thought we were coming forward tonight with what I felt was a comprehensive response to those comments. I don't recall much commentary on the community benefits that we're proposing in March, so accordingly, we didn't make any change to those, they were prescriptive under the code. We did agree to additional benefits that in conversation with staff, sounded like they could be community benefits; the flood wall and access easement. I do think there's language in the code that allows a custom benefit to be created. But candidly, we didn't go through the exercise to qualifying those as official community benefits just because it didn't seem needed at the time. We are in a period of time where we would like to get the project approved or at least heard and voted on and try to move the project forward. Many of these projects are a race against time to get it into the ground and get started while the economy and the financial markets are in a position to support new construction. Time is always the biggest enemy, so it's our desire to see the project heard. I hear the concerns and would tell you that we are receptive to parking and receptive to studying within the gut of the projects, if the bikes were removed that's not going to change the aesthetics of the overall building. We will work with staff to study those matters and approve the building, but we'd like to see the project decided on the merits this evening.) >One thing that has come up as well from last time, I do recall and from the member of the public who spoke about what has been called a plaza, I'm not convinced of any of the three. For the size of the project, I find them rather unremarkable. The one that you are focusing on that is the gateway, what are you willing to do with that? >(Youdall: The plaza size was very prescriptive in the code and defined as what constitute a public plaza. We're not counting the public right -of-way or land dedicated to the public right of away as part of the project. So there's the sidewalk as you see it today, there's a land the project is dedicating to the right-of-way in support of the Rollins Road 85 foot right-of-way and beyond that is the 3,800 square feet, 50% double the requirement of what a plaza needs to be and there are three of them. I don't agree with the notion that these are glorified sidewalks. These are public plazas that basically represent areas that the building is carved back to allow and the building is still achieving its maximum density under the code . I'm informing the commission that I would like to see the project voted on and approved tonight but I ’m also letting you know, to those concerned about over parking, that I share those concerns. To the extent, I can reduce the parking in the garage, it's the kind of garage that you can reduce parking later on, it's not like I’m cutting off a part of a basement and structurally it's possible to optimize the parking amount. I'm getting approved an amount of parking that I believe I can get financed with lenders and overcome any hesitations about operational issues in the long-term.) Acting Chair Pfaff re-closed the public hearing. >(Gardiner: I know it has been a while since we discussed the Housing Accountability Act, so let me give a little reminder. The Housing Accountability Act is government code Section 65589.5, this establishes limitations to local government ’s ability to deny, reduce the density of or make infeasible housing development projects that are consistent with objective local development standards and contribute to meeting housing need. So the operative statement there is “objective local standards .” As much as we do design review, when it comes down to the decision, does the project meet the objective standards? It’s helpful to be reminded that there is a larger planning effort for this area. The North Rollins Specific Plan will be coming to the Planning Commission and the City Council in the next couple of months and that really is where the more neighborhood planning type issues can be discussed fully. It's a little harder for one single project to try to carry the burden of an entire neighborhood being developed, but the important thing is to be cognizant of the Housing Accountability Act in any decision that might happen.) >Comments from both the commissioners and planning has helped me understand the housing act . The fact that this has been through design review, I would be supportive of a motion that would include some guidance for the developer, but a motion to vote on this tonight. >I tend to agree with my fellow commissioner and understanding the backbone of why we're here is Page 8City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes incredibly important. I do think though, my fellow commissioner brought up a great point, regardless of the actual building, I respect Director Gardiner's comment, we can't hold one project accountable for one neighborhood. In effect, this building is creating a neighborhood, at least we got to look at the public safety of getting across the street and Rollins Road and all that stuff. So I would echo what my fellow commissioner said, we can make a motion of approval with some conditions of some other things. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. What we need to do is look at this project and have some items that we would like the developer to come back with. As my fellow commissioner said, this is the beginning of this neighborhood and we really need to get it right. If it's just a little small area of retail space, we need to make the developers all understand that it's not just one person, it's all of them that are going to help create this environment. And so, as much as I agree with my fellow commissioner saying that the whole area is going to look at different places and different owners are going to do grocery stores, that's not the case. We've got a lot of old time people that have lived here who have owned these properties for a really long time; some will sell, some will not, some will develop and some won't develop, so we can't depend on that. We have to depend on what we have in front of us and ask these developers to step up to the plate because this is the time that we have and we've got to get it right. >I appreciate all these points being made. It is helpful in forming an opinion and a decision. I wanted to just ask the question or clarification on the developer, if we were to approve this project as presented tonight, how would the parking changes, if any, be presented or brought back to us? Probably not for review to us, it would be as an FYI or how is that reviewed further? I was wondering what the process is because it was mentioned that we look at the parking again possibly, so what does that mean? >(Lewit: It largely depends on what is being proposed. But in general, something where there's a reduction of parking, but they still meet the required minimum parking which they would and this parking structure is at the very rear of the site. It's not visible from any public right -of-way. That would probably not even come back as an FYI, but we have to see what the proposed change look like. If the changed parking also included any other changes, retail, a crosswalk at the corner that would then increase the likelihood that they would come back to the commission as an FYI or amendment.) >I like the idea of potentially reducing parking space down to an appropriate level and if that could in turn help create space for some of the things that we are looking for, if that could allow them to push more units further back in the site and be able to open up some of the ground floor space at the front that would be a great trade. It's hard for us to get that done tonight. As they deal with how they reduce their parking, then hopefully that will have an opportunity to come back to us for some guidance on how we can help with that space. But I would like to see the project go forward and if we can offer our conditions, then that's a good way to go. There is a crosswalk down the street closer to the Millbrae side, closer to all those things you're talking about. So, it's not like there's no way across. It's just that further up a block. >In the future we would be interested in hearing back from the developer on opportunities for reduced parking, expanded retail and bike rack location, community benefit enhancements and pedestrian safety crossing Rollins Road. >(Spansail: I really apologize for speaking. No one likes the lawyer talks and we do need to caution ourselves adding conditions as we're looking at the project because of the scrutiny that the Accountability Act has. You can certainly encourage, but adding restrictions could have implications. We can ask the applicant to explain what they have chosen to do, however, the project tonight would be the project that is approved and if no changes were made, if they communicated with staff they weren't changing anything, an approval tonight would be an approval that have project) Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse5 - Nay:Pfaff1 - Absent:Gaul1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 9City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.740 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage and Minor Use Permit for plate height of new detached garage. (Dain Adamson, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner) (112 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 740 Paloma Ave - Staff Report 740 Paloma Ave - Attachments 740 Paloma Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused in this item. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Ana Falver, designer, 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: > Concerned about the elongated windows on the right and left side elevations. Consider a lower header height. > The main door looks really narrow. Consider a wider door with one sidelite. > Suggests to use the same paint color on the wood siding and the corner trims. >Overall, it has good massing and scale. The windows are a little big and when the applicant eventually talks to both neighbors on the sides, they will find the windows a little big. The scale works pretty well. >On the driveway side, it’s a big two-story elevation without a lot of help on it. It could use a little bit of design help to break up the mass there. Whether it is a belly band or some other kind of trim piece that will help break up that siding would be a good solution. >Not hearing a convincing reason why a minor use permit should be granted on the garage for the plate height. We don’t really get garage plate height exception requests, so I don ’t think our rules are all that stringent. I am not sure I see a compelling reason to grant that variance. >Overall, it has a pretty good set of drawings and the design works for me. I appreciate that quite a bit of effort was put into the landscape and trying to make the whole property sync, which that particular piece of property could use quite a bit. >Concern with some of the window sizes. Also concerned about the side elevation. Overall, would like to see a little bit more articulation on the rear and the side elevations. The front looks okay other than the second floor windows looking a bit squashed because the second floor is being pushed back so far. I realize they are working on stock floor plans. There are other opportunities to change the location of the stairwell so the front can be improved but it is not a deal breaker. I don ’t really like how the elevations look with the overhang, unless that is the intent to provide a covered patio space. It feels flat, tall and heavy over the back patio doors. >Also don’t see a very good explanation or reason to have the Minor Use Permit apply to this garage to increase plate height. If they wanted some additional height inside the garage they can certainly frame it so that they can have a volume ceiling. I can’t really see any justification for the Minor Use Permit. >When we see the other two projects being proposed by the same applicant later in the meeting, my concern is these are cookie -cutter standard floor plans that they are making slight differences to. I just Page 10City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes worry about that in Burlingame. If they are successful and have another 20 homes like these going up then suddenly we would look like a tract home community and not Burlingame where it is really custom homes designed for homeowners. >I am a little bit nervous about approving the three projects they are presenting tonight without setting a precedent because they have several other homes in Burlingame that they are bringing into the table. I don’t like the cookie cutter mentality. I don ’t necessarily dislike the design here, the Craftsman style is consistent with several homes we see, I just don ’t want to see twenty of them go up in Burlingame. I would like to see some differences there. There is a business model here predicated by homeowners buying their lots prior to the homes being built. But in Burlingame we don ’t see this happening as much. I’d rather challenge them more to give us some unique designs. >When I looked at all three applications I was not happy. With the design on its own, if I ignore the other two, I feel that it sits in its own lot pretty well. I won ’t have the same sentiment going forward. My fellow commissioners’ comments are good, but probably just on the next two projects that we need to help them guide. >Some comments were made this evening to help them make it less track home -like. It would be really great if we can see those looked at; the windows, the belly band and just some detailing. It would be really nice to have some unique features for each home. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.2704 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage and Minor Use Permit for plate height of new detached garage. (Dain Adamson, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes , property owner) (114 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2704 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2704 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2704 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused in this item. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Ana Falver, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Sheryl Seitz, 2700 Hillside Drive: I have a concern about the height of the right rear wall and the light blockage. I’m trying to understand how I can get a better look at the plans and what's happening there. I did receive one letter from a building company, it had a hearing date and the letter arrived two weeks after the hearing so this is my first opportunity to actually find a way to come ask how I can understand a lot more things about what is going to go on next to my house and what the plans are. Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Page 11City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: > Grid in between the glass looks horrible, the grids fall apart inside the windows. That is not what our design guidelines allow for. > Consider adding some windows along the kitchen wall to bring in some more light into the kitchen and improve the right elevation. > The house was described as “traditional” but the roof pitch, especially in the front elevation, doesn't appear to look very traditional. Suggests to take a look at the roof pitch again. >The front rendering seems squished to me. Similar to the other project, they just seem like they are up high but there's a gap to the left of the door which might be the staircase, but it can use another small window. This seems like a long nothingness that a small window there can help improve. >Although it's the same shape and virtually the same design, it doesn't seem to fit the place the same . I don't really feel that the scale or anything about the design fits in this chunk of the neighborhood. Most of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood are stucco plaster and totally different shapes and it just doesn't feel like it fits. The brick doesn't do anything for me. That whole front portion looks worse being highlighted with the separate material whereas in the previous project, it blended better. The long front roof really plays with the shape of it, in particularly on the angled view of it. The sides are still tall, flat and boring. >I'm concerned about the windows having the dividers inside is not an appropriate solution. >The applicant needs to think about the commission ’s comments on the previous house, because these look like spec homes. I’m not feeling confident in this design for this location. There are differences in the renderings versus the drawings, and it appears this is half of one house and half of another put together. This one needs a lot of work. >This particular house for this neighborhood and for a sloping site would be a candidate for a design review consultant. There are too many elements on all four sides to run a long list of comments. I just don't see it fitting in this particular neighborhood. I don't think there was any attention paid to the fact that the property is on a sloping lot. That was pointed out in the presentation, but none of the graphics represent that sloping lot and the issues that lot would face with this house under construction. >The rendering looks nothing like the proposed house. The rendering is based on the original design which had the ten foot plate height on the ground floor and nine foot plate height on the second floor, which is why it looks taller and elongated. It doesn't carry the traditional details and elements that was stated in the presentation. I would not want to see this built. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - c.132 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage and Minor Use Permit for plate height of new detached garage. (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF21A, LLC, property owner) (129 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 132 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 132 Occidental Ave - Attachments 132 Occidental Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 132 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 12City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused in this item. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Ana Falver, designer, 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: > The front elevation shows a wraparound roof and the rendering doesn't show it. > Suggests to reach out to the left side neighbor. One of the things here in Burlingame that we're trying to be sensitive to is large windows over the stairwell facing a side neighbor. It didn't appear on the other two houses that you have presented this evening, but this one in particularly is quite large. It might be something to point out to that neighbor. It's a one -story home next door. Consider looking at reducing the size of the window. That's what we prescribe applicants to do in more recent years, to be more sensitive to glowing light facing ones house at night. > The rendering doesn't match. I actually like the front elevation without the wraparound roof but the stone doesn't really fit. This neighborhood is more plaster and stucco. You had to go through a historic review for the existing house, and this is not coming out looking historic. It looks like a regular tract home . I don't think that's adding value to this location. >Windows are big. Large expanses on the side. There are some windows on the right side that are not too bad, but it's just not doing it for me for this location. >When you do look at the rendering, that's not how that block looks at all. A lot of reconsideration on this one is due. >I do not support the garage request. >The single car garage looks comically small compared to the massive building. It’s a 7,500 square feet house with this little funky shack of a garage needs to be rethought. >The porch here is too small. If you slid the ADU to the slide, you can have that porch and not the weird pillar on the side of the house, which is bothering me on the elevations. This house needs some more work. >Somehow the proportionate lot in the rendering or in the elevation is wider than the reality. I don't know what is off here, but the house seems wider than a typical frontage which we would see on a 6,000 square foot lot. >This is a neighborhood where old -world details work better; classic, true classic detailing and proportions for these types of arrangements on the front elevation. >The low-slung, flat, low-profile roof that's in front of that first floor just doesn't do anything for me . Consider breaking it up somehow and add interest in the front, it's going to improve the window profiles as well on the different levels. There's a lot of opportunity for applying a traditionally designed home to this floor plan that would fit this neighborhood. >There have been incidents where the exact same homes were done close to each other. It's a little awkward but the difference is they were very high -quality and a lot of attention to detail. That makes a lot of difference. In the early days, there were many homes that were similar out of the Sears catalog or whatever, but somehow the proportions were right. They had some kind of cohesion. >This house is just not fitting into its environment. This one is going to need enough work over that a design review consultant would be advantageous for them to get this to go a little faster. >I wanted the applicant to know the comments are not intended to pick on anybody and the reason we're suggesting a design review consultant is it's a built -in part of our process to assist applicants to get across the finish line. Our hope is to be able to approve a design that's befitting the neighborhood in its Page 13City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes own space so our design review consultants are knowledgeable about the design criteria we look for . Hopefully, the use of or the application of a design review consultant to this project would help you to sooner cross that finish line and get an approval. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Absent:Gaul1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 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 14City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes e.620 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits for Height and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits for two, new 9-story office/R&D buildings. (Boca Lake Office, applicant and property owner; DGA, Inc, architect) (20 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 620 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 620 Airport Blvd - Attachments 620 Airport Blvd - 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. Jeremy Lui, Gary Leivers and Justin Aff, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by John Hutar, President and CEO of the San Francisco Peninsula : Dear Chair Gaul, Vice-Chair Pfaff and members of the Planning Commission, I ’m writing you regarding the proposed office development at 620 Airport Boulevard in Burlingame. Airport Boulevard and the surrounding Anza area have far too many underutilized parking lots and need improvement. New office development that will bring over one thousand new jobs to Burlingame will serve the community and local businesses by encouraging tourism, conventions and regional commerce. It has the potential to elevate the stature of our city to be a hub for innovation companies. Several of our hotel general managers and I have met with representatives from Vassar Properties to learn more about the prospective development for which they are seeking approval. As presented, the project will reinvigorate the neighborhood through job creation and patrons for local businesses will create demand for hotel room nights and encourage conventions throughout the region. Further, the project ’s generous improvements to the shore line and creation of a 1-acre park will encourage local enjoyment of the beautiful nature that the side of Burlingame has to offer. In conclusion, this proposed development will help elevate the Burlingame Bayfront and support local businesses. We support this project and encourage the Planning Commission and Council to continue the discussions of Vassar Properties with the ultimate goal of constructing a high -quality office project for the community. >Public comment sent via email by Athan Rebelos: Hi, I ’m happy to see so much development along the Bayfront. I want to advocate for small businesses. Burlingame is remarkable because we have many community oriented businesses from insurance agents to financial services, transit providers, spas, cafes, restaurants, pubs, local markets and so on. I hope that we can receive some assurance that this beautiful large-scale developments will make their best efforts to encourage and accommodate small businesses. Small businesses are vital to our community and our quality-of-life. >Public comment sent via email by Anthony Montes: Hello, I'm writing to share a comment on behalf of the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition regarding the proposed development at 620 Airport Boulevard. I’m a community organizer in the North San Mateo County area working with residents and employees to create safer and more just communities by making bicycling safe and accessible for everyone. Vassar’s proposed development of two life science facilities will have a positive impact on the current condition of the bay trail and would welcome the proposed improvements the plan outlines to the trail. Bay trail is the most popular class 1 shared use trails in the area and our supporters in their communities would greatly benefit from its improvements. Our concern with the development is the estimated 860 vehicle parking spots the parking garage is slated to have. We hope all interested stakeholders find ways to reduce traffic in the area including working with the city to lower its parking minimum requirement or establishing a shuttle service to and from the nearest transportation hub to encourage employees to use active Page 15City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes transportation and public transportation methods. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. >Public comment sent via email by Leslie Flint, Sequoia Audubon Society: To the Planning Commissioners and staff, I ’m a member of the Conservation Committee of Sequoia Audubon Society which is the San Mateo County chapter of the National Audubon Society. We have approximately 1400 members in San Mateo County. It has been shown that over 100 million birds die annually from striking buildings with reflective transparent materials that cause collisions. Under the right conditions, even transparent glass on buildings can form a mirror that can reflect sky, clouds and nearby habitat. This project’s renderings show hazardous elements where trees and landscaping are visible through glass at the ground floor. That area must include birds’ safety treatment. The plans for this project show the use of 45% opaque glass. Other jurisdictions such as Mountain View ’s North Bayshore Precise Plan, Cupertino and San Jose look for 90% protection within 300 feet of water feature. We encourage the developers to consider upgrading your plans. Thank you for your consideration. >(Leivers: I’ll briefly go through the bird safety treatment. We've got eight things we're going to do to deal with that. First is bird safety glass coating, which is a coating that is visible to birds but not to humans so it doesn't affect the transparency. The sight lines through the corners of the building are minimized by the column placement and fa çade treatment. The reflectivity of the glass will be 25% at the elevations less than 60%. The exterior glazing is composed of 45% opaque glazing. The glazing is high performance. We work on a lot of curb walls and we work very hard to find a sweet spot between maximum transparencies but also good on efficiency and that's a tough one. A lot of the opaque areas are actually shadow boxes, they are recessed surfaces. So you create a lot of visual disparity. It doesn't appear like one large area. Also, the mullion expression even though I talked about it, somewhat about the idea of it being a visual thing, it also breaks up the elevation and gives orientation, the external lighting will be minimized, shield and the maintenance of the massing and level one are recessed. Even though it is predominantly glazed, there's an enormous amount of subtlety that creates variation in the exterior envelope.) >(Lui: First of all, we very much appreciate the constructive feedback and positive support from members of the community. I wish to make a response to the comment regarding parking. We're providing 838 parking spaces which is at the very bottom end of code. The reason why we're doing that is because we believe in a future where there are fewer vehicle miles traveled. We're in a location that is accessible by the Bay Trail as well as a bike lane in front of our project. Our project includes several features to encourage not driving, including showers and lockers within the buildings for those to freshen up before work. We have a list of TDM measures that I won't go through all today. We also have or are in discussions with a car sharing company for two -car spaces for those who show up for public transportation but might need a car to go to a meeting or attend special events. Lastly, we have a synergetic situation here in that we're located adjacent to the hotel which was designed and built in the 70s. It's very much over parked. Though we didn't indicate it in our presentation, there's a way for folks to access the hotel parking lot, the surface parking lot from 620 Airport Boulevard. That allows us to reuse a resource that can help us be park sufficiently while providing the minimum number of parking spaces allowed by code.) Acting Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > The use of that flexible space is important because if it becomes fitness and assembly, that's largely tenant driven and it's not going to be as supportive to the overall community, but if you get a fair amount of food and beverage in there, then you really will make that courtyard and bay trail work well. > This is a nice project. It's well done. My first concern was about the birds but they went through that in great detail, so I appreciate that. The use of having the hotel nearby, accessing parking and maybe having a nice restaurant in the hotel will be a nice add -on to this site. All in all, it's a great project and it will be well incorporated with everything on one campus which I really appreciate. >I hope that they keep some of this flexible space available for a restaurant, coffee shops and /or things for the public. So I ask that they keep at least that ten thousand square feet available with what they have. Page 16City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > The flex space and how you use it will determine some success in this and how it interacts with the Bay Trail. One of my big concerns is traffic on the two -lane road between Anza Boulevard and Broadway . I’m concerned to see how traffic is going to impact there. You are doing a ton and I appreciate that. The trail improvement and the outdoor areas that you're offering is a great addition, but I would suggest to consider looking further the section that extends in front of the hotel and to the next node. Maybe as you're adding the light, there's a future extension but unless we ask, it's hard to get the bay trail upgrades any more than just the area where the project is. Again, you definitely are offering a lot of really great public amenities in this project. The design looks great. I like the bifurcated design, the fact that you have the ability to see through and it's not just a gigantic mass handled the site very well. It's going to be a good project. You did a great job on your presentation and all the information you provided for us, it's a thorough read. >Thank you for that really nice presentation. I'm so excited about this project. You've done a beautiful job designing such light and airy, very delicate structures that really look so comfortable in how you have sited them on this property. They are relatable to the size of the Hilton hotel next door. I love the opening of the view corridor in the middle. I really appreciate the energy you have put into designing the site, the buildings, and the public amenities. Really excited to get to use this bay trail space once this is all fully developed. I also noticed and appreciate the thoughtfulness of the placement of where your bike storage racks are by making them very useable, functional and accessible for those cyclists, keeping some of the motorist off the road. >I love the relationship between the three buildings, it's beautifully done and the court proportions are beautiful. The landscaping is gorgeous. Thank you for all the thoughtfulness. There was no motion for this application, as it will return as an Action Item to allow evaluation of the environmental review. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Director Gardiner reported that in the last City Council meeting, a decision was made to extend the parklet program for 18 more months. That will allow further consideration of whether to do a longer -term program, and if so what kind of changes enforcement to include. For now, the parklets will be here until at least summer of 2024. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:36 p.m. Page 17City of Burlingame September 26, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 26, 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 26, 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 6, 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 18City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 720 Newhall Road Meeting Date: October 24, 2022 Request: 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. Applicant and Architect: Carlos Rojas, TRG Architecture + Interior Design APN: 028-142-290 Property Owners: John and Kimberley Ohlund Lot Area: 8,213 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided 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. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing one-story, single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The proposed project includes a new basement, first and second story additions, and replacing an existing detached garage with a new detached garage. With this application, the floor area would increase from 2,566 SF (0.31 FAR) to 4,128 SF (0.50 FAR) where 4,128 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and basement exemptions). With this application, the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling would increase from 4 to 5 (office qualifies as a potential bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site for the main dwelling. Two covered spaces (20’ x 20’, clear interior dimensions) are provided in the new detached garage; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The existing first floor contains a 9’-0” plate height. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for a 10’-9” plate height on the first floor at the rear of the house (where 9’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.10.035 (6)). The proposed project includes an 890 SF basement which consists of game room, storage room, and a mechanical room. Because the top of the finished floor above the basement is less than 2’-0” above existing grade, 700 SF of the basement area is exempt from floor area (600 SF basement exemption and 100 SF lower floor exemptions applied). The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling and new detached garage (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)); and • Special Permit for first story plate height (10’-9” first story plate height proposed where 9’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.10.035(6)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road -2- 720 Newhall Road Lot Area: 8,213 SF Plans date stamped: September 29, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 35’-1” - 39’-4” (to front porch) 39’-4” 15’-0” 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left, 1st flr): (2nd flr): (right, 1st flr): (2nd flr): 3’-1” - 15’-10” - no change 8’-7” 12’-5” 10’-8” 4’-0” 4’-0” 4’-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 36’-9” - 60’-4” 64’-9” 15’-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,566 SF 31% 2,560 SF 31% 3,285 SF 40% FAR: 2,566 SF 0.31 FAR 4,128 SF 0.50 FAR 4,128 SF 1 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 5 --- Off Street Parking: 2 covered (to be demolished) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 2 covered (20’ x 20’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 2 covered (18’x18’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 20’-6” 28’-8” 30’-0” Plate Height (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-0” - 10’-9” 2 8’-0” 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ (0.32 x 8,213 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 4,128 SF (0.50 FAR) 2 Special Permit required for 10’-9” first floor plate height. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows • Doors: stained wood front entry door • Siding: painted horizontal siding • Roof: composition shingle • Other: stone steps and front porch, painted wood beam, trims, column and railings. Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road -3- Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 12, 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 September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated September 27, 2022 and October 12, 2022, and revised plans date stamped September 29, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed first and second story addition to the existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, with the exception of the first story plate height for which Special Permit is being requested; the proposed style of the house will blend with the existing neighborhood based on the proposed massing and variety of exterior building materials; the proposed architectural details, such as the covered front porch, aluminum clad wood windows and horizontal siding complement the architectural style of the house and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road -4- 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the well-defined character of the street and neighborhood: 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements, and that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit (Plate Height): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the first and second story addition are consistent with the character of the street and neighborhood which consists of two-story single- unit dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and massing; the 10’-9” first floor plate height at the rear is slightly taller than allowed by right (additional 1’-9” per floor). 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed first and second story addition are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood in that the hip and gable roof configurations and pitches, horizontal siding and porch columns are consistent with those architectural features found on existing structures in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City in that the proposed structure is compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria as noted above. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's Special Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 29, 2022, sheets A1.0 through A4.1, and L1; Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road -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: 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. Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road -6- Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Carlos Rojas, applicant and architect John and Kimberley Ohlund, property owners Attachments: September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant Response Letters, dated September 27, 2022 and October 12,2022 Letter from neighbor via email, received September 29, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 14, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, September 12, 2022 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 and Kimberly Ohlund, property owners) (95 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 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, 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 have no idea about this until the house behind us went to a complete new construction. 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. Luke 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, very attuned to it. We blow any sawdust there is and we're very, very careful. Both my husband and I work from home from 8:00 to 5:00 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 to 5:00 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. Thank you so much. 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. We don't have very good communication with our neighbors. We hope to God 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 . Page 1City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft 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 10yr 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 4 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 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, as my fellow commissioner said, 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 would agree. 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 Page 2City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Page 3City of Burlingame Page 1 Planning Commission Comments Response Date: September 27th, 2022 Applicant: TRG Architects 1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 Project Address: 720 Newhall Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Owner(s): John and Laura Ohlund Re: Planning Commission Comments Comment # Sheet No. Comment Response Neighbor Comments 1 N/A Regarding temporary construction fencing, our Owner is happy to provide a tall fence against the neighbor’s property to prevent sawdust from easily going over to their property. Our Owner and the Neighbors have discussed 2. N/A Regarding parking, efforts will be made to avoid parking in front of the neighbor’s house. Our Owner and the Neighbors have discussed 3. A2.2, A2.3, A3.1-A3.5 Regarding metal roofing. Roofing material replaced throughout to composition shingle roofing 4. A2.2, A3.1 Regarding large front window at master bedroom. Window group reduced by a total of 18” in width. Planning Commission 1. A2.2, A2.3, A3.1-A3.5 Regarding metal roofing. Roofing material replaced throughout to composition shingle roofing 2. A2.2, A3.1 Regarding large front window at master bedroom. Window group reduced by a total of 18” in width. 3. A3.1-A3.5 Regarding port hole attic vents, clarification note added showing that they will be louvered attic vents. This element is existing, and we are keeping and repeating it to call back to the original house. Page 2 Comment # Sheet No. Comment Response ***Please contact me if there are any questions or issues that would require an additional round of submittals. Thank you, Carlos Rojas Project Architect   1014 Howard Avenue San Mateo, CA 94401 o: (650) 579-5762 f: (650) 579-0115 From: Jen Hoogeveen <jenhoogeveen@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2022 11:38 AM To: GRP-Planning Commissioners Cc: CD/PLG-Fazia Ali; CD/PLG-Amelia Kolokihakaufisi; Eric Hoogeveen Subject: Requests Re: 720 Newhall Rd Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Members of Burlingame Planning Dept's Planning Commission, I’m following up on our virtual meeting at the beginning of Sept. I have spoken to the property owner, John Ohlund three times and he is a kind man. Although John and his wife own the property, he and his wife do not reside on the property. John and his wife's daughter and her husband reside on the property and have for the past 6 and 1/2 years while we lived here. We are writing you with our safety and privacy concerns and will provide background information to increase your understanding of our concerns. Steve from Timberline saw just how bad my son's allergies were when we had to take him to the emergency room after the backyard of our property was filled with sawdust from the two 100 ft redwood trees in the yard of the house that faces the back of our property. We had to take Luke to the emergency room as his face was flush and he was experiencing shortness of breath. We soon learned Luke had a severe allergy to sawdust in addition to grass, pollen and other natural things in the environment. I informed John Ohlund about this event and John knows Steve with Timberline and confirmed this event occurred. John agreed to put up a 20ft net fence along the entire North side of the fence line for the duration of the project. We would like this to be noted in the approval plans of this project. We purchased our home on 724 Newhall Rd (a 100+ year old home) 6 and 1/2 yrs ago, much of which was "original" when we purchased it. We did a remodel, not because we wanted to, but because we had to to make sure our house was safe for our family to live in. We also put in fake lawn so our son could safely play on it and avoid getting rashes. Eric and I took the responsibility of making sure that we thoroughly blew or swept any sawdust left behind with our project and John's son-in-law (at 720 Newhall) called the Burlingame police on us 9 times (for using an electric blower) when we were cleaning up our backyard. We asked the Burlingame Police if we could stop this behavior as the police said "you are not doing anything wrong and you are allowed to do what you are doing, we just have to come out here and make a visit, even though you are not doing anything wrong". Thankfully Amelia told me I can reach out to Burlingame's Code Enforcement group going forward to ensure the resources of our Burlingame Police department are not being wasted. Since the relationship with our neighbors has been ruptured, they have placed cameras on the side of their house facing our house to video tape our children who have a rope obstacle course on that side of the house. We are worried about my children's safety and do not want my kids' actions recorded by camera by our neighbors. All of their lower windows are blacked out with curtains at all times and we do not want any of their north side windows to see on our property to protect the safety and privacy of our kids and family. . Because the remodel of the house at 720 Newhall is compromising the safety and privacy of our family, we would like to propose the following measures take place before the planning commission approves any construction: · Windows – We would like our neighbors to decrease the number of windows on the North side of their house on the upper story. We would also like them to change the windows on their lower story to have frosted or transluscent/opaque windows. We only have 1 window on the upper story of our house facing their property and the window is 1/2 frosted glass. Their house is going to remove any light and privacy we currently have. · Fence – we currently have a 5 ft fence on the north side of 720 Newhall and we would like them to construct a 7ft fence with 1 foot of lattice to ensure the safety and privacy of our children. · Landscaping – we would like to request a wall of trees along the fence in case they do place cameras on their north facing windows, they can't view our children playing in our yard. · I spoke to John Ohlund (property owner) and he agreed to put up a 20 ft net fence along the North side of 720 Newhall Road to ensure the amount of saw dust coming onto our property at 724 Newhall will be minimal if any. Since the next time the (720 Newhall Rd.) project is reviewed by the Planning Commission, Eric and I would appreciate it if you can consider the safety and well-being of our kids with the construction you approve. We would also appreciate if our requests can be part of the Conditions of Approval for 720 Newhall Rd project. Amelia and Rubin have both been helpful in hearing and helping address our son's health issues and our safety concerns regarding the current residents in 720 Newhall Rd. Eric and I will be contacting Burlingame's code-enforcement group as the Burlingame Police Chief has currently placed a note for the residents at 720 Newhall Rd that they can't call the police for neighbors using electric blowers during designated times. The neighbors directly behind us and behind them on Walnut have supported our family to ensure that Burlingame Police Department's resources are utilized to ensure the safety of our residents. We will also be contacting Burlingame's Code Enforcement Division – code- enforcement@burlingame.org | 650-558-7208 if any issues arise from our neighbors placing North facing cameras to film minors. Thank you in advance for considering our son's safety and our family's privacy. Jen and Eric Hoogeveen 650-302-7395 [EXTERNAL EMAIL] DO NOT CLICK links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for first story plate height and first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and new detached garage at 720 Newhall Road, zoned R-1; John and Kimberley Ohlund, property owners, APN: 028-142-290; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 24, 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 Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive, is hereby approved. 2. Said Amendment to Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for Design Review and a Special Permit 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 24th day of October, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road Effective November 4, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 29, 2022, sheets A1.0 through A4.1, and L1; 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, Design Review and Special Permit 720 Newhall Road Effective November 4, 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. 720 Newhall Road 300’ noticing APN: 028-142-290 City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1317 Paloma Avenue Meeting Date: October 24, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for second story plate height for a new, two- story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Ardalan Djalali, Ardalan Djalali APN: 026-085-100 Property Owner: Behzad Hadjian Lot Area: 5,997 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures, including one single-unit residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone, is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-unit residences as part of a project. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and contains an existing single-unit dwelling and a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-unit dwelling and detached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The total proposed floor area would be 3,315 SF (0.55 FAR) where 3,419 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for an 8’-6” plate height on the second floor (where 8’-0” is the maximum allowed). The previous requests for a Special Permit for a 9’-6” on the first floor of the main dwelling (9’-0” maximum allowed; 9’-0” proposed) and Minor Use Permit for a 9’-7” plate height on the detached garage (9’-0” maximum allowed; 9’-0” proposed) have been eliminated since the Study Meeting. There would be a total of four bedrooms in the proposed single-unit dwelling. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The proposed detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20’-4” x 20’-4” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The site contains a total of fifteen trees, two of which are considered to be protected sized (a 13.5-inch diameter Liquidambar and a 16-inch diameter Bay Laurel); these protected sized trees are to remain. Eight non-protected sized trees along the right side of the property would be removed. The applicant provided an arborist report, prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated January 20, 2022 for reference. The arborist report evaluated all existing trees larger than six inches in diameter and provides recommendations for tree removal and maintenance. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(a)); and  Special Permit for second story plate height (8’-6” second floor plate height proposed where 8’-0” is allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.10.035(6)). Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue 2 1317 Paloma Avenue Lot Size: 5,997 SF Plans date stamped: October 13, 2022 1 (0.32 x 5,997 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,419 SF (0.57 FAR) 2 Special Permit required for second story plate height on main dwelling. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood • Doors: wood doors with tempered glass, aluminum and glass garage doors • Siding: board and batten fiber cement, fiber cement horizontal siding • Roof: asphalt composition shingles • Other: decorative paint wood corbel, wood truss, wood trim, fiberglass shutter, stone chimney Staff Comments: None. PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-2” (to covered porch) 24’-0” 20’-2” (block average) 20’-2” Side Setback (left): (right): 12’-6” 4’-0” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 46’-7” 47’-3” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,148 SF 36% 2,399 SF 40% FAR: 3,315 SF 0.55 FAR 3,419 SF ¹ 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (20’-4” x 20’-4” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 1 covered (10’ x 18’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 28’-4” 30'-0" Plate Height (1st flr): (2nd flr): 9’-0” 8’-6” 2 9’-0” 8’-0” DH Envelope: Complies C.S. 25.10.055(A)(1) Accessory Structure Plate Height: 9’-0” 9’-0” Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue 3 Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on September 12, 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 September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated October 14, 2022, and revised plans date stamped October 13, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, with the exception of the second story plate height for which a Special Permit is being requested; the proposed style of the house will blend with the existing neighborhood based on the proposed massing and variety of exterior building materials; the proposed architectural details, such as the covered front porch, aluminum clad wood windows, board and batten fiber cement and fiber cement horizontal siding complement the architectural style of the house and is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue 4 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, building height, and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements, and that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit (Second Story Plate Height): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new two-story single-unit dwelling are consistent with the character of the street and neighborhood which consists of two-story single-unit dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and massing and that the 8’-6” second floor plate height is not significantly taller than allowed by right (additional 0’-6”). 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new single- unit dwelling are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood in that the hip and gable roof configurations and pitches, board and batten siding, articulation of the first and second story walls, and architectural features such as wood eave brackets and decorative gable ends are consistent with those architectural features found on existing structures in the neighborhood. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City in that the proposed structure is compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria as noted above. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's Special Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 13, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A5.0, L-1 through L-3; Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue 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 first or second floors which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue 6 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Ardalan Djalali, Ardalan Djalali, applicant and designer Behzad Hadjian, property owner Attachments: September 12, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant Response Letter, dated October 14, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application (Proposed) Arborist Report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated January 20, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 14, 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 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 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 Page 1City of Burlingame September 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 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 - Page 2City of Burlingame Ardalan Djalali 1670 El Camino Real, Apt 309 Menlo Park,, CA 94025 ph: (650) 387-9272 October 14, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Attn: Ms. Fazia Ali Re: 1617 Paloma Ave Dear Fazia, Thank you for taking the time to review our drawings. The following pages include the list of the changes to the plans based on the commissioner’s comments followed by our explanations, reference sheet number, and possible screenshots identifying important key items on plan. Should you require any further information or clarifications on these matters, please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, Ardalan Djalali Designer List of the Changes Sheet # Screenshots 1- Plate Height  The plate height in the first floor is changed from 9’-6” to 9’-0”.  The garage plate height is changed from 9’-6’ to 9’-0”. A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A5.0 Garage: Residence: 2- Window sizes:  The window sizes have been changed to represent a better scale and harmony in the project. The windows are lined up with interior door headers.  Two windows are added in the first floor bed room (window #12, 13). A3.1 A3.2 A3.3 A3.4 A2.1 A3.2 Window Sizes: Added Windows: 3- Porch In order to increase the width of the porch, the building has been shifted inward. The Front setback remains the same as before. The setback is measured from the porch column. The porch width is changed from 3’-6” to 4’-10 ½”. A1.0 A2.1 4- Chimney The falls chimney is removed due to the window blockage in the second floor. The feature wall remains the same as before. A3.2 5- Rendering In order to have a better presentation of the vertical and horizontal siding we provided realistic rendering. A3.5 9'-0" Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for second story plate height and for a new, two story single- unit dwelling and detached garage at 1317 Paloma Ave, zoned R-1; Behzad Hadjian, property owner, APN: 026-851-100; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 24, 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 Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 1. Said Amendment to Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for Design Review and a Special Permit is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 2. 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 24th day of October, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue Effective November 4, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped October 13, 2022, sheets A0.0 through A5.0, L-1 through L-3; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 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 f rom the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review and Special Permit 1317 Paloma Avenue Effective November 4, 2022 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1317 Paloma Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-085-100 COVER SHEETA0.0APPLICABLE CODES-2019 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, CAC-2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CBC-2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE, CRC-2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, CEC-2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, CMC-2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, CPC-2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, CEnC-2019 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL CODE, CHC-2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, CFC-2019 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE-2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS-2019 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS-SANTA CLARA COUNTY STANDARD DETAIL AND SPECIFICATION SI-7 FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE SAFETY"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL THE FOLLOWING ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ARCHITECT FORAPPROVAL/REVIEW:1. WINDOW/DOOR PACKAGE2. CABINET SHOP DRAWINGS AND FINISH SAMPLES3. MECHANICAL DUCTING PLAN4. STAIR AND RAIL SHOP DRAWINGS5. MISC. STEEL SHOP DRAWINGSREQ'D CONTRACTOR SUBMITTALSTO ARCHITECT/DESIGNERLOCATION MAPASSESSOR'S PARCEL MAPSITE1. FIRE SPRINKLERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13D AND STATE AND LOCALREQUIREMENTS--NOTE THAT PER CRC 313.3.7, A SIGN OR VALVE TAG SHALL BEINSTALLED AT THE MAIN SHUTOFF VALVE TO THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMSTATING THE FOLLOWING: "WARNING, THE WATER SYSTEM FOR THIS HOMESUPPLIES FIRE SPRINKLERS THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN FLOWS AND PRESSURES TOFIGHT A FIRE. DEVICES THAT RESTRICT THE FLOW OR DECREASE THE PRESSUREOR AUTOMATICALLY SHUT OFF THE WATER TO THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM,SUCH AS WATER SOFTENERS, FILTRATION SYSTEMS AND AUTOMATIC SHUTOFFVALVES, SHALL NOT BE ADDED TO THIS SYSTEM WITHOUT A REVIEW OF THEFIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM BY A FIRE PROTECTION SPECIALIST. DO NOT REMOVETHIS SIGN"2. STAIR GUARDRAIL SHOP DRAWINGS SIGNED AND STAMPED BY ENGINEER TOBE SUBMITTED TO BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL--NOTETHAT SHOP DRAWINGS TO DEMONSTRATE GUARDRAIL DESIGN IS ADEQUATETO SUPPORT A SINGLE CONCENTRATED 200 POUND LOAD APPLIED IN ANYDIRECTION AT ANY POINT ALONG THE TOP OF THE RAIL PER CRC TABLE 301.5AND 301.5 FOOTNOTE D3. SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC SYSTEM TO BE UNDER A SEPARATE PERMITPARCEL NUMBER--------------------------026-085-100PROJECT TYPE------------------------------NEW CONSTRUCTIONZONING---------------------------------------R1OCCUPANCY GROUP-------------------R-3/UFIR PROTECTION----------------------------SPRINKLEREDCONSTRUCTION TYPE---------------------V-BDEFERRED SUBMITTALSREQ'D CONTRACTOR SUBMITTALS TO BUILDINGDEPT. PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE1. LICENSE NUMBER2. INSURANCE AND WORKER'S COMP POLICIES3. CONSTRUCTION STAGING PLAN4. CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITHCALGREEN 4.408.213 17 PALOMA AVE,BURLINGAME, CA, 94010HADJIAN RESIDENCEDEMOLISH OF 1080 S.F. EXISTING ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, AND NEWCONSTRUCTION OF 2962.4 LIVING AREA AND 451 S.F. DETACHED GARAGE AREAIN TOTAL 3413.4 S.F. IN A 6000 S.F. LOTPROJECT SUMMARYSCOPE OF PROJECTAPPLICABLE CODES (with CITY OF BURLINGAME Amendments)THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OFBURLINGAME REACH CODE ORDINANCE "1979 WHICH WENT IN TOEFFECT ON OCT. 16TH, 2020.O W N E RBehzad Hadjian1317 Paloma AveCA, Burlingame, 94010ph: 650-832-8414email: behzad@bahomebuilders.comD E S I G N E RArdalan Djalali1670 El Camino Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025ph 650-387-9272email: ardalandjalali@aol.comSUREVAY AND C I V I L E N G I N E E RSMP ENGINEERSattn Saeed Razaviph 650-941-8055email srazavi@smpengineers.comL A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C TMenaka Roa4653 Monte Carlo Park CourtFremont, CA, 94538ph 650-644-7631email rao.menaka@gmail.comPROJECT TEAMARCHITECTURALA0.0 COVER SHEETA0.2 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONSA1.0 SITE PLANA1.0a BLOCK AVERAGE SETBACKA1.1 DEMO SITE PLANA2.1 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.2 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLANA2.3 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLANA2.1a GARAGE AND LOWER ROOF PLANA2.1b UPPER ROOF PLANA3.0 DAYLIGHT PLANA3.1 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.3 GARAGE ELEVATIONSA3.4 MATERIAL BOARD-- DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULEA3.5 EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVEA3.6 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTA5.0 SECTIONSA8.0 DETAILSA8.1 DETAILSSURVEYT-1 BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAPCIVILC.1 COVER SHEETC.2 IMPROVEMENT AREAC.3 NOTES/DETAILSC.4 EROSION CONTROL PLANC.5 CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESLANDSCAPEL-1 PLANTING PLANL-2 IRRIGATION PLANL-3 IRRIGATION NOTESINDEXCONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M.SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS : NO WORK ALLOWEDSEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SEC. 18.07.110 FOR DETAILSSEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS.CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TOWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.NOTE:CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY MUSTNOW BE INCLUDED ON THE PLANS.ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NATURE OF THISCONSTRUCTION PROJECT THE CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY WILL BE RESCINDED ONCECONSTRUCTION BEGINS. A NEW CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY WILL BE ISSUED AFTER THE PROJECTHAS BEEN FINAL. NO OCCUPANCY OF THEBUILDING IS TO OCCUR UNTIL A NEW CERTIFICATEOF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.new single family residence + detached garageArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali 21'-3"21'-3"1'-1 1/2"6'-0 1/2"20'-8 1/2"22'-4"7'-4 1/2"11'-2"4'-6"14'-9"8'-1 1/2"6'-4"12'-9 1/2"3'-6 1/2"12'-9"20'-9"7'-6 1/2"7'-2 1/2"19'-7"7'-8"3'-0"14'-10"8'-6"11'-2"9'-9 1/2"6'-4"12'-9 1/2"16'-1"4'-10 1/2"20'-6 1/2"12'-11 1/2"5'-0 1/2"2'-10 1/2"8'-1 1/2"3'-0"15'-8 1/2"21'-5"9'-0"11'-2"11'-4 1/2"15'-7 1/2"26'-0"12'-11 1/2"18'-10"11'-10 1/2"7'-11 1/2"2'-1"16'-0"13'-0"4'-10 1/2"11'-5""FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL FLOORAREACALCULATIONA0.2L1L2L4L3L7L5L6L8L9L13L11L10L12P2P1ST1L15L16L17L18L19L20L21L14ST22ND FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM1/8"2FIRST FLOOR AND GARAGE AREA DIARAM1/8"1 FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONGfeet2 4 8 121feet2 4 8 121Ardalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali EM 1A5.01A5.02A5.02A5.02A3.11A3.11A3.22A3.21A3.33A3.32A3.34A3.3HEATPUMPHEATPUMPREQUIRED SET BACK 4'-0"1ST FLOOR EAVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE 2'-8"FIRST FLOOR EAVE TO THE PROPERTY LINE 11'-2"2ND FLOOR SET BACK 12'-6"9'-6"3'-0"26'-9"2ND FLOOR SET BACK 8'-9 1/2"FIRST FLOOR SETBACK 12'-6"PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR SET BACK 25'-6" 1ST FLOOR SET BACK 20'-5 1/2" 20.18' 1ST FLOOR AVERAGE BLOCK SETBACK 1'-6" PROPOSED SIDE SETBACK1'-6" REQUIRED SIDE SETBACKREQUIRED REAR SETBACK1'-6" PROPOSED REAR SETBACK1'-6" FIRST FLOOR REAR SETBACK 45'-7" 2ND FLOOR REAR SETBACK 46'-3" 25'-8 1/2" DETACHED GARAGE TO THE MAIN RESIDENCE TITLE:SITE PLANA1.0(E) +/-24.50'ADJACENT GRADE(E) +/-25.06'ADJACENT GRADE(N) +/-25.60'F.F.(E) +/-25.42'ADJACENT GRADESECOND FLOOR OUTLINE"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL 122359(E) +/-25.17'ADJACENT GRADE(E) +/-21.70'ADJACENT GRADE(E) +/-22.50'ADJACENT GRADE1010101112121313151616(N) +/-25.10'F.F.8TYP.8TYP.613AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT22.1'--SEE TOPO FORADDITIONAL INFOSITE PLAN1/8"1feet2 4 8 121 KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS1. EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY--ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITYRIGHT-OF-WAY MUST HAVE AN APPROVED "PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION INTHE PUBLIC STREET" PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK. THEPERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMITISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY2. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE3. (N) WATER METER--CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE (N) METER WITH LOCALWATER COMPANY IF REQUIRED BY INCREASED FIXTURE LOAD4. NOT USED5. (N)ELECTRICAL METER LOCATION--CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITHLOCAL ELECTRICAL COMPANY FOR UPGRADE (400 AMPS) TO (E) ELECTRICALSERVICE--INSTALL UFER GROUND CONNECTION PER CEC 250-526. EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED--SEE ARBORIST REPORT FOR ADDITIONAL INFO7. (N) 4" SEWER LATERAL --CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION INFIELD--PROVIDE CLEANOUT AT THE POINT OF CONNECTION BETWEEN THEBUILDING SEWER AND THE MUNICIPAL LATERAL, USE AN APPROVED FITTINGTO BRING THE CLEANOUT RISER TO GRADE. WHERE SEWER CLEANOUTS ARETO BE CONNECTED TO EXISTING MUNICIPAL LATERALS, SUCH CONNECTIONSSHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF AN APPROVED FITTING8. (E) TREE(S) TO REMAIN - PROTECT AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION - DONOT LEAVE MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT IN ROOT AREAS FOR EXTENDEDPERIODS OF TIME. SEE ARBORIST REPORT (IF PROVIDED) FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION9. (N) SOFTSCAPE--PROVIDE DRIP IRRIGATION10. (N) FENCE AND GATE--VERIFY FINAL DESIGN AND FINISH WITH LANDSCAPEARCHITECT--NEW FENCES TO CONFORM TO JURISDICTION'S FENCEREGULATIONS11. (N) DRIVEWAY,CONCRETE OVER BASE ROCK AND SAND PER GEOTECHREPORT12. (N) HARDSCAPE--SLOPE AWAY FROM HOUSE @ 2% MIN.13. (N) 36" MIN. DEEP LEVEL LANDING PER CRC 311.3 W STEPS (MAX. 7.75" RISER)-PROVIDE EQUAL RISERS IF MORE THAN 1 STEP14. (N) PORCH OR TRELLIS COLUMNS15. (N) HEATPUMP UNIT PAD(S)--PROVIDE ELECTRICAL TO THIS LOCATION ASREQUIRED, VERIFY SIZE AND QUANTITY WITH HVAC CONTRACTOR. HEATPUMPUNITS TO COMPLY WITH JURISDICTION'S NOISE ORDINANCE16. (N) CURB CUT PER LOCAL JURISDICTION'S STANDARD DETAIL--SEE CIVIL PLANS#NEW DETACHED GARAGEREQUIRED YARD SETBACK/EASEMENTNEW BUILDING AREANEW HARDSCAPE--SEE PLAN FOR MORE INFOSPOT ELEVATION, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGSFOR MORE INFOXX+/-XX.XX'PROPERTY LINENUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTESADDITIONAL NOTES·NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS,MAILBOX, ETC) WILL BE PROPOSED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE ANDINTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.·ALL DAMAGED SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER DURING CONSTRUCTIONWILL BE REPAIRED1414Ardalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali AVERAGE SETBACK1/32"1TITLE:BLOCK AVARGAE SETBACKA1.0a"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL feet8 16 32 48420.63'20. 6 4 ' 22. 4 9 ' 19. 1 9 ' 20. 0 7 ' 19. 6 7 ' 19. 3 4 ' 22. 4 8 'HIGHEST SETBACK--NOTCOUNTED IN THE AVERAGECALCS.LOWEST SETBACK--NOTCOUNTED IN THE AVERAGECALCS.NOTE: ALL SETBACKS ARE MEASUREDAPPROXIMATELY.19. 0 4 ' 19. 4 3 'Ardalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali SITE PLAN1/8"1feet2 4 8 121TITLE:DEMO SITE PLANA1.1"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS1. (E) TREE TO REMAIN--SEE A1.0 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION2. (E) GAS METER TO BE REMOVED3. EXISTING WATER METER TO BE RELOCATED4. (E) ELECTRICAL PANEL TO BE RELOCATED--CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITHLOCAL UTILITY COMPANY--SEE A1.0 FOR NEW LOCATION5. (E) DRIVEWAY TO BE REMOVED[--SALVAGE (E) PAVERS FOR REINSTALLATION INNEW DRIVEWAY]6. EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY--ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITYRIGHT-OF-WAY MUST HAVE AN APPROVED "PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THEPUBLIC STREET" PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK. THEPERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMITISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY7. APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE8. EXISTING HVAC UNIT TO BE REMOVED9. EXISTING STRUCTURE TO BE DEMOLISHED10. EXISTING GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED11. EXISTING HARDSCAPE TO BE REMOVED12. EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED13. EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED--NEW FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED PERJURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS14. EXISTING RETAINING WALL AND FENCE, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PUBLICRIGHT OF WAY#NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTESTREE PROTECTION FENCINGADDITIONAL NOTES·NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS,MAILBOX, ETC) WILL BE PROPOSED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE ANDINTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.·ALL DAMAGED SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER DURING CONSTRUCTIONWILL BE REPAIRED11111184569101131212111112121213TYP.771414Ardalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali queen - 60x80 24"dwup36"cooktop42" ref - flushinset24" u.c. ref 2'-6"2'-8"2'-8"2'-8"3'-6"2'-4''2'-8"W.H. EM W.H.livingmudroomfamilydiningkitchen bedroom 1ba.1w. closet2'-8''6'-0"3'-0"3'-0"5'-6"5'-6"2'-6"6'-0"6'-0''1'-6"pantry CRAWL 2'-6"2'-6"1A5.01A5.02A5.02A5.02A3.11A3.11A3.22A3.2coatstorage2'-6"2'-6"4'-0"18'-4"11'-2"2'-2"10'-11"14'-4"3'-0"6'-9 1/2" 2'-6 1/2"7'-4 1/2"6'-0" 7'-9 1/2"7'-0"7'-9 1/2"4'-1"6'-7 1/2"5'-2"3'-4"3'-3"9'-1"2'-3"2'-0"4'-5 1/2"2'-10"3'-6"9'-5 1/2"11'-6 1/2"15'-10 1/2"12'-11 1/2"22'-6 1/2"10'-8 1/2"16'-1"22'-4"27'-4 1/2"20'-6 1/2"EQEQ1'-4"1'-4"2'-9"4'-0"5'-1"1'-4"1'-4"2'-1"12'-0 1/2"15'-5"8'-5"3'-1"4'-4 1/2" 3'-6" TYP.11 1/2"6'-8" 25'-8 1/2"10" TYP.33'-6"4'-10 1/2" 4'-8"2'-10 1/2"2'-10"TITLE:PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.1"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL TEMP TEMPEGRESSTEMPTEMPDAIFEBHGC1234567811910TEMP KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS1. (N) CONCRETE STEP(S)--10" MIN. TREAD AND MAX. 7" RISER HEIGHT2. (N) LANDING--MIN. 3" DEEP x WIDTH OF DOOR--MAX. 7-3/4" RISER HEIGHT TOTOP OF THE DOOR THRESHOLD OR DOOR TRACK TO THE EXTERIOR LANDINGIN ORDER TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CRC R311.3.1 OR R311.3.2.3. LINE OF BEAM, SOFFIT AND/OR CROWN MOLDING ABOVE, TYP. SEE ALSOREFLECTED CEILING PLAN4. INDICATES PREFAB CLOSET SYSTEM (OWNER PROVIDE/CONTRACTORINSTALL)5. INDICATES ROD AND SHELF AT ±6'-0" ABOVE T.O.S.--VERIFY HEIGHT WITHOWNER6. (N) PREMANUFACTURED ELECTRIC FIREPLACE, TO BE LISTED AND LABELED,TESTED BY AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY, AND INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH LISTING AND MANUF. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.FIREPLACE SHALL HAVE CLOSABLE METAL OR GLASS COVERING THE ENTIREOPENING OF THE FIREBOX. FACTORY-BUILT FIREPLACES SHALL BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH UL-127. FIREPLACE TO COMPLY WITH EPA PHASE IIEMISSION LIMITS--MANUF: TBD; STYLE: TBD; UL LISTING: [UL LISTING #]--VERIFYFINAL SELECTION WITH OWNER PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER7. (N) 18" X 24" MIN. CRAWLSPACE ACCESS8. (N) 22" X 30" MIN. ATTIC ACCESS. ACCESS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOWFOR THE LARGEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO FIT THROUGH9. (N) TANKLESS WATER HEATER & RECIRCULATION PUMP--MANUF: RHEEM;MODEL: PRESTIGE SERIES 95 OUTDOOR. PROVIDE FOR MAKEUP AIR PER CMC701.6 OUTDOOR COMBUSTION AIR--SEE TITLE 24 REPORT FOR APPLIANCEREQUIREMENTS--TANKLESS WATER HEATERS SHALL HAVE ISOLATION VALVESON BOTH THE COLD WATER SUPPLY AND THE HOT WATER PIPE LEAVING THEHEATER, AND HOSE BIBBS OR OTHER FITTINGS ON EACH VALVE FOR FLUSHINGTHE HEATER10. SKYLIGHT11. CUSTOM CABINETRY12. INSTALL MIN. 1/2" GYP.BD. ON WALLS, UNDER-STAIR SURFACE, AND ANYSOFFITS AT ENCLOSED ACCESSIBLE SPACE UNDER STAIRS PER CRC 302.713. 36" HIGH GUARDRAIL--SEE STAIR NOTES --NOTE THAT PER CRC 312.1.2EXCEPTION 2, A 36" TALL GUARDRAIL CAN DOUBLE AS THE REQ'D HANDRAIL14. 42" MIN. HIGH GUARDRAIL AT OPEN-SIDED LEVEL WALKING SURFACE15. ADJUSTABLE SHOWER SET--1.8 GPM @ 80 PSI MAX--[SEE INTERIOR DESIGNPACKAGE FOR SPEC/OWNER TO PROVIDE SPEC]. CONTROL VALVES ANDSHOWERHEADS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE SIDEWALL OF SHOWERCOMPARTMENT OR BE OTHERWISE ARRANGED SO THAT THE SHOWERHEADDOES NOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMPARTMENTAND THE BATHER CAN ADJUST THE VALVE PRIOR TO STEPPING INTO THESHOWER SPRAY PER CPC 408.916. CUSTOM SHOWER STALL W/ TEMPERED FRAMELESS SHOWER ENCLOSUREAND FLUSH SHOWER TRANSITION. DEPRESS FLOOR FRAMING, CONCRETESLAB TO ACCOMMODATE TILE AND FULL MORTAR BED, S.S.D.. SLOPEMOSAIC TILE (2" OR SMALLER) SHOWER PAN OVER FULL MORTAR BED TODRAIN TO STAINLESS STEEL LINEAR--{NOTE THAT LINEAR DRAINS OFTEN GETBLOCKED BY STRUCTURE}] DRAIN W/ TILE POCKET OPPOSITE OF SHOWERENTRY. ENSURE SHOWER HAS A MIN. INTERIOR FLOOR AREA OF 1024 SQ.IN.AND IS CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH DIA. CIRCLE THAT SHALL BEMAINTAINED UP TO 72" ABOVE SHOWER DRAIN INLET. VERIFY SHOWER DOORSIZE (22" CLR MIN.) WITH OWNER BEFORE FABRICATION. SHOWER WALLSSHALL HAVE A SMOOTH, HARD, NONABSORBENT SURFACE OVER AMOISTURE RESISTANT UNDERLAYMENT TO A HEIGHT OF 72 INCHES ABOVE THEDRAIN INLET. SHOWER HEADS SHALL NOT DISCHARGE WATER ABOVE THEPROTECTIVE WALL SURFACE. CRC 307.217. 1.28 GAL. DUAL FLUSH TOILET FLOOR MOUNT - PROVIDE 30" WIDE BY 24"DEEP CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF TOILET, TYP.--( CPC.4025 i)18. ELECTRIC WASHER AND DRYER. SUPPLY A MIN. 4" DIA. SMOOTH METALMOISTURE EXHAUST DUCT FOR DRYER EXHAUST EXTENDING TO OUTSIDE OFBLDG. (14'-0" MAX. LENGTH, INCLUDING 2 ELBOWS) WITH BACK DRAFTDAMPER, UNLESS MANUF. PERMITS LONGER RUNS OR A POWER EXHAUST ISPROVIDED. TERMINATION OF DUCT MIN. 3'-0" FROM ANY OPENING INTOBLDG PER CMC 504.5.19. UNDERMOUNT SINK W/ 1.2 GPM @ 60 PSI MAX. FAUCET20. FULL SIZE KITCHEN SINK W/ 1.5 GPM MAX. FAUCET, SPRAY, ANDDISPOSAL--UNDERMOUNT IN GRANITE/QUARTZ SLAB COUNTER TOP ANDBACKSPLASH21. (N) HEATPUMP UNIT--PROVIDE ELECTRICAL TO THIS LOCATION AS REQUIRED,VERIFY SIZE AND QUANTITY WITH HVAC CONTRACTOR. HEATPUMP UNITS TOCOMPLY WITH JURISDICTION'S NOISE ORDINANCE22. 1 1/2" HANDRAIL @ 36" MAX. ABOVE STAIR NOISINGFLOOR PLAN LEGEND-FORST FLOOR PLAN1/4"1feet1 2 3 4 61247991111 STAIR NOTES:·MINIMUM 36 INCH WIDE STAIRWAY WIDTH AT FACE OF FINISH. SEE PLAN FORSTAIRWAY WIDTH.·SEE STAIR SECTIONS FOR RISER HEIGHT. THE GREATEST RISER HEIGHT WITHIN ANYFLIGHT OF STAIRS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".MAXIMUM RISER HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 7.75".·SEE STAIR PLANS FOR TREAD DEPTH. TREADS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10" INDEPTH IN ANY CASE. STAIR TREADS SHALL BE OF UNIFORM SIZE AND SHAPE,EXCEPT THAT THE LARGEST TREAD RUN WITHIN ANY FLIGHT OF STAIRS SHALL NOTEXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".·COVER UNDER STAIR, AND USEFUL SPACE FRAMING WITH 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD.·A HANDRAIL ON ONE SIDE IS REQUIRED AT STAIRWAYS WITH FOUR OR MORERISERS.·THE TOP OF HANDRAILS AND REQUIRED HANDRAIL EXTENSIONS SHALL NOT BEPLACED LESS THAN 34" NOR MORE THAN 38" ABOVE LANDINGS AND THE NOSINGOF TREADS.·THE HANDGRIP PORTION OF HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/4" NORMORE THAN 2" IN CROSS SECTIONAL DIMENSION, OR THE SHAPE SHALL PROVIDEAN EQUIVALENT GRIPPING SURFACE. THE HANDGRIP PORTION OF THE HANDRAILSHALL HAVE A SMOOTH SURFACE WITH NO SHARP CORNERS. HANDRAILSPROJECTING FROM A WALL SHALL HAVE A SPACE OF NOT LESS THAN 1-1/2"BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE HANDRAIL.·HANDRAIL EXTENDS CONTINUOUSLY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM RISER ANDTERMINATES AT NEWEL POSTS OR ROUNDED SAFETY TERMINAL.·HANDRAILS MAY PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH A DISTANCE OF 3-1/2"FROM EACH SIDE OF A RAMP. OTHER PROJECTIONS, SUCH AS TRIM AND SIMILARDECORATIVE FEATURES, MAY PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH 1-1/2" FROMEACH SIDE.·GUARDRAIL AT OPEN SIDES OF STAIRS TO BE 34" MIN. A.F.F. MEASUREDVERTICALLY FROM A LINE CONNECTING THE LEADING EDGES OF THE TREADS·WHERE THE TOP OF THE GUARD ALSO SERVES AS A HANDRAIL, THE TOP OF THEGUARD SHALL BE BETWEEN 34"-38" MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM A LINECONNECTING THE LEADING EDGE OF THE TREADS·GUARDS SHALL NOT HAVE OPENINGS THAT ALLOW PASSAGE OF A 4" DIA.SPHERE, EXCEPT THE TRIANGULAR OPENINGS IN STAIRS FORMED BY THE RISER,TREAD, AND BOTTOM RAIL SHALL NOT ALLOW PASSAGE OF A 6" DIA. SPHERESTAIR GUARDRAIL DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SHALL DEMONSTRATE GUARDRAILDESIGN IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A SINGLE CONCENTRATED 200 POUND LOADAPPLIED IN ANY DIRECTION AT ANY POINT ALONG THE TOP OF THE RAIL PER CRCTABLE 301.5 AND 301.5 FOOTNOTE D -- SEE S.S.D. FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES ANDDETAILS.·OPEN RISERS ARE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT THE OPENINGS LOCATED MORETHAN 30 INCHES, AS MEASURED VERTICALLY, TO THE FLOOR OR GRADE BELOWDO NOT PERMIT THE PASSAGE OF A 4 INCH-DIAMETER SPHERE. SIZE WOODTREADS ACCORDINGLY.·R302.11 #3 CRC: IN COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, FIRE-BLOCKING SHALL BEPROVIDED IN WOOD-FRAMED CONCEALED SPACES BETWEEN STAIR STRINGERSAT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE RUN. ENCLOSED SPACES UNDER STAIRS SHALLCOMPLY WITH SECTION R302.7.121211131516171920SEE SHEET A1.162·SEE ELEVATIONS FOR VENT LOCATIONS - VENTS ARE NOT TO BE LOCATEDIN SHEAR WALLS OR SIMPSON STRONG WALLS·OPENINGS FOR CRAWL SPACE VENTILATION SHALL BE LOCATED ASCLOSE TO CORNERS AS PRACTICAL TO PROVIDE CROSS VENTILATION·PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VENTS IF EXISTING VENTS BLOCKED BY ADDITION(N) WALL: EXTERIOR: 2x6 STUDS @16" O.C.; INTERIOR 2x4 STUDS@16"O.C--SEE ELEVATIONS AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOREXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL ASSEMBLIES. INSTALL 2 LAYERS OFBUILDING PAPER (FOR STUCCO ONLY)/1 LAYER (MIN.) OFWEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER (TYVEK HOUSE WRAP OR EQ.) OVEREXTERIOR WALLS SHEATHING PER CRC 703.2--INSTALL PERMANUF. INSTRUCTIONS. PROVIDE 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYPSUM BOARDEACH SIDE @ INTERIOR PARTITIONS. PROVIDE CEMENT BOARDOR TILE BACKER BOARD AT SHOWER/TUB LOCATIONS. ALLWALLS TO RECEIVE (N) PAINT FINISH. ALL CEILINGS ATTUB/SHOWERS TO BE M.R. BOARD##DOOR KEY-- SEE A3.4 FOR MORE INFORMATIONWINDOW KEY-- SEE A3.4 FOR MORE INFORMATIONDENOTES (N) HOSE BIBB. SEE PLANS FOR NEW LOCATION -INSTALL HOSE BIBBS PER CPC WITH APPROVED ANTI-SIPHONDEVICE. (E) HOSE BIBBS TO REMAIN.#NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTES CRAWLSPACE VENT CALCULATION7A8.01213Ardalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali 16'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"1A3.33A3.32A3.34A3.3HEATPUMPHEATPUMP20'-4"20'-4"5'-8"9'-11 1/2"5'-2"TITLE:PROPOSEDGARAGE FLOOR PLANA2.2"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL 123TEMPTEMPABTEMP KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS1. (N) CONCRETE STEP(S)--10" MIN. TREAD AND MAX. 7" RISER HEIGHT2. (N) LANDING--MIN. 3" DEEP x WIDTH OF DOOR--MAX. 7-3/4" RISER HEIGHT TOTOP OF THE DOOR THRESHOLD OR DOOR TRACK TO THE EXTERIOR LANDINGIN ORDER TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CRC R311.3.1 OR R311.3.2.3. LINE OF BEAM, SOFFIT AND/OR CROWN MOLDING ABOVE, TYP. SEE ALSOREFLECTED CEILING PLAN4. INDICATES PREFAB CLOSET SYSTEM (OWNER PROVIDE/CONTRACTORINSTALL)5. INDICATES ROD AND SHELF AT ±6'-0" ABOVE T.O.S.--VERIFY HEIGHT WITHOWNER6. (N) PREMANUFACTURED ELECTRIC FIREPLACE, TO BE LISTED AND LABELED,TESTED BY AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY, AND INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH LISTING AND MANUF. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.FIREPLACE SHALL HAVE CLOSABLE METAL OR GLASS COVERING THE ENTIREOPENING OF THE FIREBOX. FACTORY-BUILT FIREPLACES SHALL BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH UL-127. FIREPLACE TO COMPLY WITH EPA PHASE IIEMISSION LIMITS--MANUF: TBD; STYLE: TBD; UL LISTING: [UL LISTING #]--VERIFYFINAL SELECTION WITH OWNER PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER7. (N) 18" X 24" MIN. CRAWLSPACE ACCESS8. (N) 22" X 30" MIN. ATTIC ACCESS. ACCESS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOWFOR THE LARGEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO FIT THROUGH9. (N) TANKLESS WATER HEATER & RECIRCULATION PUMP--MANUF: RHEEM;MODEL: PRESTIGE SERIES 95 OUTDOOR. PROVIDE FOR MAKEUP AIR PER CMC701.6 OUTDOOR COMBUSTION AIR--SEE TITLE 24 REPORT FOR APPLIANCEREQUIREMENTS--TANKLESS WATER HEATERS SHALL HAVE ISOLATION VALVESON BOTH THE COLD WATER SUPPLY AND THE HOT WATER PIPE LEAVING THEHEATER, AND HOSE BIBBS OR OTHER FITTINGS ON EACH VALVE FOR FLUSHINGTHE HEATER10. SKYLIGHT11. CUSTOM CABINETRY12. INSTALL MIN. 1/2" GYP.BD. ON WALLS, UNDER-STAIR SURFACE, AND ANYSOFFITS AT ENCLOSED ACCESSIBLE SPACE UNDER STAIRS PER CRC 302.713. 36" HIGH GUARDRAIL--SEE STAIR NOTES --NOTE THAT PER CRC 312.1.2EXCEPTION 2, A 36" TALL GUARDRAIL CAN DOUBLE AS THE REQ'D HANDRAIL14. 42" MIN. HIGH GUARDRAIL AT OPEN-SIDED LEVEL WALKING SURFACE15. ADJUSTABLE SHOWER SET--1.8 GPM @ 80 PSI MAX--[SEE INTERIOR DESIGNPACKAGE FOR SPEC/OWNER TO PROVIDE SPEC]. CONTROL VALVES ANDSHOWERHEADS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE SIDEWALL OF SHOWERCOMPARTMENT OR BE OTHERWISE ARRANGED SO THAT THE SHOWERHEADDOES NOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMPARTMENTAND THE BATHER CAN ADJUST THE VALVE PRIOR TO STEPPING INTO THESHOWER SPRAY PER CPC 408.916. CUSTOM SHOWER STALL W/ TEMPERED FRAMELESS SHOWER ENCLOSUREAND FLUSH SHOWER TRANSITION. DEPRESS FLOOR FRAMING, CONCRETESLAB TO ACCOMMODATE TILE AND FULL MORTAR BED, S.S.D.. SLOPEMOSAIC TILE (2" OR SMALLER) SHOWER PAN OVER FULL MORTAR BED TODRAIN TO STAINLESS STEEL LINEAR--{NOTE THAT LINEAR DRAINS OFTEN GETBLOCKED BY STRUCTURE}] DRAIN W/ TILE POCKET OPPOSITE OF SHOWERENTRY. ENSURE SHOWER HAS A MIN. INTERIOR FLOOR AREA OF 1024 SQ.IN.AND IS CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH DIA. CIRCLE THAT SHALL BEMAINTAINED UP TO 72" ABOVE SHOWER DRAIN INLET. VERIFY SHOWER DOORSIZE (22" CLR MIN.) WITH OWNER BEFORE FABRICATION. SHOWER WALLSSHALL HAVE A SMOOTH, HARD, NONABSORBENT SURFACE OVER AMOISTURE RESISTANT UNDERLAYMENT TO A HEIGHT OF 72 INCHES ABOVE THEDRAIN INLET. SHOWER HEADS SHALL NOT DISCHARGE WATER ABOVE THEPROTECTIVE WALL SURFACE. CRC 307.217. 1.28 GAL. DUAL FLUSH TOILET FLOOR MOUNT - PROVIDE 30" WIDE BY 24"DEEP CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF TOILET, TYP.--( CPC.4025 i)18. ELECTRIC WASHER AND DRYER. SUPPLY A MIN. 4" DIA. SMOOTH METALMOISTURE EXHAUST DUCT FOR DRYER EXHAUST EXTENDING TO OUTSIDE OFBLDG. (14'-0" MAX. LENGTH, INCLUDING 2 ELBOWS) WITH BACK DRAFTDAMPER, UNLESS MANUF. PERMITS LONGER RUNS OR A POWER EXHAUST ISPROVIDED. TERMINATION OF DUCT MIN. 3'-0" FROM ANY OPENING INTOBLDG PER CMC 504.5.19. UNDERMOUNT SINK W/ 1.2 GPM @ 60 PSI MAX. FAUCET20. FULL SIZE KITCHEN SINK W/ 1.5 GPM MAX. FAUCET, SPRAY, ANDDISPOSAL--UNDERMOUNT IN GRANITE/QUARTZ SLAB COUNTER TOP ANDBACKSPLASH21. (N) HEATPUMP UNIT--PROVIDE ELECTRICAL TO THIS LOCATION AS REQUIRED,VERIFY SIZE AND QUANTITY WITH HVAC CONTRACTOR. HEATPUMP UNITS TOCOMPLY WITH JURISDICTION'S NOISE ORDINANCE22. 1 1/2" HANDRAIL @ 36" MAX. ABOVE STAIR NOISINGGARAGE FLOOR PLAN1/4"1feet1 2 3 4 6(N) WALL: EXTERIOR: 2x6 STUDS @16" O.C.; INTERIOR 2x4 STUDS@16"O.C--SEE ELEVATIONS AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOREXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL ASSEMBLIES. INSTALL 2 LAYERS OFBUILDING PAPER (FOR STUCCO ONLY)/1 LAYER (MIN.) OFWEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER (TYVEK HOUSE WRAP OR EQ.) OVEREXTERIOR WALLS SHEATHING PER CRC 703.2--INSTALL PERMANUF. INSTRUCTIONS. PROVIDE 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYPSUM BOARDEACH SIDE @ INTERIOR PARTITIONS. PROVIDE CEMENT BOARDOR TILE BACKER BOARD AT SHOWER/TUB LOCATIONS. ALLWALLS TO RECEIVE (N) PAINT FINISH. ALL CEILINGS ATTUB/SHOWERS TO BE M.R. BOARD##DOOR KEY-- SEE A3.4 FOR MORE INFORMATIONWINDOW KEY-- SEE A3.4 FOR MORE INFORMATIONDENOTES (N) HOSE BIBB. SEE PLANS FOR NEW LOCATION -INSTALL HOSE BIBBS PER CPC WITH APPROVED ANTI-SIPHONDEVICE. (E) HOSE BIBBS TO REMAIN.#NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTES212SEE SHEET A1.1Ardalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali Rqueen - 60x80queen - 60x80R2'-6"med.cab.med.cab.W34x27D34x27dn2'-8"2'-8"2'-6"2'-8"2'-8"2'-10"2'-8"2'-8"cal king - 72x84 4'-0"4'-0"bedroom 2bedroom 3ba.3ba.2closetw. closetclosetclosetmaster bathroommaster bedroomloft7'-0"5'-6"2'-0"2'-0"7'-0"5'-0"5'-0"2'-2"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0''2'-8"2'-8"5'-0''2'-0"3'-0"ATTIC1A5.01A5.02A5.02A5.02A3.11A3.11A3.22A3.23'-0"4'-4 1/2"11'-4 1/2"9"7'-4"4'-11"4'-5"1'-8"3'-10"3'-0"3'-1"1'-6"8'-6"1'-1"5'-9 1/2"7'-8"4'-3 1/2" 9'-5 1/2"5'-6 1/2"10'-3"5'-0"12'-9 1/2"13'-0"14'-9 1/2"1'-7"9'-9"4'-6"5'-7"3'-1"8'-1"3'-6"7'-8"4'-5 1/2" 15'-7 1/2"11'-2"21'-5"3'-0"8'-5"4'-10 1/2"4'-1 1/2"8'-10"11'-5"12'-11 1/2"12'-2 1/2"1'-4"1'-4"2'-6"2'-8"1'-4"1'-4"2'-8"2'-8"11'-10 1/2"12'-8 1/2"1'-5"1'-5"2'-9"5'-7"9'-2" 15'-0"10'-1 1/2"10'-7 1/2"12'-8 1/2"MIN 24" CLR. OPENING TYP.3'-8"MIN 2'-0"MIN2 '-0"TITLE:PROPOSED2ND FLOOR PLANA2.3"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL HIEDFB C G J A 1234567891011121314151617EGRESSTEMPEGRESSTEMP TEMP TEMP TEMPTEMPEGRESSTEMPK KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS1. (N) CONCRETE STEP(S)--10" MIN. TREAD AND MAX. 7" RISER HEIGHT2. (N) LANDING--MIN. 3" DEEP x WIDTH OF DOOR--MAX. 7-3/4" RISER HEIGHT TOTOP OF THE DOOR THRESHOLD OR DOOR TRACK TO THE EXTERIOR LANDINGIN ORDER TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH CRC R311.3.1 OR R311.3.2.3. LINE OF BEAM, SOFFIT AND/OR CROWN MOLDING ABOVE, TYP. SEE ALSOREFLECTED CEILING PLAN4. INDICATES PREFAB CLOSET SYSTEM (OWNER PROVIDE/CONTRACTORINSTALL)5. INDICATES ROD AND SHELF AT ±6'-0" ABOVE T.O.S.--VERIFY HEIGHT WITHOWNER6. (N) PREMANUFACTURED ELECTRIC FIREPLACE, TO BE LISTED AND LABELED,TESTED BY AN APPROVED TESTING LABORATORY, AND INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH LISTING AND MANUF. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS.FIREPLACE SHALL HAVE CLOSABLE METAL OR GLASS COVERING THE ENTIREOPENING OF THE FIREBOX. FACTORY-BUILT FIREPLACES SHALL BE TESTED INACCORDANCE WITH UL-127. FIREPLACE TO COMPLY WITH EPA PHASE IIEMISSION LIMITS--MANUF: TBD; STYLE: TBD; UL LISTING: [UL LISTING #]--VERIFYFINAL SELECTION WITH OWNER PRIOR TO PLACING ORDER7. (N) 18" X 24" MIN. CRAWLSPACE ACCESS8. (N) 22" X 30" MIN. ATTIC ACCESS. ACCESS TO BE LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOWFOR THE LARGEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT TO FIT THROUGH9. (N) TANKLESS WATER HEATER & RECIRCULATION PUMP--MANUF: RHEEM;MODEL: PRESTIGE SERIES 95 OUTDOOR. PROVIDE FOR MAKEUP AIR PER CMC701.6 OUTDOOR COMBUSTION AIR--SEE TITLE 24 REPORT FOR APPLIANCEREQUIREMENTS--TANKLESS WATER HEATERS SHALL HAVE ISOLATION VALVESON BOTH THE COLD WATER SUPPLY AND THE HOT WATER PIPE LEAVING THEHEATER, AND HOSE BIBBS OR OTHER FITTINGS ON EACH VALVE FOR FLUSHINGTHE HEATER10. SKYLIGHT11. CUSTOM CABINETRY12. INSTALL MIN. 1/2" GYP.BD. ON WALLS, UNDER-STAIR SURFACE, AND ANYSOFFITS AT ENCLOSED ACCESSIBLE SPACE UNDER STAIRS PER CRC 302.713. 36" HIGH GUARDRAIL--SEE STAIR NOTES --NOTE THAT PER CRC 312.1.2EXCEPTION 2, A 36" TALL GUARDRAIL CAN DOUBLE AS THE REQ'D HANDRAIL14. 42" MIN. HIGH GUARDRAIL AT OPEN-SIDED LEVEL WALKING SURFACE15. ADJUSTABLE SHOWER SET--1.8 GPM @ 80 PSI MAX--[SEE INTERIOR DESIGNPACKAGE FOR SPEC/OWNER TO PROVIDE SPEC]. CONTROL VALVES ANDSHOWERHEADS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE SIDEWALL OF SHOWERCOMPARTMENT OR BE OTHERWISE ARRANGED SO THAT THE SHOWERHEADDOES NOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE COMPARTMENTAND THE BATHER CAN ADJUST THE VALVE PRIOR TO STEPPING INTO THESHOWER SPRAY PER CPC 408.916. CUSTOM SHOWER STALL W/ TEMPERED FRAMELESS SHOWER ENCLOSUREAND FLUSH SHOWER TRANSITION. DEPRESS FLOOR FRAMING, CONCRETESLAB TO ACCOMMODATE TILE AND FULL MORTAR BED, S.S.D.. SLOPEMOSAIC TILE (2" OR SMALLER) SHOWER PAN OVER FULL MORTAR BED TODRAIN TO STAINLESS STEEL LINEAR--{NOTE THAT LINEAR DRAINS OFTEN GETBLOCKED BY STRUCTURE}] DRAIN W/ TILE POCKET OPPOSITE OF SHOWERENTRY. ENSURE SHOWER HAS A MIN. INTERIOR FLOOR AREA OF 1024 SQ.IN.AND IS CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH DIA. CIRCLE THAT SHALL BEMAINTAINED UP TO 72" ABOVE SHOWER DRAIN INLET. VERIFY SHOWER DOORSIZE (22" CLR MIN.) WITH OWNER BEFORE FABRICATION. SHOWER WALLSSHALL HAVE A SMOOTH, HARD, NONABSORBENT SURFACE OVER AMOISTURE RESISTANT UNDERLAYMENT TO A HEIGHT OF 72 INCHES ABOVE THEDRAIN INLET. SHOWER HEADS SHALL NOT DISCHARGE WATER ABOVE THEPROTECTIVE WALL SURFACE. CRC 307.217. 1.28 GAL. DUAL FLUSH TOILET FLOOR MOUNT - PROVIDE 30" WIDE BY 24"DEEP CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT OF TOILET, TYP.--( CPC.4025 i)18. ELECTRIC WASHER AND DRYER. SUPPLY A MIN. 4" DIA. SMOOTH METALMOISTURE EXHAUST DUCT FOR DRYER EXHAUST EXTENDING TO OUTSIDE OFBLDG. (14'-0" MAX. LENGTH, INCLUDING 2 ELBOWS) WITH BACK DRAFTDAMPER, UNLESS MANUF. PERMITS LONGER RUNS OR A POWER EXHAUST ISPROVIDED. TERMINATION OF DUCT MIN. 3'-0" FROM ANY OPENING INTOBLDG PER CMC 504.5.19. UNDERMOUNT SINK W/ 1.2 GPM @ 60 PSI MAX. FAUCET20. FULL SIZE KITCHEN SINK W/ 1.5 GPM MAX. FAUCET, SPRAY, ANDDISPOSAL--UNDERMOUNT IN GRANITE/QUARTZ SLAB COUNTER TOP ANDBACKSPLASH21. (N) HEATPUMP UNIT--PROVIDE ELECTRICAL TO THIS LOCATION AS REQUIRED,VERIFY SIZE AND QUANTITY WITH HVAC CONTRACTOR. HEATPUMP UNITS TOCOMPLY WITH JURISDICTION'S NOISE ORDINANCE22. 1 1/2" HANDRAIL @ 36" MAX. ABOVE STAIR NOISINGFLOOR PLAN LEGEND- STAIR NOTES:·MINIMUM 36 INCH WIDE STAIRWAY WIDTH AT FACE OF FINISH. SEE PLAN FORSTAIRWAY WIDTH.·SEE STAIR SECTIONS FOR RISER HEIGHT. THE GREATEST RISER HEIGHT WITHIN ANYFLIGHT OF STAIRS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".MAXIMUM RISER HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED 7.75".·SEE STAIR PLANS FOR TREAD DEPTH. TREADS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 10" INDEPTH IN ANY CASE. STAIR TREADS SHALL BE OF UNIFORM SIZE AND SHAPE,EXCEPT THAT THE LARGEST TREAD RUN WITHIN ANY FLIGHT OF STAIRS SHALL NOTEXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".·COVER UNDER STAIR, AND USEFUL SPACE FRAMING WITH 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD.·A HANDRAIL ON ONE SIDE IS REQUIRED AT STAIRWAYS WITH FOUR OR MORERISERS.·THE TOP OF HANDRAILS AND REQUIRED HANDRAIL EXTENSIONS SHALL NOT BEPLACED LESS THAN 34" NOR MORE THAN 38" ABOVE LANDINGS AND THE NOSINGOF TREADS.·THE HANDGRIP PORTION OF HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1-1/4" NORMORE THAN 2" IN CROSS SECTIONAL DIMENSION, OR THE SHAPE SHALL PROVIDEAN EQUIVALENT GRIPPING SURFACE. THE HANDGRIP PORTION OF THE HANDRAILSHALL HAVE A SMOOTH SURFACE WITH NO SHARP CORNERS. HANDRAILSPROJECTING FROM A WALL SHALL HAVE A SPACE OF NOT LESS THAN 1-1/2"BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE HANDRAIL.·HANDRAIL EXTENDS CONTINUOUSLY FROM TOP TO BOTTOM RISER ANDTERMINATES AT NEWEL POSTS OR ROUNDED SAFETY TERMINAL.·HANDRAILS MAY PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH A DISTANCE OF 3-1/2"FROM EACH SIDE OF A RAMP. OTHER PROJECTIONS, SUCH AS TRIM AND SIMILARDECORATIVE FEATURES, MAY PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED WIDTH 1-1/2" FROMEACH SIDE.·GUARDRAIL AT OPEN SIDES OF STAIRS TO BE 34" MIN. A.F.F. MEASUREDVERTICALLY FROM A LINE CONNECTING THE LEADING EDGES OF THE TREADS·WHERE THE TOP OF THE GUARD ALSO SERVES AS A HANDRAIL, THE TOP OF THEGUARD SHALL BE BETWEEN 34"-38" MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM A LINECONNECTING THE LEADING EDGE OF THE TREADS·GUARDS SHALL NOT HAVE OPENINGS THAT ALLOW PASSAGE OF A 4" DIA.SPHERE, EXCEPT THE TRIANGULAR OPENINGS IN STAIRS FORMED BY THE RISER,TREAD, AND BOTTOM RAIL SHALL NOT ALLOW PASSAGE OF A 6" DIA. SPHERESTAIR GUARDRAIL DRAWINGS AND DETAILS SHALL DEMONSTRATE GUARDRAILDESIGN IS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A SINGLE CONCENTRATED 200 POUND LOADAPPLIED IN ANY DIRECTION AT ANY POINT ALONG THE TOP OF THE RAIL PER CRCTABLE 301.5 AND 301.5 FOOTNOTE D -- SEE S.S.D. FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES ANDDETAILS.·OPEN RISERS ARE PERMITTED PROVIDED THAT THE OPENINGS LOCATED MORETHAN 30 INCHES, AS MEASURED VERTICALLY, TO THE FLOOR OR GRADE BELOWDO NOT PERMIT THE PASSAGE OF A 4 INCH-DIAMETER SPHERE. SIZE WOODTREADS ACCORDINGLY.·R302.11 #3 CRC: IN COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION, FIRE-BLOCKING SHALL BEPROVIDED IN WOOD-FRAMED CONCEALED SPACES BETWEEN STAIR STRINGERSAT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE RUN. ENCLOSED SPACES UNDER STAIRS SHALLCOMPLY WITH SECTION R302.7.FIRST FLOOR OUTLINETYP.34:124:12RIDGE810 12121414221516free standing1719191815171916191716154552ND FLOOR PLAN1/4"1feet1 2 3 4 6(N) WALL: EXTERIOR: 2x6 STUDS @16" O.C.; INTERIOR 2x4 STUDS@16"O.C--SEE ELEVATIONS AND STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOREXTERIOR WALL MATERIAL ASSEMBLIES. INSTALL 2 LAYERS OFBUILDING PAPER (FOR STUCCO ONLY)/1 LAYER (MIN.) OFWEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER (TYVEK HOUSE WRAP OR EQ.) OVEREXTERIOR WALLS SHEATHING PER CRC 703.2--INSTALL PERMANUF. INSTRUCTIONS. PROVIDE 5/8" TYPE 'X' GYPSUM BOARDEACH SIDE @ INTERIOR PARTITIONS. PROVIDE CEMENT BOARDOR TILE BACKER BOARD AT SHOWER/TUB LOCATIONS. ALLWALLS TO RECEIVE (N) PAINT FINISH. ALL CEILINGS ATTUB/SHOWERS TO BE M.R. BOARD##DOOR KEY-- SEE A3.4 FOR MORE INFORMATIONWINDOW KEY-- SEE A3.4 FOR MORE INFORMATIONDENOTES (N) HOSE BIBB. SEE PLANS FOR NEW LOCATION -INSTALL HOSE BIBBS PER CPC WITH APPROVED ANTI-SIPHONDEVICE. (E) HOSE BIBBS TO REMAIN.#NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTES 1A5.01A5.02A5.02A5.02A3.11A3.11A3.22A3.21A3.33A3.32A3.34A3.3"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL DENOTES GUTTER DRAIN (3" DIA.) AND DOWNSPOUT (2" X 3") 26 GAALUMINUM - PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM COLOR-- VERIFY SPEC. W/OWNER. INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONSDSDENOTES DIRECTION OF SLOPE FROM HIGH TO LOW--ROOF SLOPEAPPROX., REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR MAX HT AND VERTICAL CONTROLLINE OF BLDG. BELOW roof general notes and legends1. INSTALL ALL NEW ROOFING MATERIALS--SEE LEGEND BELOW FORMATERIALS--CONFIRM COLOR SELECTION W/ OWNER PRIOR TO PLACINGORDER2. PAINT ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS TO MATCH ROOFING COLOR.3. PLUMBING VENTS TO BE MIN. 10' AWAY FROM, OR AT LEAST 3' ABOVE ANYOPERABLE WINDOW OR SKYLIGHT PER CPC 906.2.4. ROUTE PLUMBING VENTS WITHIN ATTIC SPACE SO THAT ROOF PENETRATIONSARE BEHIND MAIN ROOF RIDGE AND ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET5. FUTURE SOLAR PANELS PER CEC 110.10 (MINIMUM 250 S.F. ON A SOUTH SIDEORIENTATION). KEEP AREA CLEAR OF ROOFING EYEBROW, MECHANICAL ANDPLUMBING VENTS.6. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR SLOPE.7. PROVIDE (N) GSM ROOF JACKS, TYP. CAULK ALL EXPOSED NAIL HEADS WITHSILICONE SEALANT.8. PROVIDE (N) GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN--GUTTERSTO SLOPE 1:240 FRONT-TOBACK, BUT TO BE LEVEL SIDE TO SIDE9. INSTALL KICKOUT FLASHING PER 8/A8.0 WHEREVER GUTTERS TERMINATE AT AWALL10. ALL PLATE HEIGHTS PER SECTIONS AND RCP. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION.11. CONNECT ALL DOWNSPOUTS TO FLEXIBLE PLASTIC DRAINPIPE AND RUN TO ALOCATION SPECIFIED BY CIVIL PLANSNEW 4O YEARS ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE--CLASS A FIRE RATEDroof venting calcoulationsINDICATES RIDGE VENTTYP.GARAGEAND LOWERROOF PLANA2.1aLOWER ROOF PLAN1/4"1feet1 2 3 4 6GARAGE ROOF PLAN1/4"2feet1 2 3 4 62A8.03A8.03A8.04.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:12TYP.5A8.05A8.0HI P HI P HIPVALLEYHIPHIPVALLEYV A L L E YHIPVALLEYRIDGE RIDGE TYP.3A8.05A8.05A8.04:124:124A8.0TYP.DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS4.5:12DSArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali 1A5.01A5.02A5.02A5.02A3.11A3.11A3.22A3.2"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309Menlo Park, CA, 94025650-387-92721317 Paloma Ave, Burlingame, CA Owner Behzad Hadjian ADDRESS PROJECT NAME Hadjian Residence NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE REVISION DATESIGNED BYDRAWN BYArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliAPN: 026-085-100DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL DENOTES GUTTER DRAIN (3" DIA.) AND DOWNSPOUT (2" X 3") 26 GAALUMINUM - PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM COLOR-- VERIFY SPEC. W/OWNER. INSTALL PER MFR. INSTRUCTIONSDSDENOTES DIRECTION OF SLOPE FROM HIGH TO LOW--ROOF SLOPEAPPROX., REFER TO ELEVATIONS FOR MAX HT AND VERTICAL CONTROLLINE OF BLDG. BELOW roof general notes and legends1. INSTALL ALL NEW ROOFING MATERIALS--SEE LEGEND BELOW FORMATERIALS--CONFIRM COLOR SELECTION W/ OWNER PRIOR TO PLACINGORDER2. PAINT ALL ROOF PENETRATIONS TO MATCH ROOFING COLOR.3. PLUMBING VENTS TO BE MIN. 10' AWAY FROM, OR AT LEAST 3' ABOVE ANYOPERABLE WINDOW OR SKYLIGHT PER CPC 906.2.4. ROUTE PLUMBING VENTS WITHIN ATTIC SPACE SO THAT ROOF PENETRATIONSARE BEHIND MAIN ROOF RIDGE AND ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET5. FUTURE SOLAR PANELS PER CEC 110.10 (MINIMUM 250 S.F. ON A SOUTH SIDEORIENTATION). KEEP AREA CLEAR OF ROOFING EYEBROW, MECHANICAL ANDPLUMBING VENTS.6. SEE ROOF PLAN FOR SLOPE.7. PROVIDE (N) GSM ROOF JACKS, TYP. CAULK ALL EXPOSED NAIL HEADS WITHSILICONE SEALANT.8. PROVIDE (N) GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN--GUTTERSTO SLOPE 1:240 FRONT-TOBACK, BUT TO BE LEVEL SIDE TO SIDE9. INSTALL KICKOUT FLASHING PER 8/A8.0 WHEREVER GUTTERS TERMINATE AT AWALL10. ALL PLATE HEIGHTS PER SECTIONS AND RCP. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FORADDITIONAL INFORMATION.11. CONNECT ALL DOWNSPOUTS TO FLEXIBLE PLASTIC DRAINPIPE AND RUN TO ALOCATION SPECIFIED BY CIVIL PLANSNEW 4O YEARS ASPHALT COMPOSITION SHINGLE--CLASS A FIRE RATEDroof venting calcoulationsINDICATES RIDGE VENTLOWERROOF PLANA2.1bUPPER ROOF PLAN1/4"1feet1 2 3 4 62A8.03A8.03A8.03A8.03A8.04A8.03A8.02A8.05A8.05A8.02A8.05A8.05A8.05A8.05A8.03A8.0RIDGE RIDGE RIDGE RIDGERIDGE VALLEYVALLEYVALLEYV A L L E Y V A L L E Y HI P HI P HI PRIDGE HIPHIPV A L L E Y VALLEYHIPHI PRIDGEHIP 5A8.05A8.04A8.02A8.02A8.02A8.04.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:124.5:12DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSDSArdalan DjalaliArdalan DjalaliSIGNED BYArdalan Djalali DAYLIGHT PLANE A3.0 feet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 628'-4 1/4"7'-6"12'-0"12'-0"7'-6"MAX 6'-0" FENCE4 5 ° 45° 4 5 ° 45° +/-22.1' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE 1/4"1SOUTH VIEW DAYLIGHT PLANE NORTH VIEW DAYLIGHT PLANE 1/4"2 DAYLIGHT PLANE PER CITY OF BURLINGAME REQUIREMENTS PROPERTY LINE DAYLIGHT PLANE PER CITY OF BURLINGAME REQUIREMENTS PROPERTY LINE +/-22.1' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE 1'-0"+/- 24.2' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE +/- 23.15' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE +/- 24.2' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE +/- 23.15' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali RESIDENCE EXTERIOR ELAVATIONS A3.1 1 DAYLIGHT PLANE AS DEFINED BY JURISDICTION 2 NEW 40 YR.COMP.SHINGLE RADIENT BARRIER PER ENERGY REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED 3 SKYLIGHT 4 BOARD AND BATTEN FIBER CEMENT SIDING OVER ONE LAYER TYVEK PAPER HOUSE WRAP 5 HORIZONTAL FACTORY FINISHED FIBER CEMENT SIDING OVER ONE LAYER TYVEK PAPER HOUSE WRAP 6 ADHERED LIGHT WEIGHT STONE 7 DECORATIVE PAINT GRADE GABLE END 8 DECORATIVE PAINT GRADE WOOD CORBEL 9 PAINTEDFIBER CEMENT TRIM 2x6 FASCIA WITH 4" SEAMLESS PAINTED SHEET METAL GUTTER 10 FIXED FIBERGLASS SHUTTER--V GROOVE--COLOR BLACK 632-- VISIT:https://www.customshuttercompany.com/exterior-shutters/fiberglass-shutters-v-groove/ FOR SPEC. 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT 12 LED ILLUMINATED ADDRESS SIGNAGE--AN APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBER ON BUILDING ELEVATION IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT ACCESS STREET OR ROAD. THE NUMBERS NEED TO CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, AND BE A MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH, WITH A MINIMUM STROKE OF 1/2". (CRC 319.1 13 MAX 6'-0" WOOD FENCE HIGHT 14 WINDOW TRIM 15 ELECTRIC METER 16 LIGHT WEIGHT ADHERED STONE 17 8" X 8" PAINT GRADE WOOD POST WITH STONE BASE 18 ADDRESS SIGNAGE 19 MAIL BOX 20 HVAC UNIT 21 7 X 14 CRAWLSPACE VENT--SEE SHEET A1.1 FOR CALCULATIONS 22 EGRESS WINDOW--TO COMLPY WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2019 CRC R310 OR CBC 1030 feet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 6 6'-0"3'-0" WINDOW SILL HEIGHT5'-0"4'-6"3'-0" WINDOW SILL HEIGHT3'-0" WINDOW SILL HEIGHT9 1/2"12'-0"7'-6"MAX 6'-0" FENCE4 5 ° 45° 4 5 ° 45° +/-47.35' T.O. RIDGE +/-49.95' T.O. RIDGE(HIGHEST POINT)27'-10 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE CURB GRADE25'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM NATURAL GRADE+/- 22.10' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE9'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT+/- 44.35' T.O. 2ND FLOOR PLATE +/- 35.85' 2ND FLOOR F.F +/-34.60' T.O. 1ST FLOOR PLATE +/-25.60' 1ST FLOO F.F +/- 47.87' T.O. RIDGE +/- 46.52' T.O. RIDGE 8'-6" 2ND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT24'-4 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM F.FSOUTH ELEVATION--FRONT VIEW 1/4"1111 NORTH ELEVATIO--REAR VIEW 1/4"2 6451017 1'-0"8'-0"2'-0"1 2 5 8 9 11 13 3'-6"1 6 14'-4 1/2"7 8 10 11 14 13 +/-XXX.X' (E)/(N) GRADE GRADE LINE KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS #NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTE DAYLIGHT PLANE PROPERTY LINE LAND FILL 19 17 1'-4" o.c typ.max 6"18 21TYP. 4.5:12 typ. 4.5:12 typ. +/- 24.2' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE +/- 23.15' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE +/- 24.2' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE +/- 23.15' POINT OF DAYLIGHT DEPARTURE EGRESS EGRESS EGRESS TEMP TEMP TEMP PIC. TEMP. typ. TEMP TEMP PIC. TEMP. typ. TEMPTEMP TEMP. typ. 22PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE9'-0"5'-0"4'-6"+/-49.95' T.O. RIDGE(HIGHEST POINT)27'-10 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE CURB GRADE25'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM NATURAL GRADE+/- 22.10' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE9'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT+/- 44.35' T.O. 2ND FLOOR PLATE +/- 35.85' 2ND FLOOR F.F +/-34.60' T.O. 1ST FLOOR PLATE +/-25.60' 1ST FLOO F.F +/- 47.87' T.O. RIDGE +/- 46.52' T.O. RIDGE 8'-6" 2ND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT24'-4 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM F.F5'-0"1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali RESIDENCE EXTERIOR ELAVATIONS A3.2 1 DAYLIGHT PLANE AS DEFINED BY JURISDICTION 2 NEW 40 YR.COMP.SHINGLE RADIENT BARRIER PER ENERGY REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED 3 SKYLIGHT 4 BOARD AND BATTEN FIBER CEMENT SIDING OVER ONE LAYER TYVEK PAPER HOUSE WRAP 5 HORIZONTAL FACTORY FINISHED FIBER CEMENT SIDING OVER ONE LAYER TYVEK PAPER HOUSE WRAP 6 ADHERED LIGHT WEIGHT STONE 7 DECORATIVE PAINT GRADE GABLE END 8 DECORATIVE PAINT GRADE WOOD CORBEL 9 PAINTEDFIBER CEMENT TRIM 2x6 FASCIA WITH 4" SEAMLESS PAINTED SHEET METAL GUTTER 10 FIXED FIBERGLASS SHUTTER--V GROOVE--COLOR BLACK 632-- VISIT:https://www.customshuttercompany.com/exterior-shutters/fiberglass-shutters-v-groove/ FOR SPEC. 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT 12 LED ILLUMINATED ADDRESS SIGNAGE--AN APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBER ON BUILDING ELEVATION IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT ACCESS STREET OR ROAD. THE NUMBERS NEED TO CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, AND BE A MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH, WITH A MINIMUM STROKE OF 1/2". (CRC 319.1 13 MAX 6'-0" WOOD FENCE HIGHT 14 WINDOW TRIM 15 ELECTRIC METER 16 LIGHT WEIGHT ADHERED STONE 17 8" X 8" PAINT GRADE WOOD POST WITH STONE BASE 18 ADDRESS SIGNAGE 19 MAIL BOX 20 HVAC UNIT 21 7 X 14 CRAWLSPACE VENT--SEE SHEET A1.1 FOR CALCULATIONS 22 EGRESS WINDOW--TO COMLPY WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2019 CRC R310 OR CBC 1030 feet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 6 4'-6"3'-0"3'-0" WINDOW SILL HEIGHTEAST ELEVATION--LEFT VIEW 1/4"1 +/-XXX.X' (E)/(N) GRADE GRADE LINE KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS #NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTE DAYLIGHT PLANE PROPERTY LINE LAND FILL 29 14 14 5 1'-4" o.c. typ. max 6" typ.1'-4" typ.2"5"4 1/2" 3 16 17 3'-0" WINDOW SILL HEIGHTWEST ELEVATION--RIGHT VIEW 1/4"2 21TYP. 21TYP. EGRESSTEMP TEMP TEMP PIC. TEMP TEMP 22 +/-49.95' T.O. RIDGE(HIGHEST POINT)27'-10 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE CURB GRADE25'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM NATURAL GRADE+/- 22.10' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE9'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT+/- 44.35' T.O. 2ND FLOOR PLATE +/- 35.85' 2ND FLOOR F.F +/-34.60' T.O. 1ST FLOOR PLATE +/-25.60' 1ST FLOO F.F +/- 47.87' T.O. RIDGE +/- 46.52' T.O. RIDGE 8'-6" 2ND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT24'-4 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM F.F+/-49.95' T.O. RIDGE(HIGHEST POINT)27'-10 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE CURB GRADE25'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM NATURAL GRADE+/- 22.10' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE9'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT+/- 44.35' T.O. 2ND FLOOR PLATE +/- 35.85' 2ND FLOOR F.F +/-34.60' T.O. 1ST FLOOR PLATE +/-25.60' 1ST FLOO F.F +/- 47.87' T.O. RIDGE +/- 46.52' T.O. RIDGE 8'-6" 2ND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT24'-4 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM F.F15 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali GARAGE ELAVATIONS A3.3 1 DAYLIGHT PLANE AS DEFINED BY JURISDICTION 2 NEW 40 YR.COMP.SHINGLE RADIENT BARRIER PER ENERGY REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED 3 SKYLIGHT 4 BOARD AND BATTEN FIBER CEMENT SIDING OVER ONE LAYER TYVEK PAPER HOUSE WRAP 5 HORIZONTAL FACTORY FINISHED FIBER CEMENT SIDING OVER ONE LAYER TYVEK PAPER HOUSE WRAP 6 ADHERED LIGHT WEIGHT STONE 7 DECORATIVE PAINT GRADE GABLE END 8 DECORATIVE PAINT GRADE WOOD CORBEL 9 PAINTEDFIBER CEMENT TRIM 2x6 FASCIA WITH 4" SEAMLESS PAINTED SHEET METAL GUTTER 10 FIXED FIBERGLASS SHUTTER--V GROOVE--COLOR BLACK 632-- VISIT:https://www.customshuttercompany.com/exterior-shutters/fiberglass-shutters-v-groove/ FOR SPEC. 11 EXTERIOR LIGHT 12 LED ILLUMINATED ADDRESS SIGNAGE--AN APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBER ON BUILDING ELEVATION IS PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT ACCESS STREET OR ROAD. THE NUMBERS NEED TO CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND, AND BE A MINIMUM OF 4" HIGH, WITH A MINIMUM STROKE OF 1/2". (CRC 319.1 13 MAX 6'-0" WOOD FENCE HIGHT 14 WINDOW TRIM 15 ELECTRIC METER 16 LIGHT WEIGHT ADHERED STONE 17 8" X 8" PAINT GRADE WOOD POST WITH STONE BASE 18 ADDRESS SIGNAGE 19 MAIL BOX 20 HVAC UNIT 21 7 X 14 CRAWLSPACE VENT--SEE SHEET A1.1 FOR CALCULATIONS 22 EGRESS WINDOW--TO COMLPY WITH 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2019 CRC R310 OR CBC 1030 feet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 6 9'-0" PLATE HEIGHTBUILDING HEIGHT 13' 1 1/2"6'' MAX9'-0" PLATE HEIGHTBUILDING HEIGHT 13' 1 1/2"SOUTH ELEVATION--FRONT VIEW 1/4"1 +/-XXX.X' (E)/(N) GRADE GRADE LINE KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS #NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTE DAYLIGHT PLANE PROPERTY LINE LAND FILL WEST ELEVATION--RIGHT VIEW 1/4"3 NORTH ELEVATION--REAR VIEW 1/4"2 EAST ELEVATION--LEFT VIEW 1/4"4 +/-25.10' T.O. SLAB ON GRADE +/-34.10' T.O PLATE HEIGHT +/-38.20' T.O PLATE HEIGHT 2 5 5 79 9 2 5 14 20 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 9 1/2" 9 1/2" 8" 8" +/-25.10' T.O. SLAB ON GRADE +/-34.10' T.O PLATE HEIGHT +/-38.20' T.O PLATE HEIGHT 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali MATERIAL BOARD/ DOOR AND WINDOW SCHEDULE A3.4 MATERIAL SELECTION NTS 1 ROOFING PRESIDENTIAL SHAKE SHINGLE ROOFING COLOR: DARK CHARCOAL www.certainteed.com SIDING 6" MAX FIBER CEMENT HORIZANTAL SIDING DECORATIVE WINDOW SHUTTER FIXED FIBERGLASS SHUTTER--V GROOVE-- COLOR BLACK 632-- VISIT:https://www.customshuttercompany. com/exterior-shutters/fiberglass-shutters-v- groove/ FOR SPEC. LIGHTING CATALINA 1-LIGHT SMALL OUTDOOR WALL SCONCE 30092CLDBZ W6"H13 SIDING 2 X 3 FIBER CEMENT SIDING @ 16" O.C. COLOR: WHITE BOARD AND BATTEN WINDOW SCHEDULE -3 DOOR SCHEDULE -2 CHIMNEY AND EXTERIOR WALL ELDORADO STONE STYLE: CLIFFSTONE COLOR: MONTECITO www.eldoradostone.com SURROUNDING HOUSE NUMBERS PIN MOUNTED LED ILLUMINATED ADDRESS SIGNAGE 8" LUXELLO COLOR: BRONZE www.surrounding.com GARAGE DOOR ALUMINUM & GLASS GARAGE DOORS CLOPAY--MODEL: PIONEER 2- SHOWER WINDOWS #2, 6, 10 ON THE 2ND FLOOR WILL BE VINYL CASEMENT--8000 SERIES, SIERRA PACIFIC NOTES: 1 ALL INTERIOR DOOR TO BE SOLID WOOD 2 DOOR "A" IN THE 1ST FLOOR TO BE SOLID WOOD WITH 5 LIT OBSCURE TEMPERED GLASS ENTRY DOOR SOLID WOOD DOOR WITH TEMPERED GLASS COLOR TO BE MATCHED WITH GARAGE DOOR AND WINDOW SHUTTER MANU: REAL CRAFT DOOR WINDOW SILL AND TRIM WOOD TRU TRIM 1x 6-IN SQUARE EDGE PRIMED PINE BOARD 1- ALL WINDOWS TO BE ALUMINUM CLAD-WOOD--EXTERIOR COLOR TO BE DARK GRAY-- INTERIOR COLOR TBD 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES A3.5 GARAGE PERSPECTIVEREAR PERSPECTIVEREAR LEFT PERSPECTIVE FRONT LEFT PERSPECTIVE FRONT PERSPECTIVE FRONT RIGHT PERSPECTIVE 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali SECTIONS A5.0 1 2x6 EXTERIOR WALL STUDS @16" O.C. U.N.O.--MIN R-X INULATION PER T24 2 2x4 INTERIOR WALL STUDS @16" O.C. U.N.O.--MIN R-X INULATION PER T24 3 MIN R-30 INSUL. TYP. ALL ROOF 4 GAURDRAILING HEIGHT: 3'-6'' ABOVE F.F. GUARD SHALL HAVE INTERMEDIATE RAILS SPACED SUCH THAT A SPHERE 4-3/8 INCHES IN DIAMETER CANNOT PASS THROUGH. CRC R312.2 EX. #2 AND R312.3 EX. #2 5 HANDRAILS AT STAIRS SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 34 INCHES AND NOT MORE THAN 38 INCHES WHEN MEASURED VERTICALLY FROM THE SLOPED PLANE ADJOINING THE TREAD NOSING. [CRC §R311.7.8.1] 6 NEW 40 YT.COMP.SHINGLE RADIENT BARRIER PER ENERGY REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED 7 MIN 18" CRAWL SAPCE-- MIN R-19 INSULATION TYP. FOR SUBFLOOR/CRAWL SPACE--SEE T24 FOR ADDITIONAL INFO 8 THE LANDING SHALL NOT NE MORE THAN 7 3/4" BELOW THE TOP OF THE THRESHOLD 9 NOT USED 10 5/8" GYPSUM WALL BOARD ON WALLS AND CEILING 11 3" RAT SLAB WITH REINFORCING MESH IN CRAWLSPACE TYP.5'-1/2"18" min crawl spacefeet 1 2 43 6 feet 1 2 43 6 MAX 6'-0" HEIGHT3'-0"11'-0"8'-0"18" min crawl space2'-0"+/-XXX.X' (E)/(N) GRADE GRADE LINE KEYNOTES AND LEGENDS #NUMBER INDICATES KEYNOTE DAYLIGHT PLANE PROPERTY LINE LAND FILL 1 KITCHEN/FAMILY MUDROOM LIVING UNDER 3" RAT SLAB WITH REINFORCING MESH IN CRAWLSPACE INDICATES NEW CONCERET FOUNDATION CRAWL SPACE INDICATES NEW CONCERET FOUNDATION BEDROOM 2BATHROOM 2LOFTLAUNDRYMASTER BATHROOM SECTION 1 1/4"1 ROOF/FLOOR/ CEILING FRAMING--SEE STRUCTURAL PLANS FOR MORE INFO 2 3 4 5 6 SECTION 2 1/4"2 5 4 1 12 KITCHEN/DININGFAMILY MASTER BATHROOMMASTER BEDROOM CRAWL SPACE 3 11 8 7 10 +/-49.95' T.O. RIDGE(HIGHEST POINT)27'-10 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE CURB GRADE25'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM NATURAL GRADE+/- 22.10' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE9'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT+/- 44.35' T.O. 2ND FLOOR PLATE +/- 35.85' 2ND FLOOR F.F +/-34.60' T.O. 1ST FLOOR PLATE +/-25.60' 1ST FLOO F.F +/- 47.87' T.O. RIDGE +/- 46.52' T.O. RIDGE 8'-6" 2ND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT24'-4 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM F.F+/-49.95' T.O. RIDGE(HIGHEST POINT)27'-10 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE CURB GRADE25'-4" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM NATURAL GRADE+/- 22.10' AVERAGE STREET CURB GRADE9'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT+/- 44.35' T.O. 2ND FLOOR PLATE +/- 35.85' 2ND FLOOR F.F +/-34.60' T.O. 1ST FLOOR PLATE +/-25.60' 1ST FLOO F.F +/- 47.87' T.O. RIDGE +/- 46.52' T.O. RIDGE 8'-6" 2ND FLOOR PLATE HEIGHT24'-4 1/2" BUILDING HEIGHT FROM F.F3'-0"3'-0"1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali A3.6 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 1311 PALOMA AVE 1325 PALOMA AVE 1301 PALOMA AVE1321 PALOMA AVE 1316 PALOMA AVE 1320 PALOMA AVE 1317 PALOMA AVE1317 PALOMA AVE 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGEREVISIONDATE SIGNED BY DRAWN BYArdalan Djalali “F O R P E R M I T A P R O V A L O N L Y - - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N”Ardalan Djalali DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL Ardalan DjalaliArdalan Djalali SIGNED BY Ardalan Djalali DETAILS A8.0 ATTACH A SILL STRIP PF ASPHALT- SATURATED ROOFING FELT PAPER AT LEAST 9" WIDE WITH THE TOP EDGE EVEN WITH THE TOP EDGE OF THE ROUGH SILL. EXTEND THIS SILL STRIP AT LEAST 8" BEYOND THE EDGE OF THE ROUGH OPENING FOR WINDOW. ATTACH FELT WITH GAL- VINIZED ROOFING NAILS OR RUST AFTER SILL STRIP IS IN PLACE, ATTACH JAMB STRIPS ( SIDE OF OPENING) AT LEAST 9" WIDE WITH INSIDE EDGE OF FELT EVEN WITH EDGE OF WINDOW OPENING. START JAMB STRIPS 1" BELOW THE SILL STRIP AND EXTEND JAMB STRIPS 4" ABOVE THE LOWER EDGE OF THE LINTEL ( TOP OF WINDOW OPENING) APPLY A BEAD OF CAULKING TO THE BACK SURFACES OF THE WINDOW, THEN PLACE THE WINDOW INTO THE ROUGH OPENING, WITH FLANGES OVER THE INSTALLED FLASHING STRIPS. AFTER WINDOW IS PLACED, INSTALL THE HEAD FLASHING OVER THE WINDOW FLANGE. THIS IS ANOTHER STRIP OF FELT AT LEAST STARTING AT THE BOTTOM OF THEWALL (SOLE PLATE), LAY WATER-RESISTANT PAPER UNDER THE SILLSTRIP. CUT ANY EXCESS WATER RESISTANT PAPER THAT MAY EXTEND ABOVE THE SILL FLANGE ON EACH SIDE OF THE OPENING. (SHOWN IN DIAGRAM AS SHORT DASH LINES). INSTALL SUCCEEDING COURSES OFWATER-RESISTANT PAPER (B,C ETC.) OVER JAMB AND HEAD FLANGES IN RESISTANT STAPLES SHINGLE BOARD FASHION LAP 2" MIN. NOTE C A B ROUGHED-IN OPENING WINDOW LINTEL 1" 8" 4" SILL SEE NOTE NOTES: SECTION CRC R703.8 CALLS FOR FLASHING OF ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS EXPOSED TO WEATHER TO MAKE THEM WEATHERPROOF. SINCE CRC DOES NOT OUTLINE PROCEDURES FOR WINDOW FLASHING , TECHNIQUES SHOWN HERE ARE RECOMENDED. USE 15 LB. ASPHALT-SATURATED FELT WHENEVER POSSIBLE FOR FLASHING MATERIAL. CAULK BACK OF WINDOW FLANGES BEFORE SETTING. USE WINDOWS THAT ARE WATERTIGHT. LINE WIRE, WHEN USED AS BACKING TO SUPPORT WATER-RESISTANT HOUSE WRAP OR FELT BENEATH LATH FOR STUCCO SHOULD BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS AND PRACTICE. NO ATTACHMENT DEVICES NOR THE WIRE BACKING SHOULD COVER OR PENETRATE FLASHING MATERIAL. PERIPHERAL FLASHING AT ALL EDGES OF WALL OPENINGS MUST COVER WIRE BACKING."FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309 Menlo Park, CA, 94025 650-387-9272 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGESIGNED BY DRAWN BY Ardalan Djalali Ardalan Djalali APN: 026-085-100 TYPICAL PAPER WINDOW FLASHING NTS 1 SEE ROOF PLAN 8" COMPOSITION SHINGLES OVER (2) LAYERS #30 ROOFING FELT--SEE ROOF PLAN FOR MORE INFO PLYWOOD SHEATHING PER STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS 24 GA. GSM FLASHING GUTTER STRAP @ 3'-0" O.C. (PAINT FINISH) 22 GA. GSM GUTTER, PAINT FINISH 2x FASCIA--SEE ELEVATIONS EXTERIOR FINISH--SEE ELEVATIONS 3" ROUND GSM DOWNSPOUT, PAINT FINISH TRIM--SEE ELEVATIONS ATTIC VENT HOLES--SEE ATTIC VENT CALCULATIONS FOR SIZE AND QUANTITY DOME STRAINER @ OUTLET 24 GA. SHEET METAL TO HOLD INSUL. BACK 1" MIN. SOFFIT MATERIAL AND 2" METAL STRIP VENT--SEE RCP ROOF TO WALL FLASHING 1 1/2" RIDGE OR HIP CAP UNDERLAYMENT WRAPPED UNDER TOP ROW OF SHINGLES AS SHOWN ROOFING MATERIAL--SEE ROOF PLAN FOR MORE INFO PLYWOOD SHEATHING, S.S.D.--CUT EQUALLY SPACED HOLES IN RAFTER BAYS TO MEET BOTH MIN. AND MAX. VENTING REQUIREMENTS PER ATTIC VENT CALCULATIONS NOTE #2 ON ROOF PLAN 2x RAFTERS OR TRUSSES, S.S.D. SHAPED BEAM/RIDGE BLOCKING WHERE OCCURS, S.S.D. SHINGLE VENT II RIDGE VENT OR APPROVED EQUAL AT RIDGES, HIP RIDGE VENT AT HIPS--SEE ICC REPORT ESR 2071 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION--INSTALL PER MANUF. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SEE VEN T C A L C S FOR HO L E DI A M ET E R RIDGE VENT DETAIL 3" 24 GA. VALLEY FLASHING SHEATHING FELT CLEAT 12" MI N COMPOSITION SHINGLES--OVERLAP SUCCESSIVE COURSES OF SHINGLES IN ALTERNATE DIRECTIONS- EXTEND EACH STRIP 12" BEYOND CENTER OF VALLEY 6" NOTE: FOR CLOSED VALLEY, OVERLAP SUCCESSIVE COURSES OF SHINGLES IN ALTERNATE DIRECTIONS- EXTEND EACH STRIP 12" BEYOND CENTER OF VALLEY VALLEY DETAIL 3" PREFAB TRUSS OR 2xROOF FRAMING, SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS COMPOSITION SHINGLES OVER 30# UNDERLAYMENT 2x4 OUTRIGGER AT 24" O.C. CDX PLYWD. ROOF SHEATHING (5/8" CCX PLY @ EXPOSED AREAS), TYP. S.S.D. G.S.M. FLASHING 2x4 BLOCKING 2x FASCIA--SEE ELEVATIONS 2x4 TRIM WITH CAULK AT PLASTER STOP 2x4 CONTINUOUS NAILER 2" 2" 7/8" CEMENT PLASTER SYSTEM O/ WIRE LATH O/ 2 LAYERS OF BUILDING PAPER SEE ROOF PLAN SOFFIT MATERIAL, SEE RCP 2" STRIP VENT, CONT. RAKE DETAIL 1-1/2" 3 4 25 3/4"" WOOD TREADS & 1/2" RISERS STRINGERS, S.S.D 1" SQ. TUBE STEEL RAILS FINISH FLOOR PER FINISH SCHEDULE 1-1/2" SQ. TUBE STEEL NEWELL POST - BOLT TO STRINGER34-38"4" SPHERE SHALL NOT PASS THROUGH 1-1/2 SQ. TUBE STEEL TOP RAIL & BALUSTERS ONE LAYER 1/2" GYPSUM BOARD @ UNDERSIDE OF STAIR WHERE CONCEALED SPACE IS USED FOR STORAGE 10" MIN.7.75" MAX.36" TYP.42"MIN. 42" TALL GUARDRAIL STAIR SECTION 1/2" NOT USED NTS 6 7 REVISIONDATE DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL 1 = NUMBER TO NOTE BELOW 1. SHEATHING--S.S.D. 2. P.T. BACKING LUMBER--RIP TOP TO SLOPE--THICKNESS OF LUMBER TO ENSURE ALIGNMENT OF FLASHING AND WALL FINISH 3. ROOF UNDERLAYMENT--EXTEND UP BACKER AND WRAP AROUND CORNERS 4. 26 GA. (MIN.) G.S.M. STEP FLASHING AT RAKE/SIDEWALL CONDITION--LOWEST/FIRST PIECE OF STEP FLASHING TO TURN THE CORNER AND EXTEND OVER APRON FLASHING 5. 16 GA. (MIN.) G.S.M. APRON FLASHING AT EAVE/HEADWALL CONDITION--INSTALL OVER BEAD OF ROOFING CEMENT 6. 16 GA. (MIN.) G.S.M. THRU WALL "Z" BAR COUNTER FLASHING--TIGHT HEM BACK ALL EXPOSED EDGES--WRAP AND SEAL AROUND CORNERS 7. 26 GA. (MIN.) G.S.M. PERFORATED "J" WEEP SCREED--DO NOT SEAL BOTTOM OF WEEP--MOISTURE IN FINISH NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO ESCAPE 8. WEATHER RESISTIVE HOUSE WRAP--LAP OVER "Z" BAR COUNTER FLASHING AND PERFORATED "J" WEEP SCREED 9. EXTERIOR FINISH--SEE ELEVATION FOR MORE INFO -- OVER 2 LAYERS BUILDING PAPER GRADE D OR BETTER 10. ROOFING--SEE ROOF PLAN FOR MORE INFO GENERAL NOTES: A) ALL FLASHING TO BE PRE-PRIMED AND PAINTED TO MATCH WALL FINISH B) ALL FLASHING TO BE INSTALLED PER ROOFING MANUF. WARRANTY RECOMMENDATIONS #1 1/2"3"1 1/2"ALIGN FLASHING WITHFACE OF WALL FINISH1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1/2"3"1 1/2"ALIGN FLASHING WITHFACE OF WALL FINISH1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 B--RAKE/SIDEWALL CONDITION A--EAVE/HEADWALL CONDITION 3" ROOF TO WALL FLASHING 3"3" MIN. =NUMBER TO NOTE BELOW 1. FRAMING 2. BACKER BOARD 3. WATERPROOF MEMBRANE O/ THIN SET 4. SHOWER LINER--ENSURE SHOWER LINER CAN ACCOMMODATE A 11.82 GALLONS OF WATER MIN. 5. TILE O/ THIN SET 6. STRAINER 7. LINEAR DRAIN WITH TILE POCKET -- INSTALL PER MANUF. INSTRUCTIONS 8. SUBSTRATE, SLOPE TO DRAIN 1/4:12 MIN.--ENSURE THAT THE DRAIN IS AT LEAST 2" BELOW THE ENTRY TO THE SHOWER #1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8MIN. 2"CURBLESS SHOWER W/ LINEAR DRAIN 3" DETAILS A8.1"FOR PLANNING APPROVAL ONLY--NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION"1670 El Camin Real, Apt 309 Menlo Park, CA, 94025 650-387-9272 1317 Paloma Ave,Burlingame, CAOwnerBehzad HadjianADDRESSPROJECT NAMEHadjian ResidenceNEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGESIGNED BY DRAWN BY Ardalan Djalali Ardalan Djalali APN: 026-085-100 4 5 36 7 8 2 1 TYPICAL FINISH ASSEMBLY LAP AT 12" PLYWOOD SHEATHING - S.S.D. 2X WALL FRAMING TYP. LAP HOUSE WRAP AROUND CORNER THERMAL INSULATION GYPSUM CORNER TRIM 12" LAP TYP FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE FLASHING 2x4 CORNER TRIM, PAINTED SIDING, SEE ELEVATIONS TYPICAL INSIDE SIDING CORNER 3" PLYWOOD SHEATHING SEE STRUCT. DWGS. THERMAL INSULATION TYPICAL FINISH ASSEMBLY GYP. BD. LAP HOUSE WRAP AROUND CORNER, 2 LAYERS12" LAP TYP OR TO NEXT SUPPORT FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE FLASHING 2x4 CORNER TRIM, MITER CUT EXTERIOR SIDING, SEE ELEVATIONS TYPICAL OUTSIDE SIDING CORNER 3" NOT USED NTSNOT USED NTS NOT USED NTS NOT USED NTS REVISIONDATE DESCRIPTION 04.04.2022 PLANNING SUBMITTAL 10.12.2022 PLANNING RE-SUBMITTAL T-1APN: 026-085-100 CITY OF BURLINGAMESMP ENGINEERS1317 PALOMA AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 BASIS OF BEARINGS: NOTE: DISCLAIMER: SITE BENCHMARK: NOTES: LEGEND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MAP PRELIMINARY BOUNDARY AND SMP ENGINEERS SMP ENGINEERS ·ALL DAMAGED SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE REPAIRED SMP ENGINEERS X PLAN Y X Y SECTION Y-YSECTION X-X SECTION W-W W PLAN Z Z W SECTION Z-Z X PLAN X SECTION W-W W W SECTION X-X ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW SECTION A - A STORM INLET SEDIMENT TRAP-FIBER ROLLS CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND MEASURES EXISTING DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION PLAN FIBER ROLL NOTES FIBER ROLL SECTION B-B TEMPORARY COVER ON STOCK PILE PERSPECTIVE STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (TO BE MAINTAINED) Maintenance PLAN PROFILE SMP ENGINEERS SMP ENGINEERS THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR THIS PROJECT COMBINESBOTH DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTINGS, AND A HIGHLYEFFICIENT DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO COMPLY WITHTHE LOCAL WATER ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDE ALANDSCAPE THAT IS WATER WISE, SUSTAINABLE, ANDLOW MAINTENANCE.MOST OF THE PLANTINGS PROPOSED ARE DROUGHTTOLLERANT WITH A HIGH MAJORITY HAVING THEWUCOLS CLASSIFICATION OF LOW OR VERY LOWWATER USE. THE SPACING OF THE PLANT MATERIALSALLOW THE PLANTS TO MATURE TO THEIR ULTIMATESIZE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR SHEERING, HEADINGBACK, AND EXCESSIVE OFFHAULING OF CUTTINGS. THESPACING OF THE PLANT MATERIALS ALSO ALLOW SOMENEGATIVE SPACE WHICH WILL PROVIDE A NON-OVERPLANTED LOOK, AND VISUAL INTEREST. ALL AREAS NOTPLANTED WILL HAVE A 3" MINIMUM LAYER OF MULCHFOR WEED PREVENTION, SOIL STABLILATION, ANDWATER RETENTION.THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS ROBUST, TIME PROVEN,WITH ALL SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS BEING DRIPIRRIGATED. THE LAWN WILL BE SPRAY IRRIGATED. THEIRRIGATION SYSTEM USES A CONTROLLER THAT HASTHE CAPABILTY OF BEING WEATHER BASED, RECIEVINGDAILY WEATHER INPUT TO ADJUST THE IRRIGATIONSCHEDULE BASED ON REAL TIME WEATHER INPUT. THISWILL ELIMINATE WATERING DURING TIME OF HIGHHUMIDITY, RAIN, OR HIGH SOIL SATURATION. THEIRRIGATON SYSTEM WILL BE ALL HARD PIPEUNDERGROUND, WITH THREADED RISERS, AND ATHREADED DISTRIBUTION HEAD, WITH NO POLY PIPE ORBARBED CONNECTIONS. Y -STRAINERS WILL BE USEDAT EACH VALVE.A LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDIT IS REQUIRED. THISAUDIT MUST BE COMPLETED BY A CERTIFIEDLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION AUDITOR, NOT THE DESIGNEROR INSTALLER. THE AUDIT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THEBUILDING DEPARTMENT, WITH A CERTIFIECATE OFCOMPLETION (APPENDIX C) AS REQUIRED BY THEDEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, PRIOR TOSCHEDULING A FINAL INSPECTION OF THE WATEREFFICIENT LANDSCAPE PERMIT.GENERAL NOTESLANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE PROJECT INFORMATIONA. DATE: 06-03-2022B. PROJECT APPLICANT: BEHZAD HADJIAN1317 PALOMA AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA APN NO: PROJECT ADDRESS: 1317 PALOMA AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CAD. TOTAL IRRIGATED LANDSCAPE AREA= 1481 SQ FTE. WATER SUPPLY: POTABLE, CAL-WATERF. PROJECT TYPE: NEW RESIDENCEG. PROJECT CHECKLIST: SEE BELOWH. PROJECT CONTACT:MENAKA RAO 650 644 7631, I. LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE CERTIFICATION: " I agree to comply with the requirements of the water efficient landscape ordinance and submit a complete landscape documentation package"Signature06-03-2022RUSSELL STRINGHAM LA #3091 2. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET D. HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE - SEE SHEETS L-2 E. WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS MAWA AND ETWU- SEE SHEETS L-3 3. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT CONSULT CIVIL 4. LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN SEE SHEET L-1 5. IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN SEE SHEET L-2 6. GRADING DESIGN PLAN SEE CIVIL ENGINEER PLAN SHEET LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION CHECKLIST 1. PROJECT INFORMATION- CHECK 2. WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET- CHECK 3. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT- DEFERRED 4. LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLAN-CHECK 5. IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN- CHECK 6. GRADING DESIGN PLAN-CHECKPLANTING NOTESTHE PLANTING PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. THE EXACT LOCATION OF PLANT MATERIAL THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THAT THE SOIL TO BE PLANTED IS NATIVE, AND FREE FROM ANY FOREIGN MATERIALS OR SUBSTANCES, WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHESTILL ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS TO A DEPTH OF 8", AND REMOVE ALL WEEDS, STICKS, TO PLANT GROWTH.ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 3" LAYER OF WOOD RESIDUAL. TILL IN TO A DEPTH OF 6" AND FINE GRADE. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL RECEIVE "AGRIFORM" FERTILIZER TABLETS AT THE TIME OF PLANTING, INSERTED IN THE BACKFILL MIX AT HALF THE DEPTH OF THE ROOTBALL.TABLET QUANTITIES AND SIZE AS INDICATED ON THE PLANTING DETAILS.AFTER FINE GRADING, AND PLANTING, (PRIOR TO TOP DRESSING WITH MULCH) A PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE SHALL BE APPLIED AT A RATE AND METHOD RECOMMENDED BY THE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER. SPREAD AS A TOP DRESSING, A 3" LAYER OF MULCH, IN ALL PLANTING AREAS FOR ADDITIONAL WEED CONTROL AND WATER RETENTION. SUBMIT A SAMPLE FOR APPROVAL.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNERS OR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.ALL PLANTING DETAILS SHALL BE CLOSELY FOLLOWED, AND ALL LOCAL GOVERNING CODES SHALL BE MET.ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN A HEALTHY, VIGOROUS, AND DISEASE FREE CONDITION. THE PLANT SIZE SHALL BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE CONTAINER SIZE SPECIFIED. PLANTS NOT MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE REFUSED, EVEN IF PLANTED.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE OWNER TO SUBMIT LANDSCAPE PLANS TO THEGOVERNING MUNICIPALITY FOR APPROVALOF THE PLANS, AND TO OBTAIN BUILDING PERMITS. IF ANY CHANGES OR ADDITIONSTO THE PLANS NEED TO BE MADE. THE OWNER SHALL RETURN THE PLANS, WITH THECITY REVIEW COMMENTS FOR REVISIONS. FINAL APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED FROMTHE GOVERNING MUNICIPALITY PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF ANYCONSTRUCTION.OF NON COMPACTED TOPSOIL.I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPEDESIGN PLAN.FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP 6 INCHES OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A REFER ARBORIST REPORT BY KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES DATED MARCH27, 2020 REGARDING ALL EXISTING TREE SPECIES, HEIGHT, CONDITION, LOCATIONS, TREE PROTECTION, SHALL BE DETERMINED ON SITE. THE EXACT LOCATION OF PLANTS ONSITE WILL ADHERE TOA MINIMUM OF 3-INCH LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OFPLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECTSEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED.RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1000 SQ FT OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALLBE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL.SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE OWTS. RUSSELL STRINGHAM, 408-886-4089OVER 1/2 INCH DIAMETER AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL THAT WOULD BE HARMFUL TOAND CHECKLISTN.T.S.ELEVATIONPLANTREE PLANTING4-PLY 1" X 24" RUBBER TIESNAILED TO STAKEPVC PIPE W/ STYRENE2 TABLETS6 TABLETS10 TABLETS24" BOXOR LARGER1" X 4" RWDTREE1 1/4" GALV. ROOFING NAIL(1 EACH END)FERTILIZER TABLETS3" DEPTH BARK MULCH1 GAL2 OR 5 GAL15 GAL3 TABLETSDRAIN GRATE COVER1" X 4" ROUGH REDWOOD W/PREVAILING WIND SIDE)SETTLE TO FINISH GRADEALLOW ROOT BALL TOSCARIFY SIDESFIN GRPINE STAKEINSTALLED W/ A TWIST &RUBBER TIES PLACED6" MAX BELOW MAIN FORKOR BRANCH, INSTALLED W/(2) 2" DIA LODGE POLEA TWIST & NAILED TO STAKEPINE STAKES - 15 GAL ORSMALLER , (2) 3" DIA24" OR LARGERLODGE POLE PINE STAKES -(2) 2" GALV NAILS EACH CONNECTION (LOCATE ON 4" DIA X 3' L PERFORATEDBACK FILL MIX(VARIES) 2'-0" MIN 2 X CONTAINER TO BOTTOM OF CROTCH (VARIES) 2'-0" MIN HALFWAY TO FORK MAX 4" MIN BERM ABOVE GRADE 1'-6" MIN2 X CONTAINER(NO BERM IN TURF AREA) 6" MIN 1'-6" MIN(TYP)2" MINPREVAILING WIND3" BERMALLOW ROOT BALL TOSETTLE TO FINISH GRADE5 GC15 GC2 TABLETS3 TABLETS TABLETSGCFIN GR11FOOT TAMP3" DEEP MULCHBACKFILL MIX 21 GRAM PLANT TABLET6"6"SHRUB PLANTINGN.T.S.04'8'16'24'S C A L E1/8" = 1'-0"LAWN3 PIT WHE 5gLAWN PATIOGRAVEL2 PIT TEN 24" box1 LAU NOB 24" box 7 LIM PER 5g3 OLE EUR 5g 1# Red maple, 5.7" dia to remainrefer arborist report 2# Red maple, 4.7" dia to remainrefer arborist report 6# Saucer Magnolia, 12.2" dia tobe retained, refer arborist report6 ARM MAR 5gGARAGEDRIVEWAY4 PER ATR LIT 5g 6 THY PRA PINK 1g3 COL PUL 5g3 ROS MAJ 5g3 SAN ROS 5g4 MYR COM 5g4 STY BYZ 1g1 ALY HUE 5g6 CUP HYS 5g.5 SCA MAU 1gMulchS36° 45' 48"W119.95N36° 45' 48"E119.9450.00N53° 15' 00"W5 MYO PAR 1gPorch6 MYR COM 5g7 DIE BIC 5g7 LIR MUS 5g2 ROS MAJ 5g4 SAN ROS 5gDRIVEWAY50.0016 THY PRA PINK 1g9'-0"9'-0"familydiningkitchen 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"15 THY PRA PINK 1g8 SCA MAU 1gbedroomlivingwalkway Y STRAINER FOR ALL DRIP CIRCUITSMOUNT IN A SEPERATE PLASTIC BOX DOWN STREAM FROM THE VALVE.AGRIFIM MAXI-FLO BUBBLER 6 OUTLETS AT 10 GPH EACH OPERATING RANGE 20-80 PSI USE A Y-STRAINER DOWN STREAM FROM VALVE FOR EACH CIRCUIT (SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR SIZE AND TYPE OF FILTER) USE 1/4" DISTRIBUTION TUBING ( .170" I.D. X .250" O.D.-POLY) USE SUPPORT STAKE #S6 AT END USE BUG PLUG #BP250IRRIGATION LEGENDZURN WILKINS REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW PREVENTER 1 1/4"Y STRAINER WILKINS YSBR SERIES WITH A 100 MESH SCREEN (LINE SIZE) MOUNTAS PART OF THE BACK FLOW ASSEMBLY.RAINBIRD PEB SERIES ELECTRIC REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SIZE AS NOTED.PRESSURIZED WATER MAIN, PVC SCHEDULE 40, BURY 18" MIN.IRRIGATION LINE PVC CLASS 200, BURY 12" MIN.USE SLEEVES WHERE EVER IRRIGATION LINES MUST PASS UNDER PAVING, TO BE VALVE SIZEGALLONS PER MINUTECIRCUIT DESIGNATIONA-121"12-MAXIMUM RUN 8' - LINES SHALL NOT TEE. PROVIDE ONE LINE TO EACHSHRUB OR GROUND COVER, AND TWO TO EACH TREECOORDINATED ON SITE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. SLEEVES SHALL BE 4" PVCSCHEDULE 40 BURY 18" MIN., EXTEND 6" BEYOND EDGE OF PAVINGQUICK COUPLING VALVE, RAINBIRD 44LRC 1", MOUNT IN A PLASTIC VALVE BOXWITH A COVER. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED ON SITE.AIRRITROL MC-E (BLUE) SERIES WITH "CLIMATE LOGIC" ON SITE WIRELESSWEATHER SENSOR. 12 STATION. WEATHER BASED SMART CONTROLLER.RAINBIRD FMD SERIES LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION WATER SUB-METERFM150B 1 1/4" (1.54 TO 100 GPM) ALL IRRIGATION VALVES TO BE DOWNSTREAMM-1FROM THE SUB-METER TO MEASURE ALL IRRIGATION USED FOR LANDSCAPING.IRRITROL #FS-B150 1 1/4" LINE SIZE FLOW SENSOR TO BE USED WITH THE CONTROLLER.CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY COMPABILITY BETWEEN THE CONTROLLER AND THE FLOW SENSOR.AT POINT OF CONNECTION PROVIDE A MASTER SHUT OFF VALVE (ZURN-WILKINSMODEL 850XL FULL PORT BRONZE BALL VALVE 1 1/4") TO BE MOUNTED UPSTREAM FROMTHE BACKFLOW PREVENTER.PLAN IS DIAGRAMMATIC; THE EXACT LOCATION OF VALVES, LINES, HEADS, ETC., SHALL BELINES SHALL BE IN A COMMON TRENCH WHERE POSSIBLE. LINES AND SLEEVES TO BE INSTALLED UNDER PAVING SHALL BE SCHEDULE 40 PVC. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING ALLUNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE ANY HEAVY EQUIP.OVER UTILITY LINES AND SHALL HAND DIG ANY TRENCHES WITHIN 5' OF UTILITY LINES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR ANY DAMAGE TO UTILITY LINES AT HIS OWN EXPENSE.IRRIGATION SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED FOR A MAXIMUM OF 12 GPM AT 40 PSI WORKING PRESSURE (WORST CONDITION AT FURTHEST HEAD/DRIP UNIT. IRRIGATION CONT.TO VERIFY PRESSURE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF ANY PART OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. IF WORKING PRESSURE IS GREATER THAN 75 PSI, CONSULT THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT FOR USE OF A PRESSURE REGULATOR. IF WORKING PRESSURE IS LESS THAN40 PSI CONSULT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.THE WATER SOURCE FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM BACKFLOW BY A BACK FLOW PREVENTER (TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCEWITH CITY STANDARD DETAILS). ALL VALVE WIRING SHALL BE COPPER U.L. APPROVED FOR DIRECT BURIAL. CONNECT WIRES USING SPLICE-KOTE WIRE CONNECTORS. WIRE SIZE TO BE #12 AWG MIN. (RUNSLONGER THAN 1000 FT. SHALL BE #10 AWG) ONE SPARE CONTROL WIRE TO BE PROVIDEDTHROUGHOUTALL BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS (OVER 3/4"), AND OTHER EXTRANEOUSMATERIALS, AND SHALL BE COMPACTED TO PREVENT SETTLING.AT JOB COMPLETION SUPPLY OWNERS WITH CONTROLLER KEYS, AND MANUFACTURERSPRODUCT INFORMATION.ALL IRRIGATION DETAILS SHALL BE CLOSELY FOLLOWED, AND ALL GOVERNING CODES SHALL THE DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ONE DISTRIBUTION LINE TO EACHSHRUB (LINES SHALL NOT BE TEED), AND TWO LINES FOR EACH TREE. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE SPRINKLER HEAD/DRIP UNIT LOCATIONSAND QUANTITIES WITH THE PLANTING PLAN, AND PROVIDE PROPER IRRIGATION TO ALL PLANTMATERIALS SHOWN ON THE PLANTING PLANS. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM PRIOR TO ANY BACK FILLING, AND SHALL CONTACT THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT WITH ANY DESCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND FIELD CONDITIONS.NO TRENCHING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES SHALL BE PERMITTED. IF IRRIGATION LINES MUST PASS THROUGH THE DRIP LINE OF EXISTING TREES, CONSULT THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.GREAT CARE SHALL BE GIVEN TO PREVENT DIRT FROM ENTERING THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMDURING CONSTRUCTION. FLUSH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM THOROUGHLY BEFORE INSTALLINGTHE MAXI FLO HEADS. ALL DRIP CIRCUITS SHALL HAVE A Y STRAINER AS INDICATED ONTHE IRRIGATION LEGENDIRRIGATION NOTESI HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN.SEE WATER BUDGET PREPARED FOR THIS SITE AND SUBMITTED WITH THIS DRAWING SETTHE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL BE WEATHER BASED, TO LIMIT WATERWASTE PER WELO 12.44.070C2. CONTROLLER MAY NOT RELY SOLELY ON TIME BASED SCHEDULING.IRRIGATION SPRAY HEADS SHALL BE PLACED AND ADJUSTED TO PREVENT OVERSPRAY ONTO PAVED AREA,AND ADJUSTED TO PREVENT FOGGING AND MISTING. NOZZELS TO BE PRESSURE COMPENSATING.BE SATISFIED.PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICES.A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FORSUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES.A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDCAPE PLANS, IRRIGATION PLANS, OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR OF THE PROJECT. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION.DETERMINED IN THE FIELD. LINES SHALL BE IN A COMMON TRENCH WHERE POSSIBLE. THE ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. THE LOCATION OF MAIN LINES, BACKFLOW, VALVES, ETC., ON THE DRAWINGS, IS SCHEMATIC.THE SUBMETER WILL BE USED TO MEASURE WATER USAGE FOR IRRIGATING THE LANDSCAPE.THE SUBMETER WILL BE PLACED BELOW GRADE. USE CHECK VALVES WHERE NEEDED TO PREVENT DRAINAGE TO LOW POINT HEADS.TORO 570Z 8'RADIUS (PROVIDE ARC AS NEEDED FOR PROPER COVERAGE)804'8'16'24'S C A L E1/8" = 1'-0"A-11"5HYDROZONE 11-1/4"1"3/4"3/4"888(lawn)A-41"6HYDROZONE 41"3/4"3/4"A-51"6HYDROZONE 51"3/4"3/4"A-71"8HYDROZONE 73/4"3/4"1"1-1/4"LOCATION OF MAIN LINE IS SCHEMATICLOCATION OF MAIN LINE IS SCHEMATIC1-1/4"LOCATION OF MAIN LINE 1-1/4"IS SCHEMATIC3/4"S36° 45' 48"W119.95N36° 45' 48"E119.9450.00N53° 15' 00"W3/4"A-31"10HYDROZONE 31"888888A-21"4HYDROZONE 21"3/4"A-61"6HYDROZONE 6(lawn)1"to house50.009'-0"9'-0"familydiningkitchen 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"bedroomliving3/4"3/4" N.T.S.REMOTE CONTROL VALVE ENTIRE AREA OF BOXPEA GRAVEL#14 CONTROL WIRES W/SNAP-TITE CONNECTORSFIN GRADECLASS 200 PVC LATERALPVC FEMALE REDUCEREACH BOX EXCEPTABLE COVER, SET FLUSHSCHED. 40 PVC 90 DEG.ACCEPTABLE)SCHED. 80 PVC UNION (TYP)PVC MAIN LINESCHED. 40 PVC TEE (SST)SNAP-TITE CONNECTORSALL THREADED AREAS#12 GROUND WIRE W/ELL (STREET ELL NOTSCHED. 80 PVC NIPPLE (TYP)NOTES :SHALL BE HEAVILY COATEDW/ JOINT COMPOUND.ALL CONTROL WIRESLOOPED UP 3 FT. INTOIN CLUSTERS.PLASTIC BOX W/ LOCK-TO GRADE 24" TYP 4" MIN 1" MAX6" MIN6" MAX2" MINPROVIDE ONE SPARECONTROL WIRE 1.Irrigation scheduled for the plant establishment period would be 2 to 3 times a week for the first monthfollowed by twice a week for the following months for upto a year until the roots are well established.April - October: Twice a week with run time of 20 minutesNovember- March: Run time of 15 minutesThe system can be shut off on rainy days for the months of November to February. Additional watering byhand can be provided for extremely hot days.2. Irrigation scheduling for the established landscape would be as follows:For the second year of the landscape:May- September: twice a week with a run time of twenty minutesOctober- April:once a week with a run time of twenty minutesThe system can be shut off during the months of November to February assuming that rainfall provides the necessary irrigation.For the following years the landscape can be irrigated once a week.Once established, drought tolerant plants need to be watered only once in two weeks or on a need basis.Note: The above only acts as a guide. Irrigation schedules can be modified by home owner depending on actual weather and soil conditions.Existing fully established plants and trees on site that were retained are to be irrigated as per an ‘established landscape schedule’.Drought tolerant plants need to be regularly watered for the first two years until they are well established after which they can doquite well with watering them even twice a month.Water used for irrigation per month to be below the MAWA values as shown the water efficient table .The irrigation controller will be weather based as specified in the irrigation legend.The controller will receive real time weather information,and adjust the programmed watering schedule automatically based on local weather. This will restrict watering during times of precipitation and will help to conserve water.IRRIGATION SCHEDULEI HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPEORDINANCE AND HAVE APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN PLANSignature06-03-2022RUSSELL STRINGHAM LA #3091APPLICABLE CODESSCOPE OF WORKWork Hours and ParkingNoise Item No. 8c Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit Address: 1549 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: October 24, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for removal of more than 50 percent of exterior walls (substantial construction) of an existing two-story single-unit dwelling with a new detached garage, Side Setback Variances, Floor Area Ratio Variance, and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope. Applicant and Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates APN: 028-285-160 Applicants and Property Owners: Darío Avram and Karen Goff Lot Area: 8,625 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Note: This project was initially submitted as an Accessory Dwelling Unit permit prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. At that time, the plans also showed interior remodeling on the first and second floors of the dwelling. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. Background: The subject property is located within the Burlingame Park No. 2 subdivision. Based upon documents that were submitted to the Planning Division by a Burlingame property owner in 2009, it was indicated that the entire Burlingame Park No. 2, Burlingame Park No. 3, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park subdivisions may have historical characteristics that would indicate that properties within this area could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. Therefore, for any property located within these subdivisions, a Historic Resource Evaluation must be prepared prior to any significant development project being proposed to assess whether the existing structure(s) could be potentially eligible for listing on the National or California Register of Historical Places. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for this property by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 23, 2021. The results of the evaluation concluded that 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National or California Registers under any criteria. Background: This project was initially submitted as an application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on October 21, 2021 and approved on December 29, 2021. The original proposal was for an interior remodel, conversion of existing living space into a 453 SF Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), new detached garage, and a new 841 SF detached ADU. The originally approved project included demolishing less than 50% of the existing exterior walls and was limited to the removal and replacement of existing windows with new windows. The existing ground floor consisted of an attached garage, storage area, laundry room, and unconditioned space. The existing upper floor included a main living area and two bedrooms; the main entrance to the dwelling was on the upper floor. The project included converting the entire ground floor into living area, kitchen, dining, and a new front porch and main entrance. The upper floor was to include four bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a laundry room. The applicant applied for a building permit on February 23, 2022 and a building permit was issued on June 14, 2022. Prior to the building permit being issued, the applicant submitted for a revision on July 29, 2022, which included removing the proposed detached ADU from the project’s scope of work. While under construction, the Planning Division was notified that all of the existing exterior walls of the ground Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue -2- floor had been completely removed. A Stop Work Order was issued by the Building Division on October 3, 2022 (see attachments). Please refer to the attached letters from the designer, contractor, and property owners dated October 5, 2022, for a detailed explanation of why the walls were removed. The second floor framing has been retained by elevating the second floor using wood blocks. Substantial construction is defined as removal or reconstruction of 50 percent or more of the exterior walls of a building (Code Section 25.08.643) and triggers Design Review (Code Section 25.57.010(a)(3)). The Planning Division considers a property undergoing substantial construction as a new house. Th erefore, any existing nonconforming standards would have to be made to comply or require approval of a Variance. Planning staff would note that the design of the house is consistent with the plans approved for a building permit; there are no changes proposed to the design with this application. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot that contained an existing two-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage totaling 3,736 SF (0.43 FAR). The applicant is proposing to demolish and rebuild the existing first floor within the same footprint and a new detached garage. The existing second floor is to remain and consists of an interior remodel and replacement all exterior materials, including the siding, windows, architectural trim and features, and roofing. The project proposes a total floor area of 4,230 SF (0.49 FAR) where 4,010 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There are a total of five bedrooms proposed (the office on the first floor is counted as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required. The new detached two-car garage measures 21’ x 21’ (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking for the five-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. Because the proposed project is considered to be substantial construction and a new house, standards that are existing nonconforming require Variances. The applicant is requesting a Side Setback Variances for both the first and second story along the interior and exterior side property lines (2’-9” existing/proposed interior side setback where 6’-0” is the minimum required and 4’-7” existing/proposed exterior side setback where 7’-6” is the minimum required). The applicant is also requesting a Floor Area Ratio Variance to exceed the maximum allowed FAR by 220 SF. In the original application for an ADU permit, the proposed 428 SF JADU was exempt from both lot coverage and FAR because it was conversion of existing space. Now that the project is considered a new house, the JADU is no longer exempt from lot coverage or FAR. The existing two-story house encroaches into the Declining Height Envelope along the interior side by 210 SF (3’-9” x 56’). Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Special Permit for this encroachment. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for removal of more than 50 percent of exterior walls (substantial construction) (C.S. 25.57.010 (a)(3));  Interior and Exterior Side Setback Variances for both first and second floors (interior side setback of 2’- 9” proposed, where 6’-0” is the minimum required; exterior side setback of 4’-7” where 7’-6” is the minimum required) (C.S. 25.26.072 (c));  Floor Area Ratio Variance (3,736 SF (0.43 FAR) existing; 4,230 SF (0.49 FAR) proposed where 4,010 SF (0.46 FAR) is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.26.070); and  Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope along the interior side of the house (C.S. 25.26.035 (c)). Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue -3- 1549 Burlingame Avenue Lot Area: 8,625 SF Plans date stamped: October 14, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 26’-8” (to porch) 31’-4” 26’-8” (to porch) 31’-4” 15'-0" 20'-0" Side Setbacks (interior): (exterior): 2’-9” 4’-7” 2’-9” 1 4’-7” 2 6'-0" 7’-6” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 68’-10” 68’-10” 68’-10” 68’-10” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,978 SF 22.9% 2,392 SF 27.7% 3,450 SF 40% FAR: 3,736 SF 0.43 FAR 4,230 SF ³ 0.49 FAR 4,010 SF 4 0.46 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 5 --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (16’-3” x 25’-5” clear interior) 0 uncovered 2 covered (21’ x 21’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20') 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 26’-2” 26’-2” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: encroachment along the interior side encroachment along the interior side 5 C.S. 25.26.075 1 Interior Side Setback Variance required. 2 Exterior Side Setback Variance required. 3 Floor Area Ratio Variance required. 4 (0.32 x 8,625 SF) + 900 SF + 350 SF = 4,010 SF 5 Special Permit required. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: aluminum casement with simulated true divided lites  Doors: wood entry door, aluminum bi-folding doors, wood garage door  Siding: stucco  Roof: clay tile  Other: wood window headers, wrought iron rail detail Staff Comments: The Planning Division would note that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as a Regular Action Item because the proposed project includes building the dwelling based on the designed approved under the approved building permit. However, if the Commission feels there is a need for more discussion, this item may be placed on a future action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue -4- Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the main dwelling (featuring hip roofs, clay roof tiles, proportional plate heights, stucco siding, and aluminum casement windows with simulated true divided lites) 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 inte rface with the structures on adjacent properties. Therefore, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Side Setback Variances): The existing interior side setback (2’-9”) and exterior side setback (4’-7”) has been in the same location since the original house was constructed in 1935 and that to conform to the minimum required setback would present a hardship due to the irregular shape of the lot and curvature and narrowness of the front an exterior side property lines ; and that the proposed interior and exterior side setbacks matches the existing interior and exterior side setbacks, will not change the footprint of the original building, and will not exacerbate the nonconforming condition. For these reasons, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Suggested Variance Findings (FAR Variance): That the proposed lot coverage is 1,058 SF than the maximum allowed 3,450 SF and that the existing FAR for the main dwelling is not being increased based on the gross square footage of the existing house. That the excess FAR is to accommodate the junior accessory dwelling unit and detached garage which has a more pedestrian friendly interface with the street and neighborhood than the existing attached garage. For these reasons, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Variance criteria. Required Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue -5- (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That the original dwelling has the same encroachment into the declining height envelope (210 SF (3’-9” x 56’)) and that the proposed dwelling is not exacerbating this nonconforming condition, that the encroachment has been existing since the original dwelling was constructed in 1935, and that the encroachment is consistent with the design. For these reasons, the proposed project may be found to be compatible with the Special Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action shoul d include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 14, 2022, sheets A.1 through A.8, N.2, and topographic survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 place d 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 Debr is Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue -6- and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential des ign professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the proje ct architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance o f 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. Darío Avram and Karen Goff, applicants and property owners James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Stop Work Order from the Building Division, dated October 3, 2022 Designer’s Letter of Explanation, dated October 5, 2022 Builder’s Letter of Explanation, dated October 5, 2022 Property Owners’ Letter of Explanation, dated October 5, 2022 Variance Applications Special Permit Applications Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 14, 2022 Area Map Separate Attachments: Historical Resource Evaluation conducted by Page & Turnbull, Inc., dated August 23, 2021 PLANNING APPLICATION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 | FAX: 650.696.3790 | E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAME.ORG PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPERTY OWNER NAME ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL ARCHITECT/DESIGNER ADDRESS PHONE E-MAIL I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. DATE I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/DIVISION. DATE AUTHORIZATION TO REPRODUCE PLANS I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST AND/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THIS OUT OF OR RELATED TO SUCH ACTION (INITIALS OF ARCHITECT/DESIGNER) APPLICATION TYPE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) DESIGN REVIEW (DSR) VARIANCE (VAR) SPECIAL PERMIT (SP) OTHER: ____________________________ DATE RECEIVED: MINOR MODIFICATION HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU) BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE # WIRELESS ZONING FENCE EXCEPTION APPLICANT? APPLICANT? *FOR PROJECT REFUNDS* - Please provide an address to which to all refund checks will be mailed to: ADDRESS NAME RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF BURLINGAME City Hall – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Building Division PH: (650) 558-7260 FAX: (650) 696-7208 October 3, 2022 Avram, Dario & Goff, Karen 1549 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 1549 Burlingame Avenue (B22-0091). Stop Work Order Notice: Scope of work: Substantial Construction Dear Property Owner: The City of Burlingame Building Division received a complaint regarding work being performed at the above-referenced property. Based on a site visit by the Planning Division, it appears that the construction exceeds the original scope of work and is to be considered “Substantial Construction” per code section 25.108.200. This letter is to inform you that plans are to be submitted for Design Review per section 25.68.020. In addition, you are hereby directed to refrain from performing or authorizing any work until all required approvals have been obtained. At your earliest convenience, please contact the Planning Division for submittal requirements. Sincerely, Marco Cavalieri Senior Building Inspector cc: file 210 Industrial Rd. Suite 205, San Carlos, CA 94070 James@chudesign.com Office: (650) 345-9286 Ext. 1001; Cell: (650) 400-8933 October 5, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Commissioner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1st & 2nd story remodel at 1549 Burlingame Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Planning Commissioner: This project came before you tonight were an originally interior remodel with structural, plumbing/mechanical/electrical upgrades with new windows and doors. Since the removal of exterior walls were under 50%, design review was not required at the time. But during demolition of exterior cement plaster, the contractor discovered major termite damages at the perimeter walls and decided to remove without noticing Planning or Building depts, therefore triggered design review process. Please note, the proposed footprint, floor area will remain the same, and we believed the proposed will fit well this neighborhood. Thank you for your time in reviewing the above changes. Sincerely, James Chu October 5, 2022 Dear Planning Commission, We are the owners of 1549 Burlingame Avenue and are submitting this letter in the hopes that you will provide your approval for our project to continue. To give some background about us: Darío grew up on the Peninsula and went to high school in San Mateo. When Dario introduced Karen to the Bay Area, and to Burlingame in particular, she promptly fell in love with its beautiful community and wonderful high street. We began looking to move to Burlingame last year so that we could raise our two young daughters–Gia, age 4.5 and Stella, age 1.5–in Burlingame and send Gia to Kindergarten at McKinley Elementary in August of 2023. This past January, we discovered the perfect property for us. It had the space we needed for our family and for us to be able to work remotely, all within walking distance of Burlingame Avenue and McKinley Elementary, but best of all, it came with renovation plans approved by the planning department. It checked off all of the boxes that we had for a perfect forever home! We are especially excited about the wonderful advantages of living in Burlingame (the abundance of safe parks and playgrounds, especially that beautiful new Rec Center that we go to every weekend, the excellent public schools like McKinley, BIS and BHS, and the amazing collection of restaurants on Burlingame Ave). We envision ourselves walking our children to school every day and then stopping off for coffee on the Ave before heading home to work at our home offices. The house design was also a dream: the approved renovation plans called for a house large enough to accommodate our family of 4 to both live and work in the home. The planned JADU was perfect to accommodate extended stays from Karen’s mother who visits often from the east coast and may one day permanently move in with us. Overall, we could not believe our luck that we had potentially found our forever home, but we conditioned our offer on the requirement that the former owner obtain all necessary approvals from the city for us to commence a renovation of this aged property that dates back to the 1930’s. We closed on the house as soon as the prior owner had obtained such approvals for the renovation. Over the past few months, we have eagerly visited the house each weekend to show our children the updates on our future family home. We have met many of our future neighbors and have only become more excited about our upcoming move. Thank you very much for your time and attention to this matter. Warm Regards, Darío, Karen, Gía and Stella City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Variance Application The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Code Section 25.84.030). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. D. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed irregular shaped lot with interior (2’-9” where 6’-0” is required) and exterior side setback (4’-7” where 7’-6” is required) are exceptional rare and doesn’t apply to other properties in this neighborhood. The setback variances request is required due to demolition of entire perimeter walls which triggered design review as a new construction. The setback variances requested are necessary to preserve the enjoyment of the rear yard area, due to the odd-shaped corner lot condition. The proposed setbacks were existing condition since 1930’s, therefore the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. We felt the proposed project is compatible with some of the existing homes in this neighborhood that also have similar mass, bulk and should fit well without changing the character of this area. City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Variance Application The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Code Section 25.84.030). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. D. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed two story residence (built in 1935) with floor area exceeding the max allowable is exceptional rare but it’s similar to some of the surrounding larger homes (on Occidental) in this neighborhood. The floor variances request is required due to demolition of entire perimeter walls which triggered design review as a new construction. The floor area variances requested are necessary to preserve the enjoyment of the rear yard area, due to the odd-shaped corner lot condition. Also to keep the mass/bulk similar to original as much as possible with exterior improvements and better articulations. The proposed floor area were pre-existing condition since 1930’s, therefore the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. We felt the proposed project is compatible with some of the existing homes (mostly on Occidental Ave) in this neighborhood that also have similar mass, bulk and should fit well without changing the character of this area. City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain how the proposed modification to standards respects and preserves the character of the 2. Explain how the proposed modification to standards results in a project that is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring properties. 3. Explain how the additional development capacity is consistent with General Plan goals and neighborhood in which the project is located. The proposed Spanish Revival style residence was built in 1935 and it is consistent with surrounding properties on the “west” side of Burlingame neighborhood with similar design and its mass/bulk. The special permit request is for the declining height envelope on the left side, which was triggered due to demolition of entire perimeter walls. The proposed style residence is consistent with the building materials being use. The front entry porch, stucco, recessed window, clay roof tiles are all consistently used on this style, and it should blend well on this block without changing the character of the neighborhood. policies. The proposed single-family residence with detached garage is consistent with City Design Review Guidelines, and it complies with all zoning requirements, except for the left-side declining height envelope that require special permit, and variances for both interior/exterior setback. No trees will be removed. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCES, AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for removal of more than 50 percent of exterior walls (substantial construction) of an existing two- story single-unit dwelling with a new detached garage, Side Setback Variances, FAR Variance, and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope at 1549 Burlingame Avenue, Zoned R-1, Darío Avram and Karen Goff, property owners, APN: 028-285-160; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 24, 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 Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2.Said Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3.It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 24th day of October, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue Effective November 3, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 14, 2022, sheets A.1 through A.8, N.2, and topographic survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Variances, and Special Permit 1549 Burlingame Avenue Effective November 3, 2022 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 1549 Burlingame Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 028-285-160 DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #______________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #__________________________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial______________________________________________ NRHP Status Code _6Z________________________________ Other Listings_____________________________________________________________________ Review Code________ Reviewer________________________ Date__________ Page 1 of 14 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County San Mateo *b. USGS 7.5’ Quad San Mateo, Calif. Date 2018 *c. Address 1549 Burlingame Avenue City Burlingame Zip 94010 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 028-285-160 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) 1549 Burlingame Avenue (APN 028-285-160) is a single-family residence designed in the Mediterranean Revival style and was built in 1935 (P5a. Photo). The building sits on a triangular corner lot, approximately 182 feet wide at its curved frontage along the corner of Burlingame and Occidental avenues, 156 feet long at its northeast lot line, and 84 feet deep at the southeast lot line. The subject property is located in the Burlingame Park neighborhood of the City of Burlingame, on the southeast corner of Burlingame Avenue and Occidental Avenue (Figure 1). The house is a one-story-over-exposed-basement building set on a concrete foundation, with a mostly rectangular plan with rectangular projecting front and side bays. The main volume of the house is capped by a combination flat roof and a hipped roof with Spanish tile at the western corner, with no eaves, which begins with the peak of the roof over the projecting volume and terminates at the southwestern façade of the house. The southern corner and the southwestern (rear) façade are capped with a low, shaped parapet with metal coping and an interior stuccoed chimney with a round metal vent. All the pitched roofs have a metal gutter at their edge. The building is clad with hand-tooled stucco and is painted a uniform shade of off-white. Typical windows are original single and paired six-over-one or four- over-one double-hung wood sash windows with ogee lugs, moulded wood sills, and flush-mounted wood frames. The building includes an integral one-car garage on the southwest façade of the house. (See Continuation Sheet, page 2) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2: Single-family property *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other P5b. Photo: (view and date) View of the primary façade, looking southeast, from the corner of Occidental Ave and Burlingame Ave, July 30, 2021. *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Pre-historic Historic Both 1935, water tap record. *P7. Owner and Address: Richard Rong 1549 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 *P8. Recorded by: Page & Turnbull, Inc. 170 Maiden Lane, 5th Fl oor San Francisco, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: August 23, 2021 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive Level Survey *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None *Attachments: None Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record  Other (list) P5a. Photo State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 2 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *P3a. Description: (continued) Figure 1: Aerial view of 1549 Burlingame Ave. Approximate property boundary is outlined in red. Source: Google Maps, 2021. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Primary (Northwest) Façade The primary (northwest) façade is oriented toward Burlingame Avenue. It features a projecting two-story bay at the north corner with a hipped Spanish tile roof. The primary entrance of the house has a solid wood door with a decorative metal speakeasy grille. The entry is protected under a shed roof clad in Spanish tile, supported by an ornamented metal bracket and flanked by a downspout. The entry is accessed by a bank of concrete doglegged stairs with a quarter turn at the bottom. The stairs are enclosed by stepped, stuccoed walls with decorated metal hand railings (Figure 2). At the first story (main level), the projecting bay has a single typical four-over-one window; this window is screened by a large hedge and is secured by an ornamented metal grille. The first story of the projecting bay features a pair of typical six-over-one windows at the northwest-facing side and a pair of typical four-over-one windows at the southeast-facing side (Figure 3). To the right (southwest) of the entrance, at the first story, are three original multi-light, fixed floor-to-ceiling wooden windows. This group of windows has wooden muntins, moulded wooden sills, flush-mounted wood frames and are divided by ornamental spiral colonnettes with solid arched surrounds above each window. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 3 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 2: Primary (northwest) façade, looking southeast. Figure 3: Entrance and original multi-lite wood windows at northwest façade, looking southeast. Southwest Façade The southwest façade is oriented toward Occidental Avenue. This side of the house has a staggered footprint, with the western half of the façade shifted approximately three feet away from the street. At the basement level of the northwestern corner of the house, two typical four-over-one windows are screened by a large hedge and have metal security grates on the interior. The garage door is located at the southern corner of the house, and it is a five-section, un-glazed, wood-paneled overhead type door (Figure 4). At the first story of the western end of the façade, three full-height wood multi-light windows match those on the primary façade with wooden muntins and moulded wooden sills flush-mounted wood frames, divided by ornamental spiral colonnettes, and solid arched surrounds above each window. At the southern half of the first story, aligned with the garage door, there is a pair of typical six-over-one windows with an accentuated lintel above, and a small four-over-one double-hung wood window to the west. The southern half of the façade is capped with a shaped parapet with metal flashing and a small section of Spanish tile copin g aligned with the location of the garage door. The highest portion of the shaped parapet is the location of the houses round metal chimney (Figure 5). Figure 4: The southwest façade of the main volume of the building, looking northeast. Figure 5: The southwest façade of the main volume of the building showing the first story windows, looking northeast. Rear (Southeast) Façade The rear (southeast) façade of the building has a nearly symmetrical fenestration design. A rear door is located at the eastern corner of the house (Figure 6). This door is a five-panel solid wood door. There are two typical four-over-one windows at the southern and western sides of the ground-level façade. Each of these windows are protected by decorative metal grilles. At the western corner of the ground floor is a small operable panel, which may have been a previous location of meters, delivery of perishables, or irrigation controls (Figure 7). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 4 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L At the first story, centered over each of the ground-level windows, are two pairs of typical six-over-one wood windows. In the middle of the first story façade, are a pair of smaller four-over-one windows. This rear façade is capped by a single parapet with metal flashing. The parapet creates the edge for the flat roof over the primary volume of the house. Figure 6: Rear (southeast) façade, looking northwest. Figure 7: View of operable panel at southern corner of rear façade, looking northwest. Northeast Façade A narrow walkway runs along the northeast façade between the house and the neighboring property (1545 Burlingame Avenue) with a wood gate accessing the rear yard at the southeast end of the walkway (Figure 8). The north end of the façade is coplanar with the northeast façade of the projecting bay at the front of the house. From the south (left) to the north (right) side of the northeast façade, there is a drain leader from the roof, wood gate to the rear yard, a small four-over-one wood double-hung window protected by an ornamented security grille, followed by a three-panel, partially glazed wood door in a flush-mounted wood frame and a small wood door for utility panels (Figure 9 and Figure 10). The glazed portion of the door is protected by a layer of metal security grate. To the north (right) of the door there are two typical six-over-one windows (Figure 11). At the first story, from the south (left) to the north (right) side of the northeast façade, there is a pair of typical six-over-one windows, a small four-over-one wood double-hung window, a larger typical four-over-one window, and two small wood vents (Figure 13 - Figure 15). These vents are made with wood louvers, set in a flush-mounted wooden frames, and a moulded wooden sill. To the north (right) of the vents is a pair of typical four-over-one windows and a typical six-over-one window (Figure 16 and Figure 17). At the northernmost (right) end of the northeast façade is typical four-over-one window (Figure 18). The roof terminates in a flat parapet with metal coping, except at the projecting front volume which has a low-pitched, hipped Spanish tile roof with no eaves and a small metal gutter. Figure 8: View of windows at the basement level of the northeast facade, looking northwest. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 5 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 9: View of door and mechanical door at the basement level of the northeast facade, looking southwest. Figure 10: Detail of door accessing the basement level at northeast facade, looking southwest. Figure 11: View of windows at the basement level of the northeast facade, looking southwest. Figure 12: View of walkway along the northeast boundary of the property, looking southwest. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 6 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 13: View of windows at the first floor along the northeast facade, looking west. Figure 14: View of windows at the first floor along the northeast facade, looking west. Figure 15: View of windows at the first floor along the northeast facade, looking southwest. Figure 16: View of windows at the first floor along the northeast facade, looking west. Figure 17: View of windows at the first floor along the northeast facade, looking west. Figure 18: View of window at the first floor of the northeast façade of projected bay at the front side of the house, looking south. Site Features The primary entrance of the house is accessed from the corner of Occidental and Burlingame avenues by a poured concrete path. The landscaping at the front (northwest) and southwest sides of the house is a maintained lawn with a combination of low shrubs and tall hedges, which provide privacy for the windows of the ground floor (Figure 19). A continuous fence at the property line separates the southwest side of the rear yard from the sidewalk along Occidental Avenue, the neighboring property at 300 Occidental Avenue to the southeast, and 1545 Burlingame Avenue to the northeast (Figure 20). The fence begins at the southern corner of the house and has wooden access gate at the east corner of the house. The access gate controls entry to the rear yard from a narrow walkway along the northeast side of the house. This walkway is a poured concrete sidewalk which begins at State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 7 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Burlingame Avenue and is bounded directly to the west by a large hedge. The landscaping of the rear yard includes a maintained lawn, a mix of maintained fruit trees, low shrubs, and several large hedges. The space features a mix of hard and soft landscaping features, including poured concrete and paved walkways and patios which frame sections of the garden (Figure 21 and Figure 22). Figure 19: Front yard, looking east. Figure 20: Fence at rear yard, looking south. Figure 21: Rear yard, looking north. Figure 22: Rear yard, looking south. Neighborhood Setting The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Occidental and Burlingame avenues, in the Burlingame Park neighborhood. The subject block of Burlingame Park was largely developed over a period of almost thirty years from the 1900s until the 1930s with homes of a variety of Revival styles, generally one or two stories in height. The adjacent property at 1545 Burlingame Avenue is a Craftsman Bungalow, built in 1918 (Figure 23). Two houses over on the same side of the street, northeast of the subject property, 1541 Burlingame Avenue was built in 1931 in the Colonial Revival style (Figure 24). 333 Occidental Avenue, across Occidental Avenue from the subject property, is a Tudor Revival style home constructed in 1909 (Figure 25). On the adjacent corner, to the north of the subject property, 1538 Burlingame Avenue is a large Tudor Revival house, built in 1924 (Figure 26). State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # __________________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # _____________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial __________________________________________________ Page 8 of 14 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L Figure 23: 1545 Burlingame Avenue, looking southeast. Figure 24: 1541 Burlingame Avenue, looking southwest. Figure 25: 333 Occidental Avenue, looking southwest. Figure 26: 1538 Burlingame Avenue, looking southwest. DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #__________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#______________________________________________ BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 9 of 14 *NRHP Status Code 6Z *Resource Name or # 1549 Burlingame Avenue B1. Historic name: 1549 Burlingame Avenue B2. Common name: 1549 Burlingame Avenue B3. Original Use: Single-Family Residence B4. Present use: Single-Family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: Mediterranean Revival *B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) (See Continuation Sheet, page 8) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:______________________________ *B8. Related Features: N/A B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Jos Bettencourt *B10. Significance: Theme N/A Area Burlingame Park Period of Significance N/A Property Type Single-Family Residential Applicable Criteria N/A (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address i ntegrity) Historic Context – City of Burlingame: The lands that would become the City of Burlingame were initially part of Rancho San Mateo, a Mexican-era land grant given to Cayetano Arena by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. Over the next four decades, the lands passed through the hands of several prominent San Francisco businessmen, including William Howard (purchased 1848) and William C. Ralston (purchased 1856). In 1866, Ralston sold over 1,000 acres to Anson Burlingame, the US Minister to China. Following Burlingame's death in 1870, the land reverted to Ralston and eventually to Ralston's business partner, William Sharon. Very little formal development occurred during this period, with most of the land used for dairy and stock farm operations. In 1893, William Sharon's trustee, Francis G. Newlands, proposed the development of the Burlingame Country Club as an exclusive semi - rustic destination for wealthy San Franciscans. A railroad depot was constructed in 1894, concurrent with small -scale subdivisions in the vicinity of Burlingame Avenue. During this time, El Camino Real acted as a de facto dividing line between large country estates to the west and the small vi llage of Burlingame to the east. The latter developed almost exclusively to serve the needs of the wealthy estate owners. Burlingam e began to develop in earnest with the arrival of an electric streetcar line between San Mateo and San Francisco in 1903. Howev er, the 1906 earthquake and fires in San Francisco had a far more dramatic impact on the area. Hundreds of San Franciscans who had lost their homes began relocating to Burlingame, which boomed with the construction of new residences and businesses. Over the next two years, the village's population grew from 200 to 1,000 people. In 1908, Burlingame incorporated as a city, and in 1910 , annexed the adjacent town of Easton to the north. The following year, the Burlingame Country Club area was also annexed to the City. By 1920, Burlingame's population had increased to 4,107. (See Continuation Sheet) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) None *B12. References: See Continuation Sheet, page 14. B13. Remarks: None *B14. Evaluator: Hannah Simonson, Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date of Evaluation: August 23, 2021 Source: San Mateo County Assessor's Office, 2021. Property shaded in red. North to top right. Edited by Page & Turnbull. (This space reserved for official comments.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 10 of 14 Resource Name or # 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B6. Construction History (continued): Building permit records on file with the Burlingame Building Department and water tap records on file with the Burlingame Historical Society indicate that the residence at 1549 Burlingame Avenue was constructed in 1935 by builder Jos Bettencourt. The building was projected to cost $5,400 to complete.1 The property first appears on the Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map published in 1946. The map shows the residence on the property as a one-story, approximately L-shaped wood frame building with a projecting front bay. The map shows that by, this time, the rest of the block had been entirely built out with other one-story single-family residences (Figure 27). Figure 27: 1946 Sanborn Map Company fire insurance map, showing the subject property outlined in red. Source: Library of Congress. Edited by Page & Turnbull. Building permits on file with the Burlingame Building Department show that there have been very few alterations to the subject property. Basic maintenance was performed on the stucco and the replacement of a garage door was permitted in 1970. The most extensive work on the house was the replacement of the chimney in 2003. The following building permits are on file at the Burlingame Building Department . Permits for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, or uncompleted work are not included in this list. Permit # Date Owner Architect/Builder Description 467 3/18/1935 J. T. O’Connor Jos Bettencourt Construct house. S 175 1/16/1970 Ms. O’Connor Patrick Overhead Door New garage door. Y 517 5/8/1978 Not Listed American Sandblast Wet sandblast of stucco. 0512 4/3/1986 Mrs. O’Connor Izmirian Roofing Removal of old roofing and replacement of roof using tar and gravel. 2023937 12/29/2003 Loretta & Helen O’Connor Chim Chimney Cleaning and Construction Removal of chimney and installation of new chimney. 2025256 7/27/2004 McNally Atlas Heating Replacement of furnace. 1 Permit 467, 1549 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame Building Development; and Water tap record card, 1549 Burlingame Avenue, on file at Burlingame Historical Society. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 11 of 14 Resource Name or # 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B10. Significance (continued): Burlingame Park Neighborhood The subject property was constructed in the Burlingame Park neighborhood, one of three subdivisions (including Burlingame Heights and Glenwood Park) created from lands that were part of Rancho San Mateo. William C. Ralston, having reacquired the property following Burlingame's death in 1870, began to develop plans for a residential park in this area as early as 1873. Initially, Ralston hired William Hammond Hall to draw up a plan for an exclusive residential development to be called Burlingame Park. Hall's early plan was never realized, but work began on the residential development in the 1890s under Francis Newlands. Newlands commissioned Hall's cousin, Richard Pindell Hammond, Jr., to draw up a new plan for the subdivision. The plan "centered on a communal country club and featured winding tree-lined roads, ample lots, and polo fields for the residents."2 The land was subdivided, and the streets were laid out in May 1905 by Davenport Bromfield and Antoine Borel. Burlingame Park is located in close proximity to the Burlingame Country Club and the neighborhood was officially annexed to the City of Burlingame in 1911.3 Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, and Glenwood Park were the earliest planned residential developments in Burlingame and were subsequently followed by Burlingame Terrace, Burlingame Grove, Burlingame Villa Park, and Easton. Burlingame Park is bounded by the County Road (El Camino Real) to the north; Barroilhet Avenue to the east; Pe pper Avenue to the south; and Bellevue Avenue to the west. Sanborn Map Company maps indicate that Burlingame Park developed over a period of about 50 years. Modest residences were constructed within the subdivision in the early years of the twentieth century. The town of Burlingame experienced a residential building boom in the early 1920s and most of the residences within the neighborhood were constructed in the 1920s and 1930s. 1549 Avenue was constructed during the primary period of development in Burlingame Park, and by the time the 1946 Sanborn Map Company map was produced, nearly all of the approximately 250 lots in Burlingame Park were developed. Today, the neighborhood represents the progressive development of the subdivision from the time it was first laid out in 1905, through the early-twentieth-century building boom, to the present day. In terms of architecture, most of the homes in the neighborhood are some variation of Craftsman or various revival styles. 1549 Burlingame Avenue – Owner and Occupant History The following ownership and occupancy history of 1549 Burlingame Avenue is compiled from Burlingame city directories, San Mateo County Assessor records, obituaries, Ancestry.com, and historic newspaper articles. Years of Occupancy Names of Residents (known owners in bold) Occupation (if listed) 1935-2006 John Thomas O’Connor, resident from 1935-1965 Hanora Loretta O’Connor (Hickey), resident from 1935-1977 Loretta O’Connor, resident from 1935-1996 Helen M. O’Connor, resident from 1940-2006 Former Mayor and Railroad Station Agent Housewife Stenographer Stenographer 2006-2021 Ann Rooney Unknown 2021- Present Richard Rong Unknown As indicated on the 1935 building permit card and a 1930s block map, the subject property was originally built for John Thomas O’Connor and his wife, Hanora Loretta O’Connor. The O’Connor family were the longest owners of the subject property. Born in Gilroy on April 1, 1976, O’Connor was the son of an Irish cattle rancher of Pacheco Pass, and learned Morse code in high school. Upon graduation in 1894, O’Connor began working for the Southern Pacific Railroad as a telegraph operator on the short line between San Francisco and San Luis Obispo.4 During this period of his life, O’Connor lived in San Bruno.5 In 1906, he married his wife Hanora “Hannah” Loretta Hickey, the daughter of Edmund Hickey and Sister of Thomas L. Hickey.6 Thomas Hickey served on the board of trustees and later became a Supervisor of South San Francisco for 28 years.7 One year later, in 1907, the couple’s first daughter, Loretta, was born, followed by a second, Helen, in 1911.8 John Thomas and Hannah Loretta O’Connor remained married until John’s death in 1965.9 2 Gray Brechin, Imperial San Francisco (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 94. 3 Diane Condon-Wirgler, “Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park,” (Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004). 4 U.S. World War I Draft Cards Young Men, 1917-1918, Ancestry.com; “San Bruno S.P. Agent Retires after 52 Years,” The Times (San Mateo), 4 April 1946. 5 1910 US Federal Census, Ancestry.com. 6 “Marriage Licenses,” The San Francisco Call, 21 June 1906; “Edmund Hickey Dead,” The Enterprise, 18 March 1916. 7 “Thomas L. Hickey, San Mateo Co. Civic Leader, Dies-Last Rites on Tuesday,” The San Francisco Examiner, 25 March 1956. 8 “Birth and Death Records,” Ancestry.com. 9 “Early Mayor of San Bruno Dies at 89,” The Times (San Mateo), 4 April 1965. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 12 of 14 Resource Name or # 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L In a 1946 newspaper article, John recalled there were only five houses when he moved to San Bruno, but this quickly changed in 1911 when the Bayshore tunnels rerouted the Southern Pacific mainline through San Bruno, and soon there began regular passenger service. O’Connor was named the first agent for the San Bruno station, and he held that position until his retirement, 35 years later. In 1920, he was urged to run for a seat on the newly incorporated San Bruno’s city council, and he held that position for two years until he was elected mayor of San Bruno in 1922, a position he held until 1928. As Mayor of San Bruno, O’Connor oversaw street improvements to the city’s water system and the acquisition of the city’s first fire trucks.10 He also led a group of city councilmen who attempted, unsuccessfully, to change the name of San Bruno in 1928.11 The 1940 Federal Census shows that the O’Connor’s daughters, Loretta and Helen, both working as stenographers—Loretta in banking and Helen in the petroleum industry.12 They took ownership of the 1549 Burlingame Avenue upon their mother’s death in 1977 and retained ownership together through Loretta’s death in 1996 until Helen’s death in 2006. Both Hanora Loretta and John Thomas O’Connor are buried at Holy Cross Cemetery in Colma.13 From 2006 to early 2021, the house was owned by Ann Rooney. Research did not uncover substantial information about her life or activities. Jos Bettencourt, Builder A building permit from 1935 lists Jos Bettencourt as the builder of the residence at 1549 Burlingame Avenue. Research for this report was unable to recover any information about Bettencourt’s life or professional career. Mediterranean Revival Style The Mediterranean Revival style is an eclectic architectural style “based loosely on 16th century Italian palazzo architectur e” and can include Classical, French, Spanish, and Moorish architectural details.32 The style was used both for large, imposing homes as well as for row houses. Mediterranean Revival style elements are most often evidenced through the use of clay tile roofs or s haped parapets, stucco clad walls, bay or bow windows, arched windows and entries, arcaded porches, ornate door and win dow surrounds, metal balconettes, engaged columns, modillions, and applied medallions or shields. The style was popular from the turn of the twentieth century through World War II and was often promoted by real estate developers as a style that was particu larly well suited to the temperate California climate and sought to evoke the cachet of Mediterranean resorts. 1549 Burlingame Avenue illustrates several modest Mediterranean Revival design elements, including its use of stucco, Spanish tile roofing, arched window headers, and spiraled colonettes. Evaluation 1549 Burlingame Avenue is not currently listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register). The building has not been assigned a California Historical Resources Information System code in the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) (updated March 2020), indicating that no record of a previous survey or evaluation is on file, affiliated with the State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City of Burlingame has a Historic Register that was created in 2020. 1549 Burlingame Avenue is not listed on the local Historic Register. In order for a property to be considered eligible for listing as an individual resource in the California Register of Histori cal Resources (California Register) or National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the property must possess signif icance under at least one of four criteria, and retain integrity to convey that significance. The evaluative criteria used by the Ca lifornia Register for determining eligibility are closely based on those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register. The subject property's historical significance is evaluated according to each of the four criteria below. Criterion A/1 (Events): Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or re gional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A or the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with any events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The subject building was constructed in 1935, during the peak period of development in the Burlingame Park subdivision from the 1920s to 1930s. While the residence is generally reflective of the pattern of residential neighborhood development in Burlingame and San Mateo County during the 10 “San Bruno S.P. Agent Retires after 52 Years,” The San Mateo Times, 4 April 1946. 11 “Suggestion to Change Name Offered By Councilmen,” The Times (San Mateo), 26 January 1928. 12 1940 US Federal Census, Ancestry.com. 13 “Obituary, O’Connor, Hanora Loretta,” The San Francisco Examiner, 31 December 1977; “Birth and Death Records,” Ancestry.com 32 Chris VerPlanck and Katherine Petrin, “Mediterranean Revival,” accessed online August 16, 2021, http://www.ianberke.com/architecture- style3.html. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 13 of 14 Resource Name or # 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L early twentieth century, the building is not uniquely representative of that era. Additionally, 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to be associated with any significant singular historic event. Therefore, 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to rise to the level of significance to be eligible for listing under Criterion A/1. Criterion B/2 (Persons): Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B or the Californ ia Register under Criterion 2 (Persons). The subject building was built for original owner-occupants, Hanora Loretta and John Thomas O’Connor and their daughters, Loretta and Helen, who owned and resided at the property from 1935 to 2006. While O’Connor was deeply involved in politics in San Bruno around the time the city was incorporated, serving as a city councilmember and then the mayor, this activity occurred prior to the family’s residence at 1549 Burlingame Avenue. Research did not find that any of the O’Connors made other significant contributions to history that are associated with the subject property. Research uncovered little information about Ann Rooney, the most recent owner, and at this time, an insufficient amount of time has passed since their association with the property to assess their contributions to history. Therefore, 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to rise to the level of significance to be eligible for listing under Criterion B/2. Criterion C/3 (Architecture): Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear individually eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C or the California Register under Criterion 3 (Architecture) as a building that embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or m ethod of construction and is the work of a notable local architect. 1549 Burlingame Avenue is a one-story-over-exposed-basement single- family residence designed in the Mediterranean Revival style that was built by builder Jos Bettencourt. The residence embodies some characteristics of Mediterranean Revival style as evidenced its use of stucco, low-sloped Spanish tile roofing, arched window headers, and spiraled colonettes. While the building does feature such elements of the Mediterranean Revival style, it lacks many characteristic features of the style and is a relatively minimal and modest example of the style. Research uncovered no additional information about builder Jos Bettencourt and, thus, he has not been identified as a master builder. Therefore, 1549 Burlingame Avenue does not appear to rise to the level of significance to be eligible for listing under Criterion C/3. Criterion D/4 (Information Potential): Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. 1549 Burlingame Avenue was not evaluated for the National Register under Criterion D or the California Register under Criterion 4 as a building that has the potential to provide information important to the prehistory or history of the City of Burlingame, the state, or the nation. Page & Turnbull's evaluation of this property was limited to age-eligible resources above ground and evaluation for purposes of archaeological investigation was outside the scope of this report. Conclusion The residence at 1549 Burlingame Avenue was constructed in 1935 by builder Jos Bettencourt in the Mediterranean Revival style for the family of Hanora Loretta and John Thomas O’Connor. The subject property does not appear to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register under any criteria. The California Historical Resource Status Cod e (CHRSC) of "6Z" has been assigned to 1549 Burlingame Avenue, as it does not appear to be eligible for the National Register or the California Register through survey evaluation.40 This conclusion does not address whether the building would qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district. Additional research and evaluation of Burlingame Park and its surrounding neighborhoods would need to be done to assess the neighborhood's eligibility as a historic district. 40 California State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User’s Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory (Sacramento, November 2004), 5. State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # _____________________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ________________________________________________ CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial _____________________________________________ Page 14 of 14 Resource Name or # 1549 Burlingame Avenue *Recorded by Page & Turnbull, Inc. *Date August 23, 2021  Continuation  Update DPR 523L *B12. References: Ancestry.com. Brechin, Gray. Imperial San Francisco. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999. Burlingame Building Department, Building Permit Records, 1549 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA. Burlingame City Directories, 1923-1980. Burlingame Water Tap Record for 1549 Burlingame Avenue. Accessed at the Burlingame Historical Society. California State Office of Historic Preservation, Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). San Mateo County. Updated March 2020. California State Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation, Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: User's Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historical Resource Inventory Directory, Sacramento, November 2004. Condon-Wirgler, Diane. "Burlingame Park, Burlingame Heights, Glenwood Park." Burlingame, CA: Burlingame Historical Society, ca. 2004. Chris VerPlanck and Katherine Petrin, “Mediterranean Revival,” accessed online August 16, 2021, http://www.ianberke.com/architecture-style3.html. “Early Mayor of San Bruno Dies at 89,” The Times (San Mateo), 4 April 1965. “Edmund Hickey Dead,” The Enterprise, 18 March 1916. “Marriage Licenses,” The San Francisco Call, 21 June 1906. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003. “Obituary, O’Connor, Hanora Loretta,” The San Francisco Examiner, 31 December 1977. “San Bruno S.P. Agent Retires after 52 Years,” The San Mateo Times, 4 April 1946. Sanborn Map Company, maps. Burlingame. 1946. San Mateo County Property Assessment Record, 1549 Burlingame Avenue. “Suggestion to Change Name Offered By Councilmen,” The Times (San Mateo), 26 January 1928. Svanevik, Michael. Burlingame: City of Trees. Burlingame, California: Boutique & Villager Custom & Limited Editions, 1997. “Thomas L. Hickey, San Mateo Co. Civic Leader, Dies Last Rites on Tuesday,” The San Francisco Examiner, 25 March 1956. U.S. World War I Draft Cards Young Men, 1917-1918, Ancestry.com. U.S. Federal Census, 1910, Ancestry.com. U.S. Federal Census, 1940, Ancestry.com. RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION 26'-8 3/4" City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review and Special Permits Address: 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and Meeting Date: October 24, 2022 810 /821 Malcolm Road Request: Application for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permits for building height and for Community Benefits for increased Floor Area Ratio, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for an Office/Research and Development campus consisting of a seven-story building, an eight-story building, and a nine-level parking garage. Applicant and Property Owner: King Bayshore Owner, LLC APNs: 026-302-530, 026-302-550, Architect: Perkins & Will Architects 026-301-180, 026-302-400 General Plan: Innovation Industrial Campus Area: 197,760 SF total site (4.54 acres) Zoning: I-I (Innovation Industrial) 71,370 SF north parcel (1.6 acres) 126,390 SF south parcel (2.9 acres) Adjacent Development: Office buildings, industrial and vehicle storage uses, restaurants, and hotels Current Uses: Office, Industrial, Restaurant Proposed Uses: Office/Research & Development Allowable Uses: Office/Research and Development and Laboratories/Research and Development Note: This application was reviewed based on the new Zoning Ordinance, which became effective January 5, 2022. Environmental Review: Environmental review of this project is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines provides an exemption from CEQA review for projects classified as in-fill development and is intended to promote in-fill development within urbanized areas (i.e. the “Class 32 exemption”). Class 32 consists of in-fill projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. This class is not intended to be applied to projects which would result in significant impacts on endangered, rare, or threatened species, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utilities, and public services. Application of this exemption, as with all categorical exemptions, is limited by the exceptions described in Section 15300.2 of the CEQA Guidelines. The requirements to qualify for a Class 32 exemption as described in CEQA Guidelines section 15332 are: a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The City’s environmental consultant, ICF, prepared the attached categorical exemption analysis (dated October 2022) for the project. On the basis of the evidence provided in this analysis, it was determined the project is eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption. This analysis provides substantial evidence demonstrating that the project meets all of the above requirements. The project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning designations, including all applicable policies and regulations; development is within the city on a site less than five acres that is surrounded by urban uses; the site has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; the project would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Moreover, there is no evidence that the project triggers any of the exceptions to qualification for a Class 32 exemption found in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2. Because the project meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption may be prepared for the Project. No further environmental review is needed. Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 2 Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study Meetings: This project was reviewed for Environmental Scoping and Design Review Study by the Planning Commission on January 24, 2022, where they had suggestions and comments regarding the project (see attached January 24, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant requested to return to the Planning Commission for a second study hearing on August 22, 2022 (see attached August 22, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached August 22, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes for a complete list of comments and concerns expressed by the Planning Commission and the public. The applicant submitted a response letter, supporting documents, and revised plans, dated October 20, 2022, to address the Commission’s remaining questions about the project. Please refer to the applicant’s letter and the Community Benefits Exhibit for a detailed discussion of the changes made to the project since the second Design Review Study meeting. Supporting documents submitted and referenced in the response letter are included as a separate attachment to the staff report and include the following: Palm Tree Assessment, prepared by McGuire & Hester, dated October 14, 2022, Letter of Intent for Easement with 810 Stanton Road, dated September 23, 2022, Flood Response Exhibits, and Biosafety Level Discussion, dated October 13, 2022 Project Summary: The project site is currently four parcels (consisting of six legal lots) with the addresses of 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810 and 821 Malcolm Road. The four parcels will be combined to create two parcels (north parcel and south parcel) that will be separated by Malcolm Road and will be developed to create a single Office/Research and Development (Office/R&D) campus. The project site is bounded by Stanton Road to the south and Old Bayshore Highway to the east, while Malcom Road will traverse the center of the campus running east to west from Old Bayshore Highway. The campus site abuts five existing adjacent buildings. The proposed north parcel of the campus abuts 1755 Old Bayshore Highway (hotel use) to the north and 820 Malcolm Road (office use) to the west. The south parcel of the proposed campus abuts 831 Malcolm Road (industrial use) to the west and 810 Stanton Road and 820 Stanton Road (industrial uses) to the southwest. Surrounding uses that do not immediately abut the project site include 1633 Old Bayshore Highway (office use) across Stanton Road and to the south of the project, 1650 Old Bayshore Highway (vehicle rental and storage use), and 1800 Old Bayshore Highway (hotel use) across Old Bayshore Highway and to the east of the project. A connection path to the main Bay Trail is located across Old Bayshore Highway from the project site. The project site currently consists of four existing buildings and 100,510 of combined office, industrial, and restaurant uses that would be demolished. The existing buildings are vacant and the site is fenced, but recent tenants included Joe's Café, Sky Chef/Flying Foods, Burlingame Heating and Ventilation, and King of Thai Noodles. The project plans show two new parcels (north parcel and south parcel). Although the proposed project is designed to integrate and connect the two parcels as a single development, a public road (Malcom Road) separates the two proposed parcels. The north campus of the proposed project consists of a new seven-story, 193,380 SF Office/R&D building and surface level uncovered parking with public amenity spaces on the first floor, including a board room. The south campus consists of a new eight-story, 282,410 SF Office/R&D building with public amenity spaces, including a café and meeting room on the first floor and a separate nine-level parking garage. The two Office/R&D buildings would each have a rooftop terrace and a ground floor plaza facing Malcolm Road. The garage structure on the south parcel would have eight floors of covered parking with the ninth level being open to the sky. At this time a tenant has not been determined, however the total proposed use mix would consist of 60% laboratory and 40% office uses. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 3 The following approvals are required for this project:  Commercial Design Review (Code Sections 25.12.090 and 25.68.020(C)(3)(a));  Special Permit for building height greater than 65 feet for properties fronting on Old Bayshore Highway (90’-6”, 120’-6”, and 135’-6” proposed) (Code Sections 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2 and 25.78.060(A)(2));  Special Permit for Community Benefits for increased Floor Area Ratio for a Tier 3 project (2.41 FAR proposed for entire campus (2.71 FAR for north parcel and 2.23 FAR for the south parcel), where 2.75 FAR is the maximum allowed) (Code Sections 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2, 25.12.040(C), and 25.78.070(A)); and  Recommendation of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Parcel A, Parcel Map Vol 3/17; Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 2 and adjacent portion of Old Bayshore Highway and City of Burlingame; and Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 2). There are various easements on the existing parcels, some of which would be retained. They include stormwater drainage easements, anchor easements, wireless clearance easements, and public utility easements. There is also an existing but unrecorded shared access easement with the parcel at 810 Stanton Road immediately to the south of the subject site. This 29-foot wide shared easement on the subject site is proposed to be shared with the current tenant of 810 Stanton Road, McNevin Carpet Cleaning. The easement starts at the site’s main entrance and campus driveway to the parking structure on Stanton Road and allows 810 Stanton Road vehicles to access the vehicle parking spaces at the rear of 810 Stanton. Because the recorded easement will result in the elimination of currently used parallel parking spaces adjacent to the building at 810 Stanton Road, the applicant has dedicated several parking spaces in the new parking garage for use by 810 Stanton Road. The exact number of dedicated parking spaces will be determined when the parking area behind 810 Stanton Road is re-striped during project construction. The applicant has submitted a Letter of Intent for the shared easement, dated September 28, 2022 (see attachments). The easement details must be recorded prior to a building permit approval. There are five driveway entrances/exits proposed for the campus. The main vehicle entrance/exit is designed to be on Stanton Road, leads to the interior loading docks at the rear of the new building on the south parcel, and also leads to the primary entrance/exit for the parking structure on the south parcel. There are three additional proposed driveway access points for the campus that are located on Malcolm Road. The north driveway on Malcolm Road will lead to surface level parking on the north parcel. The south driveways on Malcolm Road provide a secondary entrance and exit for the parking structure on the south parcel. The fifth entrance/exit is located on Old Bayshore Highway at the northeast side of the north parcel. Trucks will enter and exit the south campus from the driveway on Stanton Road. Trucks will enter and exit the north campus from the driveway on Old Bayshore Highway. The proposed project also includes the following improvements:  Streetscape improvements required by the Public Works Division, such as trees, tree grates and streetlights, sidewalk expansion and bike lanes along Old Bayshore Highway. These streetscape improvements will be consistent with those currently installed at Burlingame Point (300 Airport Boulevard) or as approved by the City of Burlingame Public Works Division.  New landscaped promenades along all three frontages (Old Bayshore Highway, Malcolm Road and Stanton Road).  New open space and paved plazas on Malcolm Road between the three buildings.  New raised crosswalk on Malcolm Road at the west side of the site to connect the plazas for each building. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 4 A total of 947 parking spaces are proposed for the campus, with 38 parking spaces provided in surface level parking on the north parcel and 909 parking spaces provided in the parking structure on the south parcel. In the surface parking lot on the north parcel, 10 of the 38 parking spaces will be designated for public parking. All of the parking spaces provided would be independently accessible (no mechanical lift parking proposed) and are code compliant (see Off-Street Parking section for additional details). There are three proposed new buildings on the campus. The seven-story building on the north parcel measures 120’-6” tall (as measured from average top of curb), the eight-story building on the south parcel measures 135’-6” tall, and the nine-level parking structure on the south parcel measures 90’-6” tall. For properties in the I-I Zoning District with frontage on Old Bayshore Highway, a Special Permit is required for structures exceeding 65 feet. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for building height for all three buildings per Code Section 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2 and 25.78.060(A)(2). The following table provides a summary of the project’s compliance with the I-I District development standards. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Lot Area: 197,760 SF (4.5 acres) Plans date stamped: October 20, 2022 Proposed North Parcel Proposed South Parcel Proposed Total Campus Allowed/Required Use and Floor Area Ratio: Office/R&D 2.71 FAR ¹ 193,380 SF Office/R&D 2.23 FAR ¹ 282,410 SF Office/R&D 2.41 FAR ¹ 475,790 SF Office/R&D uses with frontage on Old Bayshore Highway and Tier 3 Community Benefits 2.75 FAR 196,268 SF north parcel 347,573 SF south parcel 543,840 SF total campus SETBACKS : Parking Structure Front: 16’-7” 10’-8” Not adjacent to front property line 10’-0” Right Side: 25’-11” 29’-7” 11’-11” 10’-0” Left Side: 16’-1” 24’-5” 203’-0” 10’-0” Rear: 78’-0” 58’-0” 10’-0” to 23’-0” 10’-0” ¹ Special Permit for Community Benefits use for increased Floor Area Ratio up to 2.75 FAR (2.41 FAR proposed for total campus where 2.75 FAR is maximum allowed with Tier 3 Community Benefits) (Code Sections 25.12.040(C) and 25.78.070(A)). Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 5 Proposed North Parcel Proposed South Parcel Proposed Total Campus Allowed/Required BUILDING ENVELOPE: Building Height: 120’-6” to top of penthouse 135’-6” to top of penthouse 90’-6” to top of stair enclosure 65’-0” 1 Special Permit required for heights exceeding this limit Lot Coverage: 43.4% 30,975 SF 55.2% 69,767 SF 50.9% 100,742 SF 70% 195,636 SF OFF-STREET PARKING: Number of Parking Spaces: 38 surface spaces 909 parking structure spaces 947 total spaces 582 total campus spaces (240 spaces north parcel + 428 spaces south parcel = 728 total spaces x 20% reduction 2) Drive Aisle/ Clear Back-up Space: complies complies complies 24'-0" Parking Space Dimensions: complies complies complies 8’-6” x 18’-0” (standard) 8’-0” x 17’-0” (compact) LANDSCAPING: Total Site Landscaping: 15.1% 15.1% 15.1% 15% Trash Enclosure/ Truck Loading Access: Located at the right side and interior to the building, at least 75’ from rear property line Located at the rear of the main building, at least 75’ from rear property line --- Must be located at sides or rear of building(s), must be setback at least 75’ from rear property line 1 Special Permit for building height greater than 65 feet for properties fronting on Old Bayshore Highway (Code Sections 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2 and 25.78.060(A)(2)). 2 20% reduction in required off-street parking spaces applied for projects required to submit a TDM (Code Section 25.40.040(A)(3)). TDM dated August 3, 2022 meets requirements pursuant to Code Section 25.43. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 6 General Plan: In January 2019, the City adopted a new General Plan and certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan designates this site as Innovation Industrial. The Innovation Industrial (I/I) designation applies to two areas: the southern two-thirds of the Rollins Road corridor and the Inner Bayshore area. These districts function well as light industrial and logistics centers, with complementary commercial businesses. Establishment of indoor recreation facilities should be minimized to maintain properties for more jobs-intense enterprises and to avoid land use conflicts. Creative and design-related businesses are encouraged to diversify the mix. Permitted uses include commercial and light industrial uses, creative industry businesses, design businesses, limited indoor sports and recreation, and wholesale uses. In the Inner Bayshore area, additional permitted uses include hospitality uses accommodated within the Bayfront Commercial designation. A General Plan Amendment was adopted in 2021 to amend the Innovation Industrial (I/I) Land Use Development Standards to specify up to 2.75 FAR for office/research and development uses fronting on Old Bayshore Highway. Because the project is an Office/R&D development, it is consistent with the land use designation. Design Review: Design Review is required for new commercial buildings pursuant to Code Sections 25.12.090 and 25.68.020(C)(3). Design Review was instituted for commercial projects in 2001 with the adoption of the Commercial Design Guidebook. Design Principles for the Innovation Industrial District are detailed in Code Section 25.12.070 and requires the proposed project to be reviewed by the Planning Commission for the following considerations: A. Design Intent. The overall design intent of the I-I zoning district is to provide for an eclectic mix of commercial and light industrial development that has an industrial and contemporary look in terms of materials used, architectural styles, and building forms. B. Building Design. Recognizing the varied commercial and industrial character of the area, new development and redevelopment projects shall feature modern industrial design features. C. Art and Murals. Use of murals, artwork, sculptures, special paving, and fountains are encouraged to be incorporated into building design to provide interest and excitement to the district. D. Orientation. The main building of a development shall be oriented to face a public street. Building frontages shall be generally parallel to streets. At least one primary entrance to a ground-floor use shall face the adjacent street right-of-way. Business and reception areas shall face public access to buildings. E. Ground Floor Transparency. At least 25 percent of the exterior walls on the ground floor facing the street shall include windows, doors, or other openings. F. Building Articulation. Each side of buildings shall have a uniform approach to design and detail. Articulation of building and structural elements, including windows, entries, and bays shall be achieved. Design features such as canopies, trellis, and grillwork shall be designed as part of the building’s composition of design elements. A variety of materials should be used to articulate building elements, such as the base, the ground floor, and upper floors, if any. G. Streetscape. Landscaping along the street shall provide an attractive streetscape by screening parking areas from the public street and ensuring a pleasant pedestrian environment. H. Compatibility. The design of new infill development shall respect, complement, and be compatible with the scale, style, theme, and design of surrounding buildings. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 7 I. Location of Parking. Any surface parking facilities shall be located to the side or rear of any proposed project unless no other feasible location exists. J. Creekside Open Space. New buildings on parcels adjacent to Mills Creek and Easton Creek, where possible, shall incorporate outdoor open space and trail network components into their site planning, particularly on those parts of sites that face a creek. K. Service and Delivery Areas. Service areas and ground-mounted equipment shall be screened from view by fences or walls that conform to the style and materials of the accompanying building(s). Materials proposed for the exterior of the Office/R&D buildings include: a two-sided curtainwall with vertical capture and bird safe line frit, vision glass spandrel with shadowbox, metal panel reveals, precast concrete spandrel and infill panels with horizontal liner texture, and precast concrete walls at non-frontage areas on the lowest level with integral color and mixture of smooth and textured finish. The project also includes ribbon window walls, and perforated metal mechanical penthouse screens with a non- reflective finish. Materials for the parking structure include a glass semi-enclosure, color stair accent, and metal panels. To help better visualize the proposed project, perspectives of the proposed project are provided in the plan set on Sheets G20-01 and G20-02 and materials are called out on Sheet A20-03. Floor Area Ratio – Request for Special Permit for Community Benefits for Increased FAR: A maximum FAR of 0.75 is permitted in the I-I Zoning District. However, the FAR may be increased to 2.75 for Office/R&D uses with frontage on Old Bayshore Highway with a Special Permit, if the project includes Tier 3 Community Benefits for increased FAR (Code Sections 25.12.040(C) and 25.78.070(A)). The applicant is proposing a combined FAR of 2.41 (2.73 FAR for the north parcel and 2.23 FAR for the south parcel). For use of the Tier 3 increased FAR, the applicant is proposing the following four Community Benefits: 1. Two Public Plazas, combined use as a Town Square: Two plazas, one on each parcel, and each totaling over 5,000 SF that will face each other across Malcolm Road. The plazas would have permanent stadium seating as well as fixed and movable table and chair seating, along with landscaping. With permits from the applicable City Divisions (and including notice to neighboring properties), the two plazas may occasionally be combined by temporarily closing Malcolm Road to create a town square for special events. 2. Two Off-Site Streetscape Improvements.  One crosswalk at the intersection of Malcolm Road and Old Bayshore Highway, connecting the southwest corner of the intersection to the east side of Old Bayshore Highway. The crosswalk woud provide a connection between the subject site and the Bay Trail termination on Old Bayshore Highway, just south of the Marriott Hotel. The crosswalk design and signalization would be subject to approval by the Public Works Division.  A monetary contribution of $100,000 by the applicant to the City of Burlingame to fund future off-site improvements for the Bay Trail. 3. Flexible Benefits: Publicly accessible community amenities are included inside both new buildings. The Flexible Community Benefits north includes a conference room to seat 20 persons, public restrooms, and an open lobby area. The Flexible Community Benefits south includes a 6,390 SF café open from 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. weekdays and serving food prepared off-site and beer/wine, a meeting room for 100 persons that can be divided to Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 8 serve two groups of 50 persons (can also be opened up to include the café seating), public restrooms, and a lobby space with seating. The conference rooms would be run using a first come, first served basis with a reservation system available to both tenants and the general public. 4. Public Art: The north plaza would have a permanent public art installation as the centerpiece of the plaza and the south parcel would have two building murals on the north and east elevations of the parking structure. Both parking structure murals would be visible from both plazas. For a more detailed description of the proposed Community Benefits for the project, please refer to the Community Benefits Package, submitted by the applicant, and dated stamped October 20, 2022 (see attachments). Request for Special Permit: The maximum building height allowed by right in the I-I District with properties that have frontage on Old Bayshore Highway is 65 feet. Code Sections 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2 and 25.78.060(A)(2) allow properties fronting on Old Bayshore Highway to exceed 65 feet in height with a Special Permit. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for all three proposed buildings on the campus to exceed 65 feet in height. The seven-story building on the north parcel measures 120’-6” tall (as measured from average top of curb to the top of the penthouse), the eight-story building on the south parcel measures 135’-6” tall (as measured from average top of curb to the top of the penthouse), and the seven-story parking structure on the south parcel measures 90’-6” tall. The mechanical equipment on the office buildings, and the stair and elevator enclosure on the roof deck of the parking structure, meet the maximum height limit of 14 feet above the building height. Please refer to the attached Special Permit Application completed by the applicant. The project must also comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards. The applicant submitted a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation letter from the FAA, dated October 15, 2022. Off-Street Parking and Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM): With the proposed project, there would be a total of 150,374 SF of office and 225,560 SF of industrial R&D laboratory uses on the site. Code Section 25.40.030, Table 25.40-1, requires 1 space per 300 SF for professional offices, resulting in a total of 502 off-street parking spaces, and 1 space per 1,000 SF for industrial research and development uses, resulting in 226 off-street parking spaces. Interior spaces dedicated to Community Benefit uses are excluded from parking requirements. In total, 728 parking spaces would be required for the proposed uses on both parcels of the campus, but an additional 20% reduction is applicable for projects with a required TDM per Code Section 25.40.040(A)(3). The applicant has submitted a TDM prepared by Kittelson & Associates and dated August 3, 2022. With the 20% reduction applied, the project requires a total of 582 on-site parking spaces. The proposed project will exceed the total number of required off street-parking spaces by 365 spaces, the difference between the 582 parking spaces required and the 947 parking spaces proposed. The north parcel would have 38 parking spaces in an open surface parking lot at the rear (west side) of the building. The south parcel would have 909 parking spaces in the proposed eight level parking garage with an additional level of roof deck parking that is open to the sky. The proposed 909 proposed off-site parking spaces include standard, compact, ADA, electric vehicle (EV) charging, and EV flex parking spaces. All EV parking spaces are provided in the parking structure on the south parcel. The proposed mix of EV parking is under review by the Building Division and is subject the current REACH Code requirements. The proposed project also includes bicycle parking for 68 bicycles. This bicycle parking consists of 16 short-term outdoor bike rack spaces and one long-term interior bicycle parking room with 52 spaces on the first level of the parking garage on the south parcel. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 9 Proposed TDM measures are described in greater detail in the TDM Plan, but in summary the measures include:  Bicycle Parking - The Project would include 68 bicycle parking spaces, with 52 Class I (secure) spaces in the bicycle enclosure on the first floor of the parking structure and 16 Class II spaces in 8 bike racks near building entries.  Shower Facilities - The new building would include shower rooms for men and women on the first floor of the south building to support employees who bicycle and walk to work or exercise during the day, or both.  Active Participation in Commute.org - The applicant is committed to exploring the expansion of the Bayside Shuttle route in include closer stops to the project site on a more frequent schedule during peak commute hours.  Parking Price Management – Workplace parking rate will be established at a minimum of $24 per month compared to a baseline cost of $0 per month.  Alternative Commute Incentives – Implement parking cash out program with 100 percent of employee eligibility.  Parking Management - The Project would include preferential parking of the following kinds: - Carpool/vanpool - Accessible (“ADA Stalls”) - Clean Air Vehicles - Electric Vehicle Charging Evaluating the performance and success of the TDM plans is essential to ensure TDM measures are implemented and effective. The TDM will require regular monitoring and reporting to ensure that tenants are following the stated policies and goals. The TDM Plan includes a monitoring and reporting plan that consists of an annual survey of employees and preparation of an annual report. A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was prepared for the project by Kittelson & Associates, dated October 20, 2022. Analysis of the TIA is included in the CE Memo by ICF, dated October 2022. Landscaping: Proposed landscaping throughout the site is shown on the Landscape Plans (refer to sheets L01- 01 through L07-01). All existing trees will be removed from the site. There are eight protected trees in the project area, seven of which are located on site. The applicant is proposing to remove all of the trees on the site and a Protected Tree Removal Permit application has been made for removal of eight trees (attached and dated August 3, 2022). The proposed project includes planting 106 new trees for the project (a total of 74 on-site trees) along with varied ground cover and planter landscaping. A bio-retention area is proposed on the south parcel to meet Stormwater requirements and is included in the landscape totals. The I-I District standards require landscaping of a minimum of 15% of the site area. The majority of the proposed landscaping has been placed along the frontages for the project at Stanton Road, Old Bayshore Highway, and Malcolm Road. The project proposes 15.1% landscaping on the north parcel, the south parcel, and for the combined campus. The landscape plans show that the project meets surface level parking 10% minimum landscaping and heat island reduction requirements per Code Sections 25.40.070(D)(1) and (2). Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 10 Public Facilities Impact Fees: The purpose of public facilities impact fees is to provide funding for necessary maintenance and improvements created by development projects. Public facilities impact fees are based on the uses and the amount of square footage to be located on the property after completion of the development project. Based on the proposed Office/R&D building, the estimated Public Facilities Impact Fees for this development project is approximately $1,765,002.00. The final fee amount will be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Payment will be required prior to final inspection. Commercial Linkage Fees: Commercial Linkage Fees are based on the land use and square footage for new commercial development projects. The intent of this fee is, in summary, to offset the demand for affordable housing that is created by new commercial development and mitigate environmental and other impacts that accompany new commercial development. These fee calculations include gross square feet of floor area, excluding enclosed parking areas. In addition, the rates vary for prevailing wage and non-prevailing wage for labor used for the construction of the project. The fees for office uses are charged per square feet ($20.00 per SF if utilizing prevailing wages or $25.00 per SF if not utilizing prevailing wages). Based on the proposed Office/R&D building, the estimated Commercial Linkage Fee for this development project totals approximately $11,342,250.00 (without prevailing wages). The final fee amount will be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued and is required to be paid in full, prior to issuance of the building permit. Bayfront Development Fees: Projects in the Bayfront are subject Bayfront Development fees. Based on the proposed Office/R&D building, the Bayfront Development fees for this development project is estimated to be $1,470,150.00. Half of this fee is required to be paid prior to issuance of the building permit and the second half of the fee is required to be paid prior to scheduling the final inspection. However, given that the Bayfront Specific Plan and Bayfront Development Fee are currently in the process of being repealed, projects would no longer require payment of Bayfront Development Fees. If the Bayfront Development Fee has not been repealed at the time of building permit issuance, then this project would be subject to such fees. Staff Comments: None. Design Review: The Commission should review the design of the project for the following considerations for commercial development, as outlined in Code Section 25.68.060(E):  Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles in the area in which the project is located;  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;  For commercial and industrial developments on visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development;  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;  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 Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 11  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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: The project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s criteria for design review based on the following:  That the proposed buildings and parking garage have a contemporary commercial architectural style, featuring vision glass spandrel with shadowbox, metal panel reveals, precast concrete spandrel and infill panels, ribbon window walls, and perforated metal mechanical penthouse screens with a non- reflective finish will blend with the existing office buildings in the area and will also be compatible with the newer buildings in the surrounding area, such as those on Anza Boulevard; and that the parking structure will be enhanced with art installations to incorporate that structure with the rest of the campus;  That the proposed new streetscape improvements and the coordinating plazas on either side of Malcom Road promote pedestrian activity and create a new open space that can be accessed and connected with the Bay Trail;  That the site is adjacent to four to ten story buildings and therefore would be compatible with the mass and bulk of buildings in the area and is consistent with the overall heights established in the General Plan and the Zoning Code; and  That the proposed landscaping and paving on the site, including the tiered seating used to integrate the grade change from Old Bayshore Highway to Malcolm Road, the raised and paved walkway between the plazas, the art installations in the plazas, and the proposed 106 new trees to be planted on site and in the right-of-way along the three frontages will promote the use of the new outdoor spaces and enhance pedestrian use on this site and in connection with the Bay Trail located across the street. Required Findings for Special Permit: Any decision to approve a special permit application pursuant to this chapter shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in this chapter. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made (as outlined in Code Section 25.78.060(B):  The proposed modification to standards respects and preserves the character of the neighborhood in which the project is located;  The proposed modification to standards results in a project that is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring properties; and  The additional development capacity is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Suggested Findings for Special Permit (Increased Floor Area Ratio with Approval of Community Benefits): The project may be found to be compatible with the findings for a Special Permit based on the following:  That the proposed floor area ratio for the campus is appropriate sited with frontage on Old Bayshore Highway because the increased density will integrate with the development encouraged in the adjacent BFC zoning district and create a reinvigorated commercial district; Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 12  That the proposed floor area ratio for the campus is concentrated at the center of the sites and that there are adequate setbacks to neighboring properties to provide a buffer and ensure public health, safety, and general welfare; and  That the proposed floor area ratio for the campus aligns with the goals and policies of the Burlingame General Plan, as amended in 2021. Suggested Findings for Special Permit (Building Heights): The project may be found to be compatible with the findings for a Special Permit based on the following:  That the proposed modification to standard heights for the buildings on the campus is consistent with an existing building across the street and promote the intent of the Zoning Code to promote more density for select uses along the Old Bayshore Highway corridor; and  That the proposed heights of the building on the campus are consistent with the goals and policies of the Burlingame General Plan. Findings for Vesting Tentative Map to Merge the Existing Parcels Into Two Parcels: In order to recommend approval of a vesting tentative, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed parcel map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Burlingame General Plan and consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and that the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development. Suggested Findings for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map:  That the proposed vesting tentative parcel map, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is consistent with the Burlingame General Plan and consistent with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and that the site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development in that it provides a commercial development in an area identified as suitable for such use in the Zoning Code and General Plan, provides vehicular and pedestrian circulation to serve the project, and is consistent with required development standards. 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. Affirmative action should be taken separately by resolution and include findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. 1. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits for Increased FAR with Approval of Community Benefits and for Building Heights. 2. Recommendation of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for Lot Combination (recommendation for approval by City Council). At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 20, 2022, sheets G00-10 through G20-02, A01-00 through A20-03, L01-01 through L08-01, A0.3 through A6.1, and C0.0 through C9.0; and that if the proposed Research and Development use is revised to a more intense use the project may be subject to an Amendment application or additional review by the Planning Division and/or the Planning Commission; Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 13 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, or 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 the conditions of the Building Division’s October 12, 2022 memo, the Fire Division’s October 13, 20222 memo, the Engineering Division’s October 14, 2022 memo, the Public Works- Mapping October 19, 2022 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s October 13, 2022 memo shall be met; that the conditions put forth in the September 27, 2022 letter from Perkins & Will to the City of Burlingame’s Senior Civil Engineer shall be addressed; and that the flood gate system specified on Sheet A01-01 or a similar system shall be installed prior to final inspection for the project; 5. that the project design measures outlined in the Water Supply Assessment, dated September 2022, and the Water Supply Assessment Memorandum, dated October 13, 2022, shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division; including installing purple piping in the frontage of the project site for future recycled water usage; implementing the Prescriptive Compliance Option of the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (see California Code of Regulations Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Appendix D); installing 100% WaterSense labeled products, as available; and Under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, incorporate a minimum of four points under the Water Efficiency credit category; 6. that the applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division any additional applications for a final parcel map for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 7. that the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division either a recorded Parcel Map showing a parking easement between the two parcels or the applicant shall submit a San Mateo County Assessor and Recorder’s Office deed restriction for shared parking between the two parcels; 8. that in compliance with the approved Special Permit and as a Community Benefit, the project shall include a $100,000.00 allowance to be dedicated to Bay Trail improvements; that the City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement with the applicant and to collect the funds prior to the Planning final inspection for the project; 9. that construction of the foundation systems for the building and parking garage shall not include pile driving; 10. that if the City determines that the structure interferes with City communications in the City, the property owner shall permit public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for City communications to be located on the structure in a location to be agreed upon by the City and the property owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner’s successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition; Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 14 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Bayfront Development Fee, if applicable (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that prior to approval of final framing of the building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Bayfront Development Fee, if applicable (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 13. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing commercial linkage fee (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 14. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the Public Facilities Impact Fee (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 15. that the project shall include the Project Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures as proposed in the TDM Plan, prepared by Kittelson & Associates and dated August 3, 2022; 16. that a TDM annual report shall be prepared by a qualified, independent consultant and paid for by the owner and submitted to the City of Burlingame annually; with the initial, or baseline, commute survey report to be conducted and submitted one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy for 75 percent or more of the project and annually after that; 17. that the TDM annual report shall provide information about the level of alternative mode-uses and in the event mode shift percentage noted in the TDM (i.e., proportion of occupants that use something other than a car to/from the subject property) towards alternative transportation is not met, the report shall explain how and why the goal has not been reached; in such a circumstance the annual report shall identify a work plan, to be approved by the City of Burlingame, which describes additional or alternative measures for implementation that would be necessary to enhance the TDM program to attain the TDM goal; 18. that the City may consider whether the employer/tenant has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals and may allow the owner a six-month “grace period” to implement additional TDM measures to achieve the TDM goal; 19. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a covenant agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Assessor and Recorder’s Office to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of any ongoing programmatic requirements that discloses the required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) provisions and any conditions of approval related herein to compliance and reporting for the TDM; 20. prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction, the project sponsor shall verify that October 15, 2022, FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the project is still current and has not expired (October 15, 2023) and if expired a new FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to building permit issuance for construction; Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 15 21. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit dated August 18, 2022 shall be effective at the time the designated protected trees on the project site are removed or the applicant shall be required to obtain a permit extension from the City Arborist; 22. 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; 23. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a sitework 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; 24. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 25. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 26. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right- of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 27. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for vertical construction; the construction staging plan shall include construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction parking along the street frontages of the project site; 28. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant; and e. Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or parking. This coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and, where necessary, would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 16 29. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to construction during the wet season the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 30. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 31. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application for vertical construction; 32. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 33. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 34. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 35. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 36. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, and set the building envelope; 37. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure; 38. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 39. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof parapet and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 40. 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. Commercial Design Review and Special Permits 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/ 821 Malcolm Road 17 Erika Lewit Senior Planner Cc: Peter Banzhaf, applicant Perkins & Will, architect Attachments: Applicant’s Response Letter, dated October 20, 2022 Community Benefits Package, dated stamped October 2022 August 22 and January 24, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications (Height and Tier 3 Community Benefits for increased FAR) Arborist Report, prepared by HortScience/Bartlett Consulting, dated July 25, 2022 Palm Tree Assessment, prepared by McGuire & Hester, dated October 14, 2022 Protected Tree Removal Permit, effective dated August 18, 2022 City Division Comments Alternate Means of Protection, dated September 28, 2022 Letter of Intent for Easement with 810 Stanton Road, dated September 23, 2022 Flood Response Exhibits Biosafety Level Discussion, dated October 13, 2022 Community Letters of Support Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 14, 2022 Area Map Separate Attachments: Categorical Exemption, prepared by ICF, dated October 2022 1699 & 1701 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY | BURLINGAME, CA 1 Erika Lewit October 20th, 2022 Senior Planner City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: 1699 Bayshore Highway Response to August 22nd Study Session Comments Dear Ms. Lewit: King Street Properties and Helios Real Estate Partners (“the Developer”) have partnered in a joint venture to redevelop 810 Malcolm Road, 821 Malcolm Road, 1669 Old Bayshore Highway, and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway in Burlingame, CA from existing industrial and retail uses into a new Class A research and development campus facility (“the Project”). The Developer met with the Planning Commission on August 22nd, 2022, to review the Project in a Study Session. At that meeting several comments were raised by the Planning Commission. The Developer has incorporated this feedback into the Project and has prepared this letter to clarify how each comment was addressed. 1. Proposed Café with Warming Kitchen Versus Restaurant: a. A warming kitchen can provide for fast casual dining, which is a widely popular restaurant concept and what is most commonly found in the ground floor of commercial buildings, particularly in areas that do not have a residential or retail corridor character. b. Some examples of fast casual restaurants that primarily use warming kitchens are Panera, Café Reveille, Mendocino Farms, MIXT, and Epicurean Trader. The Project’s café will match the quality and variety of these fast casual establishments. c. A restaurant with a black iron kitchen is ill-suited for the Project for several reasons: i. A black iron kitchen requires natural gas that is not currently installed in the all- electric building, which would require a variance to the Burlingame Reach Code as well as deviations to the project’s sustainability goals – this variance has not been considered by the Project or presented to the Planning Commission. ii. The infrastructure of grease traps and type 1 hoods for kitchen exhaust cannot be intermixed with the HVAC and exhaust systems of life science research because heated exhaust requires welded ductwork and a rated shaft way while life science research requires independent systems with 100% outdoor air. Merging these two systems is not allowed by the building code because of the potential of contamination of either system. iii. Hours of operation for a restaurant must extend beyond the hours of operation of the occupied building to maintain viability of the restaurant. This would require additional operational staff and security for the building and the parking structure. 2. Include Public Parking: a. The project will dedicate 10 public parking spaces in the surface lot that will be available on a first-come-first-serve basis. These spots can be used for access to the Project (including the onsite café), the neighborhood, or the Bay Trail. Should an event be held at the Project’s conference facility in the evening or on weekends, the parking garage can be made available on an as needed basis. These types of events will need to be coordinated between the user of the conference facility and the building manager. 1699 & 1701 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY | BURLINGAME, CA 2 3. Include Consistent Site Lighting Both On-site and Off-site: a. The Project will include on-site and street lighting that will be consistent with an approved specification provided by the Public Works department. It is the understanding of the Developer that this specification will match what was installed at Burlingame Point to create a consistent site lighting program along Bayshore Highway. 4. Future Tenancy / Biosafety Levels: a. The Project is a speculative research and development facility. As such, tenants are unknown at this time. Laboratories working with biological materials in California are regulated at the Local, State and Federal levels to ensure safety for laboratory staff, occupants of the building, the environment, and the local community. Please refer to the environmental document and provided letter for discussion of safety measures and how laboratories are regulated. The life science tenant marketplace in the Bay Area is comprised of 95% BSL 1 and BSL 2 with the remaining 5% being BSL 3. There are no BSL 4 labs in the state of California. 5. Transplanting Mexican Fan Palms: a. The Developer reached out to the City of Millbrae’s Arborist, several landscape contractors, and nurseries. No group has expressed a desire to translate the trees. In general, transplanting fully mature trees is very difficult because it is impossible to not damage the root ball when uplifting the tree. Moving a tree of this size can be successful in short distances but long term storage is typically unsuccessful. In addition, the height of the trees at nearly 75’ requires specialized semi-trucks with long enough beds to support the trees for transit. This adds to the cost of transplanting the tree and may be contributing to the lack of interest in these trees. 6. Increase the Number of Onsite Bike Racks: a. The project has doubled the number on onsite bicycle racks at both public plazas. 7. Provide Funding to Bay Trail: a. A lot of the Bay Trail is on privately owned land and the Project does not have any direct connection to the Bay Trail. However, the Developer acknowledges that the Project will create more activity in the Bayfront neighborhood and some of this activity will be along the Bay Trail. While not legally required, the Developer will commit to funding $100,000 to the City for future public improvements along the Bay Trail and Bayfront neighborhood. We greatly appreciate the Planning Commission’s consideration of our Project. We have worked hard with City Staff to develop a Project that we believe will greatly enhance the community and bring a new industry to Burlingame. The local community has provided resounding support for the Project. We look forward to the opportunity to build it. Sincerely, The 1699 Bayshore Team Community Benefits: 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road Planning Submission Updates, October 2022 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road Community Benefits Vision: Promote an authentic place in a growing neighborhood by providing a robust community gathering space –a new town square Bolster the capabilities and flexibility of the town square by providing access to building amenities Provide for public art throughout the project Compliment the existing bayfront amenities by linking the town square and existing businesses west of Bayshore Highway to the Bay Trail access point 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road potential ‘evening at the Square’ 1. Public Plaza (CB1) 2. Publicly Accessible Building Amenities (CB13) 3. Public Art (CB4) 4. Offsite Infrastructure Improvements (CB6) community benefits of: a new town square 4. Bayshore Highway 4 Community Benefit #1: Public Plaza (CB1) Program /Description: The project is located along the western side of the intersection of Malcolm Road and Bayshore Highway,which is in the northernedgeoftheBayfrontneighborhood. The project is a campus development that has a public road bisecting it.The project responds to the existing conditions by developing two outdoor plazas,Southern building’s proposed plaza is 5,739 SF and the Northern building’s proposed plaza is 5,280 SF – each meeting the criteria set by the zoning code. These individual plazas have the potential to be combined with a new elevated tabletop in Malcolm Road.This combined area would create a total of 17,175 square feet available for larger event space. During normal weekdays and weekends,the project plazas are envisioned to be activated with building occupants,local businesses,hotel guests,and visitors to the project. Programming would likely consist of outdoor dining and meeting space in the plazas.Food trucks or pop-up retail could park along Malcolm Road adjacent to the plazas. Malcolm Road could be closed through a temporary permit for special events and the tabletop would connect the two plazas.The parking garage,which is accessible from Stanton Road would be open to the public for special events. Public seating at café plaza 5 Community Benefit #1: Public Plaza (CB1) Planning Commission Feedback: 1.Concerns about plaza size 2.Concerns about plaza shading and prevailing winds 3.Concerns regarding pedestrian interaction with truck traffic across the tabletop 4.Elaborate on programming opportunities Project Response: 1.The plazas exceeds zoning criteria of 5,000 SF at each building 2.Plaza solar and wind conditions have been professionally studied –public outdoor space receives abundant sunshine throughout the calendar year –the building’s orientation and mass protect the plazas from prevailing winds 3.All project ingress and egress (passenger vehicles and service trucks) is orientated away from the plazas and is located at the perimeter of the site plan –Stanton Road is the primary access point for the parking structure and loading dock of the southern building –Bayshore Highway is the primary access point for the northern building loading dock 4.The town square can be programmed for normal daily life with the activity from the building’s publicly accessible café and/or temporary kiosks and food trucks. In addition, Malcolm Road can be closed through a temporary permit and the town square can transform into an entertainment podium, a farmer’s market, a 5k starting/finish line, or other neighborhood events. The plaza is sheltered from prevailing winds Show solar and wind study The plazas receives abundant sunlight 6 Community Benefit #1: Public Plaza Planning Commission Feedback: •Prior comment •Prior comment Project Response: ▪Response one ▪Response two community benefits: a new town square 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road New Public Plazas Image caption 7 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road New Public Café community benefits: a new town square New public café 8 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road Community Benefit #13: Publicly Accessible Ground Floor Amenities (CB13) Program / Description: Cafe The Project proposes a 6,390 SF fast casual,bistro style café,serving coffee,breakfast,lunch,and lighter fares throughout the day.Fresh food will be prepared offsite and brought to the café daily. The café will have both indoor and outdoor seating.The outdoor seating will activate the upper terrace at the southern building.The seating is expected to be fixtures and part of the design of the outdoor plazas.Solar shading has been studied and the upper terrace (where the primary café seating is located)will receiveabundantsunlightthroughoutthecalendaryear. At peak occupancy,the hours of operation of the café are anticipated to be from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday –Friday.Weekend operations will be based on demand.The publicly accessible restrooms will be open when the café is open. Reservable Conference Center 9 Community Benefit #13: Publicly Accessible Ground Floor Amenities (CB13) Program / Description: Conference Center Two conference facilities are contemplated to be built as part of the base building design of the Project. There is a formal board room in the northern building that seats up to 20 people that includes an arrival vestibule to create a more intimate setting. There is a larger conference room in the southern building that seats 100 people and is divisible into two 50-person rooms.The larger conference room can also be combined with the seating area of the bistro café for break out space should a larger area be needed.There is an outdoor terrace space that is adjacent to the larger conference room in the southern building.Both conference facilities will be made available to the public through a reservation system. 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road Publicly accessible building amenities 10 Community Benefit #13: Publicly Accessible Ground Floor Amenities (CB13) Planning Commission Feedback: 1.Add break out areas for the conference center 2.Add outdoor area for conference center Project Response: 1.There are two publicly available conference rooms –one per building -they have the capability to expand to 100 patrons or accommodate as few as 20 guests –all conferencing will be available via a reservation system through building manager 2.The larger conference room has access to the outdoors 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road 11 New Community Benefit #4: Public Art (CB4) Program / Description: The project contemplates public art in a variety of ways. A large sculptural piece will anchor the center point of the plazas. The project parking structure will have two large scale art canvases. Publicly accessible building amenities will showcase additional large-scale artwork. 4. 4. Potential artwork examples 12 New Community Benefit #4: Public Art (CB4) Planning Commission Feedback: 1.Consider adding public art Project Response: 1.The plaza will be anchored with a sculpture piece 2.The parking structure can showcase murals at two canvasses 3.The project’s publicly accessibly interiors will have additional artwork Potential parking structure murals organic inspiration abstract references Tree City USA pattens 13 Community Benefit #6: Off-site Infrastructure Improvements (CB6) Program / Description: Create a new, pedestrian safe crosswalk at Malcolm Road and Bayshore Highway that will connect the existing Bay Trail access point to all businesses on Malcolm Road (including the project) and all public on the Bay Trail to the new town square. Public access to neighboring waterfront Existing Bay Trail Access Point Existing Bay Trail Proposed New Crosswalk 14 Crossing at Malcolm Road Show crosswalk image Community Benefit #6: Off-site Infrastructure Improvements (CB6) Planning Commission Feedback: •Preference to mid-block crossing Project Response: ▪Mid-block crossing was discussed with City Staff, feedback was that crossing at Malcolm is preferred due to the visual connection that drivers would have with the Malcolm Road intersection ▪The project will include a monetary contribution of $100,000 to future Bay Trail improvements 15 Response to Study Session Planning Commission Feedback: 1.Include public parking 2.Expand bicycle parking 3.Contribute to Bay Trail 4.Expand on café concept / why can’t project include a full restaurant? 5.Attempt to relocate palm trees Project Response: 1.The project will 10 designated public parking spaces in the surface parking lot adjacent to the public plazas –the project will also make the garage available for events on an as-needed basis 2.The project has doubled the capacity of bicycle parking in the public plazas 3.The developer will make a $100,000 monetary contribution to the City to help fund the future Bay Trail improvements 4.The project will include a warming kitchen in the café –a warming kitchen is commonly used for the majority of fast casual restaurant offerings found in concepts such as Panera, Café Reveille, Mendocino Farms, MIXT, and Epicurean Trader –the project’s menu and offering will match the quality and variety of these fast casual restaurants 5.The developer has reached out to the City of Millbrae arborist and major landscaping subcontractors to gauge interest in thes e trees Thank you - 1669 & 1699 Bayshore & 810 & 821 Malcolm Road potential Bayfront 5k BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 22, 2022 a.1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road, zoned I-I: Second Review of Application for Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Height and for Community Benefits for Increased FAR, Parking Variance, and Tentative Parcel Map for a new research and development campus in one seven -story building, one eight-story building, and a parking garage. (King Bayshore Owner LLC, Peter Banzhaf, applicant and property owner; Perkins and Will, Derek Johnson, architect ) (64 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Horan had an ex -parte communication with Peter Banzhaf to discuss the design of the project. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Peter Banzhaf, Rene Bihan and Peter Pfau, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Public Comment by Geta Dev: Good Evening, Commissioners. I really appreciate the questions raised. This is an extremely distinct project, I compliment the team and the thoughtfulness that has gone into this project. I do have a few questions, similar to what the commission was asking. One of the questions relates to lighting. I see that HG Harvey has been involved in the skin of the building and that it will be treated glass. For bird safe design, treated glass is one of the options. Less glass is really the best option so that the birds can actually see the building and they don ’t see a reflection. Even with a treated glass at this location they will tend to see the reflections very clearly. Given that, I am wondering, is there anything more that you can do in trying to make it less of a transparent reflective box? This building is in fact taller than the Marriot hotel that is behind, so lighting at night will be really important. If there is a way to turn the lights off after certain times at night so that the glare onto the bay is not a big issue. It is not like a hotel room, obviously it is a huge sheet of transparent glass box. If we can consider something about turning the lights down in the evening, turning them off at a certain time at night and during times when there is migration of birds that would really help. I noticed that there is a café and this is a life and sciences building with a lot of laboratories in it. Based on the bio safety level presentation that was given earlier, I wonder if we can include in the entitlements what levels of bio safety will be accommodated in this building. We know that if you go into bio safety, it has very infectious diseases like HIV, flu and so forth. But if you go to BSL -3, these are airborne diseases like plague, tuberculosis, anthrax, Covid. So, it will be really good if the entitlements include this in the interest of transparency, particularly since we are having the public in the café right there. Thank you. > Public Comment by Peter Joseph Comaroto: Overall, I think this is a really cool project for the Bayshore. As I was listening and looked at the plans, I have a couple of questions and comments. One of them being the retail space, it ’s been talked about that the space will be activated for the public. With only 6,000 sf for the café, that basically is a Starbucks, assuming that Starbucks are about 1,500 sf to 2,000 sf. I don’t know how much activation that would necessarily deal with the public. Along with that, just Page 1City of Burlingame August 22, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes making sure that the space is open on the weekends for the bikers and the families who do decide to walk over there near the Bayshore. Another comment is for the depth of the loading bay and getting the drivers in and out of the loading locks more efficiently. It looked a little bit short in the way they were backing up in the last few pages of the plans. The whole idea of where the structure is coming from and this may be a question for city staff, with the two -lane highway from Broadway and even from Millbrae Avenue coming in with the trucks that will create a lot of extra traffic. So thinking about how the infrastructure should be improved in that area to focus on providing a more efficient way in and out especially with all the demand and supply coming online with the office space over on the Bayshore. I like the idea of the bike racks, I know that the minimum is pretty low even if we are really trying to activate the space, maybe add another bike rack. The last thing, I know that we did talk about activating this for the public but an overall comment about limiting access of the public from the office and industrial space . This is probably more of a security issue and what that necessarily looks like. I know that this will go through entitlements but thinking about if there will be full time staff there to keep the place safe. Not only for the community but keep them out of the office and industrial part and not allow them wandering into places that they shouldn ’t be. Overall, it is a really great project. I am happy that we have life science and other bigger companies coming into Burlingame. I think that is good for all of us and the community in general. Just want to make sure that some of these small things are talked about. >Public comment sent via email by Doug Bojack: Dear Planning Commission Staff, please provide the following comment for Design Review Study item 9a, 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway: I commend the Commission on focusing on the Bay Trail connection, increased wayfinding to and from the Bay Trail, and the opportunity for a mural to enliven the street -level façade during its previous discussion of this project. I also agree that a publicly -accessible conference room at the base of a commercial office building is not likely to produce much of a community benefit, and want to point out that an essentially corporate café is unlikely to provide much of a community benefit outside of the eventual tenant's employees, nor is the proposed community plaza likely to act as much more than a breezeway connecting the parking garage with the north parcel. In addition to these project features, I urge the City to commit the developer to funding off-site streetscape improvements through code section 25.12.040(C)(5) to help turn Bayshore Highway into a complete street. Addressing active transportation connectivity is especially important since the development is a six -minute bicycle ride from the Millbrae BART and future high -speed rail station. I would also like to see a much greater number of secure bicycle parking spaces included as a community benefit, up from the roughly 50 proposed, as well as a general reduction from the nearly 1,000 proposed car storage spots. In total, these community benefits would advance the City Council's transportation and sustainability priorities and would help the emerging life sciences development cluster in the area prioritize walking and bicycling around the eventual campus groupings. Thank you. > Public comment sent via email by Athan Rebelos: Hi, I want to let you know that I'm excited about the new development along Bayshore Highway. I am excited about the public plaza, the public art, and the publicly accessible ground floor amenities. I am particularly enthusiastic about the proposed cafe or bistro, although I strongly encourage that we consider more of a full -service restaurant and bar on the site . Unfortunately, several excellent restaurants and bars in the area will be displaced by other construction projects throughout Burlingame. I want to point my comments to Community Benefits, CB 6. First, I would like to see more than a crosswalk. I like to see pedestrian scale lighting and wide sidewalks along Bayshore Highway, flashing beacons at the crosswalk, and for the developer to submit a proposed plan to encourage bicycles with protected bicycle facilities. Finally, I strongly encourage a method for enhanced shuttle service between the facility, the Caltrain Stations, Broadway and Burlingame Avenue. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for your presentation, it is very informative and nice to see. I’m very interested in the off-site infrastructure that you are doing, notably the access to the Bay Trail, I think that is fantastic. The Bay Trail is maintained by nonprofit organizations and I appreciate the access point but you're going to put Page 2City of Burlingame August 22, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes more population on to the Bay Trail, which is very dear to the city of Burlingame and residents. Please provide any investigations or data if you have looked into investments into the Bay Trail. >Consider adding other food amenities because people are going to be there and want to go have lunch. The places out there are packed at lunch time. If it was available nearby, including this ground floor cafe which is really nicely done, I don't think you can go wrong by having a little more. >Recommends to explore an opportunity to provide for some public parking in the parking structure. It would be important because there's been some comment about the parking in the area already on the street and anything would be helpful. We would encourage people to ride their bikes or walk out there but if you can find a place for some public parking, it would help this project and help the public benefit because it seems to be the key element of this project. >I wanted to thank the team for doing quite a bit of work since the last time we saw this. When I saw it last, there were quite a few things that I was concerned about. You guys heard us and came back with a really successful presentation of the information and addressing many of our concerns. I was particularly concerned with the civil engineering aspect and how the street goes down because it seems a little steep now, but looking at the civil drawings and how you attach that crosswalk between the two buildings, it's actually going to work well. So, I’m happy that that was looked at and considered. >The cafe concept without having a full restaurant there is actually a good idea. There's quite a few ways that you can bring food in without actually having all the kitchen equipment, serving full meals and being able to handle all the people that are there. I have been in many large buildings where we've built in kitchens and cafes and they are difficult to run. It's a lot of added stress on to the building people, by having it offsite and being able to bring it in, you'll still be able to manage a good opportunity. Also, in combination with the food trucks, you'll have an opportunity to do more than just one kind of food or cafe food. >It was mentioned earlier that parking on the street was difficult and we are looking to take a few more of those public spaces away, it looks like. More than dedicating and looking at the programming, if your parking isn't fully utilized by the tenants, that you have an opportunity to allow for public parking to happen programmatically and not say you can't because of the way it's designed. So, it's just a look. But it's a great looking project and I’m looking forward to it and like to see it move forward. >It is a nice project. There are little things that can be tweaked. One of the things I would like to bring up, possibly to staff as well, is the lighting. I don't know if staff has looked at this, but it would be nice to have a lighting plan for the Bayside so we can keep lighting similar throughout with all these new projects that are coming to the Bayfront, for pedestrian lighting especially. For all these new projects, they don't have to look the same but that they are similar and that we can all feel safe out there when walking around especially on the Bay Trail at night. Some of these European countries have some beautiful lights, so that people are walking on the shores and just take a look at the lighting, what we need out there as a city, which will activate it for everyone involved. I’m also very cautious about the traffic. We're going to see a lot more traffic especially with all these new projects and I ’d like to see more safety issues addressed with the pedestrians and crosswalks. If we can have staff look at the safety issues with bikes and flashing lights so cars, and bikes as well, know when to stop. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I do want to thank you, you did a stellar job. It looks like you looked at everything and it's going in the right direction. I'm out of sorts with the public comments regarding the bird issue as well as the biohazards, it's not my expertise and I don't know if we should just let it go. I'm not really sure how this is supposed to work. It may depend on the tenant but some of these issues are really quite important. Honestly, I haven't thought about the biohazard issues, BSL -3 the two public speakers mentioned, I don't know if that's our place or the City Council to direct but I think it's important. I did want to acknowledge that as well as the complete street comments by the recent speaker and agree that we definitely need to pay attention there because people just get zipping along and the area generally would be really great with the development. >It's not a must do but it is a request on your tree assessment. You did an absolutely gorgeous landscape and it's layered and it has a lot of variation and type and scale. It's beautiful and you have nice specimen trees, however on your tree removal plan, there are five Mexican fan palms that were rated as high and very good condition and that happens to be trees that your landscaper probably knows are very readily transplanted and you don't plan to have those on your site. I understand that, although I have recently seen the same trees planted all over San Francisco and Mission Bay developments, it looks very Page 3City of Burlingame August 22, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes cool and really similar but since those are on sidewalk, it would be really nice if you would offer them to palm companies or other developers. I remember as an aside a number of years ago, there was some development in Burlingame were many of the same palms and many dozens were offered up and given to Millbrae, I think that's their street tree now. They have beautiful Mexican fan palms that came from elsewhere and they take forever to grow to that height and these are in good condition. It would be really nice, since they are accessible on the sidewalk, to offer them up to a company or sell them. But good job, thank you. >I wholeheartedly agree with my fellow commissioners. A great presentation, very thoughtful and helpful to understand the vision. I also think it fits very well in that area. The scale and the sizing fits within the other buildings there and it will be an attractive set of buildings when people are flying into the Bay and of course on the Bay Trail. I also like the community improvements they are doing. I do agree that a 4,000 square foot cafe really doesn't do much for me. It would be nice if they can do more. I don't quite understand the ventilation and things like that that they are complaining about because a biotech building has more ventilation than a standard building so it doesn't quite register of that request or that description . It would be nice to see a little more there especially when you have such a vast community plaza planned . It’s really all going to be maintained by food trucks, which there is no way we can require food trucks to come. Maybe we can ask for some sort of permit provision that they are going to guarantee certain permits, I don't know how that would work, but how are we going to require food trucks to go there? I'm really concerned about the Bay Trail. We're going to look at life science along the Bay Trail. Two projects are in the agenda tonight and many more to come. You're talking about a significant population influx on the Bay Trail especially when we're adding pedestrian crossings, bike racks and things like that, the Bay Trail is going to get a lot of work. I don't know the financial well -being of the Bay Trail project in the nonprofits but I do feel like we should obligate some of these developers to do more than build a crosswalk. The Bay Trail needs improvements, certainly the project we're going to be looking at after this is adding to the Bay Trail, but again they don't have any proposal to add to the Bay Trail project in any physical way. I don't know how you do that and I ’m certainly open to ideas there. That's where my biggest concern is, on the Bay Trail and those kind of community inputs. >I concur with all my commissioners and a wonderful collection of comments that everyone has brought to the table here. I, too, want to commend the team on a wonderful design that has been very carefully and thoughtfully considered of our comments from our last go around. The development of the design has improved greatly and there's a lot of care to it. I really do like the street level podium and how it separates itself from the upper levels of the buildings and does create that pedestrian scale for those who will be utilizing the public plaza and the spaces around. That's been nicely achieved. Very beautiful landscape design. I also appreciate the attention to one of our comments from the last meeting about the location of the ADA ramp and how that was potentially a dangerous position for those who are not ADA users, skateboarders and others so I appreciate the attention that you put to that and relocating the ramp. I do have some concerns about parking, public access parking especially with community space that can accommodate up to one hundred people. I believe it is in multiple groups and adding up to one hundred. If one would use the spaces for a community event or conference and they are not regular employees in these buildings, where would all these people park? They certainly are not going to all ride their bicycles here, some may, but we would have to think through the program carefully if this is really going to be a successful community space. Attention to parking needs to be addressed. >I, too, am questioning why we can't have one or more kitchens and a restaurant type space here or a variety of cafes and other kind of food and beverage type outlets to support what, hopefully, is a very burgeoning public plaza to give people a variety of foods and types of treats to enjoy and use of space. I don't feel confident that we can rely on a food truck system to make this happen. Something that's thought through now and built into the space would make this a much more successful program. But otherwise, thank you very much for a wonderful design and I, too, look forward to seeing this come to fruition. >Parking and the restaurant are the two main concerns I have. >I'm going to echo that. The food trucks are a good way to mitigate some of that if we can guarantee that but I don't know that's going to happen. I know that restaurants will work out there. Prepared food could work but made to order things would be a good option as well. It doesn't have to be a bigger space . It could be another one and give people options like when you get a bunch of food trucks together, people Page 4City of Burlingame August 22, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes like it because they have a few things to choose from. So if you have a few cafes it could help out. To the parking issue, you have to have a place for the public to park especially if we're going to have public meeting spaces there and if people want to have lunch if they like it as a food opportunity. >Gardiner: I did want to add information about the streetscape because I know there were a number of comments. As I am listening to the comments, I ’ve been thinking about whether it would make sense to mention that there's a Bayshore Highway beautification project that Public Works has been working on which has standards for trees, sidewalks and lighting, things like that. I realize the Planning Commission hasn't seen that in a formal way, so perhaps that's something we can put on the upcoming agenda. I can't promise. I have to talk to Public Works and see if that could be arranged. Given that it's a common thread through the various projects on the Bayfront and some of them will be building those improvements so they are consistent with the plan as the applicant alluded to. It's a little trickier on the Bay Trail, because it is mostly on private property. There are some segments on public property which the city is able to control a little better. For example, if you're somebody wanting to coordinate a lighting standard on the Bay Trail, you need to get the cooperation of the different property owners along the way. It's not impossible, but it's a unique situation in Burlingame and that's also why we have the stop and start pattern in the Bay Trail as we are filling in the gaps but it is all private property. >Would this be something that my fellow commissioner had brought up, that maybe these developers can put some money in a bucket where we can put some lighting because that would be much more advantageous for everyone throughout. So just a thought. Maybe if we can look if these developers are doing some big projects and we can do some funds and get an idea of what that might look like if the private ownership might be interested in doing something like that. >Gardiner: That's certainly an initiative. We can't promise, but there has been interest among property owners to start developing more consistent standards, even things like trash cans and things like that . So, it is a discussion that is floating around, but it does require a level of coordination that a typical public works project wouldn't have, not to say it's impossible, but just wanted to let you know how it worked. This application will return on the Regular Action Calendar, as it includes environmental review. Page 5City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, January 24, 2022 d.1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road, zoned I-I: Application for Environmental Scoping, Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Height and for Community Benefits for Increased FAR, Parking Variance, and Tentative Parcel Map for a new research and development campus in one seven -story building, one eight-story building, and a parking garage. (King Bayshore Owner LLC, Peter Banzhaf, applicant and property owner; Perkins and Will, Derek Johnson, architect) (63 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Schmid opened the public hearing. Peter Banzhaf, Peter Pfau, René Bihan, and Elliot March represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Brian Delehanty, 845 Malcolm Road: I own the building down the street. The project looks lovely and it's a great improvement, however, I ’m concerned over the parking. I’ve been out there for over 50 years, my father built the second building on Cowan Road and so we've had a long history there. Two things: 237 off site parking, I find that hard to understand. There are no parking spots. Pre-pandemic, there was literately fighting for parking spaces on the street because the Marriott was full and all the people that worked there got there at six in the morning and took all spots. Our building has enough parking, but it's crowded so I don't see any possibility for a building this size to accommodate the parking they'll need. So I’d like that addressed. If they want to know what it looks like during floods, they only had to be there a month ago. That's the second time in 50 years I can remember where the street was totally impassable, it was flooded and flooding our building. Is there a way of addressing something like that because when you mention the steepness of Malcolm Road, that's true and any kind of so -called tabletop will create a waterfall towards our properties. So, please address that. (Banzhaf: I believe it's a clarification about off-street parking. The north building does not have a parking garage on it and so we've consolidated all the parking into the parking garage which has two access points, Stanton Road and Malcolm Road and that was by design to try to minimize and spread the burden of parking.) >Public comment via e -mail from Brian Delehanty, 845 Malcolm Road: a question about construction parking. (Gardiner: That is something that is part of the building permit review, so there would be a plan for where to park the construction crew vehicles during construction.) Chair Schmid closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Looking at the bubble diagram, the community room is kind of tucked back in the corner. It can benefit if it had some adjunct outdoor space. Reconsider how that interacts with the lounge and if those spaces could work together. When this comes back for action, if we can see more detailed development Page 1City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes on that and some blowup plans or focus on how the spaces are going to operate with each other. It would be really helpful because I really like to see these community spaces work even though the proximate community is still developing in that area. They need to get to know this space and know this project. > On the tenant spaces on the ground floor, it would be nice if those areas, if not lively, at least have some tenant life as it's called for in the design guidelines and not ending up as utility spaces. >Please share more details on the bird safe glazing that is being proposed. >I really appreciate that you're making this ground public gesture at the ground floor and trying to activate that. >I’m having a little problem with the plaza, the actual space between the buildings is not that big. Has there been a shadow study? Because with the proposed building height and these buildings being denser together, I’m having trouble seeing a nice, sunny area in which to sit. It is really windy there. I'm not able to see an inviting space there. >I like where you were going with the street crossing and the access to the Bay Trail. Is it possible to put additional signage on your side of the street to the Bay Trail because you almost don't see it? >Consider having some artwork or sculpture at the plaza, which would be helpful to draw people in. >Concern about trucks traveling along Malcolm Road through the public plaza and choosing that as a route if they are coming or departing from the north building. Certainly, it's not useable as a plaza with cars driving back and forth there. >The location of the ADA ramp outside of the south building looks like it's straight away leading to the corner. I can't help but imagine skateboarders traveling along and shooting off that ramp and potentially end up in the road accidentally. Consider redirecting that ramp. Maybe make it force a turn or something so that we don't have any potential accidents going down that ramp. Likewise, you had concrete steps for seating, another potential concern where skateboarders can take over those areas. >When you work on the community room more and develop its arrangement and its use, it would be nice to consider that there may be breakout rooms and just other ways to use a space other than one large space. As you're developing, also consider for nonprofit organizations to have the ability to use this space that would be a really nice community benefit to have. >Would love to see on the next go around, some development on how you might use that entertainment podium that was identified near the corner of the south building. >I appreciate the effort being put into this. There's a lot of information here for us to see and I think you've done a great job of putting forward a good team and putting forth a good project. >Upon visiting the project site, I was actually surprised at how much higher Bayshore Highway is than most of your property and how steeply Malcolm Road tails away from Bayshore Highway going towards the middle of the area. And so, I would encourage some pretty good site sections through Malcolm Road to better understand that connection. In plan, your connection from building -to-building looks fabulous, but it's not that flat and so you may find that it goes down steeper. I don't know if there is an opportunity for a bridge to connect them and allow that to go underneath. I just feel that whole sidewalk from Bayshore Highway all the way back to both of your crosswalks, that in itself is going to be a steep board ramp. So, if you haven't had the opportunity to look through those sections all the way through the street there, it would be a worthwhile exercise. I’m worried, as you try to create connection points, how well those tabletops are going to work when in reality it's not flat at all. >In general, I really like the project. It's exciting to see a very interesting project down there and a catalyst for further change. More thought needs to be given to the balancing of how the space is activated and where it's activated. I'm skeptical that lobbies activate the space. While I like the tabletop a lot, what you really have done is created this sense of passageway. The tabletop is a passageway across the street between two lobbies and I don't believe we're going to see that many people coming from off site to go sit with their laptops in those lobbies. It's not like downtown or KPG in San Francisco where lots of people go in there and hang out. >Going back to the question that was asked about the connection to Bayshore Highway, I would be an advocate for the mid-block crossing. If there was a way to drag the green edges of the Bayshore over to the green at the face of the new building and make the connection back to the plaza there that would be desirable. I don't see anything particularly useful about a signalized corner crosswalk over to the Marriott . You can do it on either side, but neither one of them seem very significant. It's not a cross street, it's a T-street. Personally, you would get more bang for your buck attaching directly to the Bayshore and Page 2City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes receiving that into some special event at the face of the building in the landscape. >I’m really glad that there are two ways in and out of the parking garage. It sounds like from the staff report that the primary entrance and exit to the parking garage is off Stanton Road and not Malcolm Road, which is a positive thing because you are creating a tabletop and the plaza on either side, in general, I like it. The glass boxes are fine for the office space itself. I would love to see considerably more attention paid to what the ground level looks like. I would be less convinced that if the glass just drove itself to the ground in the same way that it would be that inviting for anything. So, whatever the character of the glass is up above, if it's still glass down below, it probably wants to be something considerably different and something more transparent than what we might get up above. We're not that far along yet, but do pay attention to and tell a compelling story to us about the ground floor, architectural treatment. That will have a lot to do with whether this is successful or not. In general, the project is terrific. >I heard the comment in the background to ask the question about traffic. That's certainly an environmental concern out here. It does help that it is so close to the freeway, that there's more than one way to get to the freeway and that you've got more than one way to get out of the parking garage, it goes a long way of distributing traffic. There's no way all that traffic goes away, so a traffic study for purposes of the environmental study of traffic is a key study. I think it's going to be a nice project, well done. >I appreciate the presentation and I agree with my fellow commissioner. It's going to be a good project out there and I would like to see this area developed. In regard to entitlements, I can make the findings for the variance. I think there are exceptional circumstances with the way that they're developing the properties. It's going to be one project clearly and it will read, act and feel like one project and so therefore there won't be much confusion as to people working there as to where they should go and park. So the exceptional circumstance of having Malcolm Road as a public street that bisects the project means that they have two different and distinct defined parcels, but it's good to have the majority of the parking on that parcel. I can make the findings by that. >I’m compelled by the argument in regard to the signal crossing. I was a little on the fence going either way, but I see the idea of making a connection to the Bay Trail. That it might be one way to encourage office users to just come down out of the building and take advantage of that proximity. So, a crossing in that location at the mid-block would be helpful for this area and neighborhood. I had a similar concern with my fellow commissioner with regards to shade and shadow, so it would be helpful both for the project sponsors and also for us to see how shade and shadow is going to work its way across through and over that plaza. And then again, some additional detail on the interior and exterior connections at the amenities and lobby spaces at that ground floor are important for us to see next time when this comes back for action both in horizontal plane as we're talking about in terms of connection, but as my fellow commissioner was saying in terms of the vertical plan plane how the ground floor spaces are going to work in 2D and 3D, visually from the sidewalk, from Bayshore Highway and et cetera, but amongst themselves between the landscape, interior, exterior and the bird safe glazing. To see details between the other team members for how those spaces are going to work so we can make sure that, not just that we vetted it, but they've looked closely at it to give the project its best opportunity for success. >I want to reiterate that there needs to be some art or mural work or something there to enhance the public interest in that plaza. Along with the signage, following up on the comments from my fellow commissioners, we need to have some signage to get people to the Bay Trail. It doesn't sell itself from this side of the street over there, you almost miss it. The mid -block crossing is really a good idea. The retail amenities are one of the things that I really want to see developed for the public. I have walked the Burlingame Point project today and there's a coffee shop and a bike shop that are open to the public, which are great, but they have a lot of the private spaces in there. It looks like you can't get to it unless you're from the inside of the building. They're really for the people in the office. That really wasn't what I was hoping to see when we approved that project. So as much as you can give in the retail or the amenity spaces, it would be a good improvement because the fact is, Gulliver ’s was a popular spot and you had to make a reservation. You can fill a restaurant out there. Go to the New England Lobster Company at lunch and they can use twice as much space as they have. I don't know if you have been to Mr. Teriyaki and he's full. If you put a restaurant space, you're going to fill it and it will give more life to that plaza. >We need to have a traffic study. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I was encouraged by the multiple access partnerships by car to the parking garage on both of the sites and the only other concern I had was the noise that maybe created by the building. If you're going to do pile driving or drilling as well Page 3City of Burlingame January 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as the amount of trucks that are going to come out, I would like to see that in the environmental study. >I’m in support of the mid -block solution that my fellow commissioners brought up and for the same reasons. I still have a lot of concern over the transition of land from Bayshore Highway down through Malcolm Road and through the end of this project, there's a lot of slope going on. There's a lot going on with those plazas and the various heights in those to make them successful. We're seeing them largely in plan or distant 3D view, so it's really hard to tell how those things line up. So whether it be vertical sections through some of those areas to better understand the touch points from one to the other, that's important to know. Again, it's probably less for us and it's more for them to know they have taken care of it. My fellow commissioner brought up an excellent point on how tall the building was in this plaza and sitting there looking at the plaza having an 8 story building on the southern edge meaning three quarters of the day, the shadow from that building is going to own that plaza. So, it could actually be cold and not very inviting place to go. So, those are definitely some environmental study areas for them to look at and work with. The plaza on the north property actually might be the nicest place out of that and the south property plaza is going to be cold. >To the caller's credit, having been there for a long time, my concern of Malcolm Road ’s steepness and the flooding that we just went through and where all that water is going from the Marriott property, it's going down Malcolm Road. So, I hope that we are doing something because we saw big storm drains on Malcolm Road that's not attractive now, so as we address the water and flooding through that area, that's an important piece through this environmental review. Otherwise, the project looks great. >There's a great opportunity out there and those lots definitely need it. This is the kind of project we've been looking for in this location and it does the least amount of traffic impact to our community as opposed to other places that a project like this would want to go. This application will return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes action on the environmental review. No action was required. Page 4City of Burlingame HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Arborist Report 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway Burlingame, CA 94010 PREPARED FOR: Helios Real Estate Partners 44 Montgomery St 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104 PREPARED BY: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 July 28, 2021 REV July 25, 2022 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Arborist Report 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway Burlingame, CA Table of Contents Page Introduction and Overview 1 Tree Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 3 Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts 5 List of Tables Table 1. Tree condition and frequency of occurrence 2 Table 2. Tree suitability for p reservation 4 Table 3. Proposed action 6 Exhibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Plan Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 1 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Preliminary Arborist Report 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway Burlingame, CA Introduction and Overview Helios Real Estate Partners is planning to re-develop the sites located at 810 Malcolm Road, 821 Malcolm Road, 1669 Old Bayshore Highway, and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway. Current site use consists of four commercial buildings, associated parking, and landscaping. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting (HBC), Divisions of The F. A. Bartlett Tree Expert Co., was asked to prepare a Preliminary Arborist Report for the project. This report provides the following information: 1. Preliminary assessment of the health and structural condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground. 2. Preliminary assessment of impacts to trees from the proposed project plans and identification of trees for preservation and removal. 3. Preliminary guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases of development. Tree Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on July 20th, 2021. The assessment included all trees 6” in diameter and greater. Trees located within the proposed project area and those on adjacent properties whose canopies extending into the project area were included. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the tree as to species; 2. Tagging each tree with an identifying number and recording its location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 0 – 5: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 – Dead. 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as ”high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category. Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas. Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 2 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Description of Trees Thirty-one (31) trees were evaluated, representing nine species (Table 1). Nineteen (19) trees were in fair condition, three were in poor condition, and nine were in good condition. Off-site trees #249 - 251 were included in the assessment. Descriptions of each tree can be found in the Tree Assessment Form and locations are shown on the Tree Assessment Map (see Exhibits). Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency of occurrence of trees. 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway. Burlingame CA. Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total Poor (1-2) Fair (3) Good (4-5) Blackwood acacia Acacia melanoxylon - 1 - 1 Hollywood juniper Juniperus chinensis 'Kaizuka' - 1 - 1 Lemon bottlebrush Melaleuca citrinus - 8 3 11 Myoporum Myoporum laetum 2 - - 2 Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - 1 Western sycamore Platanus racemosa - 6 1 7 Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 1 1 - 2 African sumac Rhus lancea - 1 - 1 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta - - 5 5 Total 3 19 9 31 Eleven (11) lemon bottlebrush were growing along the southeast side of Malcolm Road and on the southeast side of 1669 Old Bayshore Highway. Trunk diameters range from 5 to 13 inches. Six trees were in fair condition and three were in good condition. Trees #228 and 230 were in poor condition. Trees growing next to 1669 Old Bayshore Highway were spaced close together forming a hedge. Those on Malcolm Road had greater space between trees (Photo 1). Seven Western sycamore had trunk diameters ranging from 9 to 29 inches. All were in in fair condition. Sycamores were growing in the landscape around 1699 Old Bayshore Highway. All trees had been previously topped (Photo 2). Topping has resulted in poor structure on most trees. Five Mexican fan palms were growing in front of 821 Malcolm Road, all were in good condition. Trunk diameters ranged from 14 to 18 inches. All had roughly 40 feet of brown trunk. Overall, the palms had good form and structure. Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 3 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Each of the remaining six species was represented by a two or fewer trees and included the following: • Myoporum trees #232 and 233 were in poor condition with diameters of 9 and 10 inches respectively. • Fremont cottonwood #250 and 251 were growing off-site with five feet of canopy overhanging the site. Tree #250 was in fair condition while #251 was poor. • Hollywood juniper #247 was in fair condition. It had codominant stems with diameters of 9 and 5 inches. • Blackwood acacia #234 was in fair condition with a 17-inch diameter. It was growing in the south corner of the 1669 Old Bayshore Highway parking lot. • Monterey pine #248 was growing in the north corner of the 810 Malcolm Road parking lot. It was in fair condition with a 30-inch diameter. It had girdling roots and was lifting adjacent concrete. • African sumac #249 was growing off-site with four feet of canopy overhanging the site. It had a 7-inch diameter and was in fair condition. The City of Burlingame Municipal Code (Chapter 11.06.020 Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection) defines a protected tree as any tree 48 inches or larger in circumference (15.27 diameter). Palms do not qualify for protected status. Based on these criteria, eight trees had protected status. Photo 1: Bottlebrush #226 had good form and structure with multiple stems that arose at five feet. Photo 2: Sycamore #245 was growing in front of 1669 Old Bayshore Highway and had been previously topped. “Construction Hours” Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 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 weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 8) On the first page of the plans clearly state whether ANY public money, of any kind, will or will not be used to construct this project. 9) Specify the accessible path of travel from the public right of way, through the main entrance, to the area of alteration. 2019 CBC §1009.2, 11B-202.4, 11B-206.2. 10) Specify an accessible path of travel from all required exits to the public right of way. 11) Specify a level landing, slope, and cross slope on each side of the door at all required entrances and exits. 2019 CBC §11B-302, 11B-304.2, 11B-305.2 12) Separate toilet facilities are required for each sex, except: a. Residential occupancies b. Occupancies serving ten or fewer people may have a toilet facility for use by more than one person at a time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2019 CPC §422.2 #2. c. Business and Mercantile occupancies with a total occupant load of 50 or less, including customers and employees, one toilet facility, designed for use by no more than one person at time, shall be permitted for use by both sexes. 2019 CPC §422.2 #3. 13) Illustrate compliance with the minimum plumbing fixture requirements described in the 2019 California Plumbing Code, Chapter 4, Table 422.1 Minimum Plumbing Facilities and Table A - Occupant Load Factor. 14) Provide complete dimensioned details for accessible bathrooms 2019 CBC §11B-213 11B-603, 11B-604, 11B-605, 11B-606, 11B-607, 11B-608, 11B-609, 11B-610 15) Provide complete, dimensioned details for accessible parking 2019 CBC §11B-208, 11B-502 & 11B-503 16) Provide details on the plans which show that the building elevator complies with all accessible standards. 2019 CBC §11B-407. Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 4 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. Where development encroaches into existing trees, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: • Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees such as the Mexican fan palms are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. • Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. Sycamore trees on site with poor form and structure from topping is an example of this. • Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. Monterey pine is intolerant to impacts from construction whereas Western sycamore is moderately tolerant. • Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. The sycamores were mature trees and I expect that it will be less tolerant and adaptable to disturbance. • Species invasiveness Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (https://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/inventory/ ) lists species identified as being invasive. San Mateo County is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Black acacia, Myoporum, and Mexican fan palm are listed as having invasive potential. Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment Forms in Exhibits, and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not normally recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 5 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation. 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway. Burlingame CA. High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Six trees fall into this category: five Mexican fan palm and lemon bottlebrush #226. Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the “high” category. Eighteen (18) trees had a moderate suitability for preservation: 8 lemon bottlebrush, seven Western sycamore, African sumac #249, Monterey pine #28, and Fremont cottonwood #250. Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Seven trees were in this category: Lemon bottlebrush #228 and 230, myoporum #232 and 233, Hollywood juniper #247, Fremont cottonwood #251, and blackwood acacia #234. Preliminary Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The June 2021 Tree Assessment Form was the reference point for tree condition and quality. Impacts from construction were evaluated using the Tree Removal Plan L01-01 (undated). The plan proposed demolition of all current structures and construction of a new development on the lots. The new construction covers the entirety of the lots requiring removal of all trees on-site and off-site trees, including the eight protected trees. Based on my assessment of trees and evaluation of available plans, the current plan will remove all on-site trees. The project team is planning to work with the neighbors to request removal of the off-site trees included in the inventory. Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 6 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Table 3. Proposed action. 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway. Burlingame CA. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Heritage Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excel. Disposition Comments 222 Mexican fan palm 17 No 5 Remove Within the development area 223 Mexican fan palm 18 No 5 Remove Within the development area 224 Mexican fan palm 18 No 5 Remove Within the development area 225 Mexican fan palm 14 No 5 Remove Within the development area 226 Lemon bottlebrush 12 No 4 Remove Within the development area 226 Mexican fan palm 18 No 5 Remove Within the development area 227 Lemon bottlebrush 7,6,5,5 No 4 Remove Within the development area 228 Lemon bottlebrush 11 No 3 Remove Within the development area 229 Lemon bottlebrush 13 No 4 Remove Within the development area 230 Lemon bottlebrush 10,9 No 3 Remove Within the development area 231 Lemon bottlebrush 12 No 3 Remove Within the development area 232 Myoporum 9 No 2 Remove Within the development area 233 Myoporum 10 No 1 Remove Within the development area 234 Blackwood acacia 17 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 235 Lemon bottlebrush 8,2 No 3 Remove Within the development area 236 Lemon bottlebrush 9,6 No 3 Remove Within the development area 237 Lemon bottlebrush 8,6,5 No 3 Remove Within the development area 238 Lemon bottlebrush 8,5 No 3 Remove Within the development area 239 Lemon bottlebrush 6 No 3 Remove Within the development area 240 Western sycamore 29,12 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 241 Western sycamore 21,18 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 242 Western sycamore 18 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 243 Western sycamore 13 No 3 Remove Within the development area 244 Western sycamore 9 No 4 Remove Within the development area 245 Western sycamore 21,10 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 246 Western sycamore 29 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 247 Hollywood juniper 9,5 No 3 Remove Within the development area 248 Monterey pine 30 Yes 3 Remove Within the development area 249 African sumac 7 No 3 Remove Off-site; contact regarding removal 250 Fremont cottonwood 20 Yes 3 Remove Off-site; contact regarding removal 251 Fremont cottonwood 6,4,3,3 No 2 Remove Off-site; contact regarding removal Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations. Sincerely, Darya Barar, Managing Consulting Urban Forester & Arborist ISA Certified Arborist No. WE-6757A Registered Consulting Arborist #693 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified & Tree Appraisal Qualified 31 32 33 34 35 Preliminary Arborist Report – Helios Real Estate Partners 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA – June 2021 REV July 2022 Page 7 HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company Exhibits Tree Assessment Form Tree Assessment Plan Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Comments 222 Mexican fan palm 17 No 5 High Some penciling 12 feet; good form and structure; 40 feet brown trunk. 223 Mexican fan palm 18 No 5 High Good form and structure; 40 feet brown trunk. 224 Mexican fan palm 18 No 5 High Skinned close to trunk; good form and structure; 40 feet brown trunk; in rock covered planter. 225 Mexican fan palm 14 No 5 High Good form and structure; 40 feet brown trunk; in rock covered planter. 226 Lemon bottlebrush 12 No 4 High Good form and structure; multiple stems arose at 5 feet. 226 Mexican fan palm 18 No 5 High Good form and structure; 40 feet brown trunk. 227 Lemon bottlebrush 7,6,5,5 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; in five foot planting strip; multiple stems arose at 3 feet. 228 Lemon bottlebrush 11 No 3 Moderate Fungal fruiting bodies present; good form and structure; in 5 foot planting strip; multiple stems arose at 5 feet. 229 Lemon bottlebrush 13 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; in 5 foot planting strip; multiple stems arose at 6 feet. 230 Lemon bottlebrush 10,9 No 3 Moderate Fungal fruiting bodies present; good form and structure; in 5 foot planting strip; multiple stems arose at 3 feet. 231 Lemon bottlebrush 12 No 3 Moderate Embedded pole; good form and structure; planting strip. 232 Myoporum 9 No 2 Low Extensive canopy dieback; thrip damage; raised narrow planting strip. 233 Myoporum 10 No 1 Low Covered in ivy; extensive canopy dieback; thrip damage; narrow strip against fence. 234 Blackwood acacia 17 Yes 3 Low Multiple stems arose at 6 feet; in corner of property against fence; some canopy dieback. 235 Lemon bottlebrush 8,2 No 3 Moderate Pruned as a hedge; growing against building; multiple stems arose at 2 feet. 236 Lemon bottlebrush 9,6 No 3 Moderate Pruned as a hedge; growing against building; multiple stems arose at 1 foot. Tree Assessment 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway Burlingame, CA July 20, 2021 22 3 24 5 18 Tree No.Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Protected Tree? Condition 1=poor 5=excellent Suitability for Preservation Comments Tree Assessment 1699 & 1701 Old Bayshore Highway Burlingame, CA July 20, 2021 237 Lemon bottlebrush 8,6,5 No 3 Moderate Pruned as a hedge; open canopy; growing against building; multiple stems arose at 1 foot. 238 Lemon bottlebrush 8,5 No 3 Moderate Pruned as a hedge; one sided canopy; growing against building; multiple stems arose at 1 foot. 239 Lemon bottlebrush 6 No 3 Moderate Pruned as a hedge; growing against building; multiple stems arose at 4 feet. 240 Western sycamore 29,12 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems arose from base; minor twig dieback; tree has been topped; open canopy. 241 Western sycamore 21,18 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems arose from 1 foot; trunk wound 10x4; tree has been topped. 242 Western sycamore 18 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems arose from 6 feet; heavy lean southeast; tree has been topped. 243 Western sycamore 13 No 3 Moderate Codominant stems arose from 12 feet; open canopy with twig dieback; tree has been topped. 244 Western sycamore 9 No 4 Moderate Codominant stems arose from 7 feet; bowing SE; tree has been topped. 245 Western sycamore 21,10 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant stems arose from base; one stem was removed at 5 feet is sprouting; cracks on trunk; tree has been topped. 246 Western sycamore 29 Yes 3 Moderate Leaning west; tree has been topped; twig dieback. 247 Hollywood juniper 9,5 No 3 Low Codominant stems arose at 3 feet; bowing SE from wind. 248 Monterey pine 30 Yes 3 Moderate Concrete damage present; girdled roots; some twig dieback ; multiple stems arose at 2 and 12 feet. 249 African sumac 7 No 3 Moderate OFFSITE canopy overhangs property 4 feet; no tag. 250 Fremont cottonwood 20 Yes 3 Moderate OFFSITE canopy overhangs property 6 feet; multiple stems at 8 feet; no tag. 251 Fremont cottonwood 6,4,3,3 No 2 Low OFFSITE canopy overhangs property 6 feet; suckers from previous removal; trunk damage against fence; no tag. 10/14/22        Sent Via Email –  azams@hdcco.com ; delaneyt@hdcco.com     Attention:  Sal Azam and Tara Delaney    Reference:  Nomar Project    Subject:    Existing Palm Trees      The five existing Washingtonia robusta Palm trees while in good health are not viable candidates for relocation.     The costs associated with skinning the trunks, pruning the frons, excavating, removal, hauling, storage,  maintenance and relocation make this option economically unfeasible.  Replacement trees are considerably less  expensive and Palm trees of this size are not desirable, as they are too tall.    I reached out to five Palm Tree nurseries and received responses back from three.  All three reiterated what I  described above.    If you have any questions, please feel free to call.    Sincerely,  McGuire & Hester      Mike Amaral  Senior Estimator      Private Protected Tree Removal Permit Application Burlingame Parks Division 1010 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 650-558-7330|parksadmin@burlingame.org Permit Policies Applicant's initials * Date * Property Owner's First Name * Property Owner's Last Name * Property Owner's Phone Number * Property Owner's email * Street Number * Street Name * Property Owner's Address (if different than property address) Please click here to read the Private Protected Tree Permit Guidelines and initial below to indicate you understand the conditions of applying for this permit. Per the City ordinance 11.06.02, a protected tree is any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade. If approved, the Private Protected Tree Removal Permit requires planting a 24" box size single stem landscape tree(s) (no fruit, nut, or cypress) anywhere on the private property. I have read the Protected Tree Permit Guidelines and agree to the conditions. PB Initial here. Applicant Information 7/21/2022 Peter Banzhaf Please enter number as indicated (555) 555-5555 (415) 515-7506 pb@heliosre.com 1699 Bayshore Highway/Freeway (Old Bayshore Highway) City State / Province / Region Postal / Zip Code Country Street Address Address Line 2 Tree Information How many trees need removing?* Species * Circumference:* Work to be performed * Location on property * Reason Work is Necessary * Please provide additional details for why the tree needs removing.* Is this part of a building project?* Species - Tree 2 Circumference - Tree 2: Work to be performed - Tree 2: Location on property - Tree 2: Reason Work is Necessary - Tree 2: More than 1 tree Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below Other spp Circumference of the tree must be more that 48" See Report Removal Trim More Than 1/3 of Crown Other Front Side Back Other Throughout property to make way for new development Within Footprint of Project All trees on site are within building of new project Yes No Tree 2 Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below Circumference of the tree must be more that 48" Removal Trim More Than 1/3 of Crown Other Front Side Back Other Please provide additional details for why the tree needs removing. Species - Tree 3: Circumference - Tree 3: Work to be performed - Tree 3: Location on property - Tree 3: Reason Work is Necessary - Tree 3: Please provide additional details for why the tree needs removing. A photograph of the tree(s) and a schematic drawing of the location of the tree(s) in relation to the street and structure are required. Additional documentation might be required to support removal. Attach any documentation you may have. (Example: Report from Independent Arborist, pictures of damaged structures, letters of concern from neighbors, etc.)* Application language Signature * Payment Tree 3 Select Tree Species from the Dropdown list below Circumference of the tree must be more that 48" Removal Trim More Than 1/3 of Crown Other Front Side Back Other Photograph(s) and Schematics You may upload more than one file by clicking upload again. A total maximum of 15MB can be uploaded - please resize your photos if necessary. Arborist Rpt Burlingame Portfolio.pdf 1.89MB Signature & Payment The undersigned owner of the property hereby applies for a permit to remove or prune more that 1/3 of the canopy of the following protected trees(s) and has read and agrees to the conditions of a Private Protected Tree Removal Permt Application. A $107 payment is required for all Protected Tree Permit Applications 107.00$ Project Address: 1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810 Malcolm Rd, zoned Inner Bayshore District, APN: 026- 302-550, 026-301-180 Description: Request for pending new zoning and General Plan Amendment -Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Variance for off-site parking for two, new laboratory/office buildings with a separate parking structure. From: Rick Caro III Building Division Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1) No comment at this time The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 2) On the plans provide the mixed use occupancy calculations for multistory buildings showing compliance with the 2019 California Building Code Section 506.2.4. 3) Provide an exit plan showing the paths of travel 4) Specify on the plans that the second egress on all floors above the second floor including the second floor is at least 1/3 the diagonal distance from the other exit on that floor. This distance is measure between the two exit doors or exit access doorways. (2019 CBC §1007.1.1 Ex. #2) 5) Provide structural calculations and details for the entire project. 6) Provide two completed copies of the Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. BMC 18.30.040, 18.30.045 & 18.30.050 7) Provide two completed copies of the (N) Non-Residential Reach Code Checklist with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference that indicates the page of the plans on which each Measure can be found. Burlingame Ordinance 1981. Nonresidential Buildings. http://www.burlingame.org/reachcode. Project Comments – Planning Application 17) Where elevators are provided in structures that are four or more stories in height at least one elevator shall be provided for Fire Department emergency access. One elevator must accommodate a stretcher that is 24” x 84”. See 2019 CBC §3002.4 for elevator cab dimensions (80” x 54”) and other details. 18) Specify on the p lans the location of all required accessible signage. Include references to separate sheets on the plans which provide details and graphically illustrates the accessible signage requirements. 19) Please Note: Architects are advised to specify construction dimensions for accessible features that are below the maximum and above the minimum dimension required as construction tolerances generally do not apply to accessible features. See the California Access Compliance Manual – Interpretive Regulation 11B-8. 21) All NEW non-residential buildings must comply with the requirements of AB-2176 Sec. 42911 (c) [2003 – 2004 Montanez] as follows: d. Space for recycling must be a part of the project design in new buildings. e. A building permit will not be issued unless details are shown on the project plans incorporating adequate storage for collecting and loading recycled materials. Reviewed By: Rick Caro III Date: October 12, 2022 650 558-7270 Project Address: 1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810 Malcolm Rd, zoned Inner Bayshore District, APN: 026-302-550, 026-301-180 (CDSR21-0007) Description: Request for pending new zoning and General Plan Amendment - Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Variance for off-site parking for two, new laboratory/office buildings with a separate parking structure. From: Martin Quan Public Works Engineering Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. Please provide a title report for review. Title report was not included with the 3rd resubmittal. 2. Please update Sht. G20-01 as west aerial shows an incorrect rending as there is no crosswalk/street between north side parcel and adjacent Hampton Inn Property. 3. Please update Sht. G20-01, Malcolm Road and Old Bayshore HWY intersection does not have an east-west crosswalk as shown. 4. Please dimension all drive aisles in the garage and provide a ramp profile 5. Show proposed location of the transformer(s). Please show the location of the transformer room for the south parcel. No private power conduits are allowed to cross property lines or the public right- of -way. Each parcel and associated structure must be self-contained and no shared utility services are allowed. 6. Overlay/survey neighbors existing driveways and show how this development will impact/protect in place. What sheet is this located on as I was unable to locate. 7. On Sheet L03-01, include elevation based on NAVD 88 to show FEMA compliance. 8. On Sheet C1.0, include all utility features that service the neighboring parcels to confirm that any easement abandonments will not impact them. This includes existing surface storm drain pathways and sewer lateral connections. Not all information is provided. 9. On Sheet C5.0, all existing sewer laterals within the parcel that will be utilized shall be shown as replacement and all lines not in use shall be abandoned. CCTV to confirm there are no active live laterals are required prior to abandonment. Please include the replacement of all storm drain inlets that the project is connecting to. 10. At 810 Malcom, is there a shared driveway easement on the east side and rear of the property as the current vehicle parking at the rear will be restricted and unusable? Have the developer communicated with the neighboring businesses? 11. A Traffic analysis will be required to determine if a new signal/crosswalk across Malcolm and Old Bayshore HWY is warranted. 12. Please provide lighting details for the proposed open space and pathways. 13. What neighboring property line treatments are proposed? 14. For the Mid-block crosswalk: a. The two raised mid-block crosswalks will also need RRFB's at each crossing b. Advanced signage for the mid-block crosswalks c. On-street parking should be maintained along Malcolm d. Adjust the locations of the landscaping to avoid interfering with the vibility of the RRFBs or signs e. Some kind of centerline treatment to restrict vehicles from making left or u-turns along Malcolm Project Comments – Planning Application f. Project should refresh striping at Old Bayshore Highway/Malcolm g. Design team to confirm through access for semi-trucks along Malcolm h. Design team to consult with CCFD on the raised crosswalks 15. 2nd submittal is not complete. The updated plans consist of only 7 pages and missing all Civil and Landscape sheets. Dropbox link did not contain requested information. Applicant responses call out revised sheets, but are not included in the resubmittal plan set. Please advise. 16. On the landscape section (L03-01), dimension the actual sidewalk walking path that does not include the tree grates. A minimum of 6’ wide pathway is required and no more than 20% of the width of the tree grate can be use as part of the walking pathway. Please label the property line. Please provide section views of the street and sidewalk with dimensions as the current plans does not appear to provide adequate 6’ sideawalks nor show adequate space for ADA curb ramps at the curb returns. 17. Please include Old Bayshore HWY street section with proposed improvements showing the street trees (grate width), walking path, property line, etc. Was not included in revised civil drawings. 18. Please dimension the length of the proposed mid-block crosswalk and distances from the curb return to determine the queuing capacity. Was not included in revised architecture or civil drawings. 19. On Sheet A01-00, how will the neighboring property (810 Stanton Road) pull into the angled parking spaces at the rear and back out. Please dimension the depth as well as the required backup distance or provide a letter from the property owner that these parking spaces will be removed due to inadequate space. 20. On sheet A10-01 and C4 -0, FF 6’ is not permitted. In order to qualify for dry floodproofing below the Base Flood Elevation (10’), a maximum allowance of 3’ below is permitted. Please revise and show all areas that are below the base flood elevation to be at FF 7’. Please confirm that the flood proofing mechanical features have been certified by FEMA for waterproofing. 21. Please label all finish floor elevations for each room on the lowest floor to confirm FEMA compliance. 22. No further comments at this time. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Based on the scope of work, this is a “Type IV” project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction (on private property or in the public right-of -way). 2. A stormwater maintenance agreement shall be recorded with the County for all c3 treatment measures. This agreement must be recorded prior to building permit signoff. 3. Please provide a letter from Recology indicating that the proposed trash room sizes are sufficient to service the development. 4. The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12” above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of stormwater from the street into private property. 5. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. 6. A parcel map is required for the merger of the parcels and sale restrictions as parking requirements are shared between the project parcels formed. Include the private reciprocal driveway easement for 810 Stanton Road. Separate instrument for private storm drain easement for the benefit of 1755 Old Bayshore. Abandonment of Public Utilities Easement (PUE). Pedestrian access easement for public sidewalks for areas that encroach into private property. 7. All nonstandard sidewalk details that are constructed in the public right-of-way will require a maintenance agreement with the City as responsibility will be borne the property owner. 8. A traffic, sewer, water, storm drain, and photometric study will be required for this project. Any impacts generated as the result of the project will be required to upsize, install, or contribute its pro- rata share of the impact to upgrade the existing infrastructure. 9. Proposed mid-block crosswalk maintenance agreement will be required for all improvements in the public right-of-way. Maintenance agreement should stipulate that if the owner does not maintain the mid-block crosswalk, that it will have to be removed at owners expense. All existing City utilities (sewer, storm, water, street lighting) that are impacted by the narrowing of the street and proposed mid-block crosswalk must be relocated and placed either along the lip of gutter for storm or roadway for future City access. Before improvements, existing SSFM must be inspected and if repairs are required, shall be completed by developer prior to construction of the mid-block crosswalk. Minor modification of the mid-block crosswalk design will be required during the building permit phase. 10. Please provide lighting details for the proposed open space and pathways. 11. Project developer will be required to replace all sidewalk, curb, gutter fronting project site per City Standard. 12. Project developer will be required to grind/overlay 0.2’ within the project frontage from curb to curb for Malcom Road and Stanton Road and contribute a pro rata share of the project frontage to resurface Old Bayshore Hwy in the future. 13. A Traffic analysis will be required to determine if a new signal/crosswalk across Malcolm and Old Bayshore HWY is warranted. 14. Proposed crosswalk on Old Bayshore Hwy shall be designed and reviewed, prior to approval to construct. All existing utilities that must be relocated due to the installation of the crosswalk shall be sponsored by the developer. 15. On Sheet C3.0, south west corner of Malcolm Road and Old Bayshore HWY shows private improvements encroaching beyond the property line. Please explain. 16. Project is in the special flood hazard area and must submit copy of all approved FEMA LOMR-F, elevation, and flood certificates prior to build permit final. 17. A property survey by a licensed surveyor, signed and stamped by a California licensed surveyor, is required. The survey shall show how the property lines were determined and that the property corners were set with surveyors license numbers on durable monuments. This survey shall be included in the Building Permit review plans. All corners shall to 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 any construction does occur over property, the contractor will need to make all corrections to the satisfaction of the City Inspector. Any disturbed property corners will be replaced by the project prior to final inspection. 18. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 19. 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. 20. This project will be required to have a construction management plan (CMP) as well as Public Works conditions tied to the encroachment permit. Reviewed By: Martin Quan Date: 10/14/2022 mquan@burlingame.org Project Address: 1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810 Malcolm Rd, zoned Inner Bayshore District, APN: 026-302-550, 026-301-180 Description: Request for pending new zoning and General Plan Amendment - Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Variance for off-site parking for two, new laboratory/office buildings with a separate parking structure. From: Jennifer Lee Stormwater Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 1. This project is required to comply with Provision C.3 of the San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP) since it will create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. For technical guidance, please consult the “C.3 Regulated Projects Guide” at www.flowstobay.org/newdevelopment. Please complete, sign and return the “C.3/C.6 Development Review Checklist”, available at www.burlingame.org/stormwaterdevelopment. 2. C6.0 – Please ensure all areas are within a drainage management area (DMA) and are being accounted for in stormwater treatment. Example: the areas between R-2 and P-4 do not appear to be within a DMA, additionally the area next to S-3 is also excluded from a DMA. 3. C6.0 – Drainage areas S-1, S-2, S -3, and S-4 indicate that they are self-retaining areas. However, these areas appear to be impervious trails, walkways, and/or driveways. Please show how these areas are being treated. Per written response, S-1, S-2, S -3, and S-4 are self -retaining areas that drain to adjacent landscape areas at a 2:1 ratio. Please include flo w lines and runoff entry points to show where all impervious areas are draining towards. For example, S-3 appears to be a ramp that has a 3.5% slope draining towards the street as opposed to an adjacent landscape area. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 4. C6.0 – P-2, R-3, and R-4 each drain into two treatment areas (T9, T7, and T2). Please clarify how the proportionate amount of runoff will drain into each of the two treatment areas. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 5. Per SB 610 (2001), a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) is required for any development whose approval is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and which meets the definition of a “project” as defined by Water Code section 10912(a). Since this project is proposing a commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, this project will need to prepare a Water Supply Assessment as part of the CEQA process and the WSA must be approved by the Burlingame City Council. Comment acknowledged by applicant. No further comments at this time. Project Comments – Planning Application The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. 1. Per the Municipal Stormwater Permit, projects on lands greater than 10,000 sf that are plumbed directly to the City’s storm drain system must be equipped with full trash capture systems or are managed with trash discharge control actions equivalent to or better than full trash capture systems. Please show how you are complying with this requirement on the plans. 2. Projects that involve demolition of a building will need to ensure that polychlorinated biphenyls do not enter the storm drains per Municipal Code 15.15 Managing PCBs during Building Demolition Ordinance. Project applicants must complete, sign, and return the PCBs Screening Assessment Form before issuance of the building permit as part of the plan review process, the form is available at www.burlingame.org/stormwaterdevelopment. For assistance with completing the form, please review the PCBs in Priority Building Materials Applicant Package, which is also available at the website referenced above. 3. All construction projects, regardless of size, must prevent stormwater pollution from construction- related activities. Project applicants shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include the Construction BMP plan sheet. An electronic file is available at: www.burlingame.org/stormwaterdevelopment. 4. Post-construction treatment measures must be designed, installed, and hydraulically-sized to treat a specified amount of runoff. The project plan submittals shall identify the owner and maintenance party responsible for the ongoing inspection and maintenance of the post-construction stormwater treatment measures in perpetuity. A completed, notarized Stormwater Treatment Measure Maintenance Agreement must be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of a final construction inspection. 5. Since the project will disturb one (1) or more acres of soil, the project must obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. When submitting plans for a building permit, please include a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for Construction General Permit coverage, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), or WDID number. 6. Sheet C6.0 – R-4 is draining into two treatment areas (T2 located at the northern end and T2 at the southern end). How will the proportionate amount of runoff be directed into each of these areas? Reviewed By: Jennifer Lee Date: 10/13/2022 6505587381 Project Address: 1699 Bayshore Hwy and 810 Malcolm Rd, zoned Inner Bayshore District, APN: 026-302-550, 026-301-180 Description: Request for pending new zoning and General Plan Amendment - Environmental Review, Commercial Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Variance for off-site parking for two, new laboratory/office buildings with a separate parking structure. From: Christine Reed Fire Dept. Please address the following comments at this time; provide a written response and revised plans with your resubmittal: 10/13/22 – Plan approved at this time. An Alternate Means of Protection (AMP) request has been approved for the parking garage. All approved AMP documents must be scanned and included onto a plan sheet within the building permit plan set submitted to the Building Dept. All buildings are determined to be high rise buildings, all high rise building and fire requirements apply: *4/6/22 – The resubmittal plan set (7 pages) did not include any pages to confirm these items have been addressed. Please resubmit appropriate plans showing compliance. 5/16/22 – Items #1 and #3c need to be addressed. Applicant may contact me to discuss #3a, if needed. 8/22/22 – Items #1 and 3c still not addressed. 1. Sheet L02-01: All fire access road, including paving, must have a minimum weight support capacity of 65,000 lbs. Please indicate this on the appropriate plan sheet. 1/11/22 – Not addressed. 4/6/22 – Plan not provided. 5/16/22 – Response says a note is added, where is the note on this page? This is required for P1 and P3 materials. 8/22/22 – Response sheet stated a note would be added, but it’s not noted. Please provide this note for P1 and P3. 2. Sheet C3.0: Fire Department Connections to be located on the building address side or at Malcolm/Bayshore intersection. Please indicate the FDC locations, within 5’ of the sidewalk. 1/11/22 – Not addressed. 4/6/22 – Plan not provided. 3. Sheet C9.0: a. Access path around south building is using the garbage truck specifications. Please use the CCFD truck specifications. 1/11/22 - Addressed. Project Comments – Planning Application b. Are there bollards crossing the access road behind the south building? If so, please specify and detail they are to be removable bollards for emergency access. 1/11/22 – Not addressed. 4/6/22 – Plan not provided. c. Fire access around the parking garage has not been addressed. Please detail fire access around the parking garage to meet California Fire Code 503.1 requirements. 1/11/22 – Not addressed. 4/6/22 – Plan not provided. Show pedestrian access path around entire building’s exterior walls to within 150’ of fire access road. 5/16/22 – Fire Access around all exterior walls is not within 150’ of fire access roads. Foot access is measured to be within 150’, however, foot access with greater than 150’ from either access road. 8/22/22 – There is a 125’ shortfall between the two fire access paths around the garage building. This does not comply with CFC 503.1 requirements. 4. Where will the secondary water supply be located? Will this be for one or all buildings? 1/11/22 – Not addressed. 4/6/22 – Response requesting clarification on secondary water supply requirements. Please see CBC 403.3.3 for requirements. Does your ‘fire water storage’ meet these requirements? Please indicate storage location on the appropriate plan sheet. 5/16/22 – Secondary water supply (storage) is to accommodate the fire sprinkler demand, it is not a secondary underground water line, and required per CFC. This water storage location isn’t shown for the garage. 5. Will there be fire pumps for each building? If so, indicate their locations. 1/11/22 – Not addressed. 4/6/22 – Plan not provided. The following comments do not need to be addressed now, but you should be aware of them as they will need to be addressed at time of building permit submittal. Included but not limited to: 5/16/22 – Fire Command rooms must be served by an exterior door. Please detail on building permit plans. – 8/22/22 Noted. 1. Each building shall be equipped with an approved NFPA 13 sprinkler system throughout. Sprinkler drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Central County Fire Department prior to installation. The system shall be electronically monitored by an approved central receiving station, under a separate fire alarm permit. A Class III standpipe system must be connected to each sprinkler system, outlets located on the intermediate stair landings on each floor. 2. The fire sprinkler system’s fire department connection shall be located within 5 feet of the sidewalk and not within city right-of -way. 3. The applicant shall ensure proper drainage in accordance with the City of Burlingame Engineering Standards is available for the fire sprinkler main drain and inspector test on the building plumbing drawings. These items may drain directly to landscape or in the sewer with an air gap. 4. The fire protection underground shall be submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department prior to installation. The fire sprinkler system and fire standpipe system will not be approved by the Central County Fire Department until the fire protection underground has been submitted and approved by the Burlingame Building Department. 5. Approved emergency radio communication capability is required throughout the buildings. If building construction/layout cannot accommodate required radio communication strength, an Emergency Responder Radio System is required throughout. Permit required to be obtained through the Central County Fire Dept. prior to installation. Riser wiring survivability rating shall be the same as interior wall ratings. Infrastructure should be designed for any rated shaft, alternates for this requirement will not be approved later in lieu of the rated shaft. It is recommended the systems be combined into a campus-style configuration to reduce possible interference occurrences. 6. Fire alarm system shop drawings shall be submitted for review and approval by the Central County Fire Department prior to installation. Fire alarm system shall include monitoring of the fire protection system and also include monitoring of any fixed suppression systems including the hood and duct extinguishing system. 8. Phase I & II elevator recall for firefighter emergency operation required. 9. Elevator shunt trip (causing loss of power) is not allowed. Sprinkler head at top of elevator shaft and in machine room not allowed. Elevator machine room must be constructed of the same rating as the elevator shaft. 10. Elevator car(s) shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance stretcher of 24” x 84”. 11. South Building - fire command center must have a minimum 10’ width dimension. Reviewed By: Christine Reed, (650) 558-7617 Date: 10/13/2022 P.C. ITEM #_______________ MEMO TO : PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - ENGINEERING DIVISION - MAPPING DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2022 SUBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE MAP - LOT COMBINATION AND RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP FILED JUNE 15, 1989 IN BOOK 62 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 37, SAN MATEO COUNTY RECORDS, AND PARCEL A, LOTS 1, 2, 33 AND 34, BLOCK 4, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO. 2 SUBDIVSION – 810/821 MALCOLM ROAD AND 1669/1699 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, PM 22-02 This application is to combine four (4) existing parcels and resubdivide into two (2) lot at 810 and 821 Malcolm Road and 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway for a seven-story building, an eight -story building, and a parking garage as part of a new office/research and development campus. The applicant is proposing on-site improvements which requires this lot combination and resubdivision in order to meet the zoning code. The map application is complete and may be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for the lot combination must be filed by the applicant within the two- year time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Subdivision Ordinance. 2. Proposed abandonment of public utility easement must be approved prior to the map recordation. 3. Relocation of a private storm drain easement for the benefit of 1755 Old Bayshore Highway and separate instrument for its abandonment when dominant tenement redevelops. 4. Proposed driveway easement for the benefit of 810 Stanton Road must be recorded with the County prior to map recordation. 5. The existing structure must be demolished before the map can be recorded. 6. All property corners shall be set in the field and be shown on the map. Page 2 of 2 7. The final map shall show the widths of the right -of-way for Old Bayshore Highway, Malcolm Road, Stanton Road, Mitten Road and Gilbreth Road including the centerlines of right-of-way, bearings and distances of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 8. Project shall dedicate public pedestrian access easements surrounding the project site. Ownership and maintenance shall remain with the development. 9. All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. 10. No raised structures shall be constructed in the public right -of-way. 11. Permanent stormwater treatment measures and maintenance agreements are required for each parcel. Agreements shall be recorded with the County prior to building permit sign-off. 10-3-2022 1 © 2022 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. September 22, 2022 Mr. Peter Banzhaf Helios Real Estate Partners 44 Montgomery St, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 RE: Flood Insurance for 1669 & 1699 Old Bayshore Highway & 810 Malcom Road, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Banzhaf: Please let this letter confirm the elevation of the above referenced project relative to the flood plain does not preclude the project from securing flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”). Risk characteristics, such as location, proximity to the flood zone, construction type, occupancy, and elevation of the building relative to the flood plain are all risk factors considered for the underwriting and premium rating of an NFIP Policy, but those factors do not prevent a project from obtaining a quote. Even if adverse, the aforementioned characteristics, amongst others, influence the premium rated for the risk; they do not prevent the program from issuing a quote on a risk. Regards, Area Executive Vice President Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. 2 Bryant Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 www.perkinswill.com Martin Quan Senior Civil Engineer Burlingame Public Works 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: FEMA Flood Response and Certification Dear Mr. Quan, Perkins & Will has been retained by King Street Properties and Helios Real Estate Partners to be the Architect or Record for the project located at 1669 Bayshore Highway, 1699 Bayshore Highway, 810 Malcolm Road, and 821 Malcolm Road. As an international design firm, part of our scope of services is to design the project to be protected from flood hazards. In order to meet FEMA standards, we referenced the FEMA FIRM maps and determined that the base flood elevation is 10 feet above the NVAD 88. In addition, we reviewed the Sea Level Rise Overlay Area within the Burlingame Zoning Resolution and confirmed it to be 3’ above the base flood elevation for full protection of interior occupied space. We contacted FEMA directly on September of 7th, 2022. A FEMA representative in that discussion confirmed that FEMA would not issue a letter or other documentation for a specific project. The certification for compliance with the FEMA standard is the responsibility of the Architect of Record. As such, we are unable to provide a written confirmation from FEMA directly. However, in our many years of designing projects near water bodies, we are accustomed to the FEMA certification process and have incorporated the standards and strategies into this project. Our strategy for meeting the FEMA standards is to raise the finished floor elevation to +13 NVAD 88 as much as possible while maintaining appropriate street relationship and meeting regulations such as fire and ADA codes as well as not creating a negative impact on the adjacent neighbor properties. We understand the best compliance method for any future storms or sea rise is to raise the entire finished floor elevation to +13 NVAD 88 above sea level but we must emphasize that raising the entirety of the interior to this level cannot be achieved while accommodating other agency regulations, building codes, the existing street elevations, and existing neighbor’s property elevations. As such, we are deliberately setting the finished floor of our building’s lobbies at +7 NVAD 88 for the building lobbies. This elevation accommodates requested fire access lanes, ADA accessibility, fire command centers, and PG&E equipment as required by those separate authorities. We also are mindful of accommodating existing grades set by neighboring properties of 810 Stanton Road, 1755 Bayshore Highway, and 820 Malcolm Road that are unable to meet the +13 NVAD 88 elevation without the complete redevelopment of their building and their site plan. As such, we have located our loading docks and rear yard access driveways to +6 NVAD 88 because any additional elevation change would create a dramatically negative impact on their property due to stormwater sheet flow and the limitation of vehicle access. Our floodproof strategy meets +13 NVAD 88 for all areas of the building other than the lobbies, the loading docks, and one egress hallway in the Southern Building. All areas that do Date: 9.27.2022 2 Date: 9.27.2022 Re: FEMA Flood Response and Certification not meet the +13 NVAD 88 meet the criteria set forth by FEMA for either dry or wet floodproofing standards and have been confirmed to be acceptable to procure NFIP insurance per project insurance providers. The building lobbies are set at +7 NVAD 88, which is 3’ below the base elevation of +10 NVAD 88 and is shown as a permitted methodology per NFIP Technical Bulletin 3 “Requirements for the Design and Certification of Dry Floodproofed Non-Residential and Mixed-Use Building”, dated January 2021. We are also including a removable impermeable panel system, known within the FEMA guidelines as “Flood barrier systems”. Our basis of design system is the “HydroDefense Flood Plank”. This system has tested in accordance with ANSI 2510 and FM 2510 at a Braun Intertec facility1 as a custom engineered rapid response system that is installed in minutes. The tested wall was 12’-9” tall to a flood level of 3.5” from top of wall and passed the required seepage rates2. The one egress hallway below the +13 NVAD 88 is set at +6 NVAD 88 and includes a flood panel shown as a permitted methodology per FEMA Technical document P-936 “Flood Proofing Non-Residential Buildings”, dated January 2021. We are also including a removable impermeable panel system, known within the FEMA guidelines as “Flood barrier systems”. Our basis of design system for single door opening protection is the “Flood Risk America Flood Panel”. This system has tested in accordance with ANSI 2510 and FM 2510 in coordination with the Army Corp of Engineers as a custom engineered rapid response system that is installed in minutes. The building loading docks truck level are set at +6 NVAD 88, which is 4’ below the base elevation of +10 NVAD 88 and is shown as a permitted wet floodproofing methodology per FEMA Technical document P-936 “Flood Proofing Non-Residential Buildings”, dated January 2021. The upper loading platform of the dock is located at the typical +13 NVAD 88. Enclosures below elevated buildings must be used solely for parking of vehicles, building access, or storage3, which our truck level of the loading dock would qualify for all three categories. These spaces are built out entirely of concrete retaining walls, which is an approved material per Table 2 of technical bulletin 2. We will additionally be treating these walls with a resinous traffic coating to protect the concrete and provide additional water proofing. While not required due the wet floodproofing measures at the loading docks, we are also including a removable impermeable panel system, known within the FEMA guidelines as “Flood barrier systems”. We will be using the same basis of design system of the “HydroDefense Flood Plank” detailed above. We as the Architect of Record and responsible party for the compliance with the FEMA standard hereby certify that the strategies listed above and incorporated into the project plans meet the standard required by FEMA for compliance with floodproofing measures. Sincerely, William Harris Principal, Perkins&Will 1 See provided Braun Intertec report dated October 29, 2019. 2 Seepage rates found in NFIP Technical Bulletin 3, January 2021 – Section 3.3 and 6.8.3. 3 NFIP Technical Bulletin 7 – Section 5.1.1 UP UP UP FEC FEC FECFECUP +13 ADAADAVANUP UP +13 ADAADAVANUP 5 A20 - 02 3 A20 - 02 2 A20 - 02 6 A20 - 02 4 A20 - 02 2 A20 - 01 1 A20 - 02 TRASH AREA TRASH AREA BULK TANK STORAGE INTERRUPTER SWITCH BACKFLOW PREVENTOR INTERRUPTER SWITCH BACKFLOW PREVENTOR GENERATORGENERATOR BULK TANK STORAGE O L D B A Y S H O R E H W Y OLD BAYSHORE HWY STANTON RDMALCOLM RDABOVE GROUND ENCLOSURE ABOVE GROUND ENCLOSURE O L D B A Y S H O R E H W Y OLD BAYSHORE HWY STANTON RDMALCOLM RD7 PCS-1 1 A20 - 01 14' - 0"29' - 6"24' - 8"15' - 0" PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PROPERTY LINE PARKING GARAGE ACCESS 1" = 20'-0"1 OVERALL SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 5/2/2022 5:10:18 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA01 -00 SITE PLAN 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION 5/2/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699, 1701 Bayshore Highway 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com NORTH MARK ISSUE DATE 1 ISSUED FOR SCHEMATIC DESIGN 01.11.2022FCCREPRESENTATIVE FLOOD PROOFING STORM RESPONSE SYSTEMS BLUE: AREAS THAT ARE AT AN ELEVATION OF RISK IN HEAVY STORMS (10 YEAR) YELLOW: WATER RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION TO LIMIT DAMAGE OF AREAS AT RISK PINK: FLOOD PROTECTION MEASURES FOR AREAS AT RISK GREEN: AREAS THAT MEET THE NEWEST 12/2021 ZONING PROPOSAL. FEMA FLOOD +3 (+13' MINIMUM) ELEVATORS STOP AT 2ND FLOOR FOR FLOOD PROGRAMING +13'-0" +6'-0" +13'-0" +6'-0" UP 5' - 7" ELEVATORS STOP AT 2ND FLOOR FOR FLOOD PROGRAMING BUILDING SERVICES LOCATED ON UPPER LEVEL +13'-0" +6'-0" +13'-0" +6'-0" POTENTIAL SUMP PIT LOCATION FOR FAIL-SAFE PROTECTION. POTENTIAL SUMP PIT LOCATION FOR FAIL-SAFE PROTECTION. PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE PROPERTY LINE PARKING GARAGE ACCESS Post Flush Mount Receiver ChannelInstallation methodFlood Plank wallCoastal protection LOADING DOCK STAIR BTENANT MEP YARD LOBBY FCCLOBBYLOADING DOCK STAIR B LEGENDNOTESUPUPFECFECUPFECDNMALCOLM ROAD SOUTH BLDGPRKG GARAGE BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD FF 13.00FF 13.00FF 5.33FF 6.00FF 6.004670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and Will90% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 9/06/2022 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC6.1GRADING PLAN (SOUTH)MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET C6.0Eliminated SpacesReconfiguredSpacesApproximateEasement Location Martin Quan Senior Civil Engineer Public Works City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 September 23, 2022 RE: 1699 Bayshore Highway FEMA Compliance Dear Mr. Quan, King Street Properties and Helios Real Estate Partner have engaged Custom House Risk Advisors to assist them in their project at 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road in Burlingame, California. We have reviewed the project plans and the FEMA criteria for NFIP insurance and can confirm that the project as designed, and the Perkins and Will certification of the flood protection measures provided with the project meets the FEMA criteria needed to obtain NFIP insurance. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any additional questions, Thank you, Matthew K. Daly New England Construction Practice Leader HUB International Limited Thank you, Matthew K.Daly October 13, 2022 Kevin Gardiner Community Development Director City of Burlingame Erika Lewit Senior Planner City of Burlingame Sent via Email RE: Biosafety Level Discussion for 1699 Bayshore Highway To the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, My name is Rene Ricks, and I am an biosafety consultant based here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have over 30 years management experience in Environmental, Health & Safety (EH&S) program development and implementation for biotechnology companies (both research laboratories and biologics manufacturing), clinical laboratories, and academic laboratories. Biosafety is a specialty area of EH&S − and of mine, due to an initial career as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist in hospital medical microbiology labs. I obtained professional certifications in both industrial hygiene (American Board of Industrial Hygiene Certified Industrial Hygienist) and biosafety (American Biosafety Association Registered Biosafety Professional). I have served as the Biosafety Officer at multiple institutions/companies including Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL; 2001); Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute (CHORI prior to UCSF acquisition; 2013-2015); and currently at many Bay Area biotechnology and clinical lab clients. I’ve also been involved in over 100 tenant improvement build-out projects − most with Biosafety Levels 1 & 2, but also a few with Biosafety Level-3. I am writing to provide professional input regarding the proposed research and development project at 1699 Bayshore Highway. The project is a speculative development, i.e., there is no user or tenant identified. However, I understand that the property may include laboratories. Laboratories working with biological materials in California are regulated at the Local, State and Federal levels to ensure safety for laboratory staff, occupants of the building, the environment, and the local community. The company or institution is required to: (1) have written safety plans to address control measures and emergency response; (2) provide training; and, (3) obtain any necessary regulatory permits. Also, many life science companies or institutions have an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) with two members representing the local community because this is a requirement of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a condition of receiving any federal funding. Internal program audits as well as inspections from regulatory authorities take place to ensure compliance. Biosafety Level Discussion for 1699 Bayshore Highway October 13, 2022 Page 2 Biosafety Levels prescribe laboratory practices and procedures, safety equipment (primary barriers), facilities (secondary barriers) and personal protective equipment required when working with biological agents such as bacteria and viruses or materials such as human blood that may contain such agents. The appropriate biosafety level is selected after performing a risk assessment of the proposed research, with the goal to provide protection to the laboratory worker, occupants of building, the environment and local community. BSL-1 laboratories work with biological agents that are not associated with disease in healthy adult humans. These agents represent zero to little risk for the laboratory worker or the community. An example of an agent that can be safely handled at BSL-1 is Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Brewer’s yeast), which is commonly found in the baking of bread and many other food processes. BSL-2 laboratories work with biological agents or clinical materials associated with the potential for human disease, which is rarely serious and for which preventive or therapeutic interventions are often available. These agents may represent a moderate risk to a laboratory worker but an insignificant risk to the community due to the required and regulated safety barriers. Salmonella bacteria, which can cause food poisoning, is an example of an agent that can be handled safely in a BSL-2 laboratory. When an agent is infectious through an inhalation route, it is stored and manipulated in a BSL-3 laboratory, which has extensive controls including filtered exhaust air. These agents are typically stored in small vials, and overall, in small volumes. In addition, each biosafety level has specific criteria for the design and engineering of the laboratory to contain the biological materials. These additional barriers and controls are in addition to any local and state building codes. In clinical and biotech labs, BSL-3 laboratories generally make up only a tiny portion of the overall lab space due to the stringent and costly buildout requirements involved. There are no biosafety regulations or guidance documents that specifies that BSL-1, BSL-2, or BSL-3 laboratory buildings should be separated by a minimum distance from a residential building or other sensitive receptor as defined by CEQA. For example, the CDC-NIH publication Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (6th edition) or “BMBL”, a federal guidance document describing biosafety level requirements, does not state the need for any separation between laboratory and residential buildings. Importantly, the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant and Synthetic Nucleic Acid Molecules, which is a federal guidance document that must be complied with if the research entity receives federal funding, do not specify any separation distances, nor does the State of California Aerosol Transmissible Disease (ATD) Standard. And this is borne out by where hospitals are built, often in or near residential areas, as hospitals are minimally BSL-2 and often BSL-3 when there are patient isolation rooms. Biosafety Level Discussion for 1699 Bayshore Highway October 13, 2022 Page 3 There are countless examples throughout the United States of life science laboratories, health care buildings, and academic institutions having laboratories at BSL-1 and BSL-2 (with a few at BSL- 3) located near hotels, apartments, condominiums, single-family homes, and other businesses. This is the case throughout California, too, especially in the three biotech and pharmaceutical hubs of the Bay Area, San Diego, and Los Angeles. For example, Stanford University, all University of California sites, the two national labs (Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore), and now Gilead Sciences in Foster City all have at least one BSL-3 laboratory in addition to the standard BSL-1 and BSL-2 laboratories − and almost all are in buildings next door to restaurants/cafes, residential areas, etc. The city of Burlingame, with 30 biotech firms within its city limits, is no different and has become a new “mini biotech hub” of sorts taking its place alongside South San Francisco and San Francisco. But what is important to note is that, over many decades with all of these labs co-located in the community as they are, there has never been an laboratory biohazardous material incident that adversely impacted the local environment or the local community. In summary, the proposed project and the potential uses of BSL-1, BSL-2, and BSL-3 laboratories at 1699 Bayshore Highway, if designed, built, and utilized in accordance with established regulatory requirements and best practices for biosafety, pose no harm to the occupants or the community. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to contact me at Sincerely, Rene Ricks, MPH, EH&S Consultant 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 410, Burlingame, CA 94010 ● 650.348.7600 ● thesanfranciscopeninsula.com October 18, 2022 Dear Burlingame Planning Commissioners: As the region’s convention and visitors bureau, we enthusiastically support the proposed development project located at 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road. We have had the opportunity to meet with the King Street Properties and Helios Real Estate Partners team on multiple occasions and have received presentations on the project as well as subsequent updates. The Bayshore neighborhood needs more diversity of commercial uses and new companies to locate there. This project would replace existing vacant buildings, bringing density, foot traffic and new customers to Burlingame. New buildings such as the proposed project will provide positive impacts to the surrounding community, hotels, and local businesses in our view. And they will bring significant additional revenue to the City. We also believe that the community benefits being proposed present a generous offering to the City, and we are excited to have more community gathering places and amenities available to the public. The San Francisco Peninsula and members of our organization, which represent local hotels in Burlingame, strongly support the project. We are very excited to see this project approved and move forward as quickly as possible. Sincerely, President & CEO October 19, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Union Support Letter for Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction 1699 Bayshore Highway Project Burlingame, CA To Whom it May Concern: It is my pleasure to write this letter of recommendation for Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction. I have personally worked closely with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction for more than 26 years on various building projects throughout Northern California, including in San Mateo County. This 100-year-old contractor is highly skilled, and in my opinion, one of the best – the quality of their work and professionalism is outstanding. I would highly recommend them to any owner looking to hire a top-level general contractor with whom to partner. They have been a great construction partner over the years for the following reasons: • Commitment to Workforce Development. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction is truly committed to the employment of a skilled workforce on all its construction projects. One way this is exemplified is through their long- standing relationships with Northern California Construction Trade Unions, local subcontractors, and community partners. They go above and beyond to create employment opportunities within communities and hiring local, skilled labor. • Investment in Mentorship and Continuing Education of Construction Workers. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction implements numerous strategies to ensure the success of the craft workforce and resident new hires and apprentices, including a new employee training program, mentorship training programs, career pathway training, and sponsorship funds. • Dedication to Safe Jobsite Practices. Having worked with Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction on numerous projects, you can trust that they will work at the highest level of safety. They continuously take a proactive approach to ensure that personnel and subcontractor partners are up to date with the most recent training and safety certifications, and look for every opportunity to provide on-the- job training to teams. I highly recommend Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction to any client as a trusted and professional general contractor. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction approaches projects with a deep commitment to project success, including providing local residents with meaningful work opportunities. We look forward to the opportunity to work with them in the future. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any additional insight. Oscar De La Torre Business Manager 1 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS AND FOR INCREASED FLOOR AREA RATIO WITH APPROVAL OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS UNDER TIER 3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A NEW RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS AT 1669/1699 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND 810/821 MALCOLM ROAD WHEREAS, on September 29, 2021, King Bayshore Owner, LLC filed an application with the City of Burlingame Community Development Department – Planning Division requesting approval of the following requests:  Commercial Design Review (Code Sections 25.12.090 and 25.68.020(C)(3));  Special Permit for building height greater than 65 feet for properties fronting on Old Bayshore Highway (90’-6”, 120’-6”, and 135’-6” proposed) (Code Sections 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2 and 25.78.060(A)(2));  Special Permit for Community Benefits for increased Floor Area Ratio for a Tier 3 project (2.41 FAR proposed for entire campus (2.71 FAR for north parcel and 2.23 FAR for the south parcel), where 2.75 FAR is the maximum allowed) (Code Sections 25.12.030, Table 25.12-2, 25.12.040(C), and 25.78.070(A)); and  Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (Parcel A, Parcel Map Vol 3/17; Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 2 and adjacent portion of Old Bayshore Highway and City of Burlingame; and Lots 33 and 34, Block 4, East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 2). WHEREAS, on January 24, 2022 and August 22, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted duly noticed public hearings (environmental scoping and design review study) to review a new Office/Research and Development campus consisting of a seven-story building, an eight-story building, and a nine-level parking garage. At that time the Planning Commission requested additional information and asked the applicant to consider making changes to the project to address their concerns; and Following consideration of all information contained in the October 24, 2022 staff report to the Planning Commission regarding the project, all written correspondence, and all public comments received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission grants approval of the Office/Research and Development project based on the following findings regarding the project entitlements: Design Review Findings:  That the proposed buildings and parking garage have a contemporary commercial architectural style, featuring vision glass spandrel with shadowbox, metal panel reveals, precast concrete spandrel and infill panels, ribbon window walls, horizontal metal sun shades, and perforated metal mechanical penthouse screens with a non- reflective finish will blend with the existing office buildings in the area and will also be compatible with the newer buildings in the surrounding area, such as those on Anza Boulevard; and that the parking structure will be enhanced with art installations to incorporate that structure with the rest of the campus;  That the proposed new streetscape improvements and the coordinating plazas on either side of Malcom Road promote pedestrian activity and create a new open space that can be accessed and connected with the Bay Trail; 2  That the site is adjacent to four to ten story buildings and therefore would be compatible with the mass and bulk of buildings in the area and is consistent with the overall heights established in the General Plan and the Zoning Code; and  That the proposed landscaping and paving on the site, including the tiered seating used to integrate the grade change from Old Bayshore Highway to Malcolm Road, the raised and paved walkway between the plazas, the art installations in the plazas, and the proposed 106 new trees to be planted on site and in the right-of-way along the three frontages will promote the use of the new outdoor spaces and enhance pedestrian use on this site and in connection with the Bay Trail located across the street. Special Permit Findings (Increased Floor Area Ratio with Approval of Community Benefits):  That the proposed floor area ratio for the campus is appropriate sited with frontage on Old Bayshore Highway because the increased density will integrate with the development encouraged in the adjacent BFC zoning district and create a reinvigorated commercial district;  That the proposed floor area ratio for the campus is concentrated at the center of the sites and that there are adequate setbacks to neighboring properties to provide a buffer and ensure public health, safety, and general welfare; and  That the proposed floor area ratio for the campus aligns with the goals and policies of the Burlingame General Plan, as amended in 2021. Special Permit Findings (Building Heights):  That the proposed modification to standard heights for the buildings on the campus is consistent with an existing building across the street and promote the intent of the Zoning Code to promote more density for select uses along the Old Bayshore Highway corridor; and  That the proposed heights of the building on the campus are consistent with the goals and policies of the Burlingame General Plan. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on October 24, 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: Section 1. On the basis of 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 15332, In-Fill Development Projects, is hereby approved. Section 2. Said Commercial Design Review and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Commercial Design Review and Special Permits are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. Section 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 3 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 24th day of October, 2022, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Effective November 3, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 20, 2022, sheets G00-10 through G20-02, A01-00 through A20-03, L01-01 through L08-01, A0.3 through A6.1, and C0.0 through C9.0; and that if the proposed Research and Development use is revised to a more intense use the project may be subject to an Amendment application or additional review by the Planning Division and/or the Planning Commission; 2. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, or 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 the conditions of the Building Division’s October 12, 2022 memo, the Fire Division’s October 13, 20222 memo, the Engineering Division’s October 14, 2022 memo, the Public Works- Mapping October 19, 2022 memo, and the Stormwater Division’s October 13, 2022 memo shall be met; that the conditions put forth in the September 27, 2022 letter from Perkins & Will to the City of Burlingame’s Senior Civil Engineer shall be addressed; and that the flood gate system specified on Sheet A01-01 or a similar system shall be installed prior to final inspection for the project; 5. that the project design measures outlined in the Water Supply Assessment, dated September 2022, and the Water Supply Assessment Memorandum, dated October 13, 2022, shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division; including installing purple piping in the frontage of the project site for future recycled water usage; implementing the Prescriptive Compliance Option of the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (see California Code of Regulations Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Appendix D); installing 100% WaterSense labeled products, as available; and Under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, incorporate a minimum of four points under the Water Efficiency credit category; 6. that the applicant shall submit to the Department of Public Works, Engineering Division any additional applications for a final parcel map for processing in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act; 7. that the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division either a recorded Parcel Map showing a parking easement between the two parcels or the applicant shall submit a San Mateo County Assessor and Recorder’s Office deed restriction for shared parking between the two parcels; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Effective November 3, 2022 Page 2 8. that in compliance with the approved Special Permit and as a Community Benefit, the project shall include a $100,000.00 allowance to be dedicated to Bay Trail improvements; that the City Manager shall be authorized to execute an agreement with the applicant and to collect the funds prior to the Planning final inspection for the project; 9. that construction of the foundation systems for the building and parking garage shall not include pile driving; 10. that if the City determines that the structure interferes with City communications in the City, the property owner shall permit public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for City communications to be located on the structure in a location to be agreed upon by the City and the property owner. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the City to gain access to the equipment location for purposes of installation, maintenance, adjustment, and repair upon reasonable notice to the property owner or owner’s successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition; 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the Bayfront Development Fee, if applicable (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 12. that prior to approval of final framing of the building, the applicant shall pay the second half of the Bayfront Development Fee, if applicable (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 13. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the affordable housing commercial linkage fee (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 14. that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the Public Facilities Impact Fee (final fee amount to be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued), made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Division; 15. that the project shall include the Project Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures as proposed in the TDM Plan, prepared by Kittelson & Associates and dated August 3, 2022; 16. that a TDM annual report shall be prepared by a qualified, independent consultant and paid for by the owner and submitted to the City of Burlingame annually; with the initial, or baseline, commute survey report to be conducted and submitted one (1) year after the granting of a certificate of occupancy for 75 percent or more of the project and annually after that; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Effective November 3, 2022 Page 3 17. that the TDM annual report shall provide information about the level of alternative mode-uses and in the event mode shift percentage noted in the TDM (i.e., proportion of occupants that use something other than a car to/from the subject property) towards alternative transportation is not met, the report shall explain how and why the goal has not been reached; in such a circumstance the annual report shall identify a work plan, to be approved by the City of Burlingame, which describes additional or alternative measures for implementation that would be necessary to enhance the TDM program to attain the TDM goal; 18. that the City may consider whether the employer/tenant has made a good faith effort to meet the TDM goals and may allow the owner a six-month “grace period” to implement additional TDM measures to achieve the TDM goal; 19. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a covenant agreement shall be recorded with the San Mateo County Assessor and Recorder’s Office to provide constructive notice to all future owners of the property of any ongoing programmatic requirements that discloses the required Transportation Demand Management (TDM) provisions and any conditions of approval related herein to compliance and reporting for the TDM; 20. prior to issuance of a building permit for vertical construction, the project sponsor shall verify that October 15, 2022, FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for the project is still current and has not expired (October 15, 2023) and if expired a new FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation shall be submitted to the City of Burlingame prior to building permit issuance for construction; 21. that a Protected Tree Removal Permit dated August 18, 2022 shall be effective at the time the designated protected trees on the project site are removed or the applicant shall be required to obtain a permit extension from the City Arborist; 22. 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; 23. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a sitework 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; 24. that during construction, the applicant shall provide fencing (with a fabric screen or mesh) around the project site to ensure that all construction equipment, materials and debris is kept on site; 25. that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of- way shall be prohibited; 26. that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Effective November 3, 2022 Page 4 27. that the applicant shall prepare a construction staging and traffic control plan for the duration of construction for review and acceptance by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for vertical construction; the construction staging plan shall include construction equipment parking, construction employee parking, timing and duration of various phases of construction and construction operations hours; the staging plan shall address public safety and shall ensure that worker's vehicles and construction equipment shall not be parked in public parking areas with exceptions for construction parking along the street frontages of the project site; 28. that the project applicant and its construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the City of Burlingame. The plan must include at least the following items and requirements to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic and parking congestion during construction: a. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes; b. Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area; c. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur; d. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant; and e. Designation of a readily available contact person for construction activities who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding traffic or parking. This coordinator would determine the cause of the complaint and, where necessary, would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem. 29. that if construction is done during the wet season (October 1 through April 30), that prior to construction during the wet season the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting, maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding, mulching matting, or tarping; rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 30. that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 31. that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application for vertical construction; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Commercial Design Review, and Special Permits 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Effective November 3, 2022 Page 5 32. that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 33. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 34. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 35. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The following five (5) conditions shall be met during the Building Inspection process prior to the inspections noted in each condition: 36. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, and set the building envelope; 37. that prior to the underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure; 38. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Division; 39. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof parapet and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; 40. 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. 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road 500’ noticing APNs : 026-302-530, 026-302-550, 026-302-400 & 026-301-180 CEQA CLASS 32 INFILL EXEMPTION 1669/1699 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND 810/821 MALCOL M ROAD PROJECT VOLUME 1 P R E P A R E D F OR : City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact: Erika Lewit, Senior Planner (650) 558-7254 P R E P A R E D BY : ICF 201 Mission Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94105 Contact: Devan Atteberry (415) 677-7113 October 2022 ICF. 2022. CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project. October. (ICF 104572.0.001.) San Francisco, CA. Prepared for City of Burlingame, Burlingame, CA. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption i October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Contents Tables..................................................................................................................................................... iii Figures ................................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................. v Chapter 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Information .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.2.2 Land Use and Zoning ........................................................................................................ 1-7 1.3 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1-8 1.3.1 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................... 1-8 1.3.2 Transportation Demand Management .......................................................................... 1-27 1.3.3 Building Design and Lighting .......................................................................................... 1-28 1.3.4 Landscaping and Open Space ........................................................................................ 1-28 1.4 Remediation ................................................................................................................... 1-29 1.5 Construction Schedule and Phasing............................................................................... 1-30 1.5.1 Construction Equipment and Staging ............................................................................ 1-31 Chapter 2 CEQA Exemption ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Class 32 (Infill Development) ........................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Exemptions ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 Chapter 3 CEQA Exemption Checklist ............................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency ................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context ..................................... 3-3 3.1.3 Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species .......................... 3-3 3.1.4 Criterion Section 15332(d): Transportation ..................................................................... 3-5 3.1.5 Criterion Section 15332(d): Noise .................................................................................... 3-9 3.1.6 Criterion Section 15332(d): Air Quality .......................................................................... 3-21 3.1.7 Criterion Section 15332(d): Water Quality .................................................................... 3-31 3.1.8 Criterion Section 15332(e): Utilities and Public Services ............................................... 3-33 Chapter 4 Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist ............................................................... 4-1 4.1 Criterion 15300.2(a): Location ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact ........................................................................ 4-1 4.3 Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effect ............................................................................ 4-3 4.4 Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highway .............................................................................. 4-3 City of Burlingame Contents . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption ii October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 4.5 Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites .................................................................. 4-3 4.6 Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources ....................................................................... 4-4 4.6.1 Built-Environment Resources .......................................................................................... 4-4 4.6.2 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................................ 4-6 4.6.3 Background Research ...................................................................................................... 4-6 4.6.4 Field Survey ...................................................................................................................... 4-7 4.6.5 Results .............................................................................................................................. 4-7 Chapter 5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendix A-1 Transportation Demand Management Plan Appendix A-2 Transportation Impact Analysis Appendix B Arborist Report Appendix C Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessments Appendix D Air Quality Assessment and Supporting Noise Information Appendix E-1 Water Supply Assessment Appendix E-2 Water Supply Assessment Supplemental Memorandum Appendix F Cultural Resources Study and Department of Parks and Recreation Forms City of Burlingame Contents . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption iii October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Tables Table 1. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.................................................... 3-11 Table 2. Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment ................................................... 3-16 Table 3. Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment ................................................... 3-17 Table 4. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.................................................... 3-19 Table 5. Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines ........................................... 3-20 Table 6. Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines ....................................................... 3-21 Table 7. Project Operational Emissions (pounds per day)........................................................... 3-22 Table 8. Average Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) ............................................................................................................ 3-24 Table 9. Existing and Cumulative Risk Exposure in the Local Zone of Influence ......................... 3-29 Table 10. Public Schools Serving the Project Area ........................................................................ 3-42 City of Burlingame Contents . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption iv October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Figures Figure 1. Project Location ............................................................................................................... 1-5 Figure 2. Site Plan – Level 1 (Ground Level) ................................................................................. 1-11 Figure 3. Site Plan – Levels 2-6 Floor Plan .................................................................................... 1-13 Figure 4. Site Plan – Level 7 Penthouse North Building ................................................................ 1-15 Figure 5. Site Plan – Level 8 Penthouse South Building ................................................................ 1-17 Figure 6. Site Plan – Penthouse Roof Plan .................................................................................... 1-19 Figure 7. Northeast and Southwest Building Sections and Elevations ......................................... 1-21 Figure 8. Building Sections and Elevations ................................................................................... 1-23 Figure 9. Building Rendering ......................................................................................................... 1-25 City of Burlingame Contents . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption v October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Acronyms and Abbreviations 2020 UWMP Urban Water Management Plan 2040 General Plan Envision Burlingame General Plan ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BART Bay Area Rapid Transit BDPA Bay-Delta Plan Amendment BMP best management practice BPD Burlingame Police Department BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes C/CAG City/County Association of Governments CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAPs criteria air pollutants CARB California Air Resources Board CCFD Central County Fire Department CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Burlingame CNEL community noise equivalent level CO carbon monoxide CRECs controlled recognized environmental conditions CRHR California Register of Historical Resources dB decibel dBA A-weighted decibel DPM diesel particulate matter DSS Model Decision Support System Model EIR environmental impact report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Environmental Site Assessment ESL environmental screening levels EV electric vehicle FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAR floor area ratio General Plan Draft EIR City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft Environmental Report GPD/sf gallons per day per square foot gsf gross-square-foot HRA Health Risk Assessment HVAC heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning I-I Innovation-Industrial ISG Individual Supply Guarantee LID low-impact development City of Burlingame Contents . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption vi October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 LOS level of service LUST leaking underground storage tank mgd million gallons per day MGY million gallons per year Municipal Code City of Burlingame Municipal Code NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWIC Northwest Information Center OCP organochlorine pesticide OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research PCE tetrachloroethene PM10 PM emissions diameters equal to or less than 10 microns PM2.5 PM emissions diameters equal to or less than 2.5 microns PPV peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code Project 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project R&D research and development REC recognized environmental conditions RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation SamTrans San Mateo County Transit District SB Senate Bill sf square-foot SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin SFO San Francisco International Airport SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TACs toxic air contaminants TAZ Transportation Analysis Zone T-BACT Toxic Best Available Control Technology TDM Transportation Demand Management TIA Transportation Impact Analysis TPH total petroleum hydrocarbons TPH-g total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline ug/m3 micrograms of gaseous pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air US 101 U.S. Highway 101 UST underground storage tank VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compounds WSA Water Supply Assessment WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan WWTP wastewater treatment plant 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-1 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Chapter 1 Project Description 1.1 Project Information Project Title 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project Lead Agency/Sponsor’s Name and Address City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Person and Phone Number Erika Lewit, Senior Planner Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7254 Project Location 1669 Old Bayshore Highway 1699 Old Bayshore Highway 810 Malcolm Road 821 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 026-302-530, 026-302-550, 026-301-180, 026-302-400 (see Figure 1) Project Sponsor’s Name and Address Helios Real Estate Partners Attn: Peter Banzhaf 44 Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 General Plan Designation Innovation-Industrial (I-I) Zoning Innovation-Industrial (I-I) City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-2 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Requested Approvals Design review for construction of an approximately 475,790 square-foot (sf) office and research and development (R&D) campus, with a nine-level parking structure (City of Burlingame Municipal Code [Municipal Code] Section 25.12, Commercial and Industrial Zoning Districts [C-1, BFC, I-I]). • Special Permit for building height1 • Tree removal permit • Special Permit for Approval of community benefit bonuses for Tier 3 projects2 • Vesting Tentative Parcel Map • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Determination of No Hazard 1.2 Introduction The 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project (Project) involves four parcels (APNs 026-302-530, 026-302-550, 026-301-180, and 026-302-400) that cover approximately 4.54 acres in the northern portion of the City of Burlingame (City) (Figure 1). The parcels currently include three single-story commercial buildings at 821 Malcolm Road (constructed in 1963), 1699 Old Bayshore Highway (constructed in 1954), and 1669 Old Bayshore Highway (constructed in 1960) and a two-story commercial building with one basement level at 810 Malcolm Road (constructed in 1965). All four of the existing buildings are currently vacant. The site outside of the existing building footprints is paved with asphalt and concrete, is used for parking and deliveries, and contains limited landscaping. On Project implementation, a new approximately 475,790 sf office and R&D campus with a nine- level parking structure would be developed. The Project would include north and south parcels that would be bisected by Malcolm Road. The north parcel would include a new seven-story, approximately 193,380 gross-square-foot (gsf) building for office and R&D uses with a 4,500-gsf rooftop terrace and a separate nine -level parking structure. In total, the Project would include approximately 150,374 gsf of office uses, 225,560 gsf of R&D uses, and 6,390 gsf of restaurant amenity uses; 19,519 sf of open space, including common and private open space areas; 9 47 vehicle parking spaces, including 38 surface parking spaces and 11 street parking spaces; and 68 bicycle parking spaces, including 16 public bicycle parking spaces located in the plazas . 1.2.1 Existing Setting The Project site is comprised of four parcels within the northern portion of Burlingame near the San Francisco Bay and located at 1669 Old Bayshore Highway, 1699 Old Bayshore Highway, 810 Malcolm Road, and 821 Malcolm Road. All existing buildings located on the four parcels are currently vacant. A post office is located adjacent to the western portion of the Project site along Stanton Road. East of the Project site across Old Bayshore Highway are two hotels: the San Francisco 1 Within the I-I zoning district, a Special Permit is required for proposed buildings greater than 65 feet in height (Municipal Code Section 25.78.060(A)(2)). 2 The Planning Commission may approve a Special Permit for Tier 3 projects if it determines that a project includes at least three community benefits (Municipal Code Section 25.12.040). City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-3 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 International Airport (SFO) Marriott Waterfront and the Vagabond Inn Executive – SFO Bayfront. The Hampton Inn & Suites is located adjacent the north portion of the Project site. Commercial and retail buildings are located south and west of the Project site.3 Within the vicinity of the Project site are commercial, office, industrial, and hotel uses; institutional uses (Peninsula High School is approximately 0.15 mile from the Project site, and The Learning Studios is approximately 0.05 mile from the Project site); transportation uses (San Francisco International Airport is approximately 0.50 mile from the Project site, and U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) is approximately 0.20 mile from the Project site); and recreational uses (San Francisco Bay Trail and Bayfront Park are approximately 0.10 mile from the Project site). 3 For the purpose of describing the Project site, Malcolm Road is assumed to run in an east–west direction and Old Bayshore Highway in a north–south direction. City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-4 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank. 101 101 82 82 3,0001,000 Feet0 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 Mile 2,000 4,000 Base Map: US Topo 7.5' series quadrangles San Mateo, CA and Montara Mountain, CA (2015).MAHLER RDHINCKLEY RDGI L B R E T H R D BURLWAY RD AIRPORT BLVD MILLBRAE AVE OLD BAYSHORE H W Y San Francisco International Airport San Francisco Bay AnzaLagoon Lorem ipsum Project Location SANTA CLARA COUNTY ALAMEDA COUNTY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY SOLANO COUNTY NAPA COUNTYSONOMA COUNTY MARIN COUNTY SANTA CRUZ COUNTY SAN MATEO COUNTY 4 24 84 87 171 12 113 580 80 280 680 880 101 101 101 Oakland SanFrancisco San Jose Pleasanton Livermore Fremont Santa Clara Mountain View Menlo Park Hayward Walnut CreekBerkeley Richmond Concord San Rafael San Mateo Project Location Redwood City Novato Vallejo FaireldSanta Rosa Napa Figure 1 Project Location 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road ProjectGraphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-6 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank. City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-7 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 In addition, the Project site is approximately 0.80 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which provides Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and additional transit and shuttle services.4 Furthermore, there is one SamTrans southbound bus stop south of Stanton Road, and one SamTrans northbound bus stop north of Stanton Road, as well as an additional bus stops on northbound and southbound on Old Bayshore Highway at Mitten Road, which serves both SamTrans and the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle Bus. In addition, there are two bus stops located southeast of the project site, 1600 Bayshore Highway and 1601 Bayshore/Hinckley, that serve the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle Bus. Figure 1 depicts the location of the Project site. 1.2.2 Land Use and Zoning On January 7, 2019, the City adopted its Draft Envision Burlingame General Plan (2040 General Plan), which updated the previous general plan, including the vision, goals, policies, and land use designations, to provide direction as to the City’s growth through 2040. The Project site is within the I-I land use designation. According to the 2040 General Plan, the I-I land use designation encourages the creation of light industrial and logistics centers with complementary commercial businesses. Some of the permitted uses for the I-I land use designation include commercial, light industrial, creative industry businesses, design businesses, limited indoor sports and recreation, and wholesale uses.5 The Municipal Code was updated to include the new I-I zoning designation, which implements the 2040 General Plan I-I designation (Municipal Code Section 25.12). The Project site is within the I-I zoning designation. The I-I zone accommodates and encourages diverse and compatible light industrial, office, R&D, and creative business enterprise uses to enrich the lives of residents, employees, and visitors and to increase employment opportunities, while providing opportunities for a variety of commercial and industrial business types that contribute to the stability of the City’s economy. Development projects fall into one of three categories, or tiers, ranging from Base Standard Intensity (Tier 1) to Maximum Intensity (Tier 3). The Project is proposed as a Tier 3 project. Tier 3 projects within this zone and with frontage along Old Bayshore Highway may reach a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.75 and may exceed a maximum height of 65 feet with approval of a Special Permit.6 Such projects must fulfill specific development standard thresholds, as well as meeting Special Permit findings for community benefit objectives for development under Tier 3. Within this area, developments must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the curb along the front (Old Bayshore 4 Caltrain. 2022. Millbrae Transit Center. Available: http://www.caltrain.com/stations/millbraetransitcenter.html. Accessed: August 1, 2022. 5 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. City Council Hearing Draft. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/general_plan_update.php. Accessed: August 1, 2022. 6 Per City of Burlingame Municipal Code 25.12.030, due to the zoning district’s proximity to the San Francisco International Airport, maximum building heights are also required to comply with Airspace Protection Policies AP- 1 through AP-4 of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP). This includes determining the need to file form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA for any proposed project that would exceed the FAA notification heights, as shown approximately on ALUCP Exhibit IV-10 and complying with FAA Aeronautical Study Findings. It also includes complying with the maximum compatible building height, which includes all parapets, elevator overruns, etc. of a building, as noted in ALUCP Policy AP-3 and depicted in Exhibits IV-17 and IV-18 of the ALUCP. City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-8 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Highway), as well as 10 feet on the sides and the rear. In addition, developments are subject to landscaping and lot coverage standards, which require at least 15 percent of the site to be covered in landscaping and a maximum lot coverage of 70 percent, respectively. 1.3 Project Description The Project would include construction of an approximately 475,790-gsf office and R&D campus with a nine-level parking structure on a 4.5-acre site. Specifically, the Project would include the following components. • North parcel with a seven-story, approximately 193,380-gsf office/R&D building and a surface parking lot. • South parcel with an eight-story, approximately 282,410-gsf office/R&D building and a nine- level parking structure. • 150,374 gsf of office space, 225,560 gsf of R&D space, and 6,390 gsf of restaurant amenity space. • 947 parking spaces, including 909 parking spaces within the proposed parking structure on the south parcel, 38 surface parking spaces on the north parcel, and 11 street parking spaces. In addition, of the 947 parking spaces, 19 parking spaces would be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)-accessible spaces, 72 parking spaces would be electric vehicle (EV)-ready day one, 75 parking spaces would be future EV ready, 7 parking spaces would be ADA EV ready, and 31 parking spaces would be clean air EV ready. • 52 long-term bicycle spaces in a secured bicycle storage room in the parking garage on the south parcel, as well as 16 short-term outdoor bicycle parking spaces that would be provided at convenient and well-lit locations around the buildings, for a total of 68 bicycle parking spaces. • Open-space areas, including common open space for the public and tenants and privately accessible open space for tenants, as well as public street frontage improvements. Figure 2 through Figure 9 show the proposed site plan, elevations, and renderings. 1.3.1 Site Plan All existing features associated with the Project site would be removed, and a new approximately 475,790-gsf office and R&D campus with associated parking would be constructed. The Project would comprise two parcels, the north and south parcels, which would be bisected by Malcolm Road. The north parcel would include a seven-story, approximately 193,380-gsf building with 38 surface parking spaces. The building would reach a height of 120 feet, 6 inches, and would include approximately 61,993 sf of office uses and approximately 92,714 sf of R&D uses. The anticipated number of employees in the north parcel during operation is 450. In addition, the ground floor of the building would include a lobby and conference room, which would be accessible to the public and tenants of the building. The south parcel would include an eight-story, approximately 282,410-gsf building and a nine-level parking structure. The building would reach a height of approximately 135 feet, 6 inches and would include approximately 88,381 sf of office uses, 132,846 sf of R&D uses, and 6,390 sf of restaurant use. The anticipated number of employees in the south parcel during operation is 1,000. Similar to the proposed building on the north parcel, the ground floor of the building on the south parcel City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-9 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 would include a lobby and conference room, in addition to the café, which would be accessible to the public. The parking structure would be approximately 291,944 sf and would contain 909 parking spaces for use by both of the proposed buildings. City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-10 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Source: Perkins & Will, 2022.Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JCFigure 2 Site Plan — Level 1 (Ground Level) 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project Legend AMENITY AMENITY - PUBLIC TENANT CIRCULATION CORE SUPPORT NORTH City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-12 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                                                                                            Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 3 Site Plan — Levels 2-6 Floor Plan 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project Legend TENANT CIRCULATION CORE NORTH Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-14 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                                                                                                           Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 4 Site Plan — Level 7 Penthouse North Building 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project Legend TENANT CIRCULATION CORE SUPPORT ROOF TERRACE PLANTED AREA NORTH Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-16 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                                                                                Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 5 Site Plan — Level 9 Penthouse South Building 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project Legend TENANT CORE SUPPORT ROOF TERRACE PLANTED AREA NORTH Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-18 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                                                                                     Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 6 Site Plan — Penthouse Roof Plan 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project NORTH Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-20 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                              Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 7 Northeast and Southwest Building Sections and Elevations 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project 1 NORTHEAST ELEVATION 2 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION NORTH Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-22 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 8 Building Sections and Elevations 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project 1 WEST ELEVATION - GARAGE BUILDING 2 SOUTH ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING 4 EAST ELEVATION - GARAGE BUILDING 5 NORTH ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING 3 SOUTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING AND GARAGE6 NORTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING AND GARAGE NORTH Graphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-24 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank. Source: Perkins & Will, 2022. Figure 9 Building Rendering 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road ProjectGraphics … 104572 (10-13-2022) JC City of Burlingame Project Description . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-26 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank. City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-27 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 The Project would include approximately 19,519 sf of open space, including common open space that would be available to the tenants of the proposed buildings and the public and would consist of a terrace and two outdoor plazas. The proposed open space also includes two rooftop terraces, one on each building and totaling 8,500 sf, that would only be accessible to building tenants. There would be additional landscaped areas not to be used as gathering spaces that are proposed for the Project, including landscape buffers along Malcolm Road and Old Bayshore Highway. In addition, the Project would incorporate vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation improvements. Stanton Road would provide primary access to the Project site, with secondary access provided via Malcolm Road. The Project would incorporate special paving materials and elevate a portion of Malcolm Road between the two proposed buildings to sidewalk level to create a pedestrian-oriented environment and discourage vehicular traffic through this area. In addition, new sidewalks would be constructed along the building frontages. Furthermore, a new crosswalk across Old Bayshore Highway would be incorporated as part of the Project to provide access to the nearby San Francisco Bay Trail. Based on the proposed office and R&D uses, the Project applicant would be required to provide a minimum of 300 parking spaces for the north parcel and 460 parking spaces for the south parcel, for a total of 760 parking spaces on site. However, in accordance with the Project site’s zoning designation, and per Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.40.040(A)(3), Parking Reductions, a 20 percent reduction in parking may be applied to the Project because it is required to submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Therefore, under these requirements, the Project would be required to provide a total of 582 parking spaces on site (i.e., 240 parking spaces on the north parcel and 342 parking spaces on the south parcel). The Project would provide 947 total parking spaces on site, including 38 surface parking spaces, with 10 of these spaces designated for public parking, 909 parking spaces within the parking structure, and 11 street parking spaces, to fulfill the City’s parking requirements. The Project would also include 52 bicycle parking spaces for tenant use in a secured bicycle room in the parking structure on the south parcel, as well as 16 on- site bicycle parking spaces for public use in the plazas, for a total of 68 bicycle parking spaces. Utilities for the Project, including electricity, natural gas, and water, would connect to existing utility infrastructure. The Project site would treat the stormwater on site in accordance with low-impact development treatment measures and mechanical treatment, per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program; treated stormwater would drain through existing storm drain systems and ultimately reach the main storm drains on Malcolm Road, Stanton Road, and Old Bayshore Highway. 1.3.2 Transportation Demand Management TDM measures would be implemented as a part of the Project to reduce the number of single- occupant vehicle trips generated by the Project. A TDM plan has been prepared for the Project that includes design features, programs, and services that promote sustainable modes of transportation. The TDM plan is included as Appendix A-1, Transportation Demand Management Plan, of this document. Proposed TDM measures, as described in greater detail in Appendix A-1, include the following: • Free or preferential parking for carpools or vanpools City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-28 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 • On-site TDM coordinator • Active participation in Commute.org or equivalent Transportation Management Association • Carpool and vanpool program • Transit or ridesharing passes or subsidies • Pretax transportation benefits • Secure bicycle storage • Shower, lockers, and changing rooms for cyclists • Streets designed to encourage bike and pedestrian access • Improved pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing trails, bikeways, or adjacent streets • Pedestrian-oriented uses and amenities on the ground floor. 1.3.3 Building Design and Lighting Given the height of the proposed buildings and parking structure (maximum building heights of 120 feet, 6 inches, to 135 feet, 6 inches), the Project would be visible from adjacent streets in the vicinity. The ground floor (level 1) of the proposed buildings would support a mix of office, R&D, amenity (lobby and conference rooms), and retail uses, whereas the remaining levels of the buildings would support a mix of R&D and office uses. The nine-level parking structure would be located adjacent to the proposed building on the south parcel and would be accessible from Stanton Road and Malcolm Road. The Project would install solar photovoltaic systems on the roofs of the two buildings, as well as incorporate other sustainability features, such as efficient low-flow fixtures to reduce indoor water use, vertical and horizontal shading systems to reduce peak cooling demand, and drought- tolerant landscaping. The exterior of the proposed buildings and parking structure would be composed of glass, metal panels, metal railing, steel, and concrete. Exterior designs would reflect, as well as enhance, the urban mixed-use character of the surrounding area. Exterior lighting would be limited to landscape, safety, and circulation lighting. In addition, the buildings would incorporate bird-safe design features to minimize impacts on birds. 1.3.4 Landscaping and Open Space A total of 31 trees were documented on the Project site, including blackwood acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), Hollywood juniper (Juniperus chinensis ‘Kaizuka’), lemon bottlebrush (Melaleuca citrinus), Myoporum (Myoporum laetum), Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), African sumac (Rhus lancea), and Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta) species. According to the Preliminary Arborist Report prepared by HortScience | Bartlett Consulting dated July 25, 2022 (see Appendix B, Arborist Report), there are eight protected trees on and adjacent to the Project site, including one blackwood acacia, five western sycamores, one Monterey pine, and one Fremont cottonwood. These eight protected trees were identified as being in fair condition. All of the existing 31 trees on the Project site, including the eight protected trees, would be removed on Project implementation. The applicant has obtained a Protected Tree Removal Permit from the City, dated August 8, 2022, for removal of the eight protected trees. City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-29 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 To compensate for the removal of protected trees, Municipal Code Section 11.06.090, Tree Requirements and Reforestation, requires trees to be planted at a ratio of 3:1 when using 15-gallon trees, 2:1 when using 24-inch trees, and 1:1 when using 36-inch trees. The Project would include planting 106 trees throughout the site and nearby streetscapes in areas that would be accessed by tenants and the public. In addition, the Project would improve sidewalks on the Old Bayshore Highway, Malcolm Road, and Stanton Road frontages through landscaping. The Project would include approximately 19,519 sf of total open space. Approximately 11,019 sf of publicly accessible open space would be provided in the form of two outdoor plazas for each of the proposed buildings and would provide access via a crosswalk on Old Bayshore Highway to the northern end of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The plaza at the north parcel would be approximately 5,280 sf, and the plaza at the south parcel would be approximately 5,739 sf. The two plazas could be combined with the elevated sidewalk on Malcolm Road to form a larger event space. The plazas would include bicycle parking, social spaces, murals, sculptures, outdoor seating, landscaping, and integrated seat walls. For tenants of the proposed buildings, approximately 8,500 sf of private open space would be provided in the form of rooftop terraces on the roofs of both the north and south parcel buildings. The City does not have any established open space requirement standards for the I- I zoning district; however, the City does have an established minimum landscape coverage requirement of 15 percent of a site within the I-I zoning district. Approximately 15.1 percent of the Project site would be covered in landscaping in accordance with Municipal Code Section 25.12.030, which would fulfill the City’s minimum landscaping requirement. 1.4 Remediation Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) and Focused Phase II Investigation reports were conducted for the properties located at 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway,7,8 810 Malcolm Road,9,10 and 821 Malcolm Road.11,12 The ESAs and investigations are included as Appendix C, Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessments, to this document. Facilities surrounding the Project site were historically or are currently used for commercial, industrial, office, and hotel uses. There was a documented chemical (tetrachloroethene [PCE] release from a dry cleaner located at 855 Malcolm Road, approximately 600 feet from the Project site. In response to the release, approximately 56 cubic yards of soil were excavated from the site in 2007, and alternating rounds of Hydrogen Release Compounds and RegenOx were injected to treat the groundwater. The cased was closed in 2012.13 7 Roux. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report – 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, California. February 25, 2021. 8 Roux. 2021. Focused Phase II Investigation Report – 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, California. March 30, 2021. 9 Roux. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report – 810 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. February 24, 2021. 10 Roux. 2021. Focused Phase II Investigation Report – 810 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. March 30, 2021. 11 Roux. 2021. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report – 821 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. June 5, 2021. 12 Roux. 2021. Draft Focused Phase II Investigation Report – 821 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. June 18, 2021. 13 Roux. 2021. Focused Phase II Investigation Report—810 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. March 30, 2021. City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-30 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 In addition, a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) was reported at 1669 Old Bayshore Highway in 1993. The underground storage tank (UST) was successfully removed, and residual soil was over-excavated prior to backfill of the tank pit. Soil and groundwater samples were collected from 2 feet below the former location of the bottom of the tank and the sidewalls to evaluate possible contamination on site. All of the samples were evaluated and found to be below the required concentrations for commercial environmental screening levels (ESLs). The site was considered case closed. However, as reported by Augeaus Corporation, the data gathered for the tank removal was potentially unreliable, and, therefore, the closed LUST was considered to be a historically recognized environmental condition, and further investigation was required. Consequently, the Focused Phase II investigation reports conducted for the Project site evaluated potential contaminants at the property that may affect the four parcels. Soil, groundwater, and indoor and outdoor air quality samples were collected, and potential vapor intrusion concerns related to groundwater and soil were evaluated. The investigations found that no contaminants in the soil were detected above commercial ESLs or hazardous waste criteria. In addition, the groundwater samples did not contain concentrations of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) above the commercial ESLs, and, based on the lack of VOC detection, the groundwater at the Project site did not appear to be impacted by nearby sites or the former UST. Furthermore, the investigation found that the potential for vapor intrusion is low. Based on the results of the investigations, additional investigation related to on- or off-site contamination is not required, no recognized environmental conditions (RECs), controlled recognized environmental conditions (CRECs), or de minimis conditions were identified on the Project site, and mitigation measures are not warranted. 1.5 Construction Schedule and Phasing The proposed construction methods are considered conceptual and subject to review and approval by the City. For the purposes of this environmental document, the analysis considers the following construction plan. Project construction would have a duration of approximately 24 months. The current construction hours are as follows. • Weekdays: 7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. • Saturdays: 9:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. • Sundays and Holidays: No construction The Project would be constructed in seven phases. In total, it is anticipated that Project construction would have a duration of approximately 24 months, as follows. • Demolition: 50 work days • Site Preparation/Grading: 50 work days • Pile Installation: 45 work days for each structure • Trenching/Foundation: 82 work days for the south parcel, 52 work days for the parking structure, and 87 work days for the north parcel • Building Exterior: 204 work days for the south parcel, 355 work days for the parking structure, and 178 work days for the north parcel City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-31 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 • Building Interior/Architectural Coating: 379 work days for the south parcel, 108 work days for the parking structure, and 357 work days for the north parcel • Paving: 12 work days for the south parcel and parking structure and 10 work days for the north parcel 1.5.1 Construction Equipment and Staging Equipment used during Project construction would include, but not be limited to, excavators, dozers, tractors, backhoes, industrial saws, graders, cranes, forklifts, compressor, aerial lift, and a paving machine. Potential construction laydown and staging areas would be located on the Project site, and construction employee parking would be provided off site at 1499 Bayshore Highway. The off-site employee parking area is subject to the approval of Temporary Use Permit per Municipal Code Section 25.32.030(E). There would be auger cast piles drilled, not driven. As a result, there would be no percussive sounds generated during installation, only noise from normal operation of the equipment typical of that of other construction activities. No blasting would occur as part of Project construction. Excavation would reach a maximum depth of 6 feet, with an average excavation depth of 4 feet. The Project applicant has committed to using a mix of Tier 4 Final, Tier 4 Interim, and Tier 3 heavy-duty construction equipment during construction of the Project. In addition, the Project applicant has also committed to implementing the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures for fugitive dust control during construction. These measures include the following. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site will be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once a day. The use of a dry power sweeper is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks will be paved as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times will be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling times to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure, Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage will be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned, in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment will be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign with the name and telephone number of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints will be posted. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. City of Burlingame Project Description 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 1-32 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 2-1 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Chapter 2 CEQA Exemption Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Sections 15300 to 15333, identifies classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, are exempt from review under CEQA. 2.1 Class 32 (Infill Development) Among the classes of projects that are exempt from CEQA review are those that are specifically identified as urban infill development. CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that the term infill development (or the Class 32 exemption) is applicable to projects that meet the following conditions: a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as applicable zoning designations and regulations. b. The proposed development occurs within the City limits, on a project site that is no more than 5 acres and surrounded by urban uses. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The analysis presented in the following section provides substantial evidence that the Project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a Class 32 urban infill development and would not have a significant effect on the environment. 2.2 Exemptions Even if a project is ordinarily exempt under the potential categorical exemptions, CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 provides specific instances where exceptions to otherwise applicable exemptions apply. Exceptions to a categorical exemption apply in the following circumstances, effectively nullifying a CEQA categorical exemption: • Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located. A project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may, in a particularly sensitive environment, be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except when the project may affect an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. • Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type and in the same place over time is significant. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 2-2 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 • Significant Effect. A categorical exemption will not be used for an activity when there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. • Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption will not be used for a project that may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway that has been officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements that are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified environmental impact report (EIR). • Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption will not be used for a project located on a site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. • Historical Resources. A categorical exemption will not be used for a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. The analysis that follows presents substantial evidence to demonstrate that no exceptions apply to the Project or its site, the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the Class 32 exemption remains applicable. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-1 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Chapter 3 CEQA Exemption Checklist 3.1 Introduction The following analysis provides substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the Project qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 as a Class 32 urban infill development and, therefore, would not have a significant effect on the environment. 3.1.1 Criterion Section 15332(a): General Plan and Zoning Consistency Yes No The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. According to the2040 General Plan, the Project site is within an area that has an I-I land use designation, which creates light industrial and logistics centers with complementary commercial businesses. Permitted uses within the I-I land use designation include commercial, light industrial, creative industry businesses, design businesses, limited indoor sports and recreation, and wholesale uses.14 Because the Project is an office and R&D development with amenity space, it would be consistent with the designated land use and zoning. Furthermore, as stated in Section 1, Project Description, development projects fall into one of three categories, or tiers, ranging from Base Standard Intensity (Tier 1) to Maximum Intensity (Tier 3). The Project is proposed as a Tier 3 (Maximum Intensity) project. Tier 3 projects within this zone may reach a maximum FAR of 2.75 and a maximum height of 65 feet. However, certain projects within the I-I designation may exceed the maximum height of 65 feet with approval of a Special Permit. Such projects must fulfill specific development standard thresholds, as well as meeting the Special Permit findings for community benefit objectives for development under Tier 3. The Project is proposed as a Tier 3 (Maximum Intensity) project. In addition, the Project would exceed the maximum building height of 65 feet and, therefore, would be subject to the Special Permit and community benefit objectives. The Project would provide the following community benefits in accordance with Section 25.12.040 of the City’s Zoning Code. With the below-listed community benefits and approval of the Special Permit, the Project would be consistent with the I-I standard for maximum building height. • Public Plaza. The Project would include two public plazas between the proposed buildings and Malcolm Road that would be directly accessible from the sidewalk. • Publicly Accessible Building Amenities. The Project would include a publicly accessible café and conference rooms on the ground floor of the proposed buildings. 14 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. City Council Hearing Draft. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/general_plan_update.php. Accessed: August 1, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-2 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 • Public Art. The Project would include space for visual arts, performing arts, and community events between the proposed buildings. • Offsite Infrastructure Improvements. The Project would include a new crosswalk at Old Bayshore Highway and Malcolm Road to connect to the existing San Francisco Bay Trail access point for all businesses on Malcolm Road. The I-I zoning designation also includes development standards for building setbacks, lot coverage (70 percent), building height (65 feet for properties fronting onto Old Bayshore Highway), FAR 2.75 for Tier 3 R&D/Office developments), and landscaping (minimum 15 percent landscape coverage). The Project would comply with the building setbacks, lot coverage, FAR, and landscaping requirements, but would be above the building height development standards. However, as described above, the Project may exceed the maximum height of 65 feet with approval of a Special Permit for buildings exceeding the maximum height limits in the I-I zoning district in accordance with section 25.78.060(A), and with findings as stated in Section 25.78.060(B) of the City’s zoning code. An increase of up to 2.75 FAR is permitted with implementation of community benefits and approval of a Special Permit in accordance with the Section 25.12.040 of the City’s Zoning Code. Therefore, with implementation of community benefits and approval of two Special Permits, the Project would be consistent with the development standards under the I-I zoning designation. In addition, based on the proposed office and R&D uses, the Project applicant would be required to provide a minimum of 300 parking spaces for the north parcel and 460 parking spaces for the south parcel, for a total of 760 parking spaces on site.15 However, in accordance with the Project site’s zoning designation and per Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.40.040(A)(3), Parking Reductions, a 20 percent reduction in parking may be applied to the Project because it is required to submit a TDM Plan. Therefore, under these requirements, the Project would be required to provide a total of 582 parking spaces on site (i.e., 240 parking spaces on the north parcel and 342 parking spaces on the south parcel). The Project would provide 947 total parking spaces on site, including 38 surface parking spaces, 909 parking spaces within the parking structure, and 11 street parking spaces, to fulfill the City’s parking requirements. In addition, due the I-I zoning district’s proximity to SFO, per the City of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.12.030, Development Standards, maximum building heights are also required to comply with Airspace Protection Policies AP-1 through AP-4 of the SFO Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). This includes determining the need to file form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, with the FAA for any project that would exceed FAA notification heights, as shown on ALUCP Exhibit IV-10, and complying with the FAA Aeronautical Study Findings. With the 7460-I filing, the FAA then undertakes an aeronautical study of the project and determines whether there is a Determination of No Hazard or a Determination of Hazard. A Determination of Hazard is made when a project would cause an obstruction to air navigation, resulting in a substantial aeronautical impact. Because the Project would exceed the maximum allowable building height of 65 feet under the City’s zoning code, the Project Applicant filed with the FAA and received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation.16 15 Per Municipal Code Section 25.40.030, 1 parking space is required per 300 square feet of office space, 1 parking space per 1,000 square feet of R&D space, and 1 parking space per 200 square feet of commercial retail space. 16 October 15, 2022. Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation for Points 1-8 for 1669 1699 Bayshore and 810 819 Malcolm Road. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-3 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Given the above, the Project meets the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(a) and is consistent with the 2040 General Plan and applicable zoning regulations for the site. 3.1.2 Criterion Section 15332(b): Project Location, Size, and Context Yes No The proposed development occurs within City limits on the project site of no more than 5 acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The Project site is within the incorporated limits of the City of Burlingame. The site comprises four parcels (1669/1669 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project) that cover approximately 4.54 acres in the northern portion of the City of Burlingame. The parcel currently includes three single-story commercial buildings (821 Malcolm Road, and 1699 and 1669 Old Bayshore Highway) and a two-story commercial building with one basement level at 810 Malcolm Road. The site area outside of the existing building footprints is paved with asphalt and concrete, is used for parking and deliveries, and includes limited landscaping. A post office is located adjacent to the western portion of the Project site along Stanton Road. East of the Project site across Old Bayshore Highway are two hotels: the SFO Marriott Waterfront and the Vagabond Inn Executive— SFO Bayfront. Hampton Inn & Suites is located adjacent the northern portion of the Project site. Commercial and retail buildings are located south and west of the Project site (Figure 1). CEQA defines a qualified urban use as “…any residential, commercial, public institutional, transit or transportation passenger facility, or retail use, or any combination of those uses.”17 Given these facts, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(b) as a site of no more than 5 acres that is substantially surrounded by urban uses. 3.1.3 Criterion Section 15332(c): Endangered, Rare, or Threatened Species Yes No The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The Project site land use is within an urban, industrial area of the City of Burlingame. The Project site consists of mainly paved surfaces with four commercial buildings, parking lots, and narrow bands of unpaved areas with landscaped trees, shrubs, and weedy plants species. The developed areas of the Project site provide habitat for common wildlife and plant species that occur in urban areas in the San Francisco Bay region. The Project site and surrounding terrestrial area lacks significant native vegetation, natural habitats, sensitive natural communities18, or significant connectivity to such habitats. The Project site lacks any water feature, waterway, wetland, or riparian habitat. The Project site is approximately 340 feet west of the San Francisco Bay, which supports aquatic marine habitats. 17 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2019. California Environmental Quality Act Statutes and Guidelines. Section 21072. p. 8. Accessed: September 7, 2022. 18 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California Sensitive Natural Communities. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-4 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Special-status species databases19,20,21 life histories, known range, habitat requirements22, literature, and occurrence records were reviewed and cross referenced with the available habitats in the Project site. A site visit was conducted on August 30, 2022, by an ICF biologist, Shannon Henke, to assess the potential for special status-species habitat. There is marginal habitat for American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrine) at the Project site and the surrounding local and regional urban areas. This is evidenced by observations of this species in the Project vicinity and throughout urban areas the San Francisco Bay region.23 However, suitable significant habitat (e.g., nesting, perching, foraging) for the peregrine falcon is not present in the Project site. Therefore, special-status plant and wildlife species are unlikely to occur in the Project site and significant suitable habitat is not present in the Project Site. The limited existing landscape trees and shrubs could provide foraging and nesting habitat migratory birds and other wildlife species. A total of 31 trees in the Project vicinity (28 trees on the Project site and three trees that are nearby and off-site) would be removed as part of the Project. Eight trees are regulated under the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (see the Arborist Report in Appendix B). The Project applicant has submitted a removal permit to the City of Burlingame. To compensate for the removal of the 31 trees, the Project would plant a total of 106 trees throughout the Project site and surrounding streetscapes (74 trees within the Project site and 32 outside), in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 11.06.090. The Project impacts on trees and wildlife species that utilize trees, including migratory birds and bats, would be temporary and less- than-significant. In addition, Project compliance with the policies in the 2040 General Plan and standard conditions of approval would ensure the avoidance of significant impacts on migratory birds, nongame wildlife species (e.g., bats), and trees/wildlife habitat. Specifically, the following Burlingame General Plan policies apply: • Policy HP-5.14: Compliance with Environmental Laws. Ensure that all projects affecting resources of regional concern satisfy regional, state, and federal laws. • Policy HP-5.2: Migratory Birds. Identify and protect habitats that contribute to the healthy propagation of migratory birds, including trees and natural corridors that serve as stopovers and nesting places. Avoid construction activities that involve tree removal between March and June, unless a bird survey has been conducted to determine that the tree is unused during the breeding season by avian species protected under California Fish and Game Codes 3503, 3503.5, and 3511. 19 California Natural Diversity Database. 2022. RareFind GIS data output using Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed August 29, 2022. 20 California Native Plant Society. 2022. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed August 29, 2022. 21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPAC) online screening tool. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed September 2, 2022. 22 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California’s Wildlife Life History Accounts and Range Maps. Available online at https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. 23 eBird. 2022. Peregrine Falcon Range Map. Available at https://ebird.org/map/perfal. Accessed on August 29, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-5 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 • Policy HP-5.5: Protection and Expansion of Tree Resources. Continue to preserve and protect valuable native trees and introduce species that contribute to the urban forest but allow for the gradual replacement of trees for ongoing natural renewal. Consider replacement with native species. Use zoning and building requirements to ensure that existing trees are integrated into new developments. • Policy HP-5.6: Tree Preservation Ordinance. Continue to adhere to the Burlingame Tree Preservation Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Title 11); ensure the preservation of protected trees, as designated by the ordinance; and continue to be acknowledged by the Arbor Day Foundation as a Tree City USA. • Policy HP-5.7: Urban Forest Management Plan. Continue to update and use the Burlingame Urban Forest Management Plan, which integrates environmental, economic, political, historical, and social values for the community for guidance on BMPs related to tree planting, removal, and maintenance, including onsite protection of extant trees and street trees during projects. Therefore, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332I as a site that has no suitable habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. 3.1.4 Criterion Section 15332(d): Transportation Yes No Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to transportation. 3.1.4.1 Setting A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared by Kittelson & Associates Transportation Consultants in October 2022, as well as a TDM Plan, and both are included in this document as Appendix A-1 and A-2, Transportation Impact Analysis. The TIA describes existing and future conditions for transportation with and without the Project. In addition, the TIA includes information on regional and local roadway networks, pedestrian and transit conditions, and transportation facilities associated with the Project. For a more detailed analysis, including all tables and figures, please refer to Appendix A-2. Senate Bill (SB) 743, which was codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) section 21099, resulted in changes to the CEQA Guidelines. PRC Section 21099 identifies vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the appropriate metric to measure transportation impacts. PRC Section 21099 also identifies that level of service (LOS) or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion would no longer be considered a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the potential impacts on VMT. 3.1.4.2 Trip Generation As mentioned previously, the Project site is currently vacant. For analysis of the Project, the TIA assumed trip generation rates for the proposed 475,790 sf office and R&D campus at 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810 and 821 Malcolm Road.24 The Project would generate 490 new 24 Standard trip generation rates typically come from an Institute of Transportation Engineers publication titled Trip Generation Manual (11th edition [2021]). Project trip generation was estimated by applying the appropriate City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-6 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 vehicle trips (344 inbound, 146 outbound) during the weekday AM Peak Hour, and 366 new vehicle trips (83 inbound, 283 outbound) during the PM Peak Hour. This is a conservative estimate because it does not include a reduction in the number of trips taken due to the Project’s proximity to the Millbrae multimodal transit station, approximately 0.80 mile away, or due to the Project’s TDM program. 3.1.4.3 Vehicle Miles Traveled SB 743 requires lead agencies to select a VMT methodology, choose significance thresholds, and determine feasible mitigation measures. Because the City has not established standards regarding VMT, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has provided technical guida nce that recommends use of a threshold for new developments that is 15 percent below baseline, or existing, conditions.25 Per OPR’s guidance for residential projects, existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as City VMT per capita. Therefore, for the purposes of the VMT analysis for this Project, a significant impact related to VMT is assumed to occur if VMT associated with the Project is more than 15 percent below existing regional VMT. Because VMT in the Project’s TAZ is 19, the Project proposes to implement a TDM plan to achieve a VMT per person of 15.7, which is 15 percent below the City average, in conformance with OPR guidelines. Refer to the Project’s TDM plan in Appendix E (Table 6). Therefore, with implementation of the TDM plan program, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b), and the Project’s impact on VMT would be less than significant. 3.1.4.4 Roadway Segments As the Congestion Management Agency for San Mateo County, the C/CAG is responsible for maintaining the performance and standards of the roadway network. Per C/CAG’s Transportation Demand Management Policy Update Approach, new office projects greater than 50,000 sf that are anticipated to generate at least 500 average daily trips would be subject to TDM policy and must implement associated measures to achieve a 35 percent reduction in vehicle trips. As identified in Section 1, Project Description, the Project applicant would implement TDM measures that would reduce net peak hour trip generation. The TIA and TDM plan, which are included as Appendix A-1 and A-2 to this document, identifies the Project TDM measures that satisfy C/CAG requirements and result in at least a 35 percent reduction in vehicle trips.26 Therefore, the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts on roadway segments. trip generation rates obtained from the Trip Generation Manual to the size and uses of the development. The land use categories for R&D Center (ITE Code 760) and Coffee/Donut Shop without Drive-Through Window (ITE Code 936) were applied for the proposed uses for the TIA analysis. At the time that the TIA was prepared, the specific tenants of the proposed ground-floor commercial space was uncertain; therefore, in order to provide a conservative estimate of the potential travel demand associated with the commercial use, the ITE “Bread/Bagel Shop” category was used. This use corresponds to a café that would be open throughout the day. 25 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122-743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed: September 7, 2022. 26 See TDM discussion on pages 18 through 21 of the TIA. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-7 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 3.1.4.5 Access and Circulation As mentioned previously, the Project site is currently vacant. The Project would provide 947 total parking spaces on site, including 38 surface parking spaces, 909 parking spaces within the nine-level parking structure, and 11 street parking spaces, to fulfill the City’s parking requirements. The parking garage would be accessible from two driveways: one on Malcolm Road and one on Stanton Road. Access points for parking facilities are required to be free and clear of obstructions to provide adequate sight distance in accordance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) stopping sight distance standards, thereby ensuring that drivers see pedestrians on the sidewalk, as well as bicycles and other vehicles. The Project site plans show a lack of obstruction in both directions, giving a driver the ability to see oncoming vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists; therefore, the Project driveways on Malcolm Road and Stanton Road would meet the Caltrans stopping sight distance standards. In addition, any landscaping, signage, or above-ground transformers would be required to be installed to ensure an unobstructed view for drivers when exiting the site. Additional design features of the project include special paving materials and elevation of a portion of Malcolm Road to sidewalk level to create a pedestrian-oriented environment that would discourage vehicle traffic and encourage slower speeds. In addition to this, the project would provide pedestrian plazas and new sidewalks along the project frontages to ensure adequate pedestrian circulation throughout the Project site. The design features of the Project would not include hazardous designs or incompatible uses. The project would not change the existing roadway system. The Project site, including parking facilities, would be easily accessible by emergency service vehicles. The Fire Marshal reviewed and approved the Project site plan and the Alternative Means of Protection (AMP) request for the parking garage. Internal driveways have been designed to meet fire department standards for emergency access. Based on the analysis above, the Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. The Project also would not result in adequate emergency access. The Project’s impacts related to access and circulation at the Project site would be less than significant. 3.1.4.6 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The San Francisco Bay Trail is a multi-use path that runs along the San Francisco Bay and connects Burlingame to the adjacent communities of Millbrae and San Mateo. As mentioned previously, the Project site is approximately 0.10-mile from the existing trail access point at the Old Bayshore Highway and Malcolm Road intersection. Currently, this is an unsignalized intersection, and does not provide dedicated time for pedestrians or bicyclists to cross the street. However, the Project applicant is currently working with the City to install new treatments at the intersection to increase the comfort and safety of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the street to access the trail as part of the Project. The crosswalk improvements and treatments would be subject to review and approval by the City’s Public Works Department, and may include high-visibility crosswalks, ADA-compliant curb ramps, signage, bulb-outs, painted safety zones, and rapid flashing beacons. In addition, the Project would include 52 bicycle long-term parking spaces in an access-controlled bicycle room, as well as 16 short-term on-site outdoor bicycle parking spaces, for a total of 68 bicycle parking spaces. The Project would not remove any bicycle facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies for new bicycle facilities, thus resulting in less-than-significant impacts. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-8 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Pedestrian facilities in the vicinity consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and signals at intersections. The Project is expected to increase the number of pedestrians using the sidewalks and crosswalks in the area. There are existing crosswalks in the Project vicinity at the intersections of Old Bayshore Highway, Stanton Road, and Malcolm Road. However, the Project would incorporate pedestrian- realm expansions and improvements. Specifically, the Project would install special paving materials and elevate a portion of Malcolm Road to sidewalk-level to create a pedestrian-oriented environment that would generally discourage vehicle traffic and encourage slower speeds. In addition, there would be pedestrian plazas near the entrances to the proposed buildings, and new sidewalks constructed along the Project frontages. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Project would also include a new crosswalk at Old Bayshore Highway and Malcolm Road to connect to the existing San Francisco Bay Trail access point for all businesses on Malcolm Road. These improvements would increase visibility of the crossing, causing motorists to slow down and be more conscious of pedestrian crossings. Because the Project would improve pedestrian infrastructure in the area, compared with existing conditions, impacts would be less than significant. 3.1.4.7 Transit The Project would be approximately 0.80 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which supports Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, SamTrans, and commuter buses. Given the Project site’s proximity to transit services, it could be expected that a portion of the trips by residents would be made by public transit or nearby private commuter shuttles. Furthermore, there is one SamTrans southbound bus stop south of Stanton Road, and one SamTrans northbound bus stop north of Stanton Road, as well as an additional bus stop on Old Bayshore Highway at Mitten Road, which serves both SamTrans and the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle Bus. In addition, two bus stops are southeast of the project site, 1600 Bayshore Highway and 1601 Bayshore/Hinckley, that serve the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle Bus. These new riders may use BART, Caltrain, the Burlingame-Bayside BART/Caltrain Shuttle, or commuter shuttle services. According to the TIA, existing transportation services have adequate capacity to accommodate this increase in ridership. The Project would not remove any transit facilities, nor would it conflict with any adopted plans or policies associated with new transit facilities, resulting in less-than-significant impacts. 3.1.4.8 Consistency with Circulation Plans and Policies Applicable circulation plans and policies include PRC Section 21099 (SB 743); Chapter 7, Circulation and Parking, of the City’s 2040 General Plan; and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, adopted in December 2020. As discussed above, the Project would have a less -than- significant impact on VMT, and therefore would not conflict with PRC Section 21099. The 2040 General Plan has a goal to improve transit access, frequency, connectivity, and amenities to increase transit ridership and convenience.27 The Project is approximately 0.80 mile from the Millbrae multimodal transit station, which provides Caltrain, Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), and additional transit and shuttle services.28 The Project would promote continued use of public transit facilities/services. It is assumed that these bus and transit 27 City of Burlingame. 2018. June. 2040 General Plan Draft EIR. Available: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_ 06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2022. 28 Caltrain. 2022. Millbrae Transit Center. Available: http://www.caltrain.com/stations/millbraetransitcenter.html. Accessed: August 1, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-9 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 services would have adequate capacity to accommodate this minor increase in ridership. Furthermore, there is one SamTrans southbound bus stop south of Stanton Road, and one SamTrans northbound bus stop north of Stanton Road, as well as an additional bus stops on northbound and southbound on Old Bayshore Highway at Mitten Road, which serve both SamTrans and the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle Bus. In addition, there are two bus stops located southeast of the Project site, 1600 Bayshore Highway and 1601 Bayshore/Hinckley, that serve the Burlingame Bayside Shuttle Bus. The Project would not interfere with any existing bus route and would not remove or relocate any existing bus stops. Therefore, the Project’s impact on transit services would be less than significant, and the Project would be consistent with goals identified by the 2040 General Plan. The 2040 General Plan has a goal to develop a network of high-quality, convenient, safe, and easy-to- use bicycle facilities to increase the number of people who use bicycles for everyday transportation. The City Bicycle Transportation Plan has goals to improve existing bicycle routes, promote safe bicycle travel, and establish new connections. The project would include 68 bicycle parking spaces, including 16 public bicycle parking spaces. Included in the TDM measures are streets designed to encourage bike and pedestrian access, and improved pedestrian and bicycle connections to existing trails, bikeways, or adjacent streets. Therefore, the Project’s impact on bicycle facilities would be less than significant, and the Project would be consistent with goals identified by the 2040 General Plan. The City of Burlingame Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan has goals to create comprehensive, connected, and accessible bicycle and pedestrian networks, enhance safety and increase comfort for all road users, and implement policies and build infrastructure that foster active trips and enhance the experiences of pedestrians and bicyclists.29 For the reasons stated in the above analysis regarding the 2040 General Plan bicycle facilities goal, the Project’s TDM measures are consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan . In particular, the Project design encourages bicycle and pedestrian access and improves pedestrian connections to existing trails and bikeways. Based on the analysis above, the Project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system , including transit, roadways, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities, resulting in less-than-significant impacts. 3.1.5 Criterion Section 15332(d): Noise Yes No Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to noise. 3.1.5.1 Overview of Noise and Sound Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound that annoys or disturbs people and potentially causes an adverse psychological or physiological effect on human health. Sound is characterized by various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient (existing) sound level. Although the decibel (dB) scale, a logarithmic scale, is used to quantify sound intensity, 29 City of Burlingame. 2020. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Available: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3082josca9f3pu3/AADTDIgIWsH_f6lAJr6I9LD7a?dl=0. Accessed: October 21, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-10 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 it does not accurately describe how sound intensity is perceived by human hearing. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the entire spectrum; therefore, noise measurements are weighted more heavily toward frequencies to which humans are sensitive through a process referred to as A-weighting. Human sound perception, in general, is such that a change in sound level of 1 dB cannot typically be perceived by the human ear, a change in sound level of 3 dB is just noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as doubling or halving the sound level. A doubling of actual sound energy is required to result in a 3 dB (i.e., barely noticeable) increase in noise; in practice, this means that the volume of traffic on a roadway typically needs to double to result in a noticeable increase in noise.30 The dB level of a sound decreases (or attenuates) exponentially as the distance from the source of that sound increases. For a point source, such as a stationary compressor or construction equipment, sound attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. For a line source, such as free-flowing traffic on a freeway, sound attenuates at a rate of 3 dB per doubling of distance. With respect to construction noise, Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration, of the City’s General Plan EIR does not identify specific thresholds of significance for temporary increases in noise during construction activities. However, the General Plan EIR discusses typical construction activities and the corresponding increase in noise that would occur, which is 11-39 dBA over ambient levels, depending on the type of existing setting (low-density residential, high-density residential, commercial, etc.). The General Plan EIR notes that such increases could be considered a substantial increase in temporary noise levels. This analysis uses the same analytical approach as the General Plan EIR. For operational noise, the analysis also uses the same analytical approach as the General Plan EIR. For transportation-related operational noise, the General Plan EIR uses thresholds of 3 dB and 5 dB for evaluating a project’s traffic noise increase, depending on the background noise level of the specific area. Consistent with the General Plan EIR analysis, this analysis determines whether the increase in traffic from the Project would cause a noticeable increase (i.e., 3 dB), which is the lower and more conservative threshold option. For stationary sources of operational noise, the General Plan EIR does not identify specific quantitative thresholds. Instead, it evaluates project consistency with General Plan policies that have been designed to ensure compliance with the City’s municipal code for stationary noise sources. For this analysis, that same approach is used. 3.1.5.2 Overview of Ground-borne Vibration Ground-borne vibration is an oscillatory motion of the soil with respect to the equilibrium position. It can be quantified in terms of velocity or acceleration. Variations in geology and distance result in different vibration levels, including different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increased distance. Operation of heavy construction equipment creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of and downward into the ground. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of construction equipment can result in effects that range from annoyance for people 30 California Department of Transportation. 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-a11y.pdf. Accessed: September 1, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-11 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 to damage for structures. Perceptible ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they cause rock and soil particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude, referred to as peak particle velocity (PPV). Vibration amplitude attenuates (or decreases) over distance. This attenuation is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground, as well as the soil or rock conditions through which the vibration is traveling (variations in geology can result in different vibration levels). The following equation is used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions.31 PPV = PPVref x (25/Distance)1.5 Table 1 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment (excluding pile driving, which is not anticipated) at a reference distance of 15 feet and other distances, as determined with use of the attenuation equation above. Table 1. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 Feet PPV at 50 Feet PPV at 75 Feet PPV at 100 Feet PPV at 175 Feet Caisson drill 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.0111 0.0048 Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.0111 0.0048 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0269 0.0146 0.0095 0.0041 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124 0.0067 0.0044 0.0019 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0011 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Office of Planning and Environment. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: September 1, 2022. PPV = peak particle velocity. 3.1.5.3 Regulatory Setting There are no federal noise standards t hat are directly applicable to the Project. With regard to state regulations, Title 24 of the CCR, Part 2 (California Noise Insulation Standards), establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, or dwellings other than single -family residences. With respect to local noise standards, two regulatory sources are applicable to the Project: the 2040 General Plan and the Municipal Code. The applicable noise standards from these two sources are described below. 2040 General Plan 2040 General Plan, Chapter 8, Community Safety Element, establishes noise and land use compatibility standards to guide new development. It provides goals and policies to reduce the harmful and annoying effects of excessive noise in the City. 31 PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-12 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 The policies relevant to the Project include the following. ⚫ Policy CS-4.1: Locating noise-sensitive uses away from major sources of noise ⚫ Policy CS-4.3: Requiring the design of new office development to comply with protective noise standards ⚫ Policy CS-4.7: Monitoring noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Mills-Peninsula Medical Center ⚫ Policy CS-4.8: Requiring the evaluation, and mitigation, if necessary, of airport noise impacts if a project is located within the 60 CNEL contour line of SFO ⚫ Policy CS-4.9: Complying with real estate disclosure requirements pertaining to existing and planned airports within 2 miles of the sale or lease of a property ⚫ Policy CS-4.10: Requiring development projects subject to discretionary approval to assess potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and minimize impacts consistent with the Municipal Code ⚫ Policy CS-4.13: Requiring a vibration impact assessment for projects that would use heavy-duty equipment and be located within 200 feet of an existing structure or sensitive receptor The Community Safety Element of the 2040 General Plan also includes noise compatibility criteria for each category of land use in the City. Office land uses are considered conditionally acceptable at noise levels between Ldn 65 dB and 75 dB, which means that new development should be undertaken after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is conducted and noise insulation features have been included in the design. Figure 8, which is from the Community Safety Element, shows the outdoor noise levels that are suitable for the various land use categories. City of Burlingame Municipal Code The Building Construction section of the Municipal Code establishes daily hours for construction in the City. Section 18.07.110 states that no person will erect, demolish, alter, or repair any building or structure outside the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays or 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays; no construction will take place on Sundays and holidays, except under circumstances of urgent necessity in the interest of public health and safety. An exception, which must be approved in writing by the Chief Building Official, will be granted for a period of no more than 3 days for structures with a gross floor area of less than 40,000 gsf when reasonable to accomplish erection, demolition, alteration, or repair work; the exception will not exceed 20 days for structures with a gross floor area of 40,000 gsf or greater. The Municipal Code also contains standards that limit noise from mechanical equipment, such as air- conditioners and generators, to 60 dBA during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Section 25.58.050). 3.1.5.4 Existing Noise Environment As mentioned previously, the Project site is currently vacant. Existing noise sources at the Project site include on-road vehicles and aircraft taking off and landing at SFO, which is approximately 0.5 mile from the Project site. Similar to most urban areas, the Project area is dominated by traffic noise. This is because the Project site is adjacent to Bayshore Highway and within 1,000 to 1,500 feet from US 101. Parking lot noises, such as engines starting, doors slamming, car alarms activating, or vehicle backup alarms sounding, also influence the noise environment at the Project site. There are several parking lots on nearby parcels that generate parking lot noises. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-13 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Existing noise levels at the Project site are best characterized by the short-term measurement from Site 7, as presented in the City of Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft EIR (General Plan Draft EIR). Short-term Site 7 from the 2040 General Plan EIR was located on Hinckley Road approximately 1,000 feet southeast of the Project site. Measurements for the 2040 General Plan EIR had a duration of 30 minutes and were taken during daytime hours. At Site 7, noise levels ranged from 58.4 to 59.1 dBA Leq.32 Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Noise-sensitive land uses typically include single- and multifamily residential areas, health care facilities, lodging facilities, and schools. Recreational areas where quiet is an important part of the environment can also be considered sensitive to noise. Some commercial areas may be considered noise sensitive as well, such as the outdoor restaurant seating areas. The Project site is surrounded by various types of land uses, and the uses are nearly exclusively non- residential. Overall, the most common land uses in the Project vicinity are light industrial (e.g., warehouses, food processing facilities) and commercial (e.g., offices, retail stores), with accompanying parking lots. Additionally, there are several hotels in the Project vicinity, which may be sensitive to noise during the nighttime hours, and some recreational areas at the waterfront. The nearest hotel, Hampton Inn, and Suites, is approximately 25 feet from the Project site, whereas the SFO Marriott Waterfront is approximately 120 feet from the Project site. There is also a children’s learning center, the Learning Studios at 845 Malcolm Road (250 feet away) and Peninsula High School (775 feet away) at 860 Hinckley Road. These noise-sensitive land uses noted here could be adversely affected by substantial increases in noise. 3.1.5.5 Noise Effects Rooftop Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning Equipment Noise and Other Operational Noise Sources Mechanical heating and cooling equipment (e.g., heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning [HVAC] and chillers) would be located on the roofs of both buildings and would be enclosed with parapet walls to address noise. These features would reduce noise from the heating and cooling equipment such that the noise attenuation for this building equipment would be consistent with the noise requirements of Section 25.58.050 of the Municipal Code. In addition to HVAC equipment, seven 500-kW emergency generators would be installed at the Project site, which would create temporary noise from regular testing and during power outages. It is anticipated that the generators at the Project site would each generate a noise level of 75 dB at a distance of 23 feet.33 The generators would be located approximately 100 feet from the nearest noise-sensitive land use (Hampton Inn and Suites). At this distance, noise from the generators would 32 City of Burlingame. 2018. Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft EIR. Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration. Available: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_ 06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed: September 1, 2022. 33 Generac Power Systems. 2020. Emergency Generator Noise Specifications for Emergency Generators City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-14 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 attenuate geometrically by 6 dB. Additional attenuation would likely occur from building shielding and ground effects. In general, sound levels from emergency generators vary, based on exact placement, the type of generator, and the noise attenuation incorporated into the design, but these details are not fully available at this stage of Project design. However, it is known that all generators would be located within sound enclosures. Additionally, the Project design details are governed by the limits established by Section 25.58.050 of the Municipal Code. The Project’s generators would be required to comply with the Municipal Code noise limits, and the Project sponsor would be required to ensure sufficient attenuation features are included in the Project design. Regardless, the generator would need to comply with a 60 dBA noise limit during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 50 dBA during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Chapter 15 of the 2040 General Plan EIR concludes that stationary-source noise impacts from HVAC equipment and other non-transportation noise sources would be less than significant, because the equipment and sources would be required to comply with the provisions of the Municipal Code that pertain to such sources.34 As noted in the General Plan Draft EIR, “stationary and other sources of noise would be controlled by the proposed General Plan goals and policies, as well as the City’s Municipal Code, which provide requirements for limiting certain specific non-transportation noise source impacts.” Consequently, noise impacts from the use of emergency generators at the Project site would be less than significant Other sources of noise during Project operations may include landscaping activities, building maintenance, garbage collection, and human voices. As discussed previously, the nearest noise- sensitive land uses are 25 feet away from the Project site, at a hotel. As stated above, 2040 General Plan EIR Chapter 15, Noise and Vibration, concludes that stationary-source noise impacts from HVAC equipment and other non-transportation noise sources would be less than significant because the equipment and sources would be required to comply with the provisions of the Municipal Code that pertain to such sources.35 Therefore, noise impacts from other operational noise sources at the Project site would be less than significant. Traffic Noise Traffic would increase in the area as a result of Project implementation. To analyze the potential effect of the Project on traffic volumes, traffic noise changes on Bayshore Highway have been evaluated. Traffic noise has been estimated using the trip rates for the Project and existing roadway volumes from the City’s General Plan.36 The volumes were used to calculate existing and existing + Project noise levels using calculations consistent with the Federal highway Administration’s Traffic Noise Model, Version 2.5.37 34 City of Burlingame. 2018. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 28. Available: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_ 06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed: September 2, 2022. 35 City of Burlingame. 2018. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 28. Available: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_ 06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed: September 2, 2022. 36 City of Burlingame. 2019. General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendix D (Hexagon Traffic Data). Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/general_plan_update.php Accessed December 6, 2021. 37 Federal Highway Administration. 2022. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/traffic_noise_model/. Accessed: September 6, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-15 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Traffic noise on Bayshore Highway, from Broadway to Malcolm Drive and from Malcolm Drive to the US 101 Northbound ramp (off Millbrae Avenue) would increase by 1.2 dB with implementation of the Project. The existing and existing + Project noise levels on these roadway segments can be found in Appendix D, Air Quality Assessment and Supporting Noise Information. As discussed previously, an increase of 3 dB is considered to be barely noticeable by the human ear and not a substantial increase. The majority of Project-generated traffic (approximately 60 percent) would occur along Old Bayshore Highway, and thus the 1.2 dB increase is likely to be the worst-case scenario. Fewer portions of Project-generated traffic would occur on other roadways, such that 39 percent of AM peak hour trips (191 trips) and 37 percent of PM peak hour traffic (135 trips) would be dispersed on Broadway, Rollins Road, Carolan Drive, and California Drive.38 These increases in traffic volumes on these roadways are not likely to be sufficient to result in a noticeable change in existing ambient traffic noise. The loudest Project-induced increase (i.e., a 1.2 dB increase) would not be noticeable to the human ear, because such an increase would be less than the threshold of what is considered a noticeable increase in noise. Therefore, the increase in traffic volumes relative to the existing volumes on Bayshore Highway would result in noise that would not be noticeable to the human ear. Because the increase would not be noticeable, the impacts of traffic noise would be less than significant. Construction Noise The Project would demolish onsite structures and construct two new buildings. Demolition and construction activities would generate noise, resulting in a temporary increase in sound levels at adjacent land uses. Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type and number of equipment and the duration of usage for the varying equipment. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities occurring on any given day; noise levels generated by those activities; distances to noise sensitive receptors; potential noise attenuating features, such as vegetation and existing structures; and the existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of noise-sensitive land uses. Construction generally occurs in several discrete stages, each phase requiring a specific set of equipment with varying equipment type, quantity, and intensity, which change the effects on the noise environment of the Project site and surrounding area during the construction process. The Project is anticipated to be built over approximately two years. It is anticipated that construction of infrastructure would begin in 2022 and be completed in 2024. Construction activities would occur in multiple stages, with a majority of the grading and site improvements occurring first. Construction activities associated with the grading and site improvement phases would include excavation and relocation of soil on the site, backfilling and compaction of soils, and construction of utilities and service systems. The placement of piles has the potential to generate the highest levels of noise from the use of pile drivers; however, the installation method for the piles will be auger pressure grouted piles, not driven piles. As a result, there would be no percussive sounds generated during installation, only noise from normal operation of the equipment typical of other phases of the Project. Site preparation (e.g., infrastructure, utilities, grading) could potentially overlap with building construction and, therefore, the equipment likely to be used during these two phases were 38 Kittelson & Associates. 2022. 1699 Bayshore (Nomar Life Science) Traffic Impact Analysis. Pages 11 and 12. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-16 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 combined to represent a worst-case construction scenario in which four pieces of construction equipment would be operating simultaneously. Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment anticipated to be used are identified in Table 2. Table 2. Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet Grader 85 Dozer 85 Auger Drill 85 Loader/Backhoe 80 Scraper 85 Crane 85 Boring Jack Power Unit 80 Forklift 85 Paver 85 Roller 85 Air Compressor 80 Generator Set 82 Welder 73 dBA = A-weighted decibels. Based on the information provided in Table 2, and accounting for typical usage factors of individual pieces of equipment and activity types, worst-case construction-related activities could result in noise levels of up to 91 dBA Leq and 95 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from the acoustical center of the construction site. The closest sensitive land use that will be affected by the construction noise is located 70 feet to the north-east of the Project site (the Hampton Inn and Suites hotel). The nearest noise-sensitive receptors that could be adversely affected by construction noise are shown in Table 3, which also shows the distance to and daytime noise exposure levels at each location. The noise levels have been estimated for the closest possible construction activity-to- receptor distance (i.e. the analysis assumes construction occurs at the Project boundary). These values represent a conservative assessment, because they do not account for any shielding provided by existing buildings, and, as stated above, the modeling assumes that four of the highest noise- generating pieces of equipment could operate simultaneously in close proximity to each other near the boundaries of the Project site. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-17 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Table 3. Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment Sensitive Receptor Distance to Project Site (feet) Daytime Construction Noise Exposure Level at Sensitive Receptor 1 Leq (dB) Lmax (dB) Hampton Inn and Suites 70 83.3 87.3 San Francisco Airport Marriott Waterfront 115 70.0 83.0 Residence on California Avenue and Rosedale Avenue 3,380 38.0 42.0 Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2021. Notes: 1 Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. dB = decibels; Led = equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax = maximum sound level. The Burlingame 2040 General Plan Draft EIR addressed construction noise impacts and identified that construction activities could increase noise levels in commercial and industrial areas, similar to the Project area, by 11 to 28 dBA above ambient conditions.39 As shown in Table 3, short-term noise levels could generate noticeable increases in noise levels at the hotel sites and other receptors in the Project area, consistent with the noise increases identified in the General Plan EIR. Importantly, the proposed construction activities would occur during the daytime hours and not during typical sleep periods. Outdoor construction activities would only be conducted during daytime hours and within the allowable hour for construction activity established by the City’s municipal code (i.e., between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays or 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays). The Project sponsor is currently requesting a waiver to extend the allowable construction hours for the project to 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The Project sponsor is currently requesting a variance to extend the allowable construction hours for the Project to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. However, it is anticipated that construction activities during the first hour of construction would focus on mobilization of the site and would not require the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. As a result, noise levels would be substantially lower than the values in Table 3 during this period and would not result in potential annoyance or disturbance to sensitive land uses. Furthermore, through the process of issuing building permits, the City has the ability to condition the permit such that on-site operations are required to comply with adopted City code, which has time limits for certain noise-generating activities. Presuming that the variance is granted, the conditions on the permit would ensure that noise-generating activities do not occur before 8:00 AM. If the variance is not granted, Project construction would be conducted during the allowable hour for construction activity. In either scenario, construction activity would only be occurring during daytime hours. The Project sponsor has also committed to noise-reduction measures consistent with Mitigation Measure 15-1 from the City’s 2040 General Plan EIR, which would involve the implementation of construction noise measures. Implementation of these measures in addition to the restriction of construction to daytime hours would avoid significant impacts, consistent with the City’s General Plan. 39 City of Burlingame. 2018. June. 2040 General Plan Draft EIR. Available: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_ 06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed January 18, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-18 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 With implementation of a design feature (i.e., develop a Construction Noise Control Plan, as outlined in the Project Description section) as part of the Project, the increase in construction noise would be minimized and less than significant. As described in the Project Description section, the Construction Noise Control Plan would be developed by the applicant and include measures such as: • Construction management techniques include siting of staging areas away from noise-sensitive land uses near the Project site; • Implementation of construction equipment noise controls that include ensuring construction equipment have mufflers and use of electrical hook-ups rather than generators when available and needed; • Monitoring of actual construction noise to verify effectiveness of noise controls. Aircraft Noise Impacts The Project site is 0.8 miles from the nearest runway at SFO and approximately 0.9 miles from the helicopter landing pad at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center. Medical helicopters use the landing pad periodically and generate noise during takeoff and landing. The Project would not result in any appreciable changes in noise levels at either SFO or the heliport at Mills-Peninsula Medical Center. Therefore, the impact of aircraft noise on new occupants at the Project site would not require evaluation under CEQA;40 however, this type of impact is analyzed in the General Plan EIR. A brief discussion of aircraft noise is included here for informational purposes. The Project site is not inside the 65 dBA CNEL contour for SFO, as shown in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport,41 but is inside the 60 dBA CNEL contour. As stated in the General Plan EIR, impacts related to the exposure of new sensitive land uses to airport noise are considered less than significant because Policies CS-4.7, CS-4.8, and CS-4.9 of the 2040 General Plan ensure that new development is adequately protected from aircraft noise at SFO. Because the Project site would be within the 60 dBA CNEL contour, implementation of 2040 General Plan Policy CS-4.8 would be applicable. Additionally, 2040 General Plan Policy CS-4.9 would be applicable because the Project site is within 2 miles of SFO; certain real estate disclosure requirements would also apply. In addition, the Project would be located near Mills- Peninsula Medical Center. Therefore, 2040 General Plan Policy CS-4.7 would be required to monitor noise impacts from the heliport. Regardless of the aircraft noise effects that may be experienced by future occupants at the Project site, such effects are not considered to be a CEQA issue because the Project would not worsen aircraft noise that would affect existing land uses. Consequently, the impact pertaining to aircraft noise would be less than significant. 40 Pursuant to a recent Supreme Court decision in California Building Industry Association vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, CEQA does not require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions affect a project’s residents or users, unless the project would exacerbate those conditions. 41 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. 2012. Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport. November. Available: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Consolidated_CCAG_ALUCP_November-20121.pdf. Accessed: September 1, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-19 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 3.1.5.6 Vibration Effects Operation of heavy construction equipment creates seismic waves that radiate along the surface of and downward into the ground. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of construction equipment can result in effects that range from annoyance for people to damage for structures. Perceptible ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they cause rock and soil particles to oscillate. The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity, expressed in inches per second, at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude or PPV. Vibration amplitude attenuates (or decreases) over distance. This attenuation is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground as well as the soil or rock conditions through which the vibration is traveling (variations in geology can result in different vibration levels). The following equation is used to estimate the vibration level at a given distance for typical soil conditions:42 PPV = PPVref × (25/distance)1.5 As shown in Table 1 above, the Project would require several different types of construction equipment. Although no pile driving would occur, construction would require the use of other equipment that may generate vibration. The equipment that would be used on the Project site and generate the most vibration during construction would be a loaded truck and a large bulldozer. Table 4 summarizes the typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment, at a reference distance of 15 feet as well as other distances, as determined with the use of the attenuation equation above. Table 4. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 Feet PPV at 50 Feet PPV at 75 Feet PPV at 100 Feet PPV at 175 Feet Large bulldozer 0.089 0.0315 0.0171 0.0111 0.0048 Loaded trucks 0.076 0.0269 0.0146 0.0095 0.0041 Jackhammer 0.035 0.0124 0.0067 0.0044 0.0019 Small bulldozer 0.003 0.0011 0.0006 0.0004 0.0002 Source: Federal Transit Administration. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Office of Planning and Environment. Available: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf. Accessed: September 1, 2022. PPV = peak particle velocity. During Project operation, no impact equipment or other equipment associated with substantial ground-borne vibration would be used; therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant during Project operations. 42 PPVref is the reference PPV at 25 feet. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-20 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Vibration Damage As discussed in Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources, some buildings in the vicinity of the Project site could be considered “modern industrial/commercial buildings.” The threshold for damage potential for this category of structure is a PPV of 0.5 inches per second (for continuous/frequent intermittent sources of vibration).43 Table 5 summarizes the guidelines developed by Caltrans for damage potential from transient and continuous vibration associated with construction activity. Activities that can cause continuous vibration include the use of excavation equipment, static compaction equipment, tracked vehicles, vehicles on a highway, vibratory pile drivers, pile extraction equipment, and vibratory compaction equipment. Table 5. Vibration Damage Potential Threshold Criteria Guidelines Structure and Condition Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources a Continuous/ Frequent Intermittent Sources b Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1 Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25 Older residential structures 0.5 0.3 New residential structures 1.0 0.5 Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5 Source: Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/tcvgm-apr2020- a11y.pdf. Accessed: September 1, 2022. Notes: a. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or drop balls). b. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second. The equipment with the greatest potential to cause ground-borne vibration is a large bulldozer, which results in vibration levels of 0.089 PPV inch per second at a reference distance of 25 feet (Table 4). This level of vibration is below the levels for damage potential for all buildings except extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments, and fragile buildings (Table 5). Because 25 feet is a reasonable worst-case distance between the location of construction equipment and the nearest adjacent buildings, and because there are no structures in the immediate vicinity that are considered extremely fragile or fragile, no damage would occur at any buildings near the Project site. Thus, the impact of vibration damage on buildings would be less than significant. 43 These building characterizations are used by Caltrans for the purposes of identifying potential building damage impacts. As a worst-case scenario, it assumed that some of the surrounding buildings fit best within the historic or older residential structure categories. However, these classifications are considered to be conservative and should not be used to infer any details on the actual age or condition of the surrounding buildings. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-21 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Vibration Annoyance Table 6 summarizes the guidelines developed by Caltrans for annoyance potential from transient and continuous vibration associated with construction activity. As shown in Table 6, below, the limit of perceptibility for ground-borne vibration is a PPV of 0.04 and 0.01 inch per second for transient and continuous sources, respectively. Note that people are generally more sensitive to vibration during nighttime hours (when sleeping) than during daytime hours. Table 6. Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Guidelines Human Response Maximum PPV (in/sec) Transient Sources a Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources b Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Severe 2.0 0.4 Source: Caltrans. 2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_ FINAL.pdf. Accessed: October 17, 2022. Notes: a. Transient sources create a single isolated vibration event (e.g., blasting or use of drop balls). b. Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo-stick compactors, crack-and-seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. PPV = peak particle velocity; in/sec = inches per second. As discussed above, the estimated vibration level generated by a large bulldozer at 25 feet is a PPV of 0.089 inch per second. At the nearest vibration-sensitive structure 70 feet away (Hampton Inn and Suites), a large bulldozer would cause vibration that would be slightly greater than 0.0171 inch per second, based on the values in Table 4. This level of vibration would be greater than the barely perceptible threshold but well below the distinctly perceptible threshold, based on the values for transient sources in Table 6. Consequently, the Project would generate ground-borne vibration, but such vibration may only be barely perceptible by people residing in the hotel building. The vibration would not be considered substantial, because it would be well below what is considered distinctly perceptible and would occur infrequently and only during daytime hours. People are generally more sensitive to vibration during evening and nighttime hours when they may be sleeping. For the reasons discussed above, the impact of construction vibration related to annoyance at adjacent buildings is considered less than significant. 3.1.6 Criterion Section 15332(d): Air Quality Yes No Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to air quality. 3.1.6.1 Regulatory Setting The Project site is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB), which is under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. BAAQMD adopted thresholds of significance to assist lead agencies in the evaluation and mitigation of air quality impacts under CEQA. The BAAQMD thresholds, which are incorporated City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-22 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 in the 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines,44 establish the levels at which emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases and nitrogen oxides), particulate matter, local carbon monoxide (CO), and toxic air contaminants (TACs) would cause significant air quality impacts. The regulation of two fractions of particulate matter emissions is based on aerodynamic resistance diameters equal to or less than 10 microns (PM10) and 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The air quality analysis below uses the 2017 BAAQMD thresholds to evaluate the potential impacts of the Project. 3.1.6.2 Operational Emissions Operational criteria air pollutants (CAPs) associated with the Project would be generated from vehicle trips, consumer products, landscaping equipment, and architectural coatings. Similarly, because the building would be all-electric and would not include natural gas infrastructure, it would not emit CAPs on site. For the purposes of this analysis, the operational emissions associated with the Project come from four distinct components: two life science buildings with 475,790 gsf, 6,390 gsf of ground floor retail space, a nine-story parking garage with 909 vehicle spaces, and seven emergency backup diesel-powered generators. Operational emissions for these four components were quantified using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod version 2020.4.0) with defaults supplemented by Project-specific activity data provided by the Project applicant. As shown in Table 7, the emissions from operational components would be well below the BAAQMD annual thresholds. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality during operation and would not contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade regional air quality within the SFBAAB. Table 7. Project Operational Emissions (pounds per day) Emission Source ROG NOX CO PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Area 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile 8 8 86 <1 <1 Total 10 8 86 <1 <1 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 – 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No – No No Source: Appendix D. BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gas. 3.1.6.3 Construction Emissions Construction of the Project has the potential to create short-term air quality impacts through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, construction workers’ vehicle trips, truck trips for material hauling, demolition, earthmoving, the application of architectural coatings, and paving. Estimated construction emissions would be short term, occurring for approximately 24 months. 44 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: September 3, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-23 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 CAPs generated by construction of the Project were quantified using CalEEMod. CalEEMod was run with model default values for some construction parameters and supplemented with data provided by the Project applicant for other construction parameters. The Project applicant has committed to using a mix of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved Tier 4 “final”, Tier 4 “interim”, and Tier 3 engines in all diesel-powered off-road equipment during construction. Table 7 summarizes the results of emissions modeling. As shown in Table 7, construction of the Project would not generate reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxide, or particulate matter exhaust in excess of BAAQMD’s numeric thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not result in the generation of construction-related CAPs that would exceed the numeric thresholds of significance. BAAQMD does not have any quantitative threshold values for fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10); however, BAAQMD considers implementation of BMPs for fugitive dust during construction adequate for reducing construction-related air quality impacts to a less- than-significant level. Compliance with BAAQMD’s BMPs is required by Policy HP-3.12 in the 2040 General Plan. Policy HP-3.12 states the following: HP-3.12: Construction Best Management Practices: Require construction projects to implement the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Best Practices for Construction to reduce pollution from dust and exhaust as feasible; require construction projects to transition to electrically-powered construction equipment as it becomes available; and seek construction contractors who use alternative fuels in their equipment fleet. Accordingly, the Project applicant will ensure implementation of the following BMPs during Project construction, in accordance with BAAQMD’s standard requirements: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) will be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material offsite will be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet-power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping will be prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads will be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks that are to be paved will be paved as soon as possible. Building pads will be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times will be minimized, either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California Airborne Toxics Control Measure, Title 13, Section 2485 of CCR). Clear signage will be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned, in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment will be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign with the name and telephone number of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints will be posted. This person will respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. BAAQMD’s phone number will also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-24 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Consequently, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality during construction and would not contribute a significant level of air pollution that would degrade regional air quality within the SFBAAB. Table 8. Average Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions from Project Construction (pounds per day) Emission Source ROG NOX CO PM10 Exhaust PM2.5 Exhaust Average Daily Construction Emissions 2 20 7 <1 <1 BAAQMD Threshold 54 54 – 82 54 Exceed Threshold? No No – No No Source: Appendix D. BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxide; PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; PM10 = particulate matter no more than 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gas. 3.1.6.4 Localized Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots Continuous engine exhaust may elevate localized CO concentrations, resulting in “hot spots.” Receptors who are exposed to these CO hot spots may have a greater likelihood of developing adverse health effects. CO hot spots are typically observed at heavily congested intersections where a substantial number of gasoline-powered vehicles idle for prolonged durations throughout the day. BAAQMD’s screening guide for CO impacts requires projects to meet three criteria to result in a less- than-significant impact: 1. Be consistent with an applicable congestion management program established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways, a regional transportation plan, and local congestion management agency plans. 2. Do not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3. Do not increase traffic volumes at affected intersections to more than 24,000 vehicles per hour where vertical and/or horizontal mixing is substantially limited (e.g., a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, natural or urban street canyon, below-grade roadway). The Project consists of the redevelopment of existing sites and would not alter the roadway network that would impact transportation facilities in the Project area. The Project is to subject to City transportation demand management requirements in Chapter 25.43 of the City’s Zoning Code that implements 2021 City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (Chapter 6, Land Use Impact Analysis Program). The Project’s land uses are consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designations and growth anticipated in Plan Bay Area 2050 (Project is located within the Plan Bay Area designated “High Resource Area”; state- identified places with well-resourced schools and access to jobs and open space, among other advantages, that may have historically rejected more housing growth). Thus, no conflict with the applicable transportation plans would occur. Based on the traffic analysis conducted by Kittelson & Associates45, intersections in the Project area (Old Bayshore Highway intersections with Mitten Road, Malcolm Road, and Stanton Road) would 45 Kittelson & Associates. 2022. 1699 Bayshore (Nomar Life Science) Traffic Impact Analysis. October. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-25 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 have p.m. hour traffic volumes (with Project) that would range from 963 to 1,122 total vehicles and would not result in more than 44,000 vehicles per hour. 3.1.6.5 Construction-Generated Toxic Air Contaminants The Project could expose sensitive populations to substantial pollutant concentrations from the generation of TACs during Project construction and operation. Construction of the Project would emit TACs in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM) from heavy-duty vehicles and construction equipment throughout the construction period, which would be less than three years in duration. BAAQMD recommends evaluating the potential impacts of TAC emissions on sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of a project.46 Per BAAQMD, typical sensitive receptors are residences, hospitals, and schools. Parks and playgrounds where sensitive receptors (e.g., children and seniors) are present would also be considered sensitive receptors.47 The closest residential receptor to the Project site is 3,380 feet to south of the Project site (i.e., residence on California Avenue and Rosedale Avenue). There are two private schools and a high school within 1,000 feet of the Project site (Great Joy Chinese School, approximate 970 feet northwest of the Project site; Russian School of Math; approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the Project site; and Peninsula High School, approximately 800 feet southeast of the Project site). There is also a children’s learning center, the Learning Studios at 845 Malcolm Road (250 feet away). In addition to the school sites, Bayfront Park is approximately 350 feet northeast of the Project site. According to the BAAQMD, construction-generated DPM emissions contribute to negative health impacts when construction is extended over lengthy periods of time. The Project would comply with California regulations limiting idling to no more than 5 minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Concentrations of mobile- source DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at a distance of approximately 500 feet.48 As recommended in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 49 the Project would implement BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures to help reduce exhaust related emissions. As noted in Section 1, Project Description, Project construction would use a mix of Tier 4 Final, Tier 4 Interim and Tier 3 heavy-duty construction equipment. As a result, Project construction would result in health risks below BAAQMD’s project-level risk thresholds of 10 in one million cancer risk, a hazard index of 1 for chronic and acute health effects, and an annual PM2.5 concentration increase of more than 0.3 ug/m3, and would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC emissions. 3.1.6.6 Operational-Generated Toxic Air Contaminants To evaluate Project-generated operational TAC emissions and their potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, the anticipated sources associated with the operation of the buildings were assessed individually using BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds. Each is described below, separately. 46 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: October 19, 2022. 47 Ibid. 48 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. 49 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: October 19, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-26 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 The Project-level assessment considers the new TAC sources that would result from Project operation and assesses whether these would exceed the project-level risk thresholds of 10 in one million for cancer risk, a hazard index of 1 for chronic and acute health effects, or an annual PM2.5 concentration increase of more than 0.3 micrograms of gaseous pollutant per cubic meter of ambient air (ug/m3). Operational TACs that could result from the Project include DPM emissions associated with building emergency standby generators, off-gassing of a variety of TACs that could occur from the potential wet laboratory uses within portions of the buildings, and DPM associated with diesel delivery trucks. It should be noted that BAAQMD is responsible for the control of TACs generated by stationary sources within the Project area, including any new stationary sources of TACs developed under the Project, such as diesel generators and hood fumes/building vents associated with laboratory uses. As part of the permitting process for new stationary sources of emissions, pursuant to BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2, New Source Review, BAAQMD reviews the permit application and determines whether the source would have the potential to generate levels of TACs that would expose the local population to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds 10 in one million or a noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1 for the maximally exposed individual. If either of these criteria is exceeded, then BAAQMD requires that the source incorporate Toxic Best Available Control Technology (T-BACT) and/or limit its operations to ensure that these criteria would not be exceeded. As a result, operation of any single new stationary source would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to levels of health risk that would exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Regarding new diesel generators, the south building would have four 500-kW emergency generators in a sound attenuated enclosure on the ground floor of the building, and the north building would have three 500-kW emergency generators in a sound attenuated enclosure on the ground floor. Considering that new diesel generators would be used only under emergency circumstances and temporarily for periodic testing, these sources would not result in substantial TAC emissions. In addition, a review of existing sources in the local vicinity or zone of influence (i.e., within 1,000 feet as defined by BAAQMD) using BAAQMD’s Stationary Source Screening Map was conducted that revealed a total of six sources, 5 of which are generators with cancer risk levels ranging from 0.28 chances in one million to 7.95 chances in one million, highest health hazard levels of 0.009, and highest PM2.5 levels of 0.01 (see Table 9, below). Using these risk/emissions levels as a proxy for this analysis, risk/emissions levels from the proposed generators are anticipated to be similar or lower than existing sources in the area, which are all below BAAQMD project-level thresholds of 10 chances in a million for cancer risk, a hazard index of 1 for chronic and acute health effects, or an annual PM2.5 increase of more than 0.3 ug/m3. In addition to new diesel generators, portions of the new buildings could potentially have wet laboratory uses that can, depending on the specific use, generate emissions from building vents. Although the exact emissions and TACs that could occur are unknown, examples of common TACs from laboratories include benzene, t-butyl alcohol, chloroform, ethanol, and formaldehyde. The precise use of new laboratory space is unknown at this time, but this assessment conservatively assumes that 60 percent of the new buildings could potentially have laboratories, resulting in a maximum of 285,474 sf of wet laboratory space. Because the actual laboratory use is unknown at this time, emission rates of specific TACs cannot be determined. However, as discussed above, during the building permitting phase of development, if any new stationary TAC sources would be constructed, compliance with BAAQMD rules and regulations would be required that would ensure City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-27 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 new sources comply with T-BACT (if appropriate), which could include emissions limits and/or emissions control technologies that would be appropriate for the specific source. To provide context for the level of risk that could result from wet laboratory space, a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) conducted for the 2020 UC Berkeley Long Range Development Plan was referenced.50 In this HRA, sources included 793,797 sf of wet laboratory space that included a hazardous materials facility, paint and solvent cleaning operations, lithographic/envelope printing, a cogeneration plant and central plant boilers, and diesel-powered backup generators. The maximum cancer risk was estimated to be 5.4 chances in a million with the diesel sources representing 69 percent of the risk; thus, 1.7 chances in a million risk can be attributed to the wet laboratory space of 793,797 sf. The combined hazard indices from all sources were 0.13 for chronic exposure and 0.29 for acute exposure. Based on these results for a facility that is much larger than the anticipated wet laboratory space for the Project, individual risk and emissions levels from the Project’s wet laboratory space would not exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds of 10 chances in a million for cancer risk, a hazard index of 1 for chronic and acute health effects, or an annual PM2.5 increase of more than 0.3 ug/m3. Regarding non-stationary sources, the Project would result in the operation of additional land uses that could result in increase in vehicle trips and DPM emissions. In particular, diesel-powered trucks associated with the retail portion of the Project could contribute additional DPM emissions. Daily maximum emissions of DPM for the Project would be approximately less than one pound per day. These emissions would be generated by new vehicle trips within the City and larger Bay Area region with only a small portion of these trips occurring within the Project area near sensitive receptors. As a result, the actual concentration near sensitive land uses would be minimal, and implementation of the Project would not result in exposure of new or existing sensitive receptors to TACs from regular and frequent visits by diesel-powered haul trucks. When evaluating TAC emissions and relative exposure at receptor locations, variables such as intervening structures, exposure duration, proximity to the source, and prevailing wind direction can strongly influence the TAC concentrations. However, based on a review of aerial imagery, the only outdoor activity area (i.e., places where students would play and be most exposed to TAC sources) at the Great Joy Chinese School is a basketball court located between two buildings approximately 1,093 feet away from the Project site, with one building completely blocking the line- of-sight to the Project site, beyond the zone of influence identified by BAAQMD for TAC sources. Intervening structures that block the line-of-sight from the source to the receptor can substantially reduce risk exposure.51 The Russian School of Mathematics does not appear to have an outdoor activity area. In addition, a review of local meteorology was conducted and based on monthly average wind direction data for the Coast and Central Bay region of BAAQMD’s jurisdiction, prevailing average winds blow from the southwest, inland, and away from the nearest sensitive receptors52, further reducing the likelihood that Project-generated TAC emissions would be substantial at nearby sensitive receptors. 50 University of California, Berkeley. 2003. Notice of Preparation 2020 Long Range Development Plan. 51 Tong, Z., Baldus, R. W., Isakov, V., Deshmukh, P., & Zhang, M. (2016). Roadside vegetation barrier designs to mitigate near-road air pollution impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 541, 920–927. 52 Bay Area Air Quality Management. 2022. Wind Direction. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air- quality/current-air-quality/air-monitoring-data/#/met?date=2022-10- 12&id=204&view=monthly&style=chart&zone=2a5e64eb-ca0b-4aaf-b619-2e18f48e2a28. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-28 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Any new laboratory uses would be required to be evaluated during the BAAQMD permitting process ensuring T-BACT would be in place if required, existing and similar TAC sources referenced are below Project-level thresholds, the fact that a solid structure blocks the line-of-sight between the Project and the outdoor activity area of the nearest sensitive receptor, and the prevailing wind blows away from the nearest receptor, Project-generated TAC emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s project-level thresholds 10 chances in one million for cancer risk, a hazard index of 1 for chronic and acute health effects, or an annual PM2.5 concentration increase of more than 0.3 ug/m3. 3.1.6.7 Cumulative Health Risk Assessment The cumulative assessment considers the existing TAC sources in the local zone of influence of the Project, defined as 1,000 feet from the Project boundary by BAAQMD, in combination with the anticipated TAC emissions that would occur from the Project, and assesses whether the combined effect would exceed the cumulative thresholds of 100 chances in one million for cancer risk, a hazard index of 10 for chronic and acute health effects, or an annual PM2.5 concentration increase of more than 0.8 ug/m3. Using the BAAQMD’s online Stationary Sources Screening Map tool, a polygon was drawn around the boundary of both Project parcels and a search was conducted with a 1,000-foot buffer. The results indicated six stationary sources within the buffer, five generators and one gas dispensing facility. Using modeled risk and PM2.5 emissions conducted by BAAQMD and available from the Stationary Screening Tool, risk values and emission levels for all identified sources were added together to determine the cumulative risk levels within the zone of influence. See results of the stationary source search and associated individual and cumulative risk levels below in Table 9. It should be noted that reported risk and emissions levels are those associated with each facility at the location of the source; thus, combining risk/emissions levels for all sources within a 1,000-foot buffer for comparison to the cumulative risk thresholds and applying that combined level to any other receptor at varying distances from each source does not account for the fact that risk levels reduce significantly as distance from the source increases, or other factors that could reduce risk (e.g., wind direction, physical barriers). For example, a risk level of 7.95 chances in one million from the source identified at 863 Mitten Road would be reduced substantially at the Project site, approximately 600 feet away. Then, combining that reduced risk with risk from another source, such as the source identified at 842 Cowan Road, which is approximately 1,000 feet away, which would also be much lower at the Project site, would result in a combined risk level of much lower than the sum of the two sources. Nonetheless, in accordance with BAAQMD guidance, all risk levels were combined to obtain cumulative risk levels within the zone of influence for this assessment. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-29 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Table 9. Existing and Cumulative Risk Exposure in the Local Zone of Influence Facility Name (Stationary Source Type) Address Distance to Project Site (feet) Cancer Risk (chances in a million) Chronic Hazard Index Annual PM2.5 (ug/m3) Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. (generator) 863 Mitten Road, Burlingame, CA 598 7.95 0.009 0.01 Alexandria Real Estate Equities Inc. (generator) 863A Mitten Road, Burlingame, CA 590 6.47 0.001 0.008 Alexandria Real Estate –819/863 Mitten Road LLC (generator) 866 Malcom Road, Burlingame, CA 598 1.87 0.0005 0.002 City of Burlingame (generator) 842 Cowan Road, Burlingame, CA 1,028 0.28 7.53E-05 0.0004 Kindred Biosciences (generator) 863 Mitten Road, Suite 100G Burlingame, CA 598 0.03 0.0000069 0.00003 Hertz Rent-A-Car (gas-dispensing facility) 1815 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA 905 0.33 0.002 0 Cumulative Levels in the Local Zone of Influence – – 16.9 0.14 0.02 BAAQMD Cumulative Thresholds – – 100.0 10.0 0.8 Source: Appendix D, compiled using Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Stationary Source Screening Map online tool. BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District; PM2.5 = particulate matter no more than 2.5 microns in diameter; ug/m3 = measure of concentration in terms of mass per unit volume. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-30 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Based on the review of existing sources within the zone of influence around the Project site, the cumulative risk exposure is 17 chances in one million for cancer risk, 0.14 for chronic and acute health effects, and 0.02 ug/m3 for annual PM2.5 concentration. Although a site-specific HRA was not conducted, as discussed above for the Project-level analysis, operation of the proposed buildings would not result in an exceedance of the Project-level thresholds and risk/emissions levels would be expected to be even lower than existing sources in the zone of influence. Thus, even conservatively assuming the highest cancer risk from nearby generators of 7.95 could result from the Project and combining that with the risk levels from the referenced HRA for a much larger wet laboratory of 1.7, the resultant cumulative cancer risk in the zone of influence with the Project would be 26.6 chances in one million, which is well below the 100 chances in one million cumulative threshold. Similarly, assuming the modeled chronic levels of the reference HRA of 0.13 for a larger wet laboratory than the Project, could occur with the proposed wet laboratory uses and combining that with the existing cumulative chronic hazard levels of 0.14, would result in a cumulative chronic hazard level of 0.27 with the Project, which would be well below the cumulative threshold of 10. Last, assuming the highest PM2.5 emission level from existing generators in the zone of influence of 0.01 ug/m3 could result from each new generator that the Project would operate and combining that with the existing cumulative PM2.5 levels would result in a cumulative PM2.5 concentration of 0.04 ug/m3 with the Project, which is well below the cumulative PM2.5 threshold of 0.8 ug/m3. 3.1.6.8 Summary of Health Risks from Toxic Air Contaminants Considering the relatively low levels of DPM emissions that would be generated by construction, the relatively short duration of DPM-emitting construction activity at any one location of the Project area, and the highly dispersive properties of DPM, construction-related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that would exceed BAAQMD thresholds of significance. Project operations would result in increased DPM emissions from truck trips; however, the emissions would be distributed throughout the Bay Area region and would not result in substantial concentrations for nearby sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the installation of equipment with substantial TAC generation or back-up generators, would be subject to BAAQMD permitting requirements. In addition, considering that wet laboratories do not result in substantial TAC emissions compared to other diesel sources, and considering the distance to nearby receptors, which are also shielded by existing structures, and the prevailing wind direction blows away from sensitive receptors, operational TAC sources would not result in exceedances of Project-level or cumulative risk and hazard thresholds established by BAAQMD. Thus, construction and operation- related TAC emissions would not expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk that exceeds the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. This impact would be less than significant. 3.1.6.9 Odors Although offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, they can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public. In addition, they often generate citizen complaints to local governments and air districts. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and manufacturing plants.53 Odor impacts on 53 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-31 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 residential areas and other sensitive receptors, such as hospitals, day-care centers, and schools, warrant the closest scrutiny, but consideration should also be given to other land uses where people may congregate, such as recreational facilities, work sites, and commercial areas. Odors during construction could be emitted from diesel exhaust, asphalt paving, and architectural coatings. However, construction activities near existing receptors would be temporary and would not result in nuisance odors that would violate BAAQMD Regulation 7. During operation, odors could emanate from vehicle exhaust, intermittent use of the emergency generators, and the reapplication of architectural coatings. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Although such brief exhaust- and paint-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not affect a substantial number of people. Because the Project is not anticipated to result in substantial or long- term odors, this impact would be less than significant. Given the above, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) because the Project would not result in any significant effects related to air quality. 3.1.7 Criterion Section 15332(d): Water Quality Yes No Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects related to water quality. 3.1.7.1 Existing Conditions The Project site is within the Millbrae Creek watershed.54 The Millbrae Creek watershed includes Millbrae Creek, as well as underground storm drains and an engineered channel (El Portal Canal), which drains into San Francisco Bay. There are no surface waters at the Project site. El Portal Canal, a concrete channel, is located approximately 0.25 mile north of the Project site, and the San Francisco Bay is approximately 0.10 mile east of the Project site. Local drainage is managed by urban storm sewer systems, which ultimately reach the main storm drains in Malcolm Road, Stanton Road, and Old Bayshore Highway. The existing site consists of surface parking, three single-story commercial buildings, one two-story commercial building, and limited landscaping. Groundwater on site was encountered at a depth of 3 to 9 feet bgs.55 Actual groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally with variations in rainfall, temperature, and other factors. As described in greater detail in Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites, no on-site groundwater contaminants were identified that could intrude into groundwater resources. 3.1.7.2 Project Conditions Stormwater runoff from the Project site would ultimately drain into San Francisco Bay. Currently, the Project site includes a surface parking and four buildings. Approximately 93 percent of the current Project site is composed of impervious surfaces. The Project would decrease the area of 54 Oakland Museum of California. n.d. Guide to San Francisco Bay Area Creeks, Millbrae Creek Watershed. Available: http://explore.museumca.org/creeks/1570-RescMilbrae.html. Accessed: September 8, 2022. 55 Rockridge Geotechnical. 2021. Geotechnical Investigation and Ground Motion Analysis Report Proposed Life Science Buildings 810 Malcolm Road & 821 Malcolm Road & 1669-1699 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA. October 19. Prepared for the Helios Real Estate Partners. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-32 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 impervious surfaces to 82 percent, whereas pervious surfaces would be 18 percent. The Project site would treat stormwater on site in accordance with low-impact development treatment measures and mechanical treatment. Surface runoff from the Project site would be regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, which is enforced locally by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the high groundwater depth on site, any work on site would need to be conducted in coordination with the San Mateo County Department of Environmental Health and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Compliance with existing stormwater control regulations would ensure that the Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to water quality. 3.1.7.3 Stormwater Runoff Because the Project would involve construction activities that would disturb more than 1 acre, surface runoff from the Project site would be regulated under the NPDES program, which is enforced locally by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Furthermore, the Project would be required to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the site, in compliance with the construction general permit. The purpose of the SWPPP is to identify potential sources of sediment and other pollutants and prescribe BMPs to ensure that potential adverse erosion, siltation, and contamination impacts do not occur during construction activities. Implementation of the SWPPP would control erosion and protect water quality from potential contaminants in stormwater runoff emanating from the construction site. BMPs may include damp street sweeping; appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage areas; temporary cover for disturbed surfaces; and sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for stockpiles, or other BMPs to trap sediments. Stormwater runoff during the operational phase of the Project would be subject to the low-impact development (LID) measures in Provision C.3 of the NPDES Municipal Regional Permit, under Regional Water Board Order R2-2009-0074. These measures include source control, site design, and treatment requirements to reduce the amount of stormwater runoff and improve the quality of stormwater runoff. The Project would treat the stormwater runoff on site using LID treatment measures. After on-site treatment, water would drain through exiting storm drains, which ultimately reach the main storm drains in Stanton Road, Malcolm Road, and Old Bayshore Highway. Compliance with existing stormwater regulations would ensure that the Project would result in less- than-significant impacts on water quality related to stormwater runoff. 3.1.7.4 Groundwater Due to the high groundwater level, it is likely that temporary dewatering may be required during construction excavation activities. Groundwater was encountered at three feet bgs and maximum depth of excavation required is six feet bgs. Therefore, there could be potential for contaminated soil vapors to intrude into groundwater resources if improperly handled. However, as mentioned in Chapter 1, Project Description, Focused Phase II investigation reports were conducted for the Project site and included soil, groundwater, and indoor and outdoor air quality sample collection, and analysis. The investigations found that no contaminants in the soil were detected above commercial ESLs or hazardous waste criteria. The groundwater samples did not contain concentrations of VOCs above the commercial ESLs, and, based on the lack of VOC detection, the groundwater at the Project City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-33 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 site did not appear to be impacted by nearby sites or the former UST. In addition, the investigation found that the potential for vapor intrusion is low. Based on the results of the investigations, additional investigation related to on- or off-site contamination is not required, no RECs, CRECs, or de minimis conditions were identified on the Project site, and mitigation measures are not warranted.56 Furthermore, the Regional Water Quality Control Board would need to be notified if dewatering were to occur, and the contractor may be subject to dewatering requirements in addition to those outlined in the Construction General Permit, including discharge sampling and reporting. In addition, the occupied spaces of the ground floor of each building would be constructed above the seasonal high-water table. Prior to receiving a building permit or other construction-related permit, final design would be approved by the Burlingame Department of Public Works. Compliance with existing regulations and adherence to Project-specific designs would ensure that the Project’s potential impact related to groundwater would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Given the above, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(d) as the Project would not result in any significant effects related to water quality. 3.1.8 Criterion Section 15332(e): Utilities and Public Services Yes No The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. Although the Project site is currently vacant, the Project is located in an urban area that i s already served by all necessary municipal utilities (i.e., water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste) and public services (i.e., fire, police, schools). Utilities for the Project, including electricity, natural gas, and water, would connect to existing utility infrastructure. The Project site would treat the stormwater on site in accordance with LID treatment measures and mechanical treatment, per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program; treated stormwater would drain through existing storm drain systems and ultimately reach the main storm drain to mains on Malcolm Road, Stanton Road, and Old Bayshore Highway. 57 The City currently has a population of approximately 3 0,106, which is served by existing utilities and public service providers.58 The Project would include construction of office and R&D campus, along with a nine-level parking garage. This development is not expected to result in new residents, although foot traffic to the Project site may increase. The Project is expected to be consistent with growth anticipated in the 2040 General Plan and the I-I land use designation; therefore, as discussed below, the Project would be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 56 Roux. 2021. Focused Phase II Investigation Report—1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, California. March 30, 2021. 57 ESRI. 2022. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ArcGIS Map. Available: https://bgmaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8f4f7accd3054ba5a4fde951fc45b60. Accessed: September 7, 2022. 58 U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Population, Census, July 1 2021. Available: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/burlingamecitycalifornia. Accessed August 16, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-34 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 3.1.8.1 Water A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared by EKI Consultants in September 2022 for the Project, as well as a supplementary memorandum to the WSA by the City in October 2022, and are both included in this document as Appendix E-1, Water Supply Assessment, and E-2, Water Supply Assessment Supplemental Memorandum, respectively. The WSA describes historical, current, and future water trends in the City through the year 2045, current and projected future water supplies for the City through the year 2045, and the current and projected water demands of the Project through the year 2045. For a more detailed analysis, including all tables, please refer to Appendix E- 1. The City purchases all of its potable water from the regional water system of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Regional Water System. Approximately 85 percent of the water supply originates in the Hetch Hetchy watershed in Yosemite National Park, then flows down the Tuolumne River to the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The remaining 15 percent of the water supply originates locally in the Alameda and Peninsula watershed and is then stored in six different reservoirs in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.59 According to the Project’s WSA (Appendix E-1), total City water demand decreased by approximately 28 percent between 2005 and 2022, with water use from 2005 to 2008 remaining fairly consistent at an average of 1,634 million gallons per year (MGY). Water demand decreased approximately 13 percent between 2008 and 2010, which generally corresponds with the 2007 to 2009 drought and the economic downturn. In addition, there was a significant drop in water demand between 2014 and 2016, which corresponds with the recent historic drought and mandatory state-wide water use restrictions and water conservation targets. Since 2016, water use has rebounded but has not returned to pre-drought water use levels.60 According to the City’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (2020 UWMP), the City’s average water demand between 2018 and 2022 was approximately 1,237.6 million gallons, which is equivalent to 3.39 million gallons per day (mgd) or 64.8 percent of the City’s allotted 5.23mgd.61 The City of Burlingame has an Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) from the SFPUC, which totals 5.23 mgd.62 As mentioned above, the Project is anticipated to include approximately 184,493 sf of office use and 280,183 sf of R&D use. The water demand for the R&D use is estimated based on a demand factor of 0.18 gallons per day per square foot (GPD/sf). For the office use portion of the Project, an office demand factor of 0.055 (GPD/sf) was used. The resulting water demand associated with the office and R&D portions of the Project would be approximately 3.7 and 18 MGY, respectively.63 In addition, the Project would include approximately 4,724 sf of exercise facility use and approximately 6,390 sf of food services use for tenants and visitors as part of the Project’s amenities. Water demand associated with exercise and food services were estimated using a demand factor of 0.11 GPD/sf for 59 City of Burlingame. 2021. Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.burlingame.org/departments/public_works/water.phpAccessed: September 28, 2022. 60 EKI Environment and Water, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Assessment for 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway & 810/821 Malcolm Road. Refer to Appendix E-1. 61 City of Burlingame. 2021. City of Burlingame 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/public_works/water.php. Accessed: September 28, 2022. For a full list of uncertainties, please refer to Section 7.1.4.1 of the 2020 City of Burlingame UWMP. (see table 4-1 of UWMP). 62 Ibid (see page 83). 63 EKI Environment and Water, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Assessment for 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway & 810/821 Malcolm Road. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-35 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 amenity use. Water demand associated with the exercise room would be approximately 0.19 MGY, and demand associated with the food services would be approximately 0.26 MGY. Total Indoor Use Based on the demand factors identified above, the total estimated indoor water use for the proposed Project is estimated to be approximately 23 MGY.64 The Project also includes a nine-level, approximately 291,944-sf parking garage. Water use associated with the parking garage is anticipated to be minimal, and would likely be limited to just cleaning of the facility. Assuming the garage would be cleaned approximately 12 times per year, and that 0.02 gallons per sf will be used per each cleaning event, it is estimated that approximately 0.07 MGY will be used for garage cleaning purposes.65 Furthermore, the Project includes a total of approximately 30,217 sf of landscaped area. Irrigated landscape water use was calculated based on the Maximum Applied Water Allowance per the City’s Water Conservation in Landscape Ordinance (Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 18.17), and is estimated to be approximately 0.36 MGY.66 Based on the above methodologies and assumptions made in the WSA, and adjusting for the existing water use at the site, the incremental increase in water demand associated with the Project at full buildout and occupancy is estimated to be approximately 4.2 MGY. The Project is included in the City’s 2020 UWMP water demand projections and the City’s 2022 water demand projections update, and is therefore not expected to result in an on-going net increase in water demands to the City beyond what has already been projected.67 The 2020 UWMP identifies the projected water demand in 5-year increments for the City of Burlingame up to the year 2045. The projected water demand was estimated using the Demand Management Decision Support System Model (DSS Model), which used the population and employment projections from the 2040 General Plan to estimate the projected water demand. However, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) is larger than the number of residential units assumed in the 2040 General Plan; the City is currently updating its Housing Element to reflect the new RHNA allocation. Therefore, as part of the WSA prepared for the Project, the City updated its water demand projections to reflect the City’s ongoing efforts related to the Housing Element update and assigned RHNA values and incorporate the additional residential water demand.68 Because the Project is consistent with the 2040 General Plan and would merely implement the I-I land use identified in the 2040 General Plan, the Project would be in conformance with the level of growth envisioned in the General Plan. Because the DSS Model used the growth projections from the 2040 General Plan, it is reasonable that the growth projected in the DSS Model accounts for the growth from the Project. In addition, as mentioned above, as part of the WSA prepared for the proposed Project, the model has been updated to account for the City’s ongoing efforts related to the Housing Element update and RHNA allocation. With these updates, the DSS Model projects an increase in commercial and industrial water use of 145 MGY from 2025 through 2045. Given that the Project is projected to use approximately 4.2 MGY at full buildout, representing approximately 2.9 percent of the projected commercial and industrial demand increase for the City, the Project is considered to be included within the demand projections of the City.69 Therefore, the Project is not 64 Ibid. 65 EKI Environment and Water, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Assessment for 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway & 810/821 Malcolm Road. 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-36 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 anticipated to result in an increase in demands for the City relative to those projected in the 2020 UWMP and the City’s 2022 water demand projections update. Based on the results of the DSS Model, the City would have sufficient water to serve the growth associated with the 2040 General Plan, including the growth from the Project. Furthermore, because the Project is included in the 2020 UWMP water demand projections and the City’s 2022 water demand projections update, development of the Project is not anticipated to affect water demands and supply reliability for the City beyond what was already projected in the adopted 2020 UWMP. Because the City obtains its water from the SFPUC, the City is, in turn, dependent on SFPUC’s overall water supply to its wholesale customers. SFPUC adopted its 2020 UWMP in June 2021. SFPUC’s UWMP identified several potential future water supply scenarios with different potential outcomes. Specifically, SFPUC’s 2020 UWMP contemplates scenarios reflecting full implementation of the 2018 Bay-Delta Plan Amendment (BDPA). The BDPA would require an increase in the amount of water flowing into the San Francisco Bay Delta, which would require substantial contributions from SFPUC’s water sources (including the Tuolumne River). With implementation of the BDPA, SFPUC projects that its available water supply in the years 2030 and 2040 would be unchanged in a normal year. However, its supply would drop substantially in single and multiple dry-year scenarios, imperiling SFPUC’s ability to meet its projected wholesale demand. Similarly, the City’s 2020 UWMP identifies that the City could experience significant shortfalls of its SFPUC Regional Water System supplies during single dry and multiple dry year conditions as a result of BDPA implementation. Specifically, the City is projecting supply shortfalls of up to 45 percent during single dry years and up to 53 percent during multiple dry years in 2045, and will require significant demand reductions or the development of alternate water supply sources. However, SFPUC’s UWMP notes that full implementation of the BPDA remains far from certain in the face of several legal challenges. There is considerable uncertainty that other needed actions to implement the BDPA will occur on the California State Water Resource Control Board’s expected timeline or ever. Moreover, SFPUC is actively pursuing a voluntary agreement among stakeholder agencies that would limit implementation of the BDPA, and thus reduce the impact of the BDPA on SFPUC’s water supply. Under this voluntary agreement, the City is assumed to have sufficient water to meet all of its future water demands, including the demands of t he proposed Project, in normal years. Because numerous uncertainties remain in the implementation of the BDPA and the resultant allocation of the available supply to the City, a conclusion of insufficient water supply would be speculative and cannot be made at this time. Furthermore, it is anticipated that in single and multiple dry year scenarios the City will implement its Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) to curtail demands and ensure that its supplies remain sufficient to serve all users, including the Project. The WSCP includes Mandatory Staged Restrictions of water use and systematically identifies ways in which the City can reduce water demands during dry years. The overall reduction goals in the WSCP are established for six drought stages and address water demand reductions over 50 percent. The City may allocate different levels of rationing to individual customers based on customer type (e.g., dedicated irrigation, single family residential, commercial, etc.) to achieve the required level of citywide rationing. It is anticipated that the WSCP would include a tiered allocation approach that imposes lower levels of rationing on customers who use less water than similar customers who use more water. This approach aligns with the SWRCB’s statewide emergency conservation mandate imposed during the recent drought, City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-37 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 in which urban water supplies who use less water were subjected to lower reductions than those who used more water.70 In accordance with the WSCP, the level of rationing that would be imposed on the Project would be determined at the time of a drought or other water shortage and cannot be established with certainty prior to the shortage event.71 If the Project can demonstrate below-average water use, it would be subject to a lower level of rationing than other customers that meet or exceed the average water use for the same customer class. Furthermore, as a condition of approval for the Project, the following water-efficient features would be incorporated into the Project design. • Installation of purple piping in the frontage of the Project site for future recycled water usage; • Implementation of the Prescriptive Compliance Option of the Model Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (see CCR Title 23, Chapter 2.7, Appendix D); • Installation of 100 percent WaterSense labeled products, as available; and • Incorporation of a minimum of four points under the Water Efficiency Credit category under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification. Based on the above information, the WSA concludes that, because the Project was included in the City’s 2020 UWMP and the City’s 2022 water demand projections update, it would not affect water supply reliability within the City’s service area beyond what has already been projected. Based on currently available information, the City expects to be able to meet all future demands within its service area, inclusive of the Project, in normal hydrologic years. As discussed above, the shortfalls that are currently projected during dry years will be addressed through planned implementation of the City’s 2020 WSCP.72 Due to these facts the impact on water supply would be less than significant. 3.1.8.2 Wastewater The City’s Public Works Department services Burlingame’s wastewater system. Wastewater flows are carried to the wastewater treatment facility (WWTP) at 1103 Airport Boulevard, which serves the entire city, unincorporated Burlingame Hills, as well as the town of Hillsborough.73 The average dry-weather flow of wastewater treated at the WWTP has remained fairly constant, at approximately 3.0 to 3.5 mgd, which is approximately 55 to 64 percent of the facility’s 5.5 -mgd capacity.74 As discussed above, the Project would have a water demand of approximately 4.2 MGY, or 0.97 gpd/sf ; therefore, assuming a conservative one-to-one ratio, the Project would generate 4.2 MGY, or 0.97 gpd/sf of wastewater.75 Because the WWTP treats a fraction of its permitted wastewater capacity, adequate wastewater treatment capac ity is available. In addition, the Project 70 Syed, Murtuza, Public Works Director. 2022. Memorandum—Supplemental Information to the Water Supply Assessments for Private Development Projects Located at 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road and 777 Airport Boulevard. October 13. (Appendix E-2). 71 See Table 5-2 in Appendix E-2 for the Water Shortage Contingency Plan Levels and corresponding shortage response actions. 72 The City’s 2020 WSCP is available online at: https://www.burlingame.org/document_center/Water/CityofBurlingame_2020_UWMP.pdf 73 Ibid (see 6.5-1). 74 Ibid (see 6.5-2 Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal). 75 EKI Environment and Water, Inc. 2022. Water Supply Assessment for 1669/1699 Bayshore Highway & 810/821 Malcolm Road. (See table 1). City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-38 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 would not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities because there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity available to serve the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3.1.8.3 Stormwater The Project site would treat the stormwater on site in accordance with LID treatment measures and mechanical treatment, per the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program; treated stormwater from the site will be drained to the adjacent public storm drainage mains in Malcolm Road, Stanton Road, and Old Bayshore Highway.76 Stormwater from Burlingame’s Stormwater system drains into San Francisco Bay; therefore, it is subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act of 1972. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of stormwater into waters of the United States, unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. Currently, the Project site is composed of 93 percent impervious surfaces. On Project implementation, the Project site would be composed of 82 percent impervious surfaces and 18 percent pervious surfaces ; therefore the rate or amount of surface runoff would not increase on the Project site as a result of Project implementation.77,78 Because the Project would reduce the amount of stormwater runoff compared with existing conditions, existing stormwater infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the Project, and no expanded or new off-site drainage facilities would be required , beyond minor improvements that may be included as a part of the Project . The Project would also use appropriate construction best management practices (BMPs) including the controlling and preventing the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; protecting all storm drain inlets in the Project vicinity using sediment controls; and delineating drainage courses. Appropriate source controls would also be put in place such as marking on-site inlets with the words “No Dumping! Flows to Bay” or an equivalent statement. These measures would be put in place in addition to limiting any disturbance to natural water bodies and drainage systems and minimizing impacts from stormwater and urban runoff on the biological integrity of natural drainage systems and water bodies. The existing stormwater infrastructure has adequate capacity for serving the Project site. In addition, because the Project would treat 100 percent of stormwater runoff on site using LID treatment measures, including bioretention unlined with underdrain and self-retaining areas, impacts related to stormwater drainage would be less than significant. 3.1.8.4 Solid Waste The City of Burlingame contracts with Recology San Mateo County for residential and commercial solid waste pickup . The City is within the service area of RethinkWaste, also known as the South Bayside Waste Management Authority. The City of Burlingame, as well as the Cities of Atherton, 76 ESRI. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System ArcGIS Map. Available: https://bgmaps.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8f4f7accd3054ba5a4fde951fc45b60. Accessed: September 7, 2022. 77 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. North Parcel C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist. Table I.B.1. 2022. 78 San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program. South Parcel C.3 and C.6 Development Review Checklist. Table I.B.1. 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-39 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Belmont, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Hillsborough, Menlo Park, Redwood City, San Carlos, an d San Mateo; the County of San Mateo; and the West Bay Sanitary District form the Joint Powers Authority for RethinkWaste. Recology San Mateo County provides recycling, composting, and garbage collection services for residents and businesses in the Rethink Waste service area.79 Recyclables and organic solid waste are taken by Recology trucks to the Shoreway Environmental Center in San Carlos for sorting. The Shoreway Environmental Center is owned by RethinkWaste and operated by South Bay Recycling on behalf of RethinkWaste.80 Solid waste and recyclables received at the Shoreway Environmental Center are processed and sent to the appropriate facility, including the Ox Mountain Landfill (also known as Cor inda Los Trancos Landfill), which is in Half Moon Bay. Thi s landfill is expected to remain operational until 2034 and has a maximum permitted throughput capacity of 3,598 tons per day and a maximum permit capacity of 60,500,000 cubic yards.81 The landfill accepts the following waste types: tires, other designated, asbestos, sludge (biosolids), mixed municipal, and construction/demolition.82 Construction of the Project would result in demolition waste. The Project would be required to comply with the City of Burlingame Construction and Demolition Recycling Ordinance No. 1704 (Municipal Code Chapter 8.17), which requires salvaging or recycling at least 60 percent of construction-related solid waste. The Project would also generate waste during operation from the buildings’ employees. In 2020-2021 the City of Burlingame had an employee per capita disposal rate of 5.80 pounds per person per day. 83 Therefore, with an estimated employee generation of 1,450, the Project could generate approximately 8,410 pounds (4.205 tons per day) of solid waste in the form of garbage, as well as recycling and composting material. Although trash receptacles would be provided in the parking structure, this use is not expected to generate a significant amount of waste. The Project would have a separate back of house recycling and composting facility that is accessible by Recology. The Shoreway Environmental Center is permitted to receive 3,000 tons of refuse per day.84 Once collected and sorted at Shoreway, solid waste is transported to Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, which is permitted to receive 3,598 tons per day.85 Solid waste generated by operation of the Project would represent less than 0.1 percent of the permitted capacity of Shoreway Environmental Center and Corinda Los Trancos Landfill, respectively. As such, Shoreway 79 City of Burlingame. 2022. Garbage Utility. Last updated: 2022. Available https://www.burlingame.org/departments/finance/garbage_utility_(recology).php. Accessed: September 2, 2022. 80 RethinkWaste. 2020. About Shoreway. Last revised: 2022. Available: http://www.rethinkwaste.org/shoreway- facility. Accessed: September 6, 2022 81 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed: September 6, 2022. 82 Ibid. 83 CalRecycle. 2021. Jurisdiction Per Capita Disposal Trends: Burlingame 2020-2021. Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/AnnualReporting/ReviewReports. Accessed: September 9, 2022. 84 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Shoreway Environmental Center (41-AA-0016). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1575?siteID=3236 85 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2019. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details: Corinda Los Trancos Landfill (Ox Mtn) (41-AA-0002). Available: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/1561?siteID=3223. Accessed: September 6, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-40 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Environmental Center and the Corinda Los Trancos Landfill would have adequate capacity to serve the Project, resulting in a less-than-significant solid waste impact. 3.1.8.5 Fire Protection Services The Central County Fire Department (CCFD) provides fire protection services for the Cities of Burlingame and Millbrae, and the town of Hillsborough. In total, the CCFD service area covers almost 15 square miles, with a population of 66,049 individuals. CCFD has 90 full-time employees. 86 There are six fire stations in CCFD’s jurisdiction and 1 administrative building, the administrative building and two of the fire stations are located in Burlingame. The Project would be approximately 1.4 miles west of Fire Station No. 37, located at 511 Magnolia Avenue in the City of Millbrae and the Fire Administration Building, located at 1399 Rollins Road in the City of Burlingame, is located 0.8 miles from the Project site. Due to the Project site’s distance from the fire station, the Project is not expected to substantially affect response times. In accordance with standard City practices, CCFD would review Project plans prior to the issuance of permits to ensure compliance with all applicable fire and building codes. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable CCFD codes and regulations and meet CCFD standards related to fire hydrants (e.g., fire-flow requirements, hydrant spacing) and the design of driveways and access points. As designed, the parking garage constructed under the Project would not meet fire access requirements. To address this, the Project has proposed enhancements to the parking garage, which the CCFD has agreed to in an Alternate Means of Protection Document.87 Under CEQA, the need for additional equipment and/or personnel to support fire services is not considered a significant impact, unless new facilities would need to be constructed, resulting in physical impacts. The Project would not result in an increase in the number of residents within the city, but would result in an increase in the daytime service population due to the increase in the number of employees on site. However, the increase in the number of employees at the Project site would be minor compared with the CCFD service population. Therefore, the Project would not increase the need for fire services, staffing, and/or equipment to the extent that new fire facilities would need to be constructed, resulting in a less-than-significant impact. 3.1.8.6 Police Protection Services The Burlingame Police Department (BPD) provides emergency police services within a 5-square- mile area with approximately 30,000 residents. BPD has one police station at 1111 Trousdale Drive. BPD employs 69 staff members, including 40 full time sworn officers, resulting in a ratio of 1.33 officers per 1,000 residents.88 89 The 2040 General Plan Community Safety Element does not designate a standard ratio for police officers to residents or a standard emergency response time. However, it does require continued maintenance of optimal police staffing levels, which are 86 Central County Fire Department. 2022. Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Adopted Budget. Available: https://ccfd.org/wp- content/uploads/2022/05/AdoptedBudget-FY22-23-Web.pdf. Accessed August 16, 2022. 87 Reed, Christine—Fire Marshal. 2022. Alternate Means of Protection Request—Project Nomar: 1669 Bayshore Highway, 1699 Bayshore Highway, 810 Malcolm Road, and 821 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, CA. October 3. 88 City of Burlingame Police Department. 2022. About Us. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/ police_department/about_us.php. Accessed: April 22, 2022. 89 The ratio of 1.33 officers per 1,000 residents = (40/30,106 [population]) × 1,000 residents. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-41 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 necessary to meet community safety needs.90 The General Plan Draft EIR referenced the “238 Bypass Fiscal Impact Analysis” metric, which establishes an optimum ratio of 1.5 sworn police officers per 1,000 residents.91 The Project would not add new residents , although it would increase the daytime service population in the form of 1,450 employees as a result of Project implementation . However, the General Plan EIR, adopted in 2018, found that the BPD has not identified the need for any new or expanded facilities to meet service needs.92 In addition, the estimated service ratio of sworn officers to residents is currently 1.3 3 sworn officers to 1,000 residents.93,94 Furthermore, the Project would be located roughly 0.7 miles from the Burlingame Police Station and, as such, response times would be quick and the Project site would be adequately served by police services. Under CEQA, the need for additional equipment and/or personnel to support police services is not considered a significant impact, unless new facilities would need to be constructed, thereby resulting in physical impacts. The increase in the number of employees and visitors at the Project site would be considered minimal compared with the population in the rest of the City. In addition, if needed, communication facilities to maintain communication for the Burlingame Police Department would be exempt from CEQA. Therefore, the Project would not increase the need for police services or staffing to the extent that new police facilities would need to be constructed, resulting in a less- than-significant impact. 3.1.8.7 Schools The Burlingame School District includes six elementary schools, one preschool, and one intermediate school,95 with a total enrollment of approximately 3,312 students.96 In addition, Burlingame High School, part of the San Mateo Union High School District, is located in Burlingame and has a total enrollment of 1530. In total, the San Mateo Union High School District serves approximately 9,655 students, and enrollment grows every year.97,98 90 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame General Plan. Available: https://www.burlingame.org/departments/planning/general_plan_update.php. Accessed: April 22, 2022. 91 City of Burlingame. 2018. Envision Burlingame: Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/document_center/Planning/BurlingameGP_DEIR_FullDocument_ 06-28-2018.pdf. Accessed: September 9, 2022. 92 Ibid. 93 The population of Burlingame in 2019 was estimated to be 30,106. The number of sworn officers is 40 . 94 The ratio of 1.33 officers per 1,000 residents = (40/30,106 [population]) × 1,000 residents. 95 Burlingame School District. 2018. Burlingame School District. Available: https://www.bsd.k12.ca.us/. Accessed: September 2, 2022. 96 Education Data Partnership. 2022. Burlingame Elementary. Available: http://www.ed-data.org/district/San- Mateo/Burlingame-Elementary. Accessed: September 2, 2022. 97 Ibid. 98 San Mateo Union High School District. 2020. Welcome to the San Mateo Union High School District! Available: https://www.smuhsd.org/domain/46. Accessed: September 2, 2022. City of Burlingame CEQA Exemption Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 3-42 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 The Project site is within the service area for Lincoln Elementary School.99 It would also be served by Burlingame Intermediate School and Burlingame High School. Table 10 provides enrollment information for these three schools for the 2021–2022 school year, the most recent data available. Table 10. Public Schools Serving the Project Area School 2021–2022 School Year Enrollment Lincoln Elementary School 394 Burlingame Intermediate 1,028 Burlingame High School 1,530 Source: California Department of Education, EdSource, and FCMAT/CSIS, 2022 ; Education Data Partnership. 2022. Burlingame Elementary. Available: http://www.ed-data.org/district/San-Mateo/Burlingame-Elementary. Accessed: September 2, 2022. The Project is not a residential project and does not include residential units or increase the number of residents in the area. However, non-residential development, including the Project, is still subject to SB 50 school impact fees (established by the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998).100 Section 65996 of the State Government Code states that the payment of the school impact fees established by SB 50, which may be required by any state or local agency, is deemed to constitute full and complete mitigation for school impacts from development. Nonetheless, this Project does not result in the direct generation of new residents and students and, therefore, impacts related to schools would be less than significant. Given the above, the Project adheres to the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332(e) because the site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. 99 Burlingame School District. 2022. Burlingame School District, District Boundaries. Available: https://www.bsd.k12.ca.us/districtboundaries1617. Accessed: September 2, 2022. 100 State of California. 1998. School Facilities Bond Act. Available: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97- 98/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_50_cfa_19980715_154314_sen_floor.html. Accessed: September 6, 2022. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-1 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Chapter 4 Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist In addition to investigating the applicability of CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (Class 32), this CEQA document also assesses whether any of the exemptions to qualifying for the Class 32 categorical exemption for an infill project are present. The analysis that follows compares the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (Exceptions) to the Project. 4.1 Criterion 15300.2(a): Location Yes No Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project due to its location in a particularly sensitive environment such that the project may affect an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies? This possible exception applies only to CEQA exemptions under Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, or 11. Because the Project qualifies as a Class 32 urban infill exemption, this criterion is not applicable. The Project is within a developed urban area and not within a sensitive environment. However, designated environmental resources of hazardous or critical concern in the vicinity of the Project site are evaluated under Criterion 2(e), below. 4.2 Criterion 15300.2(b): Cumulative Impact Yes No Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project due to significant cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type and in the same place over time? The Project would place new employees in an area that is well served by existing transit. The Project would repurpose underutilized parcels in an already-developed area of the City with utilities and public services, as well as multimodal transportation access. Any construction effects would be temporary, confined to the Project vicinity, and less than significant. In addition, the Project would be required to follow Municipal Code ordinances and other applicable regulatory requirements. There are several projects that have either been approved, are currently under construction, or have been proposed to the City of Burlingame that are within approximately 1 mile of the Project site. The following projects have been approved (but not built) or are currently under construction and are within approximately 1 mile of the Project. The number of units associated with each project is identified in parentheses where applicable. • 1855–1881 Rollins Road Project. Residential development (420 apartment units) • 250 Anza Boulevard Project. Commercial recreation development (71,024 sf) • 1814–1820 Ogden Drive Project. Residential development (90 condominium units) • 30 Ingold Road Project. Mixed-use development (298 apartment units) City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-2 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 • 1870–1876 El Camino Real Project. Residential development (169 apartment units) • 1776 El Camino Real Project. Residential development (311 apartment units) • 1095 Rollins Road Project. Residential development (150 apartment units) • 1 Adrian Court Project. Mixed-use development (265 apartment units) The following projects have been proposed (but not yet approved) and are within 1 mile of the Project site. The number of units associated with each project is identified in parentheses. • 1200–1340 Bayshore Highway Project: Office/Life Sciences R&D (1.46 million sf) • 777 Airport Boulevard Project. Office/R&D (403,400 sf) This document evaluates cumulative impacts using the General Plan EIR because the Project is consistent with the applicable land use plans and policies of the 2040 General Plan.101 The General Plan EIR is incorporated by reference and available for public review online.102 The General Plan EIR is available for public review at the City of Burlingame Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 94010. The General Plan EIR evaluated future development, as identified in the 2040 General Plan. As stated previously, future development is planned within 1 mile of the Project site. General Plan EIR, Chapter 22, CEQA Mandated Components, concluded that implementation of the 2040 General Plan would result in less-than-significant impacts with respect to cumulative impacts on the following resources: aesthetics; agricultural resources; air quality; biological resources; geology, soils, and minerals; hazards and hazardous materials; historic and cultural resources; hydrology and water quality; land use and planning; noise; population and housing; public services; and utilities. Given the conclusions in the General Plan EIR; given that the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the aforementioned resources; and given that future projects would be required to adhere to federal and state regulations, as well as local regulations identified in the 2040 General Plan, the Project’s contribution to impacts on the aforementioned resources would not be singularly or cumulatively considerable. General Plan EIR, Chapter 18, Transportation and Circulation, also includes a cumulative transportation impact analysis. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of local regulations and 2040 General Plan policies would ensure that cumulative transportation impacts would be less than significant.103 As discussed in Criterion 15332(d): Transportation, the Project would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to VMT; roadway segments; access and circulation; and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Given the Project’s less-than-significant impacts and given the future projects would be required to adhere to local regulations and 2040 General Plan policies, the Project’s contribution to cumulative transportation impacts would not be singularly or cumulatively considerable. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 (b) does not apply to the Project. 101 City of Burlingame. 2019. Envision Burlingame Draft Environmental Impact Report. June 28, 2018. 102 The General Plan EIR is available at https://www.burlingame.org/generalplan. 103 The General Plan EIR included a conclusion for LOS impacts. The LOS conclusions are not considered here because CEQA does not consider impacts on LOS to be an environmental effect. City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-3 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 4.3 Criterion 15300.2(c): Significant Effect Yes No Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because there is a reasonable possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances? There are no known unusual circumstances that would be applicable to the Project or its site that would result in a significant effect on the environment (see also the further discussion under Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites, regarding hazardous materials). Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c) does not apply to the Project. 4.4 Criterion 15300.2(d): Scenic Highway Yes No Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because it may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway? The Project site has no trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar visual resources within a highway that has been officially designated as a state scenic highway. The nearest scenic highway, Interstate 280, is approximately 2.3 miles southwest of the Project site;104 the Project site is not visible from that freeway. Therefore, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(d) does not apply to the Project. 4.5 Criterion 15300.2(e): Hazardous Waste Sites Yes No Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because the project is located on a site that is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code? The provisions of Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly referred to as the “Cortese List.” The provisions require the Department of Toxic Substance Control, the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Department of Public Health,105 and the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery to submit information pertaining to sites associated with solid waste disposal, hazardous waste disposal, leaking underground tank sites, and/or hazardous materials releases to the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency. 104 California Department of Transportation. 2022. California State Scenic Highway Map. Available: https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa . Accessed: September 6, 2022. 105 Formerly the California Department of Health Services. City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-4 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Phase I ESAs and Focused Phase II Investigation reports were conducted for the properties located at 1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway,106,107 810 Malcolm Road,108,109 and 821 Malcolm Road,110,111 all in accordance with ASTM Practice E1527-13 (see Appendix C). According to the Phase I ESAs and Focused Phase II ESA, the Project is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. Refer to Appendix C for further information. Because the Project site is not on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(e) does not apply to the Project. Impacts would be less than significant. 4.6 Criterion 15300.2(f): Historical Resources Yes No Is there an exception to the Class 32 exemption for the project because the project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? 4.6.1 Built-Environment Resources The Project site is located near the intersection of Old Bayshore Highway and Malcolm Road, near Burlingame’s northeast boundary along San Francisco Bay. The Project site contributes to a commercial and industrial area containing one- to two-story buildings, although Old Bayshore Highway features some larger hotel buildings that rise as tall as 11 stories. The Project site contains four parcels, each of which contains one building. The buildings within the Project site are the following: 1669 Bayshore Highway (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 026-302- 530), built 1961; 1699 Bayshore Highway (APN 026-302-550), built 1974; 810 Malcolm Road (APN 026-301-180), built 1965-1968; and 821 Malcolm Road (APN 026-302-400), built 1962. The buildings are one- or two-story commercial or industrial facilities that are consistent with many surrounding buildings near Old Bayshore Highway. Because the buildings are approximately 50 years old or older, they are of the age at which built- environment resources may become eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Buildings that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the CRHR would meet CEQA’s definition of a historical resource. Built-environment resources refer to buildings, structures, objects, and districts.112 None of the buildings within the Project site appears to have been 106 Roux. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report—1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, California. February 25, 2021. 107 Roux. 2021. Focused Phase II Investigation Report—1669 and 1699 Old Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, California. March 30, 2021. 108 Roux. 2021. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report—810 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. February 24, 2021. 109 Roux. 2021. Focused Phase II Investigation Report—810 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. March 30, 2021. 110 Roux. 2021. Draft Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report—821 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. June 5, 2021. 111 Roux. 2021. Draft Focused Phase II Investigation Report—821 Malcolm Road, Burlingame, California. June 18, 2021. 112 National Park Service. 1995. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. Page 4-5. City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-5 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 designated in a local historical resource inventory or identified as significant in a qualifying local historical resource survey. In 2022, ICF documented the buildings on California Department of Parks and Recreation forms, which include evaluations of the buildings’ eligibility for CRHR listing (Appendix F, Cultural Resources Study and Department of Parks and Recreation Forms). ICF’s evaluations found that the buildings within the Project site do not have significance under any of the CRHR evaluative criteria and are not eligible for listing in the CRHR. Therefore, the buildings do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA, as defined in CEQA section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(a)(3). New construction may also have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources that are adjacent to where construction activities would take place. Substantial adverse change would occur if new construction would alter the setting of adjacent resources or create ground-borne vibrations that would damage a nearby resource’s physical characteristics that convey its historical significance. Five built-environment resources that are of historic age (over 50 years old) are located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site: 810 Stanton Road, 820 Stanton Road, 831 Malcolm Road, 820 Malcolm Road, and 819 Mitten Road. None of the five buildings, which were likely constructed prior to 1968, appear to have previously been included in a local register of historical resources, identified in a qualifying historical resources survey, or otherwise evaluated to determine if they qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA review.113 Although the CEQA historical resource status of the five buildings adjacent to the Project site is not known, the Project does not appear to have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the buildings’ significance were they to be historical resources. The construction of multistory buildings within the Project site would not be expected to substantially degrade the setting of any nearby building, given that they exist in a developed suburban environment that has accommodated various campaigns of new construction since the mid-twentieth century, including a large 11-story hotel at the intersection of Old Bayshore Highway and Malcolm Drive opposite from the Project site. Construction of the Project would therefore be generally consistent with a continuum of development that has occurred in the vicinity of the Project site. Furthermore, construction of the Project does not appear to have the potential to physically damage adjacent historic-aged properties, although construction activities related to the Project could occur approximately within the near vicinity of other buildings. As described in greater detail in Section 15332(d), Noise, construction equipment is anticipated to generate ground-borne vibrations that would attenuate to the degree that the vibrations would remain below the damage thresholds for “historic and some old buildings” and “modern industrial/commercial buildings.” (These property categories are those specified in Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual that could apply to the nearby historic-aged buildings, which were built in the mid-twentieth century). As a result of the vibration analysis, ICF has determined that construction related to the Project is not expected to cause damage to the physical characteristics of adjacent buildings. Therefore, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the historical significance of the adjacent age-eligible buildings, were they to be historical resources under CEQA. 113 Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR). 2022. Historic aerial photograph, 1968, Malcolm Road, Burlingame, CA. Available: http://www.historicaerials.com. Accessed: August 29, 2022. City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-6 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 4.6.2 Archaeological Resources An ICF archeologist conducted archival background research and a field survey of the Project site to identify cultural resources that may meet the CEQA definition of a historical resource (California PRC Section 21084.1) or unique archaeological resource (PRC Section 21083.2), and that may be impacted affected by development within the Project site. The background research consisted of a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University; a review of the Sacred Lands File at the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento; and a review of archival maps and aerial photographs, and a geoarchaeological literature review. The results of these tasks are summarized below. 4.6.3 Background Research On September 1, 2022, an ICF archaeologist conducted a records search of the Project site and a 0.25-mile radius at the NWIC (NWIC File #22-0396). The NWIC, an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, is the official state repository of cultural resources records and reports for San Mateo County. As part of the records search, the following local and State of California inventories were reviewed: • California Inventory of Historic Resources114 • Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California;115 • California Points of Historical Interest;116 • San Mateo County Its History and Heritage;117 • California Historical Landmarks;118 and • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File.119 The directory includes the listings of the National Register, National Historic Landmarks, the California Register, California Historical Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. On September 2, 2022, ICF submitted a request to the NAHC to review its Sacred Lands File for the Project site. The NAHC is the official State repository of Native American sacred site location records in California. ICF received a response on October 11 2022 from Cody Campagne, Cultural Resources Analyst at the NAHC, stating that “A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above-referenced project. The results were negative.” A list eight Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area was also provided with the NAHC response. 114 California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1976. California Inventory of Historic Resources. 115 California Office of Historic Preservation. 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. 116 California Office of Historic Preservation. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. 117 San Mateo County Historic Resources Advisory Board. 1984. San Mateo County Its History and Heritage. 118 California Office of Historic Preservation. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. 119 California Office of Historic Preservation. 2012. Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File. April 5, 2012. City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-7 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 ICF reviewed archival maps, aerial photographs, and geoarchaeological information to assist in identifying the potential for buried pre-contact and historic-period archaeological deposits. 4.6.4 Field Survey ICF archaeologists conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project site on August 18, 2022, to examine the ground surface for evidence of archaeological materials. All exposed soils were inspected for precontact archaeological materials (e.g., stone tools, lithic debitage, ground stone), historic-period artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics), and discoloration that might indicate the presence of archaeological deposits. 4.6.5 Results The results of the NWIC records search indicate that no known and previously recorded cultural resources are located on or adjacent to the Project site. Historic-period maps and aerial photographs indicate that the Project site was an undeveloped salt marsh until the mid-twentieth century; therefore, it is unlikely that any historic-period archaeological deposits are located within the Project site. Furthermore, saltmarsh tidal flats were not inhabited consistently or with sufficient intensity to accumulate substantive archaeological deposits; therefore, the Project Site has low sensitivity for buried pre-contact archeological resources. The field survey did not identify any cultural resources. The ICF study did not identify any archaeological cultural resources on the Project site that qualify as historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. Despite the negative results, there is always a possibility that archaeological cultural resources could be encountered during Project construction activities. As a condition of approval, the City would require the Project applicant to require, as condition in its construction contract, that all personnel conducting ground-disturbing activities receive preconstruction archaeological sensitivity training. The training would include basic information about the types of artifacts that might be encountered during construction activities and identify the protocol for unanticipated archaeological discoveries, including stopping construction work if an archaeological material or feature is encountered during ground-disturbing activities, thereby preventing further disruption and possible damage. The City would also require, as a condition of approval, if unknown precontact or historic-period archaeological materials are encountered during Project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find will halt until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and make recommendations. If determined to be a historical or unique archaeological resource pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1 or PRC Section 21083.2., a treatment plan would be developed in consultation with the City and Native American stakeholders as applicable. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause substantial adverse changes to archaeological resources, were they to be historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA. In the event that human remains are identified during Project construction, the remains will be treated in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Section 5097.98, as appropriate. In the event of the discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the remains were discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s City of Burlingame Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions Checklist 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 4-8 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 authority. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of identification. The NAHC will identify a Native American MLD to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. PRC Section 5097.98 states that the NAHC, on notification of the discovery of Native American human remains, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, will immediately notify those persons (i.e., the MLD) it believes to be descended from the deceased. With permission of the landowner or a designated representative, the MLD may inspect the remains and any associated cultural materials and make recommendations for the treatment or disposition of the remains and associated grave goods. The MLD will provide recommendations or preferences for treatment of the remains and associated cultural materials within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. In consideration of the analysis outlined above, the exception under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(f) does not apply to the Project. Impacts would be less than significant. 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption 5-1 October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 Chapter 5 Conclusions On the basis of the evidence provided in this document, the Project is eligible for a Class 32 categorical exemption, in accordance with Section 15332, Infill Development Projects, of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the City of Burlingame threshold criteria, no additional substantial adverse impacts, beyond those discussed above, are anticipated to occur as a result of the Project. Because the Project meets the criteria for categorically exempt infill development projects, and because it would not have a significant effect on the environment, this analysis finds that a Notice of Exemption may be prepared for the Project. No further review is required. City of Burlingame Conclusions . 1669/1699 Old Bayshore Highway and 810/821 Malcolm Road Project CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption October 2022 ICF 104572.0.001 This page was intentionally left blank. perkinswill.com 10/7/2022 9:45:21 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/20221699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway © 2021 Perkins and Will 1699, 1701 Bayshore Highway Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED City of Burlingame CDD-Planning DIV REVISED 10.20.22 HEALTH CARE AND LABORATORY ABBREVIATIONS A AIR ADMIT ADMITTING ANESTH ANESTHESIOLOGY ANGIO ANGIOGRAPHY CARDIO CARDIOLOGY CATH CATHETERIZATION CC CUBICAL CURTAIN TRACK CDBL CODE BLUE CG CORNER GUARD CLN CLEAN C02 CARBON DIOXIDE CODE CODE CART CS CLINICAL SINK CT COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY CLN UTIL CLEAN UTILITY CVICU CARDIOVASCULAR INTENSIVE CARE UNIT CYSTO CYSTOSCOPY DIW DEIONIZED WATER DK RM DARK ROOM ED EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ENDO ENDOSCOPY ER EMERGENCY ROOM EWS EYE WASH STATION EXAM EXAMINATION GYN GYNECOLOGY HC HEALTH CARE HTHW HIGH TEMPERATURE HOT WATER ICCU INTENSIVE CARDIAC CARE UNIT ICU INTENSIVE CARE UNIT INF INFANT IP IN-PATIENT ISOL ISOLATION IV INTRAVENOUS LAB LABORATORY LDR LABOR/DELIVERY/RECOVERY LDRP LABOR/DELIVERY/ RECOVERY/POST PARTUM LIN LINEN LL LEAD LINED LTC LONG TERM CARE MAG MAGNET(IC) MAMMO MAMMOGRAPHY MED MEDICINE/ MEDICATION MICU MEDICAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT MON MONITOR MRI MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING N2 NITROGEN N20 NITROUS OXIDE NARC NARCOTICS NC NURSE CALL NEURO NEUROLOGY NICU NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT NS NURSE STATION NUC NUCLEAR NUR NURSE(RY) O2 OXYGEN OB OBSTETRICS OP OUT PATIENT OR OPERATING ROOM ORTHO ORTHOPEDICS OTO OTOSCOPE/OPTHALMOSCOPE PACU POST ANETHESIA CARE UNIT PAT PATIENT PATH PATHOLOGY PEDS PEDIATRIC(S) PET POSITION EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY PHAR PHARMACY PROC PROCEDURE PT STA PNEUMATIC TUBE STATION R/F RAD/FLUORO RADIOL RADIOLOGY RECOV RECOVERY ROOM SECL RM SECLUSION ROOM SICU SURGICAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT SNF SKILLED NURSING FACILITY SU SOILED UTILITY SUCT SUCTION SURG SURGICAL TELEM TELEMETRY TREAT TREATMENT TV BRK TELEVISION MOUNTING BRACKET VAC VACUUM LINE VAC CTR VACUUM CONTAINER VAC SL VACUUM SLIDE WAGE WASTE ANESTHETIC GAS EVACUATION WP WALL PROTECTION XR X RAY GENERAL NOTES SYMBOLS LEGEND WINDOW TYPE SYMBOL INTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM TAG (NUMERIC) EXTERIOR GLAZING SYSTEM TAG (ALPHA) LOUVER TYPE IDENTIFIER (ALPHA AND NUMERIC) PARTITION TAG FLOOR DRAIN ROOF DRAIN AND OVERFLOW DRAIN OVERFLOW DRAIN ROOF DRAIN GLAZING TAG GLAZING DESIGNATION ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK NO BOX INDICATES ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK REF A60-01 FOR ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK SECTIONS AND DETAILS CABINET WIDTH CABINET TYPE EXISTING PARTITION / ITEM TO REMAIN NEW PARTITION / ITEM EXISTING TO BE REMOVED COLUMN GRID DESIGNATION NEW GRID EXISTING GRID NOTE TAGS "NOTES BY NUMBER" SPECIFICATION KEYNOTES BUILDING SECTION TAG SECTION DESIGNATION SHEET NUMBER WALL / DETAIL SECTION TAGS SECTION DESIGNATION SHEET NUMBER SHEET NUMBERDETAIL DESIGNATION ENLARGED PLAN TAG PLAN OR DETAIL DESIGNATION SHEET NUMBER EXTERIOR ELEVATION TAG ELEVATION DESIGNATION SHEET NUMBER INTERIOR ELEVATION TAG SINGLE INTERIOR ELEVATION TAG ELEVATION DESIGNATION SHEET NUMBER DOOR IDENTIFICATION TAG DOOR DESIGNATOR ROOM NUMBER (THAT DOOR SWINGS INTO) EQUIPMENT DESIGNATION EQUIPMENT TAG OWNER PROVIDED EQUIPMENT/ ITEM CONTRACTOR PROVIDED EQUIPMENT/ ITEM TOILET ACCESSORY TAG MATERIALS AT LARGE SCALES ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND NOTE 1: ABBREVIATIONS WHEN USED IN COMPOSITION MAY INCLUDE PERIODS FOR CLARIFICATION NOTE 2: ABBREVIATIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT WHEN A PART OF A LEGEND SYMBOLS GA GAGE GALV GALVANIZED GEN GENERAL GFRC GLASS FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE GFRG GLASS FIBER REINFORCED GYPSUM GL GLASS GL BLK GLASS BLOCK GLU LAM GLUED LAMINATED WOOD GR LN GRADE LINE GRFL GROUND FLOOR GSB GYPSUM SHEATHING BOARD GT GREASE TRAP GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD GYP PLAS GYPSUM PLASTER H HIGH HB HOSE BIBB HC HOLLOW CORE HDW HARDWARE HDWD HARDWOOD HM HOLLOW METAL HORIZ HORIZONTAL HPT HIGH POINT HSKPG HOUSEKEEPING HT HEIGHT HVAC HEATING, VENTILATION, AIR CONDITIONING HW HOT WATER ID INSIDE DIAMETER INCAND INCANDESCENT INSUL INSULATION INT INTERIOR INV INVERT JAN CLO JANITOR'S CLOSET KIT KITCHEN L LONG, LENGTH LAM LAMINATE(D) LAU LAUNDRY LAV LAVATORY LB POUND(S) LF LINEAR FOOT, (FEET) LH LEFT HAND LIB LIBRARY LKR LOCKER LL LIVE LOAD LONG LONGITUDINAL LOC LOCATION LPT LOW POINT LT LIGHT LVR LOUVER m METER MACH MACHINE MAINT MAINTENANCE MATL MATERIAL MAX MAXIMUM MECH MECHANICAL MEMB MEMBRANE MEP MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING @ FIRE PROTECTION MEZZ MEZZANINE MFR MANUFACTURER MH MANHOLE MHO MAGNETIC HOLD OPEN MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS MKR BD MARKER BOARD mm MILLIMETER MO MASONRY OPENING MTL METAL N NORTH NIC NOT IN CONTRACT NO NUMBER NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE O/O OUT TO OUT OC ON CENTER OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF/CI OWNER FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED OF/OI OWNER FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED OFF OFFICE OPH OPPOSITE HAND OPNG OPENING OPP OPPOSITE ORD OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN PA PUBLIC ADDRESS PAR PARAPET, PARALLEL PCC PRE-CAST CONCRETE PERF PERFORATED PERP PERPENDICULAR PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE PLAS PLASTER PLBG PLUMBING PLYWD PLYWOOD PNT PAINT POL POLISHED PR PAIR PREFAB PREFABRICATE(D) PROJ PROJECT PROP PROPERTY PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PT POINT/ PRESSURE TREATED PTD PAPER TOWEL DISPENSER PTN PARTITION PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PVG PAVING QT QUARRY TILE QTY QUANTITY R THERMAL RESISTANCE, RADIUS, RISER RB RUBBER BASE RC REINFORCED CONCRETE RCP REFLECTED CEILING PLAN RCPTN RECEPTION RD ROOF DRAIN REC RECESSED REF REFERENCE, REFRIGERATOR REINF REINFORCE, REINFORCING REQ(D) REQUIRE, REQUIRED RESIL RESILIENT REV REVISION RF RESILIENT FLOORING RH RIGHT HAND RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING ROW RIGHT OF WAY RTF RUBBER TILE FLOOR RVL REVEAL & AND ANGLE @ AT x BY (LOWERCASE) CENTER LINE [ CHANNEL X° DEGREE Ø DIAMETER ╩ DOUBLE ANGLE # NUMBER, POUNDS PROPERTY LINE ± PLUS OR MINUS SQUARE FEET ZEE COLUMN; TUBE / DIVIDED BY MAXIMUM MINIMUM RANGE PL A11 L1 A-XXX X 301A FD TA1 XX A-XXX SIM XX A-XXX SIM 1 XX A-XXX SIM A-XXX X Ref X RefX RefX Ref GL-X XX XX/A-XXX Ref A1 24". EXISTING TO REMAIN. REFERENCE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL WORK IN THIS AREA CL A 1 NORTH ARROW TRUE NORTH ARROW PROJECT NORTH ARROW 1 1.2 A 2 A UNDISTRUBED SOIL SAND STEEL STRUCTURAL CONCRETE CONTINUOUS WOOD FRAMING STRUCTURAL CLAY TILE ALUMINUM/ORNAMENTAL METAL CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT BRICK, COMMON FACE CUT STONE TERRAZZO ASPHALT GRAVEL, POROUS FILL FINISH WOODWORK GYPSUM WALLBOARD BLOCKING OR SHIM WATERPROOFING/ DAMPROOFING/ AIR/ MOISTURE BARRIER RIGID INSULATION PARTICLE BOARD PLYWOOD COMPACTED FILL/SOIL LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE CAST STONE BRICK, GLAZED ? ? FIRE RATED SHAFT ENCLOSURE GLASS GYPSUM WALLBOARD LEAD-LINED BATT INSULATION BOARD ACOUSTICAL CEILING SPRAY-ON FIREPROOFING OR INSULATION GLASS BLOCK WOOD FLOORING EXTERIOR SHEATHING SOLID SURFACING EIFS PLASTER STUCCO W/ METAL LATH XXXXX CONTRACTOR INSTALLED EQUIPMENT/ ITEM CONTRACTOR FURNISHED EQUIPMENT/ ITEM XX A-XXX Ref A/C AIR CONDITION(ING)(ED) ACC ACCESSIBLE ACST ACOUSTIC(AL) AD AREA DRAIN ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ADJ ADJUSTABLE/ ADJACENT AFC ABOVE FINISHED COUNTER AFF ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR AFG ABOVE FINISHED GRADE AGGR AGGREGATE AHU AIR HANDLING UNIT ALT ALTERNATE ALUM ALUMINUM ANOD ANODIZE(D) APC ACOUSTICAL PANEL CEILING APPROX APPROXIMATE ARCH ARCHITECT(URAL), ARCHITECT ASPH ASPHALT ATC ACOUSTICAL TILE CEILING AUTO AUTOMATIC AWT ACOUSTICAL WALL TREATMENT B/B BACK TO BACK BC BACK OF CURB BD BOARD BITUM BITUMINOUS BLDG BUILDING BM BEAM/ BENCHMARK BOT/BSMT BOTTOM OF BASEMENT BUR BUILT-UP ROOFING CAB CABINET CB CATCH BASIN CCTV CLOSED CIRCUIT TELEVISION CF/CI CONTRACTOR FURNISHED, CONTRACTOR INSTALLED CF/OI CONTRACTOR FURNISHED, OWNER INSTALLED CFM CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE CFMF COLD-FORMED METAL FRAMING CG CORNER GUARD CI CAST IRON, CURB INLET CIP CAST-IN-PLACE CJ CONTROL JOINT CL CENTER LINE CLG CEILING CLO CLOSET CLR CLEAR cm CENTIMETER CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CO CLEANOUT COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONF CONFERENCE COORD COORDINATE CORR CORRIDOR CPT CARPET/CARPET TILES CT CERAMIC TILE CU CUBIC CW COLD WATER PIPING/ CHEMICAL WASTELINE D DEEP, DEPTH DBL DOUBLE DEG DEGREE DEMO DEMOLISH, DEMOLITION DEPT DEPARTMENT DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIA DIAMETER (EXTERIOR) DIAG DIAGONAL DIFF DIFFUSER/ DIFFERENCE DIM DIMENSION DISP DISPENSER DIV DIVISION DL DEAD LOAD DR DOOR/ DRAIN DS DOWNSPOUT DW DISHWASHER DWG DRAWING E EAST EA EACH EIFS EXTERIOR INSULATION AND FINISH SYSTEM EJ EXPANSION JOINT EL ELEVATION ELAST ELASTOMERIC ELEC ELECTRIC(AL) ELEV ELEVATOR EMER EMERGENCY EMER SHR EMERGENCY SHOWER ENGR ENGINEER ENTR ENTRANCE EO ELECTRIC OUTLET EOS EDGE OF SLAB EP ELECTRICAL PANEL EQ EQUAL EQUIP EQUIPMENT ETC ET CETERA EW EACH WAY EWC ELECTRIC WATER COOLER EXH EXHAUST EXIST EXISTING EXP EXPANSION EXT EXTERIOR, EXTERNAL F/F FACE TO FACE FCO FLOOR CLEANOUT FD FLOOR DRAIN FDC FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION FE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FF FINISH FACE FH FIRE HYDRANT FHC FIRE HOSE CABINET FIN FINISH(ED) FF EL FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FLR FLOOR FLUOR FLUORESCENT FO FINISHED OPENING FOC FACE OF CURB FOF FACE OF FINISH FOM FACE OF MASONRY FOS FACE OF SLAB/ FACE OF STUD FP FIRE PROTECTION/ FIREPROOF FRTW FIRE RETARDANT TREATED WOOD FT FOOT (FEET)/ FIRE TREATED FTG FOOTING FURG FURRING FURN FURNISH, FURNITURE FUT FUTURE FV FIELD VERIFY S SOUTH SAN SANITARY SC SOLID CORE SCHED SCHEDULE SECT SECTION SF SQUARE FOOT(FEET) SGL SINGLE SHR SHOWER SHT SHEET SIM SIMILAR SJ SLIP JOINT, SCORED JOINT SPEC SPECIFICATION SPKR SPEAKER SQ SQUARE SST STAINLESS STEEL STA STATION STC SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS STD STANDARD STL STEEL STOR STORAGE STRUCT STRUCTURAL SUSP SUSPENDED SV SHEET VINYL SYMM SYMMETRICAL T TREAD T/ TOP OF TA TOILET ACCESSORY T&B TOP & BOTTOM T&G TONGUE & GROOVE TEL TELEPHONE TEMP TEMPORARY TER TERRAZZO THK THICK TI TENANT IMPROVEMENT TLT TOILET TO_ TOP OF _____ TOPO TOPOGRAPHY, TOPOGRAPHIC TRTD TREATED TS TUBE STEEL TV TELEVISION TYP TYPICAL U HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT UH UNIT HEATER UL UNDERWRITER'S LABORATORIES UNEX UNEXCAVATED UNFIN UNFINISHED UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE UTIL UTILITY VB VINYL BASE VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE VENT VENTILATION VERT VERTICAL VEST VESTIBULE VIF VERIFY IN FIELD VNR VENEER VOL VOLUME VWC VINYL WALL COVERING W WEST W/ WITH W/O WITHOUT WC WATER CLOSET WD WOOD WG WALL GUARD WH WATER HEATER WI WROUGHT IRON WSCT WAINSCOT WT WEIGHT WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC WWM WELDED WIRE MESH X BY YD YARD YR YEAR ZN ZINC 1. REFER TO COMPLETE SET OF ISSUED CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR APPLICABLE NOTES, ABBREVIATIONS, AND SYMBOLS. 2. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWING. IF DIMENSIONS ARE IN QUESTION. OBTAIN CLARIFICATION FROM THE ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING. ROOM FINISH TAG XXX XXX XXX XXX CEILING FINISH WALL FINISH WALL BASE FINISH FLOOR FINISH SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:21 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG00-10 GENERAL NOTES AND ABBREVIATIONS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION SITE MAP NORTH BUILDNG PARKING NORTH PARCEL SOUTH BUILDNG SOUTH PARCEL VICINITY MAP SITE OVERALL SITE MUNICIPAL CODE: 1931 BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE & NOVEMBER 2016 CODE SUPPLEMENT ZONING ORDINANCE: BURLINGAME ZONING ORDINANCE (JAN. 5, 2022)- CITY COUNCIL APPROVED UPDATE BUILDING CODE: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE MECHANICAL: 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICL CODE PLUMBING: 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE ELECTRICAL: 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE FIRE CODE: 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE ACCESSIBILITY CODE: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 11B AND 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR ACCESSIBLE DESIGN ENERGY CODE: 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS: 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODES/ LAWS: HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FL SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 415.515.7506 (TEL) CONTACT: PETER BANZHAF 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 10/3/2022 PW PROJECT #035196.100 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project is a new research and development two-building campus located at the intersection of Bayshore Highway and Malcolm Road in Burlingame, CA. A primary goal for the Project is to create high quality design and functionality to attract leading industry life science tenants to Burlingame and contribute to the City’sestablished business community. The construction of the Project will be new, ground up, 6 and 7-story steel frame buildings with glass and metal curtain wall.The Project’s site is designed to promote pedestrian access with the public realm through a new plaza activating the streetscape between the two occupied buildings. APN: ADDRESS: 026-302-530 1669 BAYSHORE HWY., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 026-302-550 1699 BAYSHORE HWY., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 026-301-180 810 MALCOLM RD., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 026-302-400 821 MALCOLM RD., BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PROPOSED USE: LABORATORY OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION: MIXED OCCUPANCY, GROUP B, L, AND A-3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE I-A, FULLY SPRINKLERED SITE INFORMATION BUILDING INFORMATION ZONNING DESIGNATION BUILDING AREA3 GARAGE LEVEL NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT SIDE REAR INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL (II)1 197,760 SF (4.5 AC) NORTH BUILDING SOUTH BUILDING 128' TO T.O. PENTHOUSE 143' TO T.O. PENTHOUSE FAR 2.41 REQUIRED4 PROPOSED 16'-6" 24'-9" 76'-10" OLD BAYSHORE HWY OLD BAYSHORE HWY NORTHWEST PARCEL LINE (BORDERING 1755 BAYSHORE HWY) STANTON RD SOUTHWEST PARCEL LINE (BORDERING 820 MALCOLM RD) SOUTHWEST PARCEL LINE (BORDERING 831 MALCOLM RD) VEHICLE PARKING NORTH BUILDING PODIUM SOUTH BUILDING PODIUM PARKING GARAGE SURFACE PARKING REQUIRED1 PROPOSED OFFICE 837 0 ADA STALLS STANDARD STALLS COMPACT STALLS ADA STALLS STANDARD STALLS COMPACT STALLS 0 0 0 ADA STALLS STANDARD STALLS COMPACT STALLS 0 0 E.V. DAY ONE FUTURE E.V. 16 512 146 60 62 ADA E.V.5 ADA STALLS STANDARD STALLS 38 36 2 # OF STALLS 0 NOTE: 1. PER BURLINGAME ZONING ORDINANCE (JAN 5, 2022), 25.40.030. 2. TOTAL PARKING STALLS ARE SHARED AMONG BOTH PARCELS. *REQUIRED PARKING REDUCED BY 20% AS ELIGIBLE DUE TO THE TDM OWNER LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5 LEVEL 6 N. PENTHOUSE/LEVEL 7 S. PENTHOUSE N/A 30,750 SF 30,590 SF 9,680 SF N/A N/A 37,550 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 12,420 SF 193,380 SF 282,410 SF TOTAL CAMPUS NOTES: 3 PER BURLINGAME ZONING ORDINANCE (NOV, 2021), 25.30.060, THE FLOOR AREA OF A BUILDING SHALL BE THE SUM OF ALL FLOORS OF A BUILDING OR BUILDINGS, AS MEASURED TO THE OUTSIDE SURFACES OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS OF THE STRUCTURE OR STRUCTURES AND INCLUDING SUCH AREAS AS HALLS, STAIRWAYS, COVERED PORCHES AND BALCONIES, ELEVATOR SHAFTS, SERVICE AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOMS AND BASEMENTS, CELLARS, AND IMPROVED SPACE IN ATTIC AREAS. FLOOR AREA SHALL EXCLUDE PARKING GARAGES AND PARKING STRUCTURES FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, MULTI-UNIT AND MIXED-USE BUILDINGS, EITHER ABOVE GROUND OR UNDERGROUND. BUILDING HEIGHT STORIES 6 STORIES ABOVE GRADE 7 STORIES ABOVE GRADE ZONING INFORMATION NOTES: 1 PER BURLINGAME ZONING ORDINANCE (NOV, 2021)- CITY COUNCIL APPROVED UPDATE. 2 PROPOSED NORTH AND SOUTH PARCEL - REFER TO SHEET G01-02 PARCEL MAP. PROGRAM (GSF) RETAIL (EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT) INDUSTRIAL 150,374 6,390 TOTAL CAMPUS REQUIRED 728 / 582* 226 / 181* 0 502 / 402* TOTAL STALLS2 BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED3 PROPOSED SHOR-TERM BIKE PARKING LONG-TERM BIKE PARKING 45 52 2 NOTE: 3. PER CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARD CODE 2016, SECTION 5.106.4.1. KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 617.910.5046 (TEL) CONTACT: MICHAEL DIMINICO Perkins&Will 2 BRYANT ST, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 415.856.3000 (TEL) CONTACT: PETER PFAU ARCHITECTURE SWA GROUP 530 BUSH ST, 6TH FL SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 LANDSCAPE BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 CIVIL NABIH YOUSSEF 550 SOUTH HOPE ST, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 STRUCTURAL MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY ST, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 MEP WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING 0 16 1699, 1701 Bayshore Highway, Burlingame, CA 94010 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT N/A 193,380 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 30,750 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 30,590 SF 9,680 SF N/A 12/17 PLANNING SUBMISSION 12/17 PLANNING SUBMISSION N/A 37,550 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 38,740 SF 12,420 SF 38,740 SF 282,410 SF 2.41 12/17 PLANNING SUBMISSION NORTH BUILDING 61,993 88,381 0 6,390 12/17 PLANNING SUBMISSION 12/17 PLANNING SUBMISSION 92,714 132,846 225,560 146,580 6,390 219,870 489 32 220 741 SOUTH BUILDING 10' 10' 16'-6" 16'-1" 77'-10" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 909 17 604 103 72 75 7 38 2 36 947 5/02 PLANNING SUBMISSION REQUIRED4 PROPOSED 11'-0" 29'-0" 10' 10' 10' 10'-8" 22'-8" 10' 5/02 PLANNING SUBMISSION 10' NORTH BUILDING SOUTH BUILDING NORTH PARCEL2 SOUTH PARCEL2 71,370 SF 126,390 SF 2.232.71 TOTAL CAMPUS 475,790 SF TOTAL STREET PARKING CLEAN AIR E.V.36 31 TOTAL CAMPUS TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL N S 133 0 295 93 0 207 11 LOT COVERAGE SOUTH PARCEL AREA 126,388 SF GARAGE AREA 33,544 SF SOUTH BUILDING GROUND FLOOR AREA 37,550 SF LOT COVERAGE 55% NORTH PARCEL AREA 71,372 SF NORTH BUILDING GROUND FLOOR AREA 30,750 SF LOT COVERAGE 43% LANDSCAPE COVERAGE PROPOSED 15% NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL REQUIRED4 (MIN.) SIDE 14'-10" MALCOLM RD MALCOLM RD 22'-1" PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED 10' 10' 25'-11" 10' 29'-7" 15.2% 15.3% 15.2% LOT COVERAGE5 NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL 55% 51% 43% 70%REQUIRED4 (MAX.) PROPOSED NOTE: 4. PER BURLINGAME ZONING ORDINANCE (NOV, 2021), 25.12.30 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. 5. ALSO SEE LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM ON THIS PAGE. PROJECT N S 875 ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY AND 810 & 821 MALCOLM PUBLIC PLAZA NORTH PARCEL SOUTH PARCEL PROPOSED TOTAL 11,562 5,280 5,739 MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 B ISSUED FOR 90% CD 06SEPT2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 15% 15%15% O L D B A Y S H O R E H W Y OLD BAYSHORE HWYMALCOLM RDS A N F R A N CIS C O AIR P O R T M A R RIO T T W A T E R F R O N T U NIT E D S T A T E S P O S T A L S E R VIC E M C N E VIN C L E A NIN G S P E CIA LIS T S AIR P O R T V A N R E N T A L C O T C H E T T, PIT R E & M C C A R T H Y, L L P P.L. A N N U Z ZI, IN C. P M C P H A R M A C Y LIB E R T Y E L E C T RICHAMPTON INN & SUITES SAN FRANCISCO-BURLINGAME-AIRPORT SOUTHSTANTON RDLIM O U SIN E S E R VIC E B A Y T R AIL N O R T H P A R C E L S O U T H P A R C E L AIR P O R T C O M MIS SIO N R E P O G R A P HIC S SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:35 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG01 -00 EXISTING CONDITION AND CONTEXT 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com MARK ISSUE DATE C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:36 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG01 -01 PHOTOS OF NEIGHBORING BUILDINGS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. STANDING AT OLD BAYSHORE HWY LOOKING WEST AT MALCOLM RD NORTH SITE SOUTH SITE 4. STANDING AT OLD BAYSHORE HWY LOOKING WEST AT NORTH SITE AND HAMPTON INN 5. STANDING AT OLD BAYSHORE HWY LOOKING EAST 6. STANDING AT OLD BAYSHORE HWY LOOKING EAST AT MARRIOTT HOTEL 7. STANDING AT OLD BAYSHORE HWY LOOKING EAST 2. STANDING AT OLD BAYSHORE HWY LOOKING SOUTH 9. STANDING AT MALCOLM RD LOOKING NORTH8. STANDING AT MALCOLM RD LOOKING SOUTH 1. STANDING AT STANTON RD LOOKING NORTHWEST AT SOUTH SITE 8 9 1 NORTH MARK ISSUE DATE C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 PLAZA PLAZA OLD BAYSHORE HWY POTENTIAL SHUTTLE STOPNORTH BUILDING SOUTH BUILDING GARAGE BUILDING SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:40 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG01 -03 ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 01 - ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:41 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG01 -04 SHADOW, SUN, AND WIND STUDY 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com SHADOW STUDY - JANUARY 9 AM 1 PM 5 PM 9 AM 1 PM 5 PM 9 AM 1 PM 5 PM 9 AM 1 PM 5 PM SHADOW STUDY - MARCH SHADOW STUDY - MAY SHADOW STUDY - SEPTEMBER WIND PATHS SUN PATH DIAGRAMMALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AYMALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AYMALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY MALCOLM ROADBAYSH O RE HIG H W AY ARCHITECTS ANALYSIS OF SUN AND WIND: THE DIAGRAMS ABOVE ARE PROVIDED TO PROVE THAT OUR EXTERIOR TERRACES FOCUSED ON MALCOLM ROAD WILL BE PROTECTED FROM THE PREVAILING WINDS BY THE BUILDING AND LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT. THE SHADOWS WILL HAVE A VARIETY OF CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, ALLOWING USERS TO MOVE THEMSELVES INTO SHADE OR SUN FOR COMFORT DEPENING ON THE TEMPERATURE OF THE DAY. THIS SHOULD ALLOW IT TO REMAIN ACTIVE IN AT ALL TIMES, NO MATTER THE SEASON. MARK ISSUE DATE C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 DN 2 1 3 4 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:45 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG20 -01 RENDERINGS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1. WEST AERIAL 2. STANTON RD -OLD BAYSHORE HWY INTERSECTION 3. MALCOLM RD -PLAZA 4. MALCOLM RD -OLD BAYSHORE HWY INTERSECTION MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 DN 1 2 3 4 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:49 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtG20 -02 GARAGE RENDERINGS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1.PALAZA VIEW 2. MALCOLM RD VIEW 3.GARAGE ENTRANCE 4. GARAGE LANDSCAPE GLASS SEMI-ENCLOSURE METAL PANEL -BENT FOR RIGIDITY COLORFUL STAIR ACCENT BRIDGING OVER BIORETENTION GARAGE FACADE REFERENCES MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 UP UP FECFECUPMalcolm RdOld Bayshore Hwy ADAADAVANUP UP UP UPFECUP 3 D924FECFECFECFECDN DN 5 A20 - 02 3 A20 - 02 2 A20 - 02 6 A20 - 02 4 A20 - 02 2 A20 - 01 1 A20 - 02 TRASH AREA TRASH AREA BULK TANK STORAGE INTERRUPTER SWITCH INTERRUPTER SWITCH BULK TANK STORAGE O L D B A Y S H O R E H W Y OLD BAYSHORE HWY STANTON RDMALCOLM RDABOVE GROUND ENCLOSURE ABOVE GROUND ENCLOSURE O L D B A Y S H O R E H W Y STANTON RDMALCOLM RD1 A20 - 01 26' - 5"14' - 0"30' - 2"26' - 4"15' - 0"31' - 1"30' - 8"10' - 8"24' - 5" 15' - 9" 20' - 6"10' - 0"11' - 11" 29' - 7"16' - 7"23' - 5"18' - 7"22' - 8"27' - 2" 25' - 11" 53' - 2"78' - 0"52' - 4" 16' - 1" 16' - 1" 6' - 0"13' - 0" 14' - 4"28' - 0" 29' PROPOSED SHARED EASEMENT. SEE CIVIL DOCUMENTS 7' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 7' - 0" 13' - 0" 6' - 0"32' - 8"20' PROPOSED SHARED EASEMENT. SEE CIVIL DOCUMENTSPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC RESERVED FOR 810 STANTON RESERVED FOR 810 STANTON RESERVED FOR 810 STANTON PRIMARY PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION PROPERTY LINE PARKING GARAGE ACCESS 1" = 20'-0"1 OVERALL SITE GROUND PLAN SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:40:36 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA01 -00 SITE PLAN 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com NORTH MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 155'-1" 22'-11"45'-10"58'-10"19'19' - 0" UP UP FECFECUPMalcolm RdStanton RdOld Bayshore Hwy ADAADAVANUP UP UP UPFECUPUP CRCR CR CR CR 2WCRCR CR CRCR CR CRFECFECFECFECDN DN n3 n3 n2 n2 n1 n1 s1 s1 sF sF sG sG sH sH sI sI s4 s6 s5 s2 s2 nF nF nG nE nE nD nD nC nCnA n6 n6 n5 n5 n4 n4 sL sJ sJ s3 nB sA.2 sL.2 nA.2 nG.2 LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"24' - 9"44' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 5"44' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 1"EXIT PASSAGEWAY ABOVE WITHIN CEILING44' - 0"35' - 9"44' - 0"TRASH AREATRASH AREA BULK TANK STORAGE INTERRUPTER SWITCH VEHICULAR LOAD IN/ OUT Legend AMENITY - PUBLIC TENANT CIRCULATION CORE SUPPORT OLD BAYSHORE HWY STANTON RDMALCOLM RDINTERRUPTER SWITCH BULK TANK STORAGE VEHICULAR LOAD IN/ OUT sB sB sC sC sD sD sA sE sE TURNSTILES BICYCLE PARKING PLAZA PLAZA 1809 SF LOBBY 255 SF FCC 497 SFTELCOM POE542 SF FIRE PUMP ROOM, DOMESTIC WATER PUMP ROOM/WATER HEATERS 461 SF TENANT FUTURE 282 SFTENANT FUTREELECTRICAL783 SF ELECTRICAL ROOM 279 SF DOCK OFFICE 506 SF EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL ROOM 74 SF STORAGE 316 SF ELEVATOR LOBBY STAIR A 12076 SF TENANT 769 SF METER AND DIST ROOM 1310 SF SUBSTATION ROOM 1120 SF FIRE WATER TANK 740 SF FIRE PUMP ROOM, DOMESTIC WATER PUMP ROOM/WATER HEATERS 2627 SF LOADING DOCK 355 SF CHEM STORAGE 335 SF CHEM WASTE 272 SFTELCOM POEABOVE GROUND ENCLOSURE PARKING GARAGE REFER TO GARAGE PLANS 7' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 178' - 4" 394 SF CHEM STORAGE 547 SF CHEM WASTE sA.3 sA.3 s1.1s1.1 179 SF ELEC 61 SF IDF 143 SF STOR 91 SF STORAGE 7965 SF TENANT 573 SF FREIGHT LOBBY1868 SF LOADING DOCK STAIR B 259 SF STORAGE 738 SF RESTROOMS 7169 SF TENANT 2696 SF LOBBY 971 SFELEVATORLOBBY171 SFFREIGHT LOBBY155 SF STORAGE STAIR A 263 SF STAIR B 52 SF STORAGE 72 SF STORAGE 196 SF ELEC 53 SF IDF 75 SF STORAGE 334 SF FCC 4012 SF FOOD AND BEVERAGE 2341 SF CONFERENCE ROOM 566 SF RESTROOMS 60 SF JAN 301 SF WOMENS RESTROOMS & SHOWERS 292 SF MENS RESTROOMS & SHOWERS13' - 0"176 SFF&B STORAGE568 SF EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL ROOM205' - 8"80 SF IDF A02-01 1 A02-01 2 A02-01 3 40 SF JAN 539 SF FIRE WATER TANK 13' - 0" A02-02 1 A02-02 4 A02-02 2 A02-02 36' - 0" n3.5 n3.5 n2.4 n2.4 sC.3 sC.3 sE.3 sE.3 sE.7 sE.7 sF.4 sF.4 sG.3 sG.3 sH.3 sH.3 sI.2 sI.2 sL.3 s2.3 s2.3 s2.7 s2.7 s2.8 s2.8 VESTIBULE VESTIBULE VESTIBULE 7' - 0" 6' - 0" 13' - 0" 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 01 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:40:51 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA10-01 LEVEL 01 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 B ISSUED FOR 90% CD 06SEPT2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 Malcolm RdStanton RdOld Bayshore Hwy ADAADAVANUP UP UP UP UP UP UPFECUP CRCR CR CR CR 2WCRCR CR CRCR CR CRFECFECFECFECDN DN STORAGEAV LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE LINE OF BUILDING ABOVE Legend AMENITY - PUBLIC TENANT CIRCULATION CORE SUPPORT OLD BAYSHORE HWY STANTON RDMALCOLM RDBICYCLE PARKING 1160 SF BOARDROOM 12076 SF TENANT PARKING GARAGE REFER TO GARAGE PLANS 7' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 7965 SF TENANT 7169 SF TENANT 4012 SF FOOD AND BEVERAGE 2341 SF CONFERENCE ROOM176 SFF&B STORAGE6' - 0" 13' - 0" 13' - 0" 7' - 0" 6' - 0" 13' - 0" SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:41:09 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA10-01.1 LEVEL 01 - COMMUNITY BENEFITS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com NORTH 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 01 - COMMUNITY BENEFITS MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 FECFEC UP UP UP UP CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CR CRCR CR CRCRCR CRCRCR CR CRCRCR CRFECFECFEC FEC FEC FEC FEC FEC FEC FECFEC FECFECFEC FECFECFECFECn3 n3 n2 n2 n1 n1 s1 s1 sF sF sG sG sH sH sI sI s4 s6 s5 s2 s2 nF nF nG nE nE nD nD nC nCnA n6 n6 n5 n5 n4 n4 sL sJ sJ s3 nB sA.1 sL.1 nA.1 nG.1 PARKING GARAGE REFER TO GARAGE PLANS 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0" 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 11"3' - 3"2' - 9"44' - 0"24' - 9"44' - 0"3' - 3"16' - 11"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"3' - 0"2' - 9"44' - 0"34' - 5"44' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 1"44' - 0"35' - 9"44' - 0"sB sB sC sC sD sD sA sE sE 33555 SF TENANT 26215 SF TENANT STAIR A 163 SF ELEC 37 SF IDF 51 SF JAN STAIR B 266 SFRESTROOMS266 SFRESTROOMS181 SF ELEC 70 SF IDF STAIR C 270 SFELEV LOBBY24' - 6"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0" 52 SF STORAGE 287 SF ELEC 131 SF STOR 120 SF IDF 31 SF JAN 180 SFFREIGHT LOBBY394 SF ELEV LOBBY STAIR ASTAIR B231 SFRESTROOMSLegend TENANT CIRCULATION CORE318 SFRESTROOMS177' - 2"86' - 3"13' - 3"40' - 0" 0' - 8"2' - 6" 176' - 2"2' - 9"27' - 2"75' - 4"227 SFRESTROOMS249 SFELEV LOBBY143 SFCORRIDOR166 SFCORRIDOR139 SF CORRIDOR n3.5 n3.5 n2.4 n2.4 sC.3 sC.3 sE.3 sE.3 sE.7 sE.7 sF.4 sF.4 sG.3 sG.3 sH.3 sH.3 sI.2 sI.2 sL.3 s2.3 s2.3 s2.7 s2.7 s2.8 s2.8 2' - 6" 1' - 10"1' - 10"0' - 8"1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 02 - 06 - TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:41:19 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA10-02 LEVEL 02-06 - TYPICAL FLOOR 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 B ISSUED FOR 90% CD 06SEPT2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 FEC EEEEEPF CRCRCR CR CRCR CR CRCRCR CRDN UP FEC FEC FEC FEC FECFECFEC n3 n3 n2 n2 n1 n1 s1 s1 sF sF sG sG sH sH sI sI s4 s4 s6 s6 s5 s5 s2 s2 nF nF nG nG nE nE nD nD nC nC nA nA n6 n6 n5 n5 n4 n4 sL sL sJ sJ s3 nB nB sA.1 sA.1 sL.1 sL.1 nA.1 nA.1 nG.1 nG.1 s4.5 s4.5 sB sB sC sC sD sD sA sA sE sE STAIR C STAIR B STAIR A 266 SF RESTROOM 70 SF STORAGE 181 SF ELEC 163 SF ELEC 37 SF IDF 51 SF JAN 318 SF RESTROOM 635 SF TENANT EQUIPMENT 2015 SF CHILLER ROOM STAIR A 182 SF FREIGHT LOBBY 1504 SF AHU ROOM STAIR B 1382 SF CORRIDOR 155 SF SERVICE ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM 290 SF ELEV LOBBY 286 SF ELEC 33 SF JAN 143 SF CORRIDOR 57 SF CORRIDOR 270 SF ELEV LOBBY 52 SF STORAGE 33553 SF TENANT Legend TENANT CIRCULATION CORE SUPPORT ROOF TERRACE PLANTED AREA 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0" 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"14' - 11"3' - 3"2' - 9"44' - 0"24' - 9"44' - 0"16' - 11"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 5"44' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 1"2' - 9"44' - 0"35' - 9"44' - 0"24' - 6"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0" 151' - 3"13' - 11"176' - 2"2' - 9"26' - 11"75' - 4"2' - 8"3496 SF NORTH ROOF TERRACE 103 SF PASS ELEV. MACHINE ROOM 249 SF FREIGHT LOBBY 166 SF CORRIDOR n3.5 n3.5 n2.4 n2.4 sC.3 sC.3 sE.3 sE.3 sE.7 sE.7 sF.4 sF.4 sG.3 sG.3 sH.3 sH.3 sI.2 sI.2 sL.3 s2.3 s2.3 s2.7 s2.7 s2.8 s2.8 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:41:33 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA10-07 LEVEL 7 SOUTH AND PENTHOUSE NORTH 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 07 - PENTHOUSE NORTH BUILDING MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 B ISSUED FOR 90% CD 06SEPT2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 UP UP UP E EEEEE EEEEE E E E E E E EEPF CRCRCR CR CR CR CR CR CRDN UP DN FEC FECFECFECn3 n3 n2 n2 n1 n1 s1 s1 sF sF sG sG sH sH sI sI s4 s6 s5 s2 s2 nF nF nG nE nE nD nD nC nCnA n6 n6 n5 n5 n4 n4 sL sJ sJ s3 nB sA.1 sL.1 nA.1 nG.1 s4.5 s4.5 ROOF/CATWALK ACCESS STAIR PENTHOUSE LOUVERS ROOF BELOW 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0" 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"24' - 9"44' - 0"16' - 11"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 5"44' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 1"44' - 0"35' - 9"44' - 0"sB sB sC sC sD sD sA sE sE PARKING GARAGE REFER TO GARAGE PLANS STAIR B AHU ROOMELEVATORMACHINE ROOMROOF BELOW ELEC ROOM1788 SF TENANT STO Legend TENANT CORE SUPPORT ROOF TERRACE PLANTED AREAELEVATORLOBBYVESTIBULE 4510 SF FUTURE ROOF TERRACE 694 SF TENANT EQUIPMENT n3.5 n3.5 n2.4 n2.4 sC.3 sC.3 sE.3 sE.3 sE.7 sE.7 sF.4 sF.4 sG.3 sG.3 sH.3 sH.3 sI.2 sI.2 sL.3 s2.3 s2.3 s2.7 s2.7 s2.8 s2.8 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:41:47 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA10-08 PENTHOUSE SOUTH 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1" = 20'-0"1 LEVEL 09 - PENTHOUSE SOUTH BUILDING NORTH MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 B ISSUED FOR 90% CD 06SEPT2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 UP UP E EEEEE EEEEE E E E E E E EEPF CRCRCR CR CRCRCR CR CRCRCR CRUP DN FEC n3 n3 n2 n2 n1 n1 s1 s1 sF sF sG sG sH sH sI sI s4 s6 s5 s2 s2 nF nF nG nE nE nD nD nC nCnA n6 n6 n5 n5 n4 n4 sL sJ sJ s3 nB sA.1 sL.1 nA.1 nG.1 s4.5 s4.5 SOUTH BUILDING PENTHOUSE ROOF NORTH BUILDING PENTHOUSE ROOF NORTH BUILDING ROOF SOUTH BUILDING ROOF 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0" 33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"24' - 9"44' - 0"16' - 11"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"33' - 0"22' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 5"44' - 0"44' - 0"34' - 1"44' - 0"35' - 9"44' - 0"sB sB sC sC sD sD sA sE sE EXTERIOR PARAPET MEETS 42" MIN. PERIMETER WINDOW WASHING MAINTENANCE PATH ROOF DRAIN, TYP. EXTERIOR PARAPET MEETS 42" MIN. PERIMETER WINDOW WASHING ROOF RIGGING CLEARANCE ROOF DRAIN, TYP. WINDOW WASHING DAVITS ALONG ROOF PERIMETER. SEE STRUCTURAL AND FACADE MAINTENANCE. MEMBRANE ROOF MEMBRANE ROOF MEMBRANE ROOF MEMBRANE ROOF MECHANICAL ROOF SCREEN MECHANICAL ROOF SCREEN MECHANICAL ROOF SCREEN MECHANICAL ROOF SCREEN 9' - 8"WINDOW WASHING DAVITS ALONG ROOF PERIMETER. SEE STRUCTURAL AND FACADE MAINTENANCE.1/4" / 12"0 " / 1 2 "1/4" / 12"0" / 1 2" 0" / 1 2" 0" / 12"1/4" / 12"1 / 4 " / 1 2 "0" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"1/4" / 12"n3.5 n3.5 n2.4 n2.4 sC.3 sC.3 sE.3 sE.3 sE.7 sE.7 sF.4 sF.4 sG.3 sG.3 sH.3 sH.3 sI.2 sI.2 sL.3 s2.3 s2.3 s2.7 s2.7 s2.8 s2.8 1" = 20'-0"3 PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN NORTH SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:41:52 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA10-09 PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 B ISSUED FOR 90% CD 06SEPT2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 LEVEL 01 13' -0" LEVEL 02 33' -0" LEVEL 03 48' -0" LEVEL 04 63' -0" LEVEL 05 78' -0" LEVEL 06 93' -0" LEVEL 07/RN 108' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE S 143' -0" LEVEL RS 123' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE N 128' -0" PLAZA LEVEL 7' -0" NAVD88 FEMA:10'-0" AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6"(-0'-6") (+5'-6") (+25'-6") (+40'-6") (+55'-6") (+70'-6") (+85'-6") (+100'-6") (+115'-6") (+120'-6") (+135'-6")HEIGHT OF NORTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB120' - 6"HEIGHT OF SOUTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB135' - 6"2 1 LEVEL 01 13' -0" LEVEL 02 33' -0" LEVEL 03 48' -0" LEVEL 04 63' -0" LEVEL 05 78' -0" LEVEL 06 93' -0" LEVEL 07/RN 108' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE S 143' -0" LEVEL RS 123' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE N 128' -0" PLAZA LEVEL 7' -0" AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6" NAVD88 FEMA COMPLIANCE:11'-0" (-0'-6") (+5'-6") (+25'-6") (+40'-6") (+55'-6") (+70'-6") (+85'-6") (+100'-6") (+115'-6") (+120'-6") (+135'-6") (HEIGHT ABOVE TOC)HEIGHT OF NORTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB120' - 6"HEIGHT OF SOUTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB135' - 6"SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:43:14 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA20 -01 ELEVATIONS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 1" = 20'-0"2 SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com NORTH 1" = 20'-0"1 NORTHEAST ELEVATION MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT20222'-11"2'-11" DN LEVEL 01 13' -0" LEVEL 02 33' -0" LEVEL 03 48' -0" LEVEL 04 63' -0" LEVEL 05 78' -0" LEVEL 06 93' -0" LEVEL 07/RN 108' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE N 128' -0" PLAZA LEVEL 7' -0" NAVD88 FEMA COMPLIANCE:10'-0" AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6" (-0'-6") (+5'-6") (+25'-6") (+40'-6") (+55'-6") (+70'-6") (+85'-6") (+100'-6") (+120'-6")HEIGHT OF NORTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB120' - 6"LEVEL 01 13' -0" LEVEL 02 33' -0" LEVEL 03 48' -0" LEVEL 04 63' -0" LEVEL 05 78' -0" LEVEL 06 93' -0" LEVEL 07/RN 108' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE S 143' -0" LEVEL RS 123' -0" PLAZA LEVEL 7' -0" NAVD88 FEMA COMPLIANCE:10'-0" LEVEL P2 19' - 11" LEVEL P3 LEVEL P4 LEVEL P5 LEVEL P6 LEVEL P7 LEVEL P8 LEVEL P1 5' - 4" LEVEL P9 30' - 5" 40' - 11" 51' - 5" 61' - 11" 72' - 5" 82' - 11" 93' - 5" (+12'-5") (-2'-2") (+22'-11") (+33'-5") (+43'-11") (+54'-5") (+64'-11") (+75'-5") (+85'-11") ROOF 110' - 5" (+102'-11") AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6" (-0'-6") (+5'-6") (+25'-6") (+40'-6") (+55'-6") (+70'-6") (+85'-6") (+100'-6") (+115'-6") (+135'-6")HEIGHT OF PARKING STRUCTURE ABOVE TOP OF CURB101' - 2"HEIGHT OF SOUTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB133' - 0"LEVEL 01 13' -0" LEVEL 02 33' -0" LEVEL 03 48' -0" LEVEL 04 63' -0" LEVEL 05 78' -0" LEVEL 06 93' -0" LEVEL 07/RN 108' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE S 143' -0" LEVEL RS 123' -0" PLAZA LEVEL 7' -0" NAVD88 FEMA COMPLIANCE:10'-0"LEVEL P2 19' - 11" LEVEL P3 LEVEL P4 LEVEL P5 LEVEL P6 LEVEL P7 LEVEL P8 LEVEL P1 5' - 4" LEVEL P9 30' - 5" 40' - 11" 51' - 5" 61' - 11" 72' - 5" 82' - 11" 93' - 5" MURALCABLE RAIL BEHIND METAL PANELS CONCRETE STEM WALL AT LEVEL P1 TO BLOCK HEADLIGHTS AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6" (-0'-6") (+5'-6") (+25'-6") (+40'-6") (+55'-6") (+70'-6") (+85'-6") (+100'-6") (+115'-6") (+135'-6") (+12'-5") (-2'-2") (+22'-11") (+33'-5") (+43'-11") (+54'-5") (+64'-11") (+75'-5") (+85'-11") ROOF 110' - 5" (+102'-11") AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6"HEIGHT OF SOUTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB135' - 6"HEIGHT OF PARKING STRUCTURE ABOVE TOP OF CURB103' - 8"LEVEL 01 13' -0" LEVEL 02 33' -0" LEVEL 03 48' -0" LEVEL 04 63' -0" LEVEL 05 78' -0" LEVEL 06 93' -0" LEVEL 07/RN 108' -0" T.O. PENTHOUSE N 128' -0" PLAZA LEVEL 7' -0" NAVD88 FEMA COMPLIANCE:10'-0" AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6" (-0'-6") (+5'-6") (+25'-6") (+40'-6") (+55'-6") (+70'-6") (+85'-6") (+100'-6") (+120'-6")HEIGHT OF NORTH BUILDING ABOVE TOP OF CURB120' - 6"6 3 25 1 4 LEVEL P2 19' - 11" LEVEL P3 LEVEL P4 LEVEL P5 LEVEL P6 LEVEL P7 LEVEL P8 LEVEL P1 5' - 4" LEVEL P9 30' - 5" 40' - 11" 51' - 5" 61' - 11" 72' - 5" 82' - 11" 93' - 5" MURAL CAST-IN PLACE CONCRETE INTEGRAL COLOR, CUSTOM FORM LINER CONCRETE STEM WALL BEHIND METAL TO BLOCK HEADLIGHTS BENT METAL PANELS, PERFORATED (+12'-5") (-2'-2") (+22'-11") (+33'-5") (+43'-11") (+54'-5") (+64'-11") (+75'-5") (+85'-11") ROOF 110' - 5" (+102'-11") AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6"HEIGHT OF PARKING STRUCTURE ABOVE TOP OF CURB102' - 11"LEVEL P2 19' - 11" LEVEL P3 LEVEL P4 LEVEL P5 LEVEL P6 LEVEL P7 LEVEL P8 LEVEL P1 5' - 4" LEVEL P9 30' - 5" 40' - 11" 51' - 5" 61' - 11" 72' - 5" 82' - 11" 93' - 5" (+12'-5") (-2'-2") (+22'-11") (+33'-5") (+43'-11") (+54'-5") (+64'-11") (+75'-5") (+85'-11") ROOF 110' - 5" (+102'-11") AVERAGE T.O. CURB N.: 7'-6"HEIGHT OF PARKING STRUCTURE ABOVE TOP OF CURB102' - 11"SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:18 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA20 -02 ELEVATIONS 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1" = 20'-0"5 NORTH ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING 1" = 20'-0"3 SOUTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING AND GARAGE 1" = 20'-0"6 NORTH ELEVATION - SOUTH BUILDING AND GARAGE 1" = 20'-0"2 SOUTH ELEVATION - NORTH BUILDING 1" = 20'-0"4 EAST ELEVATION - GARAGE BUILDING 1" = 20'-0"1 WEST ELEVATION - GARAGE BUILDING NORTH MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT202212'-5" 5' - 6"9' - 6"5' - 6"9' - 6"5' - 6"9' - 6"5' - 6 1/2"9' - 5 1/2"5' - 6"5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 33' - 0"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"7 2 4 5 1 66' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 5' - 6" 33' - 0"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"8' - 6"6' - 6"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER ADDRESS OF RECORD: 1669 & 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY 810 & 821 MALCOLM 10/7/2022 9:45:20 AMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/ARCH_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA20 -03 ELEVATIONS REFERENCES 035196.100 © 2021 Perkins and WillISSUE FOR 100% CD 10/3/2022NABIH YOUSSEF BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700 LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071 MEYERS+ ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 PARKING STRUCTURE ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS 1133 ALADDIN AVENUE SAN LEANDRO, CA 94577 DESIGN BUILD -MECHANICAL KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 KING STREET PROPERTIES HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104 1699 & 1701 Bayshore Highway MARELICH MECHANICAL 24041 AMADOR STREET HAYWARD, CA 94544 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING TAYLOR ENGINEERS 1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501 ALAMEDA, CA 94501 DESIGN BUILD -PLUMBING PRIME ELECTRIC 1941 RINGWOOD AVE SAN JOSE, CA 95131 DESIGN BUILD -ELECTRICAL BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC. 17 JANIS WAY SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066 DESIGN BUILD -FIRE PROTECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1/8" = 1'-0"2 CURTAIN WALL DETAIL RENDERING 3/16" = 1'-0"3 PRECAST & WINDOW WALL SYSTEM ELEVATION AND SECTION 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PRECAST & WINDOW WALL DETAIL RENDERING 1. UNITIZED 2-SIDED SSG CURTAINWALL SYSTEM WITH VERTICAL CAPTURE. STACK JOINTS WITHIN 18" OF SLAB EDGES, AS LOCATED ON ELEVATIONS 2. DUAL GLAZED IGU WITH 6% BIRD SAFE LINE FRIT -PERFORMANCE CRITERIA TBD -ENHANCED ACOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE ANTICIPATED 3. EXTENDED VERTICAL MULLION CAP 4. SPANDREL GLASS. PROVIDE VISION GLASS SPANDREL WITH SHADOWBOX ALTERNATE. 5. METAL PANEL REVEAL 6. SOLID SPANDREL INFILL PANELS WITH INTEGRAL COLOR. MIXTURE OF SMOOTH FINISH AND 1-2 PROFILED TEXTURES IN 5.5' MODULES 1. FULLY CAPTURED RIBBON WINDOW WALL 2. DUAL GLAZED IGU WITH 6% BIRD SAFE LINE FRIT -PERFORMANCE CRITERIA TBD -ENHANCED ACOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE ANTICIPATED 4. SOLID SPANDREL INFILL PANELS WITH MIXTURE OF SMOOTH AND CUSTOM PROFILED TEXTURE AS NOTED ON ELEVATIONS 5. METAL PANEL REVEAL 6. SOLID SPANDREL INFILL PANELS WITH INTEGRAL COLOR. MIXTURE OF SMOOTH FINISH AND 1-2 PROFILED TEXTURES IN 5.5' MODULES 7. PERFEROATED METAL MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE SCREEN. NON-REFLECTIVE FINISH, COLOR BY ARCH 1 2 3 4 6 5 3/16" = 1'-0"4 KC-CURTAIN WALL SYSTEM ELEVATION AND SECTION MARK ISSUE DATE A ISSUED FOR 50% CD - GMP 09AUG2022 C ISSUED FOR 100% CD 03OCT2022 TOTAL EXISTING AND TOTAL TREES IN PROJECT AREA:31 TREES, 28 ON-SITE TREES AND 3 OFF SITE STREET TREEPROTECTED TREES MEASURE 14 INCHES OR MORE IN DIAMETER(EXCLUDING PALM TREE SPECIES)TOTAL EXISTING AND TOTAL PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED PROTECTEDTREES IN PROJECT AREA:8 TREES, 7 ON-SITE TREES AND 1 OFF SITE STREET TREEBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNER 1" = 20'-0"1TREE REMOVAL PLANL01-01TREE REMOVAL PLANNORTH (CONSTRUCTED WITHALL-WEATHER PAVEMENT THATCAN SUPPORT 65,000 LBS)ARBUTUS 'MARINA'/MARINA STRAWBERRY TREENOTE: FIRE ACCESS ROUTESWILL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHALL-WEATHER PAVEMENTTHAT CAN SUPPORT 65,000LBSTRASH RECEPTACLEBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNER 1" = 20'-0"1LANDSCAPE SITE PLANL02-01LANDSCAPE PLANNORTH BKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNERL02-02LANDSCAPEENLARGEMENT© 2021 Perkins and Will BKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNERL02-03LANDSCAPE VIEWS2AERIAL VIEW LOOKING FROM OLD BAYSHORE DOWN MALCOLM1AERIAL VIEW LOOKING DOWN MALCOLM TOWARDS OLD BAYSHORE4GROUND LEVEL VIEW AT NORTH PLAZA3 VIEW FROM OLD BAYSHORE L03-01LANDSCAPE SECTIONSBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNER NA2PRECEDENTSNA1MATERIALS AND LANDSCAPE ELEMENTSUNIT CONCRETE PAVERCONCRETE STAIRSCONCRETE SEAT WALLOUTDOOR FURNITUREGREEN FENCELIGHTING POLE STYLE 1LIGHTING POLE STYLE 2(TWO ARMS)TREE GRATEBIKE RACKTRASH RECEPTACLEBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNERL04-01 MATERIALS/ PRECEDENTS D UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FECFECFECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEINTERRUPTERSWITCHINTERRUPTERSWITCHBULKTANKSTORAGEOLD BAYSHORE HWYOLD BAYSHORE HWYSTANTON RD MALCOLM RD OLD BAYSHORE HWYSTANTON RD MALCOLM RD 6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPStanton Rd Malcolm Rd Old Bayshore HwyBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNER 1" = 20'-0"1LANDSCAPE SITE PLANL05-01IRRIGATION PLANNORTH D UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FEC FEC FECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEINTERRUPTERSWITCHINTERRUPTERSWITCHBULKTANKSTORAGEOLD BAYSHORE HWYSTANTON RD MALCOLM RD STANTON RD MALCOLM RD 6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNER 1" = 20'-0"1LANDSCAPE COVERAGE AND PLAZA SIZEL06-01NORTHLANDSCAPE COVERAGE D UPUPUPFEC FEC DNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEMALCOLM RDMALCOLM RD 6' - 0"13' - 0"UPBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNER 1" = 10'-0"1PARKING LOT SHADOW AND LANDSCAPE COVERAGEL07-01PARKING LOT SHADOWAND LANDSCAPECOVERAGENORTH D UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FECFECFECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEINTERRUPTERSWITCHINTERRUPTERSWITCHBULKTANKSTORAGEOLD BAYSHORE HWYSTANTON RD MALCOLM RD STANTON RD MALCOLM RD 6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPD UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FECFECFECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEINTERRUPTERSWITCHINTERRUPTERSWITCHBULKTANKSTORAGEOLD BAYSHORE HWYSTANTON RD MALCOLM RD STANTON RD MALCOLM RD 6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPStanton Rd Malcolm Rd Old Bayshore HwyBKF ENGINEERSSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600NABIH YOUSSEF550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110ACCO ENGINEERED SYSTEMS1133 ALADDIN AVENUESAN LEANDRO, CA 94577MARELICH MECHANICAL24041 AMADOR STREETHAYWARD, CA 94544TAYLOR ENGINEERS1080 MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY SUITE 501ALAMEDA, CA 94501PRIME ELECTRIC1941 RINGWOOD AVESAN JOSE, CA 95131BFP FIRE PROTECTION, INC.17 JANIS WAYSCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104PARKING STRUCTUREDESIGN BUILD - MECHANICALDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - PLUMBINGDESIGN BUILD - ELECTRICALDESIGN BUILD - FIRE PROTECTIONSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberProject NumberMARKISSUEDATEISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTPLANNING BOARD SUBMISSION REVISION 10/06/2022 2 Bryant StreetSuite 300San Francisco, CA 94105t 415.856.3000f 415.856.3001www.perkinswill.comCIVIL800 BOYLSTON STREETSUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199LANDSCAPINGKING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 941041669 & 1699Bayshore Highway810 & 821 MalcolmRoadSTRUCTURALMEPOWNERL08-01STREET PARKING SPACESDIAGRAMNORTH 1" = 30'-0"1EXISTING STREET PARKING PLAN 1" = 30'-0"2PROPOSED STREET PARKING PLAN DN UP DN UP DNRAMPDN RAMPDNRAMPUPRAMP DN UP UP RAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN DN RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPCODE DATA GOVERNING CODES: A. 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24, PART 2. B. 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24, PART 3. C. 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24, PART 4. D. 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24, PART 5. E. 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC), CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24, PART 9. F. 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY, CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CCR), TITLE 24 PART 6 G. ADAAG ADA ACCESSIBILTY GUIDELINES EXITING DIAGRAMS 1. 2019 C.B.C. SECTION 1017, TABLE 1017.2 "EXIT TRAVEL DISTANCE" S2 OCCUPANCY EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM THE MAXIMUM TRAVEL DISTANCE IS 400' FIRE RATINGS LEGEND 1-HR. 2-HR. 3-HR. 4-HR. EXITING LEGEND ACTUAL TRAVEL DISTANCE DIAGONAL DISTANCE DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 306'SPEED ELECTRICAL ROOM MPOE DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 300'1/3 DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 100'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 242'DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS = 168' > 100' EMERGENCY ELEC. 2 HR. RATED ERRCS SHAFT CODE SECTIONS BUILDING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM - SEC. 903 TYPE - OPEN GARAGE NOTES YES OCCUPANCY TYPE(S) - CHAPTER 3 S-2 PARKING GARAGE (OPEN, PER 406.5) OPENNESS - 406.5.2, 601 & 602 CONSTRUCTION TYPE(S) - CHAPTER 4 AND 6 IIA TABLES 406.5.4, 601 AND 602 GRADE PLANE - CHAPTER 2 DEFINITION 5' ALLOWABLE HEIGHT (IN TIERS) - TABLE 406.5.4 10 TIERS ELEVATOR TOWERS - UNLIMITED IN HEIGHT (SECTION 504.3) ALLOWABLE HEIGHT INCREASE (IN TIERS), FOR OPEN PARKING STRUCTURES - SECT. 406.5.5 NOT REQUIRED BASE ALLOWABLE AREA PER TIER 50,000 SQ. FT. ACTUAL AREA (LARGEST TIER)33,544 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE AREA INCREASE PER TIER ACTUAL TOTAL AREA 291,944 SQ. FT. BUILDING ELEMENTS F.R. REQUIREMENTS - TABLE 601 PRIMARY STRUCTURAL FRAME 1 HR ACTUAL HEIGHT (IN TIERS)9 TIERS BEARING WALLS – EXTERIOR 1 HR BEARING WALLS - INTERIOR 1 HR NON-BEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS – EXTERIOR SEE REQUIREMENTS BELOW NON-BEARING WALLS AND PARTITIONS – INTERIOR FLOOR CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS ROOF CONSTRUCTION AND ASSOCIATED SECONDARY MEMBERS EXTERIOR WALLS F.R. REQUIREMENTS- TABLE 602 BASED ON CONSTRUCTION TYPE AND SEPARATION DISTANCE EXTERIOR WALLS AND PARTITIONS:1 HR, <5' 1 HR, 5'≤x<10' 0 HR,10’≤ x <30’ NR, ≥ 30’ OPENINGS (UNPROTECTED, SPRINKLERED) – MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS, SECTION AND TABLE 705.8. NOT PERMITTED <3’ 15%, 3’≤ x <5’ 25%, 5’≤ x <10’ UNLIMITED, ELSEWHERE (SEE TABLE FOOTNOTE G.) BASED ON DISTANCE AND SPRINKLERS PER TABLE FOOTNOTE G. THE AREA OF OPENINGS IN AN OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE WITH A FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE OF 10 FT OR GREATER SHALL NOT BE LIMITED. SHAFT ENCLOSURES (BOTH STAIRS AND ELEVATORS)NOT REQUIRED SEE SECTIONS 406.5.9, 712.1.10.2 AND 1019.3.6. OCC. LOAD - TABLE 1004.5 33,544/200 = 167.72 (STORY w/ LARGEST FLOOR AREA) EXITS REQUIRED - TABLE 1006.3.2 2 EXITS PROVIDED 2 WIDTH REQUIRED- PER SECTION 1005.3.1 & 1005.3.2 STAIRS: OCC. X 0.3 = TOTAL INCHES (48” MIN. CLEAR OF HANDRAIL, WHEN CONSIDERED TO BE A PART OF AN ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS, PER 1009.3. 44” MIN. CLEAR, WHEN CONSIDERED TO BE PART OF AN ACCESSIBLE MEANS OF EGRESS, PER 1009.3, EXCEPT. #2, WHEN THE BUILDING IS SPRINKLERED.) OTHER THAN STAIRS: OCC. X 0.2 = TOTAL INCHES (32” MIN. CLEAR WIDTH, 1010.1.1 AND PER 11B-404, DOORS, DOORWAYS AND GATES.) STAIRS: 167.72 x 0.3 = 50.32” 50% OF 50.32” = 25.16” 48" MIN. PER 1009.3 OTHER THAN STAIRS: 167.72 x 0.20 = 33.54” 50% OF 33.54” = 16.77” 32" MIN PER 11B-404 STAIRS: 2 x 48” = 96” OTHER THAN STAIRS: 2 x 36” = 72” WIDTH PROVIDED 903.3.1.1, PER NFPA 13 REGULATIONS. AVERAGE ELEVATION RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHED DATUM ON DRAINAGE PLAN BASED ON CONSTRUCTION TYPE BASED ON CONSTRUCTION TYPE 0 HR 1 HR 1 HR NOT REQUIRED TABLE 705.8 FOOT NOTE G. THE AREA OF OPENINGS IN AN OPEN PARKING STRUCTURE WITH A FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE OF GREATER THAN 10 FEET SHALL NOT BE LIMITED. VEHICLE BARRIERS, 406.4.3 - 2'-9" TALL MINIMUM, PLACED WHERE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION IS GREATER THAN 1'-0". (X > 1'-0") MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TOTAL AREA 50,000 X 9 = 450,000 SQ. FT. BASED ON CONSTRUCTION TYPE FOR MULTIPLE MEANS OF EGRESS, IF ONE REQUIRED EXIT IS LOST, THE SECOND ONE MUST PROVIDE 50% OF REQUIRED CAPACITY - SECTION 1005.5. (FACTOR OF 0.2, WHEN EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND EMERGENCY VOICE/ALARM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - SECTION 1005.3.1, EXCEPTION 1) (AREAS OF REFUGE N/A, IF SPRINKLERED THROUGHOUT, PER SEC. 1009.3.3, EXCEPTION 2; OR, IF SERVING OPEN PARKING STRUCTURES, EXCEPTION 3) (FACTOR OF 0.15, WHEN EQUIPPED WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND EMERGENCY VOICE/ALARM COMMUNICATION SYSTEM - SECTION 1005.3.2, EXCEPTION 1)DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 300'1/3 DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 100'DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS = 180' > 100'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 242'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 124'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 120'STORAGE TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 291' DISTANCE BETW EEN EXITS = 141' > 100' 2 HR. RATED ERRCS SHAFT TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 269'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 248'DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 300'1/3 DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 100'DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS = 164' > 100' 2 HR. RATED ERRCS SHAFT LEVEL 02 TOTAL LEVEL 01 LEVEL LEVEL 04 PARKING STALL SUMMATION ACCESSIBLE (9'-0"x18'-0")TOTAL SQ. FOOTAGE SQ. FT./STALL STANDARD (8'-6"x18'-0") VAN ACCESSIBLE (9'-0"x18'-0") LEVEL 03 CLEAN AIR/ VANPOOL/EV (8'-6"x18'-0") EVCS (8'-6"x18'-0") EVCS ACCESSIBLE (9'-0"x18'-0") EVCS VAN ACCESSIBLE (12'-0"x18'-0") EVCS AMBULATORY (10'-0"x18'-0") EVSE (FUTURE EV) (8'-6"x18'-0") LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 COMPACT (8'-0"x17'-0") 73 438 322 311 109 18 596 44 3 3 0 0 14 14 77 1 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,544 907 2713 2120 1920 1020 00 00 1254 52 1192 1192 1424 33,544 291,944 00 00 00 0 342 313 108 28 5 2 2 2 7 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LEVEL 09 2980000000693990 92 53 11 13 13 108 108 108 108 107 99 62 33,544 33,544 33,544 33,544 33,544 29,519 27,617 311 311 311 311 TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 269'DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 300'1/3 DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 100'LEVEL BELOW DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS = 164' > 100'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 248'2 HR. RATED ERRCS SHAFT TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 269'TOTAL TRAVEL DISTANCE = 248'DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 300'1/3 DIAGONAL DISTANCE = 100'DISTANCE BETWEEN EXITS = 164' > 100' 2 HR. RATED ERRCS SHAFT 2 HR. RATED SECURITY ROOM MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:55:57 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA0.3 CODE DATA SHEET 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 1" = 30'-0" SECOND LEVEL EXITING DIAGRAM 1" = 30'-0" FIRST LEVEL EXITING DIAGRAM 1" = 30'-0" TYPICAL LEVEL EXITING DIAGRAM 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1" = 30'-0" NINTH LEVEL EXITING DIAGRAM 1" = 30'-0" THIRD LEVEL EXITING DIAGRAM MARK ISSUE DATE 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 UP UP INTERRUPTER INTERRUPTER SWITCH BULK TANK STORAGE UP UP ADAADAVANRAMPUPLEGEND INDICATES OFFICE/LABS BUILDINGS FOOT PRINT SITE NOTES 1. FOR PATHWAY WORK EXTERIOR TO BUILDING, SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. 2. FOR TREE LOCATION PLAN, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. 3. FOR HORIZONTAL & VERTICAL CONTROL POINTS, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 4. FOR DRAINAGE EXTERIOR TO BUILDING, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 5. FOR WORK IN STREETS, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS. 6. FOR LIGHTING OF PATHWAYS EXTERIOR TO BUILDING, SEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. INDICATES PROPERTY LINE INDICATES ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL: PATH OF TRAVEL AS INDICATED IS A BARRIER FREE ACCESS WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT VERTICAL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" AND 1:20 (5%) MAX. IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND 1:48 (2%) MAX. CROSS SLOPE, EXCEPT THAT LEVEL CHANGES DO NOT EXCEED 1/4" VERTICAL. INDICATES ASSUMED PROPERTY LINE INDICATES EXISTING BUILDING FOOT PRINT STANTON RD25'-5"MALCOLM RDOLD BAYSHORE HWY 10'-0"23'-7"MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:56:27 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA1.1 SITE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 1" = 20'-0" SITE PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" 0 40'80'20' 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com NMARK ISSUE DATE UP UP5'-0"5'-0"OLD BAYSHORE HWY MALCOLM RDMALCOLM RDADAADAVANMalcolm RdOld Bayshore Hwy RAMPUPA3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 VAN EVCS VAN EVCS ACC ACC. EVCS AMB EVCS AMB ACC. VAN BIKE ROOM STALL 18'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"STALL18'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL17'-0"B.5 C.2 1'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0" A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0"1'-0"STORAGE EVCS ACC ACC. ACC. ACC. ACC. ACC. ACC.ACC. EVCS ACC ACC. ACC. ACC. ACC. ACC. EVCS AMB DRIVEWAY24'-6"2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 3 A8.1 7 A8.4 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 25 A4.1 10 A4.1 9 A4.2 28 A4.1 ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"STAIR #2 2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 3 @8'-6"=25'-6"8'-0" 8'-6"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 1'-6" 3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0" 1'-1"4'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0" 9'-0" 5'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"5'-0"9'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0" 9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"9'-0"5'-0"12'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"10'-0"10'-0"9'-0"8'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"9'-0"5'-0"9'-0"9'-0"8'-0"1'-10"16@8'-6"=136'-0"AISLE4'-0" STALL STRIPING. SEE SHEET FOR TYPE AND TYPICAL DIMENSIONS (A6.1)4" RAISED CURB, TYP.20@8'-6"=170'-0"W.P.M. & DRAIN PIPE AT RAMP, ELEVATOR PIT AND RETAINING WALLS, REFER TO DETAIL ; SEE PLUMBING FOR CONNECTIONS1"AA 3'-0"W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E. W.S.P. F.E.C. F.E.C. F.E.C. FIRE CONTROL ROOM VAN 0" 1 A5.3 18 A9.3 W.P.M. & DRAIN PIPE TYP. AT PLANTER WALLS AT GARAGE PERIMETER, SEE LANDSCAPE DWGS., REFER TO DETAIL ; SEE CIVIL & LANDSCAPE FOR CONNECTIONS /(8 A9.3) /(8 A9.3) 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 NO PARKING ZONE. PARALLEL SPACES RELOCATED ONTO RESERVED SPOTS WITHIN PARKING STRUCTURE NOTES 1. GENERAL SYMBOL AND WALL TYPE INDEX IS ON SHEET . FOR RATED WALLS, SEE ENLARGED PLANS, TYPICAL. 2. FOR STEEL BOLLARDS (SB), SEE DETAIL . 3. PROVIDE PROTECTION PLATES AT ALL PIPES AND RISERS SUBJECT TO CAR IMPACT, PER DETAIL . 4. LIGHTLY SHADED AREAS INDICATE CONCRETE WASHES, TYPICAL OR RAISED CURBS. A. WASHES ARE 3” THICK AT EDGES AND TAPER TO ZERO AT THE INTERIOR SLAB, TYPICAL, UNO. B. THE RADIUS AT ALL CURBS TO BE TYPICAL, UNO. FOR ALL CURB DIMENSIONS NOT SHOWN HERE SEE ENLARGED PLANS, TYPICAL. 5. FOR GRAPHICS AND SIGNAGE NOT SHOWN HERE, SEE GRAPHICS DRAWINGS. 6. FOR DETAILED RELATIONSHIP OF COLUMNS & SHEAR WALLS TO GRID, SEE COLUMN SCHEDULE & SHEAR WALL DETAILS ON SHEETS & - . 7. FOR DOOR SCHEDULE & FINISH SCHEDULE, SEE SHEET (A10.1). 8. NOTE: ALL GRADES ARE RELATIVE TO ESTABLISHED DATUM, SEE DRAINAGE DRAWINGS TYPICAL 9. PAINT STRIPING IS TO BE 1'-0" AWAY FROM ALL CURBS,WALLS AND COLUMNS, TYPICAL. SEE DETAIL FOR TYPICAL ILLUSTRATION. ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 9'-0" x 18'-0" COMPACT STALLS: 8'-0" x 17-0" STANDARD STALLS: 8'-6" x 18'-0" 10. FOR ARROW AND TEXT TEMPLATES, SEE SHEET (A6.1). 11. WHEN PARKING STALLS ARE BETWEEN COLUMNS, EITHER: A. THE STALLS ARE EQUALLY SPACED BETWEEN THE COLUMNS AT THE PRESCRIBED ANGLE, OR, B. ONE STALL IS TANGENT TO A COLUMN AT THE PRESCRIBED ANGLE AND THE REMAINING STALLS ALIGN WITH THAT STALL. 12. WHEN ADJACENT STALLS ARE NOT PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER, THE BACK CORNER OF THE STALLS ARE POSITIONED SO THAT NO ONE STALL EXTENDS THROUGH ANOTHER STALL'S LEGAL AREA. (A0.1) /(16 A6.2) /(25 A6.2) /(25 A6.1) (S4.1)(S5.1)(S5.5) LEGEND (A6.1) (A6.1) BARRIER INDICATES STALL STRIPE, SEE SHEET FOR STRIPING DETAILS INDICATES PARKING DIRECTION ARROWS, SEE SHEET FOR STRIPING DETAILS INDICATES INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY, SEE DETAIL INDICATES ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN, SEE DETAIL INDICATES WHEEL STOP, SEE DETAIL INDICATES AREA DRAIN LOCATION, SEE DRAINAGE PLANS INDICATES TRENCH DRAIN LOCATION, SEE DRAINAGE PLANS INDICATES TRUNCATED DOMES, SEE DETAIL INDICATES BARRIER RAIL, SEE DETAIL INDICATES HOSE BIB, SEE PLUMBING DRAWINGS. INDICATES ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGER INSTALLED ON 'DAY ONE', SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS INDICATES ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGER FUTURE INSTALL, PROVIDE CONDUIT, SEE ELECTRICAL PLANS (16/A6.2) FHC FIRE EXTINGUISHER, SEE DETAIL , SIM. FIRE EXTINGUISHER IN CABINET, FOR CONNECTION, SEE DETAIL THROUGH FIRE RISER, SEE FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. WET STANDPIPE, SEE FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. FIRE HOSE CABINET, SEE FIRE PROTECTION DRAWINGS. /(10 A6.2)/(7 A6.2) /(26 A6.1) /(22 A6.3) /(28 A6.1) /(20 A7.2) /(14 A6.2) H.B. EV EVF F.E.C. F.E. F.R. W.S.P.MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 10/6/2022 3:50:11 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.1 LEVEL 01 PARKING PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 01 PARKING PLAN 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0"NMARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 3 SPACES RESERVED FOR 810 STANTON 3 SPACES RESERVED FOR 810 STANTON HATCHED AREA INDICATES EXTRA HAZARD 2 SPRINKLER COVERAGE AT DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS; ZONE WILL EXTEND 15 FEET ON ALL SIDES OF DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE DN UP DN UP DNRAMPDN RAMPDNRAMPUPRAMP DN UP DN UP DN RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPRAMP DN A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 ELECTRICAL ROOM MPOE B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 13'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 4'-3" 17'-9" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 4 A8.4 1 A8.1 2 A8.3 2 HR RATED 2 HR RATED ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 STAIR #2 STAIR #3 1.6 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"2.2 2.7 5.7 1'-0"1'-0"13 A4.2 12'-6"6'-0"STUD WALLS OVER 6" CURB STUD WALL WITH PLASTER, 2 HR RATED STUD WALL OVER 2'-9" CMU WALL, PLASTERED, 2 HR RATED EMERGENCY ELEC. 2 HR RATED 2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 8'-0" 8'-6"AISLE6 @8'-6"=51'-0"8'-0" 8'-6"9 @8'-6"=76'-6"AISLE AISLE 5'-8"16@8'-6"=136'-0"20@8'-6"=170'-0"2 @8'-0"=16'-0"10 @8'-6"=85'-0"2 @8'-0"=16'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"4'-0" 4" RAISED CURB, TYP. CONCRETE WASH, TYP. 4" RAISED BEAM, TYP.9 @8'-6"=76'-6"3 @8'-6"=25'-6" 2 @8'-6"=17'-0"2 @8'-6"=17'-0"2@8'-6"=17'-0"6@8'-0"=48'-0"7'-0" CLEARANCE. BAR ABOVE, SEE DETAIL 9 A4.3 2'-6"AA 11 A4.3 DN DN W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C. F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 /(9 A6.3) NOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1) 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E RIDGEA.D. A.D.A.D. DN DN DN B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 126'-0" 13'-3"17.5820.6720.6720.672 0 .6 7 20.6720.6720.6720.6720.6720.6720.6720.6720.6720.6717.5817.5813.5013.5013.5020.6719.9212.5016.58 A.D. 1 2 .9 2 20.67 19.75 20.2520.6717.0814.0016.5013.4213'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"20.67DN 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"20.6720.671'-0" TYP.18'-6"INDICATES ELASTERIC COATING OVER ROOMS BELOW TYP. 20.673'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"3'-0"AA RIDGE 16.83 1 2 .7 5 14.33%6.25%6.25%5.52% MAX.5.59% MAX.5.59% MAX.A.D. EQ. EQ. 2 1 .00 T.O.C. 2 1 .00 T.O.C.6'-4"20.94 T.O.C.21.00 T.O.C.21.00 T.O.C.2 1 .0 0 T .O .C .21.00 T.O.C.21.00 T.O.C.RIDGERIDGEA.D.17.002 0 . 9 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.20.6721.00 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0" 18'-0"MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 10/6/2022 2:23:31 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.2 LEVEL 02 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 02 PARKING PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 02 DRAINAGE PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 HATCHED AREA INDICATES EXTRA HAZARD 2 SPRINKLER COVERAGE AT DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS; ZONE WILL EXTEND 15 FEET ON ALL SIDES OF DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE DN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPNOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1) A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0"1'-0"13'-3" ELEV. CTRL. 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 1'-6"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE AISLE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 1 A8.4 4 A8.1 ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 STAIR #2 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"STUD WALL OVER 2'-9" CMU WALL, PLASTERED 2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. SECURITY 4 @8'-6"=34'-0"8'-6"8'-0" 8'-6"AISLE8'-6"4 @8'-6"=34'-0"8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"8'-6" 3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"4'-0"8'-6" 16 @8'-6"=136'-0"8'-6"15@8'-6"=127'-6"AISLE 8'-0" 8'-6"7 @8'-6"=59'-6"2 @8'-0"=16'-0"6 @8'-6"=51'-0"4 @8'-6"=34'-0"6 @8'-6"=51'-0"9 @8'-6"=76'-6"11 @8'-6"=93'-6"2 @8'-6"=17'-0" AA 1'-6"W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C. F.E.C. W.S.P. 3 A9.6 14 A9.6 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 ALIGN EDGE OF BENT PANEL TO EDGE OF SHEAR WALL TYP.3'-0"CLCL1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.728.0831.1731.1731.1731.17 31.1731.1731.1731.1731.1731.1731.1731.1728.0828.0828.0828.0831.1727.08 30.25 31.17DN RIDGEA.D. A.D.A.D. A.D. 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 126'-0" 13'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9" 207'-0"218'-0"RIDGE31.171.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"30.4230.75RIDGE31.1731.1731.174'-6" DN 31.174'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-6"2'-6"3'-0"AA31.1731.17 RIDGE A.D. EQ. EQ. 3 1 .50 T.O.C. 3 1 .50 T.O.C.6'-4"31.44 T.O.C.31.17A.D. 3 1 . 4 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.31.50 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"31.50 T.O.C.31.50 T.O.C.3 2 1 .5 0 T .O .C .31.50 T.O.C.31.50 T.O.C.MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 10/6/2022 2:23:38 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.3 LEVEL 03 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 03 PARKING PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 03 DRAINAGE PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 HATCHED AREA INDICATES EXTRA HAZARD 2 SPRINKLER COVERAGE AT DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS; ZONE WILL EXTEND 15 FEET ON ALL SIDES OF DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE DN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPNOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1) 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0"220'-0"126'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"38.5841.6741.6741.6741.67 41.6741.6741.6741.6741.6741.6741.6741.6741.6738.5838.5838.5838.5841.6737.58 40.75 41.6741.67A.D.A.D.RIDGEDN 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"40.1740.50RIDGERIDGE41.6741.67DN 41.67A.D.A.D. 4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-6"2'-6"3'-0"AA41.6741.67 RIDGE A.D. 4 2 .00 T.O.C. 4 2 .00 T.O.C.41.94 T.O.C.EQ. EQ.6'-4"41.67A.D. 4 1 . 9 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.42.00 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"42.00 T.O.C.42.00 T.O.C.4 2 .0 0 T .O .C .42.00 T.O.C.42.00 T.O.C.A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0" 13'-3"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 8 A8.4 2 A8.1 ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 STAIR #2 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 8'-0" 8'-6"5 @8'-6"=42'-6"8'-0" 8'-6"AISLE6 @8'-6"=51'-0"8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 3 @8'-0"=24'-0"8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"4'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"18@8'-6"=153'-0"15@8'-6"=127'-6"2 @8'-6"=17'-0"9 @8'-6"=76'-6"8'-0"9 @8'-6"=76'-6"AISLE AISLE 9@8'-6"=76'-6"8 @8'-6"=68'-0" 2 @8'-6"=17'-0" AA 3'-0"2 @8'-0"=16'-0"6@8'-6"=51'-0"W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 10/6/2022 2:23:46 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.4 LEVEL 04 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 04 DRAINAGE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 04 PARKING PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 HATCHED AREA INDICATES EXTRA HAZARD 2 SPRINKLER COVERAGE AT DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS; ZONE WILL EXTEND 15 FEET ON ALL SIDES OF DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE DN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPNOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1) 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0"220'-0"126'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"49.0852.1752.1752.1752.17 52.1752.1752.1752.1752.1752.1752.1752.1752.1749.0849.0849.0849.0852.1751.4248.08 51.25 51.7552.1752.17A.D.A.D.RIDGEDN 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"RIDGERIDGE52.1752.17DN 52.17A.D.A.D. 4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"2'-6"3'-6"3'-0"AA52.1752.17 RIDGE A.D. 5 2 .50 T.O.C. 5 2 .50 T.O.C.52.44 T.O.C.EQ. EQ.6'-4"52.175 2 . 4 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.52.50 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"52.50 T.O.C.52.50 T.O.C.5 2 .5 0 T .O .C .52.50 T.O.C.52.50 T.O.C.A.D. A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 2' x 5' PANELBOARD TO SERVICE EV CHARGERS ON LEVEL 5 AND ABOVE B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0" 13'-3"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 5 A8.4 3 A8.2 ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 STAIR #2 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 8'-0" 8'-6"8'-6"3 @8'-6"=25'-6"8'-0"6 @8'-6"=51'-0"AISLE8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"4'-0"18@8'-6"=153'-0"15@8'-6"=127'-6"3 @8'-6"=25'-6"7 @8'-6"=59'-6"8'-0"AISLE AISLE8'-6"14 @8'-6"=119'-0"12 @8'-6"=102'-0"2 @8'-6"=17'-0"2 @8'-6"=17'-0" AA 3'-0"2 @8'-0"=16'-0"6 @8'-6"=51'-0"W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 10/6/2022 2:23:53 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.5 LEVEL 05 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 05 DRAINAGE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 05 PARKING PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 HATCHED AREA INDICATES EXTRA HAZARD 2 SPRINKLER COVERAGE AT DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS; ZONE WILL EXTEND 15 FEET ON ALL SIDES OF DAY 1 EV CHARGING STALLS WITHIN THE PARKING STRUCTURE DN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPA3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 2' x 5' PANELBOARD TO SERVICE EV CHARGERS ON LEVEL 5 AND ABOVE B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0" 13'-3"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 2 A8.4 1 A8.2 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 STAIR #28'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 12'-6"6'-0"2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 8'-0" 8'-6"5 @8'-6"=42'-6"8'-0" 8'-6"6 @8'-6"=51'-0"8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"AISLE4'-0" AISLEAISLE 18@8'-6"=153'-0"10 @8'-6"=85'-0"8'-0"8'-6"8'-6"3 @8'-6"=25'-6"7 @8'-6"=59'-6"7 @8'-5 107/128"=59'-4 219/256" @8'-6"=15 @8'-6"=127'-6"2 @8'-6"=17'-0" AA W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0"220'-0"126'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"59.5862.6762.6762.676 2 .6 7 62.6762.6762.6762.6762.6762.6762.6762.6762.6759.5859.5859.5859.5862.6761.9258.58 61.75 62.2562.6762.67A.D. A.D.RIDGEDN 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"RIDGERIDGE62.6762.6762.67DN A.D.A.D. 4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-6"2'-6"AA62.6762.67 RIDGE A.D. 6 3 .00 T.O.C. 6 3 .00 T.O.C.62.94 T.O.C.EQ. EQ.6'-4"62.676 2 . 9 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.63.00 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"63.00 T.O.C.63.00 T.O.C.6 3 .0 0 T .O .C .63.00 T.O.C.63.00 T.O.C.A.D. NOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1)MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:57:14 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.6 LEVEL 06 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 06 PARKING PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 06 DRAINAGE PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 DN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDRAINAGE NOTES 1. FOR DRAINAGE NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1A) A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0"1'-0"13'-3"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 9 A8.4 4 A8.2 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 STAIR #28'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 12'-6"6'-0"2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 8'-0" 8'-6"5 @8'-6"=42'-6"8'-0" 8'-6"AISLE6 @8'-6"=51'-0"8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"4'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0" AISLEAISLE 18@8'-6"=153'-0"10 @8'-6"=85'-0"8'-0"8'-6"15@8'-6"=127'-6"15@8'-6"=127'-6"8'-6"3 @8'-6"=25'-6"15 @8'-6"=127'-6"2 @8'-6"=17'-0" AA W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0"220'-0"126'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"70.0873.1773.1773.177 3 .1 7 73.1773.1773.1773.1773.1773.1773.1773.1773.1770.0870.0870.0870.0873.1772.4269.08 72.25 72.7573.1773.17A.D. A.D.RIDGEDN 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"RIDGERIDGE73.1773.1773.17DN A.D.A.D. 4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-6"2'-6"3'-0"AA73.1773.17 RIDGE A.D. 7 3 .50 T.O.C. 7 3 .50 T.O.C.73.44 T.O.C.EQ. EQ.6'-4"73.177 3 . 4 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.73.50 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"73.50 T.O.C.73.50 T.O.C.7 3 .5 0 T .O .C .73.50 T.O.C.73.50 T.O.C.A.D.MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:57:22 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.7 LEVEL 07 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0"N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 07 PARKING PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 07 DRAINAGE PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 DN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPDN UP DN UP RAMPDNRAMPDNRAMPUPA3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0"1'-0"13'-3"2'-0"STALL17'-0"DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"2'-0" STALL 18'-0" DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"1'-0" 2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 6 A8.4 2 A8.2 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 STAIR #28'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 12'-6"6'-0"2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 6" 5 @8'-6"=42'-6" 6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 6" 6 @8'-6"=51'-0"AISLE6"6"6" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6" 6" 8'-6" 8'-0" 8'-6"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"3 @8'-0"=24'-0"4'-0"1'-6"8'-6"3 @8'-6"=25'-6"15 @8'-6"=127'-6"8'-0"8'-6"AISLE AISLE 18@8'-6"=153'-0"15@8'-6"=127'-6"15@8'-6"=127'-6"10 @8'-6"=85'-0" AA W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0"220'-0"126'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"80.5883.6783.6783.678 3 .6 7 83.6783.6783.6783.6783.6783.6783.6783.6783.6780.5880.5880.5880.5883.6782.9279.58 82.75 83.67A.D.RIDGEDN TRENCH DRAIN, SEE STRUCTURAL DWG. 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"RIDGERIDGE83.6783.6783.67DN 83.25A.D.A.D. 4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-0"AA83.6783.67 RIDGE A.D. 8 4 .00 T.O.C. 8 4 .00 T.O.C.83.94 T.O.C.EQ. EQ.6'-4"83.678 3 . 9 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.84.00 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"84.00 T.O.C.84.00 T.O.C.8 4 .0 0 T .O .C .84.00 T.O.C.84.00 T.O.C.83.67A.D. NOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1)MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:57:29 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.8 LEVEL 08 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 0'32'-0"64'-0"16'-0" 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com N1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 08 PARKING PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 08 DRAINAGE PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 DN DN RAMPDNRAMPDNDN DN RAMPDNRAMPDN1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D EB.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 OPEN TO BELOW 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0"220'-0"126'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8" 31'-0" 31'-0" 9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0" 13'-3" 15'-9"91.0894.1794.1794.179 4 .1 7 94.1794.1794.1794.1794.1794.1794.1794.1794.1791.0891.0891.0891.0894.1793.4290.08 93.25 93.7594.17A.D.A.D.RIDGEDN 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 8'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"12'-6"6'-0"RIDGERIDGE94.17 94.50 T.O.C.94.17DN A.D.A.D. 4'-0"4'-0"3'-0"3'-6"2'-6"3'-0"AA94.1794.17 RIDGE 92.7594.1794.0894.42 T.O.C.94.179 4 . 4 2 T.O.C.EQ.EQ.94.50 T.O.C.5'-0"5'-0"94.50 T.O.C.94.50 T.O.C.9 4 .5 0 T .O .C .94.50 T.O.C.94.50 T.O.C.83.67A.D. 94.50 T.O.C. A3.1 1 A3.2 2 A3.1 2 A3.2 1 2 A3.3 2 A3.3 5 A5.1 1 2 3 4 5 14 13 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 BA C D E 2 A3.4 2 A3.4 1 A3.3 1 A3.3 B.5 C.2A.7 B.3A.8 A.3 D.4C.5C.3 A.2 B.7 1'-0" 18'-0" 26'-3" 35'-6" 26'-3" 18'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"15'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"18'-6"13'-3"13'-3"1'-0"64'-0"209'-0" 1'-0"62'-0"62'-0"54'-0" 29'-0" 1'-0" 20'-8" 20'-8" 20'-8"31'-0" 31'-0"9'-0" 22'-0" 23'-0"13'-3" 15'-9"220'-0"126'-0"1'-0"13'-3" OPEN TO BELOW DRIVE24'-0"STALL18'-0"2'-0"1'-0" 18'-0" STALL DRIVE 24'-0" STALL 18'-0"18'-0" STALL2 A5.1 5 A5.2 3 A5.1 1 A5.1 1 A5.2 3 A5.2 4 A5.1 2 A5.2 4 A5.2 3 A8.4 3 A8.3 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 STAIR #28'-11"6'-7"2'-6"8'-5"4'-7"ELEVATOR CORE AND STAIR #1 12'-6"6'-0"2 HR RATED ERRCS CHASE. 2 @8'-0"=16'-0" 18 @8'-6"=153'-0"AISLE3 @8'-0"=24'-0"7'-9"10'-3" 8'-6" 10 @8'-6"=85'-0"1'-6"19 @8'-6"=161'-6"AISLE 15@8'-6"=127'-6"8'-0"8'-6"10 @8'-6"=85'-0"15 @8'-6"=127'-6"18 @8'-6"=153'-0"8'-6"8'-6" AA W.S.P. W.S.P. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. F.E.C.F.E.C. W.S.P. 1 A5.3 1 A3.4 1 A3.4 NOTES 1. FOR BALANCE OF NOTES AND LEGEND, SEE SHEET (A2.1)MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:57:37 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA2.9 LEVEL 09 PARKING PLAN & DRAINAGE PLAN 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 09 DRAINAGE PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" LEVEL 09 PARKING PLAN MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 1234514131267891011 10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"17 89'-6"LEVEL 09 12 12 12 18 22 4 6 16 1010'-6"EL= 94.16' EL= 83.66' EL= 73.16' EL= 62.66' EL= 52.16' EL= 41.66' EL= 31.16' EL= 20.66' 19 1.62.22.75.7 24'-11"15'-0"24'-0"INDICATES SPACING FOR 12 12 / NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE DETAIL (2 A3.1) FOR SEE DETAILS ON SHEET EL= 6.08' 22 (A9.6) ENTRYEXIT LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 1 2 3 4 5 14131267891011 10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"92'-7"LEVEL 09 15 3 2 12 13 12 4 1 16 10 1811 4 10 16 2 EL= 20.66' EL= 31.16' EL= 41.66' EL= 52.16' EL= 62.66' EL= 73.16' EL= 83.66' EL= 6.08' 19 78 1 1.6 2.2 2.7 5.7 24'-0"15'-0"24'-11"FOR SEE DETAILS ON SHEET FOR SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 12 12 INDICATES SPACING FOR 12 4 A3.217'-6 1/2"T.O. MTL. STUD FRAMING 21 EL= 94.16' (A9.6)(A9.6) ENTRYEXIT DESCRIPTION 1 FINISHES SCHEDULE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 8" THK. PRECAST WALL WITH CUSTOM FORMLINER FINISH IN FRONT OF CONC. COL. (THICKNESS TO BE VERIFIED BY PRECAST SUBCONTRACTOR) CABLE RAILS - GALVANIZED CURTAIN WALL GLAZING - MATCHING NEW OFFICE BUILDING EXCEPT BEING NON- INSULATED GLAZING UNIT CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE COLUMN, PAINTED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE BEAM, PAINTED STEEL STAIRS AT STAIR #2 & #3 - GALVANIZED AND PAINTED (NON-PAINTED TREAD) SEE SHEET • STRINGERS - PLATE • TREAD - READYSTEP w/SAFETY TREAD AND TREAD COVERS DURING CONSTRUCTION STEEL COL./BEAM - EXTERIOR & 1-HR RATED INTUMESCENT FIREPROOFING METAL CANOPY - MATCH PROFILE, MATERIAL AND FINISH TO NEW OFFICE BLDG. BARRIER RAILS - GALVANIZED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE RAIL, PAINTED STEEL STAIRS AT STAIR #1- GALVANIZED AND PAINTED (NON-PAINTED TREAD) SEE SHEET • STRINGERS - BOX • TREAD - READYSTEP w/SAFETY TREAD AND TREAD COVERS DURING CONSTRUCTION BENT METAL PANELS, PERFORATED (ROUND, STAGGERED) - 3 COAT KYNAR (PVDF) - MIN. 50% OPENNESS BENT PROFILE AS MODELED, SEE DETAILS & FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION. OVERALL 50% OPENNESS TO BE ASSUMED FOR THE ENTIRE PERFORATED METAL PANEL SYSTEM. THIS NEEDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ATTACHMENTS AT CONNECTIONS AND BENT SIDE OF THE PANELS ARE SOLID AND CONSIDERED COMPLETELY CLOSED. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL GAPS BETWEEN PANELS TO BE MINIMAL. BASIS OF DESIGN - HENDRICK H-CLAD HD PERFORATED METAL CLADDING SYSTEM ON HARRISON ST. PARKING FACILITY IN IOWA CITY, IA BY NEUMANN MONSON ARCHITECTS. SEE DETAIL FOR REFERENCE. PERFORATED METAL MURAL ART - IN FRONT OF SACKED & PATCHED, AND PAINTED CAST IN PLACE CONC. WALL PROJECT BRAND SIGN, DESIGN & SCOPE BY OTHERS PARKING ENTRY SIGN, DESIGN & SCOPE BY OTHERS CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE WALL - SACK & PATCH, AND PAINTED EXTERIOR STUCCO, PAINTED 8" THK. PRECAST WALL WITH CUSTOM FORMLINER FINISH IN FRONT OF CONC. SHEAR WALL (THICKNESS TO BE VERIFIED BY PRECAST SUBCONTRACTOR) METAL FASCIA BAND - MATCH PROFILE, MATERIAL AND FINISH TO NEW OFFICE BLDG, SEE DETAIL COLOR GUARDRAIL - WOVEN WIRE MESH w/SQUARE PATTERN IN TRUE VERTICAL/HORIZONTAL ORIENTATION GUARDRAIL - • CUSTOM PANELIZED PERFORATED MTL. PANEL FOR ENTIRE GUARDRAIL HEIGHT, EXTERIOR SIDE ATTACHMENT (STAIR STRINGERS NOT VISIBLE FROM EXTERIOR) HANDRAIL - • CRL COASTAL SERIES BRACKET FOR HANDRAIL BASIS OF DESIGN - AMERICAN STAIR BASIS OF DESIGN - AMERICAN STAIR 1. MISCELLANEOUS INTERIOR ITEMS INCLUDING PIPES SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL/SLAB COLOR. 2. PAINT HOLLOW METAL DOORS AND FRAME TO MATCH ADJACENT WALL COLOR. 3. ALL CONCRETE POUR JOINTS AND ROCK POCKETS OVER 3/4" WIDE IN ANY DIRECTION SHALL BE SACKED AND PATCHED PRIOR TO APPLYING PAINT FINISH. 4. METAL RAILING (INCLUDING HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS AND BARRIER RAILS) SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED AND PAINTED UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 5. FOR PERIMETER CABLE RAIL SYSTEM, SEE DETAILS ON SHEET A7.3 FOR BALANCE OF INFO. 6. INTERIOR CEILINGS, WALLS, COLUMNS, AT ALL LEVELS SHALL BE PAINTED WHITE. 7. ALL INTERIOR CURBS TO BE PAINTED WHITE. 8. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ALL EXPOSED STEELWORK TO HAVE GALV. FINISH 9. ALL PAINTED STEELWORK SHOULD BE GALVANIZED PRIOR TO PAINTING. FINISH NOTES: /(3 A3.2)/(4 A3.2) /(5 A3.2) /(28 A9.6) (A7.1) (A7.2) 20 BIKE ROOM SIGN, DESIGN & SCOPE BY OTHERS 21 RAIN WATER LEADER FROM CANOPY, FINISH TO MATCH CANOPY 22 CLR. BAR, SEE DETAIL & /(9 A6.3)/(10 A6.3)MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:57:46 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA3.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.1 2 NORTH ELEVATION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 B ACDE 14'-7"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"4'-6"88'-1"LEVEL 09 10 16 1 1 18 13 3 12 4 EL= 6.08' EL= 20.66' EL= 31.16' EL= 41.66' EL= 52.16' EL= 62.66' EL= 73.16' EL= 83.66' EL= 94.16' 14 7 2 19 8 7 NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE SHEET (A3.1) 12FOR SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 12 FOR SEE DETAILS ON SHEET AA 20 21 (A9.6)(A9.6) LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 BA C D E 15'-0"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"92'-7"LEVEL 09 EL= 20.66' EL= 31.16' EL= 41.66' EL= 52.16' EL= 62.66' EL= 73.16' EL= 83.66' EL= 94.16' 10 16 17 12 4 12 6 12 17 11 2 EL= 6.08' 4 19 4 7 NOTE: FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION, SEE SHEET (A3.1) FOR SEE DETAILS ON SHEET 12 AA (A9.6)4'-6"EDGE OF EACH PANEL PLAN EDGE OF EACH PANEL PARKING STRUCTUREEXTERIOR ATTACHMENT POST AND BRACKET BY PERFORATED PANEL PROVIDER, TYP. SOLID PORTION PERFORATED PANEL PORTIONVARIES AT EDGE3'-4" TYP.9"6"2'-7"3"3"MIDDLE ROW OF PANELS, HEIGHT VARIES, SEE ELEVATIONS BOTTOM ROW OF PANELS, HEIGHT VARIES, SEE ELEVATIONS ELEVATION EDGE OF EACH PANEL TOP ROW OF PANELS, HEIGHT VARIES, SEE ELEVATIONS INDICATES PERFORATED PORTION FOR THE ROUND STAGGERED PATTERN - MIN. 66.6% OPEN* INDICATES SOLID PORTION OF THE PANEL NOTES: 1. SEE FINISH SCHEDULE NOTE ON SHEET FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION ON OVERALL REQUIRED OPENNESS FOR THE PANEL SYSTEM. 2. SEE DETAIL FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION. 12 (A3.1) /(3 A3.2) 3'-4" INDICATES STAGGERED DIMENSION FOR MIDDLE ROW PANELS INDICATES GAP BETWEEN THE 3 ROWS OF PANEL. IF ADDITIONAL PANELS ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THE OVERALL HEIGHT (AS INDICATED ON ELEVATIONS) WITHIN EACH ROW OF PANELS, THE INTENT IS TO HAVE AS FEW PANELS AS POSSIBLE TO BE STACKED TO MAKE UP THE HEIGHT, AND WITH AS TIGHT A HORIZONTAL JOINT AS ALLOWED * PERFORATED BENT METAL PANEL SYSTEM IS ASSUMED TO BE OVERALL 50% OPEN. THIS NEEDS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ATTACHMENTS AT CONNECTIONS AND BENT SIDE OF THE PANELS ARE SOLID AND CONSIDERED COMPLETELY CLOSED. 2'-9"GAP2 1/2"MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:57:54 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA3.2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2 2 EAST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.2 1 WEST ELEVATION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 1/2" = 1'-0"A3.2 3 BENT PANEL PROFILE 1/2" = 1'-0"A3.2 4 BENT PANEL LAYOUT 1/2" = 1'-0"A3.2 5 BENT PANEL DESIGN INTENT MARK ISSUE DATE 1 Issue for 90% CD 09-06-2022 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 1234514131267891011 4'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"AT EAST RAMP LEVEL 09 92'-7"LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 1234514131267891011 17'-10"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"LEVEL 09 AT GRID A.3 4 .8 % 4 .8 % 1.62.22.7 4.2% 4.2% 4.2%105'-11"MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:58:01 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA3.3 BUILDING SECTIONS 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.3 2 LONGITUDINAL SECTION 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.3 1 LONGITUDINAL SECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com MARK ISSUE DATE LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 BA C 4'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"AT GRID 12 LEVEL 09 92'-7"STORAGE LEVEL 01 LEVEL 02 LEVEL 03 LEVEL 04 LEVEL 05 LEVEL 06 LEVEL 07 LEVEL 08 BA C D EB.5 C.2 A.7 LEVEL 09 A.3 D.4C.5 C.3AA 105'-11"17'-10"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"10'-6"14'-7"EL= 94.16' EL= 83.66' EL= 73.16' EL= 62.66' EL= 52.16' EL= 41.66' EL= 31.16' EL= 20.66' EL= 6.08' AT GRID 3 MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:58:06 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA3.4 BUILDING SECTIONS 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.4 2 TRANSVERSE SECTION 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 3/32" = 1'-0"A3.4 1 TRANSVERSE SECTION MARK ISSUE DATE NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN 1'-9" 1'-9"5'-2"4'-10"10'-0"3'-6"1'-0"1'-0" CALTRANS TYPE I (10) ARROW AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE PLAN NOTE: FOR LOCATION, SEE PLANS PLAN "STOP" LETTERING AT CONCRETE SURFACES • PAINTED YELLOW ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED WHITE STOP LINE AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE 8'-0" 10"6'-4"10"8'-0"1'-0"1'-3"PLAN 1'-9" 1'-9"5'-2"4'-10"10'-0"1'-0"8'-0"3'-6"1'-0"1'-0" 5'-4" "EXIT" LETTERING AT CONCRETE SURFACES • PAINTED YELLOW ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED WHITE NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN CALTRANS TYPE I (10) ARROW AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE "ENTRY" LETTERING AT CONCRETE SURFACES • PAINTED YELLOW ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED WHITE NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN PLAN 1'-9" 1'-9"5'-2"4'-10"10'-0"1'-0"8'-0"3'-6"1'-0"1'-0" 8'-0" CALTRANS TYPE I (10) ARROW AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE PLAN R=2'-0 1/2" R=3'-2" 1'-0"2'-6" 2'-6"5'-0"3'-0"1'-0"8'-0"2'-6"3'-6"3'-0" 3'-0" 6'-0" 8'-0" "ENTRY" LETTERING AT CONCRETE SURFACES • PAINTED YELLOW ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED WHITE NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN CALTRANS TYPE IV ARROW AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE FOR ARROW DIRECTION, SEE PLANS PLAN 1'-0"2'-6" 2'-6"5'-0"3'-0"1'-0"8'-0"5'-4"2'-6"3'-6"3'-0" 3'-0" 6'-0" R=2'-0 1/2" R=3'-2" "EXIT" LETTERING AT CONCRETE SURFACES • PAINTED YELLOW ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED WHITE NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN CALTRANS TYPE IV ARROW AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE FOR ARROW DIRECTION, SEE PLANS PLAN 1'-0"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"3'-6"2'-0"3'-0"7'-10"5'-2"13'-0"R=2'-0 1/2" R=3'-2" 1'-9"1'-9" 7'-3"5'-0"NOTE: FOR LOCATIONS, SEE PLAN CALTRANS TYPE VII ARROW, STRAIGHT AND TURN ARROW AT CONCRETE SURFACES • 2" PAINTED BLACK BORDER • PAINTED YELLOW INTERIOR ON ASPHALT SURFACES • PAINTED ALL WHITE FOR ARROW DIRECTION, SEE PLANS PLAN ACCESSIBLE18'-0"4" WIDE 'WHITE' SINGLE STRIPE DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL 9'-0" 5'-0" EQ. EQ. CL ADA STALL SIGN, FOR LOCATION AND MOUNTING TYPE SEE PLANS 4" WIDE PAINTED BLUE STRIPING (BORDER)3'-6"4" WIDE PAINTED 'WHITE' STRIPING o/c3'-0"2"2" ACCESSIBLE MARK, SEE DETAIL FOR LOCATION OF ACCESS AISLE, SEE PLANS 2"2"2"2" "NO PARKING" LETTERING, 'WHITE', 12" HIGH MIN. COMPACT 17'-0"8'-0" LETTERING AS SHOWN, 10" HIGH, 'YELLOW', ALIGN TO END OF STALL AND CENTERED ON STALL WIDTH END OF STRIPE LOCATION, SEE PLANS 'YELLOW' DOUBLE STRIPE, SEE DETAIL DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL STANDARD 18'-0"8'-6" 'YELLOW' DOUBLE STRIPE, SEE DETAIL END OF STRIPE LOCATION, SEE PLANS DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL VAN ACCESSIBLE 18'-0"4" WIDE 'WHITE' SINGLE STRIPE DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL 9'-0" 8'-0" EQ. EQ. CL 'VAN ACCESSIBLE' STALL SIGN, FOR LOCATION AND MOUNTING TYPE SEE PLANS 4" WIDE PAINTED BLUE STRIPING (BORDER)3'-6"4" WIDE PAINTED 'WHITE' STRIPING o/c3'-0"2"2" ACCESSIBLE MARK, SEE DETAIL INDICATES STALL TYPE, SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS (NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE) VAN ACCESS AISLE TO BE RIGHT SIDE OF STALL ONLY 2"2"2"2" "NO PARKING" LETTERING, 'WHITE', 12" HIGH MIN. VAN ACCESSIBLE EVCS18'-0"DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL 12'-0" 5'-0"o/c3'-0"FOR LOCATION OF ACCESS AISLE, SEE PLANS EQ. EQ. CL E.V. CHARGING STATION, FOR LOCATIONS SEE PLANS. FOR CHARGER, SEE DETAIL "NO PARKING" LETTERING, 'YELLOW', 12" HIGH MIN. LETTERING AS SHOWN, 12" HIGH, 'YELLOW', ALIGN TO END OF STALL AND CENTERED ON STALL WIDTH 3'-6"2"2"2"2" 4" WIDE 'YELLOW' SINGLE STRIPE 2"2"1'-0"'VAN ACCESSIBLE' STALL SIGN, FOR LOCATION AND MOUNTING TYPE SEE PLANS EVCS VAN INDICATES STALL TYPE, SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS (NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE) 4" WIDE PAINTED 'YELLOW' STRIPING (IF SHARED WITH ADA STALL, USE ADA COLORS) 48"x30" CLEAR ZONE NOTE: IF LOADING ZONE IS SHARED w/ADA STALL, USE ADA COLORS EVSE - E.V. SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (FUTURE INSTALL)18'-0"END OF STRIPE LOCATION, SEE PLANS 'YELLOW' DOUBLE STRIPE, SEE DETAIL DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL FUTURE LOCATION OF E.V. CHARGING STATION, FOR LOCATIONS SEE PLANS. PROVIDE CONDUIT AND EMBED ONLY, SEE DETAIL 8'-6" INDICATES FUTURE EV CHARGER, NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE EVF EVSE INDICATES STALL TYPE, SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS (NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE) AMBULATORY EVCS 18'-0"DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL 10'-0" LETTERING AS SHOWN, 12" HIGH, 'YELLOW', ALIGN TO END OF STALL AND CENTERED ON STALL WIDTH E.V. CHARGING STATION, FOR LOCATIONS SEE PLANS. FOR CHARGER, SEE DETAIL 4" WIDE 'YELLOW' SINGLE STRIPE 2"2"2"2" EVCS AMB INDICATES STALL TYPE, SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS (NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE) ACCESSIBLE EVCS18'-0"DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL 9'-0" 5'-0" "NO PARKING" LETTERING, 'YELLOW', 12" HIGH MIN. 3'-6"4" WIDE PAINTED 'YELLOW' STRIPING (IF SHARED WITH ADA STALL, USE ADA COLORS)o/c3'-0"FOR LOCATION OF ACCESS AISLE, SEE PLANS 2"2"2"2" E.V. CHARGING STATION, FOR LOCATIONS SEE PLANS. FOR CHARGER, SEE DETAIL 48"x30" CLEAR ZONE EQ. EQ. CL LETTERING AS SHOWN, 12" HIGH, 'YELLOW', ALIGN TO END OF STALL AND CENTERED ON STALL WIDTH 4" WIDE 'YELLOW' SINGLE STRIPE 2"2" 'ACCESSIBLE' STALL SIGN, FOR LOCATION AND MOUNTING TYPE SEE PLANS1'-0"EVCS ACC INDICATES STALL TYPE, SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS (NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE) NOTE: IF LOADING ZONE IS SHARED w/ADA STALL, USE ADA COLORS EVCS - E.V. CHARGING STATION (DAY ONE INSTALL)18'-0"LETTERING AS SHOWN, 10" HIGH, 'YELLOW', ALIGN TO END OF STALL AND CENTERED ON STALL WIDTH END OF STRIPE LOCATION, SEE PLANS 'YELLOW' DOUBLE STRIPE, SEE DETAIL DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL E.V. CHARGING STATION, FOR LOCATIONS SEE PLANS. FOR CHARGER, SEE DETAIL 8'-6" EQ. EQ. CL E.V. STALL SIGN INDICATES EV CHARGER, NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE EV EVCS INDICATES STALL TYPE, SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS (NOT PAINTED ON SURFACE) CLEAN AIR/VANPOOL/EV 18'-0"8'-6" 'YELLOW' DOUBLE STRIPE, SEE DETAIL END OF STRIPE LOCATION, SEE PLANS DASHED LINE INDICATES EXTENT OF STALL LETTERING AS SHOWN, 10" HIGH, 'YELLOW', ALIGN TO END OF STALL AND CENTERED ON STALL WIDTH EDGE OF STALL 9" RADIUS, TYP. 4" WIDE PAINTED 'YELLOW' STALL STRIPE TYP. SLOPED WASH GRID 6"TYP.2'-0"9" TYP. 9" TYP.TYP.1'-6"1'-0"DOUBLE STRIPE - AT 90 DEGREE PARKING CONC. CURB 1'-0"2'-0" TYP.2'-0" TYP.END OF STALL AT WALL AT CURBAT WASH BLUE WHITE END OF STALL ACCESSIBLE STALL MARKING 18'-0" 9'-0" 3'-0"OR STANDARD TEMPLATE3'-0"AS APPROVED BY ARCHITECTCL CENTERED ON STALL END OF STALL18' -0" 9 '-0 " CONT. EPOXY ADHESIVE BEAD AT CIRCUMFERENCE OF WHEEL STOP TO SLAB JOINT. DO NOT ALLOW ADHESIVE TO BLEED OUT FROM UNDER WHEEL STOP SECTION A-A AT ELEVATED SLAB CONNECTION ON DRIVERS SIDE PLAN OF STALL2'-6" TO FRONT A 3'-0" TO EDGE OF STALL CL A4'-0" BEVELED EDGES, TYP. Recycled Content Wheel Stop Option FASTEN EACH WHEEL STOP TO ASPHALT, OR SLAB-ON-GRADE HOLE FOR ANCHORING ON DRIVERS SIDE PLAN SECTION A-A ASPHALT/SLAB ON GRADE CONNECTION OF STALL2'-6" TO FRONT A 3'-0" TO EDGE OF STALL CL A4'-0" BEVELED EDGES, TYP. Recycled Content Wheel Stop Option MIC HEL L E WEND LERTCETIHCRADESNECIL STATEOF C A L I F O RNIA No. 25066 Exp. 5/31/2023 SHEET NUMBER TITLE Job Number ISSUE CHART CONSULTANTS KEYPLAN PROJECT STRUCTURAL CIVIL MEP LANDSCAPING OWNER 9/30/2022 2:58:55 PMAutodesk Docs://Project Nomar-Burlingame/GAR_KSP-Helios-Project Nomar.rvtA6.1 PARKING DETAILS 21-033ISSUE FOR 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022WATRY DESIGN INC BKF ENGINEERS 150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 MEYERS+ENGINEERS 98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 SWA GROUP 530 BUSH STREET, SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 WATRY DESIGN INC 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550 SAN JOSE, CA 95110 GARAGE HELIOS Real Estate Partners 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 HELIOS Real Estate Partners KING STREET PROPERTIES 800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570 BOSTON, MA 02199 NOMAR PARKING STRUCTURE 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 1 STRAIGHT ARROW MARK 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 7 STOP MARK 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 4 EXIT STRAIGHT MARK 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 3 ENTRY STRAIGHT MARK 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 5 ENTRY TURN MARK 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 6 EXIT TURN MARK 1/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 2 STRAIGHT AND TURN MARK 2 Bryant Street Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94105 t 415.856.3000 f 415.856.3001 www.perkinswill.com 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 19 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 14 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 13 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 20 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 22 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 18 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 23 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 21 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 17 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 15 STALL TYPE 3/16" = 1'-0"A6.1 25 STALL STRIPE 3/4" = 1'-0"A6.1 26 ACCESSIBLE MARK 1" = 1'-0"A6.1 27 WHEEL STOP 1" = 1'-0"A6.1 28 WHEEL STOP MARK ISSUE DATE 2 Issue for 100% CD/ ISSUE FOR PERMIT 10-03-2022 4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC0.0COVER SHEETKnow what'sbelow.before you dig.CallR1. OWNER/DEVELOPER: KING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 941042. CIVIL ENGINEER: BKF ENGINEERS4670 WILLOW ROAD, SUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588TEL (925) 396-7700FAX (925) 396-7799 3. SITE ARCHITECT: PERKINS & WILL2 BRYANT STREET, SUITE 300SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105TEL (415) 856-3000 4. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET, 6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108TEL (707) 224-22995. APN:026-301-180, 026-302-550, 026-302-530, 026-302-4006. UTILITIES:WATER SUPPLY:CITY OF BURLINGAMESEWAGE DISPOSAL:CITY OF BURLINGAMESTORM DRAIN:CITY OF BURLINGAMEELECTRIC:PG&EGAS:PG&ETELEPHONE:AT&TCABLE TELEVISION:COMCAST8. # OF PROPOSED PARCELS: 29. FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION:ZONE AE(FLOOD ELEVATION 10 FT) - PER FEMA MAP NO. 06081C0151F MALCOLM ROAD OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROADEXISTINGBUILDING TOBE REMOVED22,552± SFEXISTINGBUILDING TOBE REMOVED25,606± SFEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDING TOBE REMOVED9,797± SFEXISTINGBUILDINGEXISTINGBUILDING TOBE REMOVED10,133± SFNOTESC1.0EXISTING CONDITIONS4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATE MALCOLM ROAD OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD C2.0BOUNDARY & EASEMENTDISPOSITION PLAN4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATE UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FEC FEC FECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEBULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPRAMP UP FHMALCOLM ROAD NORTH BLDGSOUTH BLDGPRKG GARAGE BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD810 STANTON ROAD820 STANTON ROAD820 MALCOLM ROAD827 MALCOLM ROAD840 MALCOLM ROADC3.0CIVIL SITE PLAN4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATE118'-0" (6 CARS QUEUING)TAPCO SIGNALCROSSINGTAPCO SIGNALCROSSINGPAINTED VEHICLULARTRAFFIC STOPLOCATION FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.PAINTED VEHICLULARTRAFFIC STOPLOCATION FORPEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.TAPCO SIGNALCROSSINGTAPCO SIGNALCROSSING UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FEC FEC FECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEBULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPRAMP UP FHMALCOLM ROADNORTH BLDGSOUTH BLDGPRKG GARAGE BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD FF 13.0FF 7.0FF 13.0FF 13.0FF 6.1FF 6.0FF 7.0FF 13.0FF 7.0FF 6.0FF 6.4FF 7.0LEGENDNOTES4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC4.0GRADING PLAN UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FEC FEC FECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEBULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPRAMP UP MALCOLM ROADNORTH BLDGSOUTH BLDGPRKG GARAGE BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROADFH 4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC5.0UTILITY PLAN LEGENDT1DMA XXNOTESABBREVIATIONSLEGENDT1DMA XXNOTESABBREVIATIONSUPUPUPUPUPUPUPUPDNDNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEBULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPR-2MALCOLM ROAD OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD R-7P-1P-3P-5P-6S-1R-4R-1P-8R-6R-8P-7R-5R-3S-4S-3S-2S-5P-4P-8R-9R-10R-11S-7S-6P-9ST-1P-15P-14P-13P-12P-11P-10S-9S-8S-10P-2R-2MALCOLM ROAD OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD R-7P-1P-3P-5P-6S-1R-4R-1P-8R-6R-8P-7R-5R-3S-4S-3S-2S-5P-4P-8R-9R-10R-11S-7S-6P-9ST-1P-15P-14P-13P-12P-11P-10S-9S-8S-10P-2FHC6.0STORMWATER PLAN4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATE UPUPUPUPUPFEC FEC FEC DNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYNORTH BLDGLEGENDUPUPFECFECUPFEC DNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEFHSOUTH BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROADPARKING GARAGE BLDGUPUPFECUPDNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEUPFHSOUTH BLDGSTANTON ROADPARKING GARAGE BLDGUPUPUPUPUPFEC FEC FEC DNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYNORTH BLDG4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC7.0WB-40 TRUCK ACCESSPLANENTRANCE CONDITION 1 - SOUTH BLDG1"=20'ENTRANCE CONDITION 1 - NORTH BLDG1"=20'ENTRANCE CONDITION 2 - SOUTH BLDG1"=20'ENTRANCE CONDITION 2 - NORTH BLDG1"=20' UPUPUPUPUPFEC FEC FECFECDNTRASHAREA6' - 0"13' - 0"MALCOLM ROAD OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYNORTH BLDGLEGENDUPUPFECFEC UPFEC DNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEFHSOUTH BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROADPARKING GARAGE BLDGUPUPFECFEC UPFEC DNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEFHSOUTH BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROADPARKING GARAGE BLDGUPUPUPUPUPFEC FEC FECFECDNTRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"MALCOLM ROAD NORTH BLDG4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC8.0TRASH TRUCK ACCESSPLANENTRANCE CONDITION - NORTH BLDG1"=20'ENTRANCE CONDITION - SOUTH BLDG1"=20'EXIT CONDITION - NORTH BLDG1"=20'EXIT CONDITION - SOUTH BLDG1"=20' UPUPFECFECUPUPUPUP UPFECUP FEC FEC FECFECDN DNTRASHAREATRASHAREABULKTANKSTORAGEBULKTANKSTORAGE6' - 0"13' - 0"UPUPRAMP UP FHMALCOLM ROAD NORTH BLDGSOUTH BLDGPRKG GARAGE BLDGOLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAYSTANTON ROAD810 STANTON ROAD820 STANTON ROAD820 MALCOLM ROAD827 MALCOLM ROAD840 MALCOLM ROADLEGENDNOTES4670 WILLOW ROADSUITE 250PLEASANTON, CA 94588(925) 396-7700www.bkf.comSHEET NUMBERTITLEJob NumberISSUE CHARTCONSULTANTSKEYPLANPROJECTSTRUCTURALCIVILMEPLANDSCAPINGOWNER20210142© 2021 Perkins and WillPLANNING REVIEW PLANS 2022.10.07 NABIH YOUSSEFBKF ENGINEERS150 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 600 SANFRANCISCO, CA 94111550 SOUTH HOPE STREET, SUITE 1700LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90071MEYERS+ ENGINEERS98 BATTERY STREET, SUITE 500SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111SWA GROUP530 BUSH STREET,6TH FLOORSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108WATRY DESIGN INC2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550SAN JOSE, CA 95110GARAGEKING STREET PROPERTIES800 BOYLSTON STREET, SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199HELIOS REAL ESTATE PARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RD FLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104800 BOYLSTON STREET,SUITE 1570BOSTON, MA 02199KING STREETPROPERTIESHELIOS REAL ESTATEPARTNERS44 MONTGOMERY ST, 3RDFLOORSAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104MARKISSUEDATEC9.0FIRE TRUCK ACCESSPLAN Address: '1441 Alvarado Avenue Meeting Dat6: October 24, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits for building height and a new attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. City of Burlingame Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits APN: 027-103-070 Lot Area: 9,'128 SF 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. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and a detached pergola at the rear corner of the site. Although there is an existing driveway that provides uncovered parking spaces, the site contains no existing covered parking. The applicant is proposing to shift the existing driveway and curb cut to the north and to build a new attached lower level garage, a first floor covered patio addition, and second floor additions at the front and rear of the existing dwelling. The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,977 SF (0.44 FAR) where 4,021 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (incudes covered porch exemption). The subject property is located in the Hillside Area and Code Sec,tion 25.61.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code states that no new structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing struclure shall be constructed within the affected area without a Hillside Area Construction Permit. ln addition, it states that review by the Planning Commission shall be based upon the obstruction by the construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting two Special Permits; one for for building height (36'-0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed without approval of a Special Permit) and one for a new attached two-car garage. Planning staff would note that the lot slopes upward approximately 'l 8'-0" from the front property line to the rear, with the finished floor proposed at 'l 5'-'l 'l " above average top of curb. The existing house contains three bedrooms and with this project, the number of bedrooms would increase to five. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the new attached garage (20'wide x 20' deep clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9' x 18') is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: . Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing single-unit dwelling and new attached garage (C.S. 25.s7.o1o(a)(2) and (6)); Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S 25.61.020); Special Permit for building height (36L0" proposed where 30'-0" is the maximum allowed; Special Permit required for building height between 30'and 36') (C.S. 25.26.060(a)(1); anO Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035(a)). Applicant and Architect: Joshua Larson Property Owners: Mikayla and Robert Cameron General Plan: Low Density Residential Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Permits 1441 Alvarado Avenue 1441 Alvarado Avenue Lot Area: 9,1 28 SF Plans date stam iOclobet7,2022 1 Special Permit required for attached garage.2 (0.32 x 9,128 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,021 SF (0.44 FAR)3 Existing, nonconforming covered parking (none existing).4 Existing, nonconforming building height (41'-4" existing where 30'-0'is maximum allowed)s Special Permit required for building height between 30'and 36' (36'-0" proposed).6 Existing second story encroaches into the DHE on the right side by 11 SF. Summary of Proposed Exterior lf,aterials: . Windows:frberglass-cladwindows. Ooors.'wood entry door and wood garage door. Sfding.' stucco. Roof: clay roof tile. Ofher.' wrought-iron guardrail, wood rafter tails, 2 ALLOWED/REOUIREDPROPOSED Front (1 st flr) : (2nd flr): (attached garage): Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 45',-0" 63'-5', nla no change 63 -5' (to addition) 42',-3" 1 15'-0" or block average 20'-0" or block average 25'_0' 7'-O" 7',-O" 15',-0" 20'-0" 16'-2" 3',-8" 22'-8" 33',-0', 19'-2" (to garage) no change no change 22'-8" Lot Coverage: # of bedrooms: FAR: Off.Street Parking:0 covered 3 3 5 c.s. 25.26.075 36'-0 (to addition) 5 compliesComplies 6 41'4" 4 2 covered (2O'x20') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 2 covered (20'x 20') l uncovered (9' x 18') 2,221 SF 24.3o/o 2,906 SF 0.32 FAR 2,218 SF 24.3o/o 3,977 SF 0.44 FAR 3,651 SF 40o/o 4,021 SF 2 0.2t4 FAR 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Heighl: DH Envelope: Staff Comments: None EXISTING SETBACKS Side (left): (right): 30'-0" Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Special Pemits 1441 Alvando Avenue Design Review Griteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. '1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; lnterface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Required Findings for Hillside Area Gonstruction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61 .060). Required Findings for a Special Permit: ln order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics ofthe new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d)removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation forthe removal that is proposed is appropriate. Michelle Markiewicz Associate Planner c. Joshua Larson, Larson Shores Architecture, applicant and architect Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Applications Notice of Public Hearing - Mailed October 14,2022 Area Map 1. 2. 5. 4. 5. City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P (650) 558-7250  www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application (R-1 and R-2) The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. 1.Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. 2.Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. 3.How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? 4.Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. GARAGE JUSTIFICATION (SEE ATTACHED LETTER) City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org SPECPERM.FRM 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don’t feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3.Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. February 10, 2022    Planning Commission  City of Burlingame  501 Primrose Road  Burlingame, CA 94010    Re: Planning Application 1441 Alvarado Ave., zoned R‐1, APN: 027‐103‐070      To Whom It May Concern:    The proposed residential addition at 1441 Alvarado Avenue proposes a new two car garage  facing the street frontage and located under the existing residence.  The existing residence does  not have an enclosed garage on the property currently.  By proposing this design scheme, we  are aiming to achieve the following items:    ● Continue an architectural precedent in the neighborhood of street facing garages along  Alvarado.  Specifically, of the 27 homes adjacent and fronting the subject property, 14 or 52% of  the homes have garages and driveways located along the street frontage.    ●By avoiding the creation of a two‐car free standing garage at the rear property, the goal of the  proposal aims to create more garden and green space while removing the proximity of any  structures in close range to the southernly neighbor.  This will reduce the amount of shadow  onto the neighbor’s property, avoid potential wind tunnels, preserve natural views through the  properties and eliminate extensive site drainage and light reflection from structure to structure.  ●By proposing the new garage under the footprint of the existing home, our goal is to remove  100% of asphalt paving used as the current driveway.  We propose to replace it with a  permeable landscaped procession of terraced planters and a pedestrian entry from the sidewalk  to the rear of the property.  This design features emphasizes the natural incline of the site,  provides many areas for planting native drought‐tolerant species and removes the amount of  side yard currently dedicated to a driveway.        ●From an environmental standpoint, the proposed location of the garage at the front of the  house replaces the expansive lawn area and makes the front yard a more functional space for  accessing the property as well as reducing the significant amount of water required to maintain  it.      ●Finally, the proposed garage protrudes from the east façade of the house by 2’‐0” which is  kept to a minimum in order to fit space for 2‐cars as required by code.  The garage elevation is  articulated with design features that enhance the Spanish Mediterranean style of the home such  as sloped clay tile roof, style‐appropriate down‐shield wall sconces, and two separate wood‐ stained garage doors with a decorative motif.  The design also includes a Juliet balcony above  whereby reducing the current mass of the existing balcony at that level.  These treatments  ensure that the massing of the façade is minimized.  By extending the garage out beyond the  façade 2’‐0”, the design of the house architecturally steps back towards the rear yard mirroring  the natural grade of the property.     In summary, the goal of placing the garage under the existing footprint of the house is intended  to emphasize the importance of designing a project where building, garden, and landscape are  equal design components on the property.  This balance creates a harmonious relationship to  the neighborhood and reduces overall massing throughout the property.  We believe that our  proposed project will enhance the curb appeal of the home and continue to create a good  precedent for building within the current building envelope instead of building beyond which  inherently leaves more area for nature.    Thank you for your support and consideration,      Joshua Larson, Principal  Larson Shores Architecture  City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org SPECPERM.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1.Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. There are a handful of precedents on the upslope side of Alvarado Ave. where the driveway and garage cut through the hillside, leaving behind retained earth in the form of raised planter beds. The new driveway location also offers more buffer and safer vehicular turns between our property and the southeast neighbor. The second floor addition, while extending out southwest has relatively small punctured bedroom windows to provide privacy for the adjoining properties. 2.Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The proposed additions took cues of the existing Spanish Mediterranean style of the house and neighborhood which include the stucco finish treatment, the clay roof tiling, and a similar metal rail detailing. Proposed windows will have the same material and profiles as the dominant existing windows. Moreover, the same roof pitches will be used at the bedroom and verandah additions to further blur the lines of existing and new. 3.How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? Care was taken to ensure that the additions are an appropriate scale to the original structure. For example, the proposed relocated driveway and new attached 2-car garage are cut and submerged into the hillside with the garage being placed under the existing house so it does not appear imposing from the street side. The bedroom addition consists of enclosing an existing terrace adjacent to the master bedroom and does not extend the overall footprint of the current exterior terrace. The veranda off of the existing family room is limited to 1-story tall and articulated by archways that mirror the Spanish Mediterranean architectural style of the existing house including a terra cotta tiled roof. Creating an open veranda by design also reduces the visual mass of the structure. 4.Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. There are 4 trees slated for removal: a 6" dia. 'Evergreen Pear' at the curb; (2) 10" palm trees directly in front of the main facade; and a multi-trunk 'Rubber Fig' tree at the inside corner of the structure. If approved, our proposal will replace the 4 with 12 new large-to- medium-sized trees. The number and locations of proposed trees will provide a 'greener' neighborhood, more privacy, and more in keeping with the the new extensive landscaping. City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org SPECPERM.FRM 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don’t feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3.Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. 1441 Alvarado Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 027-103-070 A0.0PROJECTINFORMATIONThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022AERIAL PHOTONOT TO SCALEPROJECT TEAMASSESSORS MAPNOT TO SCALEPROJECT DATA6598ARCHITECTURAL:A0.0PROJECT INFORMATIONA0.1GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLISTA1.0EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANA1.1PROPOSED SITE SECTION & GARAGE PATTERNA2.0EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLANA2.1PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLANA2.2EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.3PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANA2.4EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.5PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANA2.6EXISTING ROOF PLANA2.7PROPOSED ROOF PLANA3.0EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTHA3.1EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WESTA3.2EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHA3.3EXISTING & PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EASTA4.0EXISTING & PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONSURVEYOR:1 OF 1TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYLANDSCAPE:L.1SITE PLAN - EXISTINGL.2SITE PLAN - PROPOSEDL.3PLANTING PLAN - FRONT YARDL.4PLANTING PLAN - BACKYARDL.5PLANTING NOTES & DETAILSL.6IRRIGATION PLAN 1/2L.7IRRIGATION PLAN 2/2L.8IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS & NOTESL.9SITE PLAN - PLANTERS AREASL.10FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSEDL.11SIDE ELEVATION - PROPOSEDCIVIL:1 OF 6COVER SHEET2 OF 6GRADING PLAN3 OF 6 DRAINAGE PLAN4 OF 6UTILITY PLAN5 OF 6 EROSION CONTROL PLAN6 OF 6DETAILSCONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESSCOPE OF WORK:ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE,ADDITION OF A NEW 2-CAR ATTACHED GARAGE, EXTENSIONTO THE BEDROOM WING, ADDITION OF A COVEREDVERANDAH, CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING DECK FACINGTHE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY INTO A CONDITIONED OFFICE,AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING WOOD PERGOLA. WORK TO INCLUDE NEW LANDSCAPING, AND UPGRADEDMECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, AND PLUMBINGDEFERRED SUBMITTAL:A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WILL BE INSTALLEDTHROUGHOUT THE BUILDING UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.ADDRESS:1441 ALVARADO AVE., BURLINGAME, CA 94010ZONING DESIGNATION:R1 + HILLSIDE OVERLAY DISTRICTAPN:027-103-070ACTUAL SITE AREA:9,128 SQ. FT.YEAR BUILT:1929COUNTY:SAN MATEO COUNTY, INCORPORATEDCITY OF BURLINGAME NOTES&AND<ANGLE, LESS THAN>ANGLE, GREATER THAN@AT/PER#POUND OR NUMBERABANCHOR BOLTABVABOVEA/CAIR CONDITIONINGADAREA DRAINADJADJUSTABLEAFFABOVE FINISHED FLOORAIAAMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTSALTALTERNATEALUMALUMINUMAPPROXAPPROXIMATELYARCHARCHITECTURALASPHASPHALTAWGAMERICAN WIRE GAGEBDBOARDBETWBETWEENBLDGBUILDINGBLKGBLOCKINGBMBEAMBOFBOTTOM OF FOOTINGBOTBOTTOMBURBUILT-UP ROOFCCENTERLINECABCABINETCARCOLD AIR RETURNCBCATCH BASINCCCEMENT COATEDCECCALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSIONCICAST IRONCJCEILING JOISTCLOCLOSETCLGCEILINGCMUCONCRETE MASONRY UNITC.O.CLEANOUTCOAXCOAXIAL CABLECOLCOLUMNCOMMCOMMUNICATIONCONCCONCRETECONNCONNECTIONCONSTCONSTRUCTIONCONTCONTINUOUSCONTRCONTRACTORCPTRCOMPUTERCUCUBICDBLDOUBLEDFDOUGLAS FIRDETDETAILDIADIAMETERDIMDIMENSIONDISPDISPOSALDISTDISTRIBUTIONDIVDIVIDED OR DIVISIONDNDOWNDRDOORDSPDOWNSPOUTDWDISHWASHERDWGDRAWINGDWRDRAWEREAEACHEBEXPANSION BOLTEFEACH FACEEJEXPANSION JOINTELECTELECTRICELEVELEVATIONENEDGE NAILENGRENGINEEREQEQUALESEACH SIDEEWEACH WAY(E) EXISTEXISTINGEXPEXPANSIONEXTEXTERIORFBFLAT BARFDFLOOR DRAINFDNFOUNDATIONFINFINISHFJFLOOR JOISTFL. FLRFLOORFOCFACE OF CONCRETEFOFFACE OF FINISHFOSFACE OF STUDFPFIREPLACE OR FULL PENETRATIONFRFLOOR REGISTERFSFAR SIDEFTFOOT OR FEETFTGFOOTINGFURRFURRINGFUTFUTUREGGASGAGAUGEGALVGALVANIZEDGBGRADE BEAMGENGENERALGFIGROUND FAULT INTERRUPTORGIGALVANIZED IRONGLGLAZING OR GLASSGRGRADEGSMGALVANIZED SHEET METALGYPGYPSUMHBHOSE BIBBHCHOLLOW COREHDGHOT DIP GALVANIZEDHDRHEADERHORIZHORIZONTALHTHEIGHTHTRHEATERHWHOT WATERHWHHOT WATER HEATERIDINSIDE DIAMETERIFINSIDE FACEININCHINCLINCLUDEINSULINSULATIONINTINTERIORJSTJOISTJTJOINTKDKILN-DRIEDLAVLAVATORYLBPOUNDLHLEFT HANDLPLOW POINTLTLIGHTMAXMAXIMUMMBMACHINE BOLTMEDMEDIUMMEMBMEMBRANEMEZZMEZZANINEMFRMANUFACTURERMINMINIMUMMISCMISCELLANEOUSMOMASONRY OPENINGMSRYMASONRYMTDMOUNTEDMTLMETAL(N)NEWNICNOT IN CONTRACTNOMNOMINALNTSNOT TO SCALEODIAMETERO/ OVEROAOVERALLOCON CENTEROCEWON CENTER EACH WAYODOUTSIDE DIAMETEROFOUTSIDE FACEOFCIOWNER FURNISH, CONTRACTORINSTALLOHOVERHANGOPP HANDOPPOSITE HANDOPNGOPENINGOVHDOVERHEADPLPLATEPLAMPLASTIC LAMINATEPLFPOUNDS PER LINEAL FOOTPLYPLYWOODPRPAIRPRCSTPRECASTPSFPOUNDS PER SQUARE FOOTPSIPOUNDS PER SQUARE INCHPTPRESSURE TREATED WITHPRESERVATIVERDROOF DRAINREINFREINFORCEMENTREQREQUIREDRESILRESILIENTREVREVISION OR REVISEDRHRIGHT HANDRJROOF JOISTRMROOMROROUGH OPENING OR ROLL OUTRSRING SHANKRWDREDWOODRWLRAIN WATER LEADERSADSEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSSCSOLID CORESCHEDSCHEDULESDSMOKE DETECTORSECTSECTIONSEDSEE ELECTRICAL DRAWINGSSHSHELFSHTSHEETSIMSIMILARSLDSEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGSSMSHEET METALSMDSEE MECHANICAL DRAWINGSSPDSEE PLUMBING DRAWINGSSPECSPECIFICATIONSPKRSPEAKERSQSQUARESSSTAINLESS STEEL OR SANITARYSEWERSSDSEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSSTAGG'DSTAGGEREDSTDSTANDARDSTLSTEELSTRLSTRUCTURALSUSPSUSPEND (ED)SYMSYMMETRICALT & BTOP & BOTTOMTCTOP OF CURBT & GTONGUE & GROOVETEMPTEMPEREDTHKTHICKTOBTOP OF BEAMTOCTOP OF CONCRETETOFTOP OF FOOTINGTOPTOP OF PLATETOSTOP OF STEELTPHTOILET PAPER HOLDERTW, TOWTOP OF WALLTYPTYPICALUONUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTEDVERTVERTICALVGDFVERT. GRAIN DOUG. FIR(10 RING/IN. MIN.)VIFVERIFY IN FIELDW/WITHWCWATER CLOSETWDWOODWDWWINDOWWPWATERPROOFWP'INGWATERPROOFINGWRWALL REGISTERDRAWING SYMBOLSGENERAL NOTESAPPLIANCE (SEEAPPLIANCE SCHEDULE)1WINDOW MARKWINDOW TYPE(SEE DOOR/WINDOWSCHEDULE)WALL/PARTITION TYPE(SEE WALL SCHEDULE)B1DRAWING REVISION (MOSTRECENT IS CLOUDED; PRIORREVISIONS ARE PERMANENT)1DATUM POINT+104.0SHEET NOTECEILING HEIGHTDRAWING + SHEET NUMBERA6.32DETAIL IDENTIFICATIONEXTERIOR ELEVATIONIDENTIFICATIONINTERIOR ELEVATIONIDENTIFICATIONROOM IDENTIFICATION(SEE INTERIOR FINISHSCHEDULE FOR ALLFINISHES.)2A6.3EWSNA6.32ROOM NAMEROOM NUMBER+9'-6"1ARROW SHOWS ELEVATONDRAWING NUMBERSHEET NUMBERDRAWING + SHEET NUMBERGENERALDIMENSIONINGBUILDING SECTIONIDENTIFICATIONA6.32CENTERLINE OF ELEMENTLCFACE OF STUD (F.O.S.) TYP.FACE OF FINISH (F.O.F.)DRAWING + SHEET NUMBERSCHEDULESDOOR MARKDOOR IDENTIFICATION(SEE DOOR/WINDOWSCHEDULE.)A1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, LAWS ANDORDINANCES AS REQUIRED BY CODES AND REGULATIONS LISTED HEREIN AND ASREQUIRED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND ALL RELEVANT REGULATORY BODIES.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AND NOTIFYTHE ARCHITECT PROMPTLY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES AND OBTAIN CLARIFICATIONBEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE AFFECTED WORK. FOLLOW NUMERICAL DIMENSIONS:DO NOT SCALE.3. FLOOR PLAN DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE FACE OF FINISH AT NEWCONSTRUCTION.4. BEFORE BEGINNING WORK AT THE SITE, WHERE POSSIBLE AND THROUGHOUT THECOURSE OF WORK, INSPECT AND VERIFY THE LOCATION AND CONDITION OF EVERYITEM AFFECTED BY THE WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT AND REPORT DISCREPANCIESTO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE DOING THE WORK RELATED TO THAT BEING INSPECTED.5. BEFORE BEGINNING WORK AT THE SITE, INSPECT THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONSAND DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THE EXISTING FINISHES, SPECIALTIES, AND OTHERITEMS WHICH MUST BE REMOVED AND INSTALLED IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE WORKUNDER THIS CONTRACT. COORDINATE AND MAKE THIS INSPECTION WITH THEOWNER.6. THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS SHOW PRINCIPLE AREAS WHERE WORK MUST BEACCOMPLISHED UNDER THIS CONTRACT. INCIDENTAL WORK MAY ALSO BE NECESSARYIN AREAS NOT SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS DUE TO CHANGESAFFECTING EXISTING MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND OTHER SYSTEMS.SUCH WORK IS ALSO PART OF THIS CONTRACT.7. DO NOT DRILL OR CUT JOISTS, BEAMS, COLUMNS OR OTHER STRUCTURALELEMENTS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED. MAKE OPENINGS OF PROPER SIZE FORCONDUITS, DUCTS, PIPES, AND OTHER ITEMS PASSING THROUGH OPENINGS.8. WHERE "MATCH EXISTING" IS INDICATED, NEW CONSTRUCTION OR FINISHES, ASAPPROPRIATE TO THE NOTE, SHALL MATCH TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ARCHITECT.3142ABBREVIATIONSALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCESAND THE CODES LISTED BELOW:2019 CALIFORNIA CODES1.2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE2.2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE3.2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE4.2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE5.2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE6.2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE7.2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODEOWNER:MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comARCHITECT:JOSH LARSONLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607TEL: 510.444.9788EMAIL: josh@larsonshores.comLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:ORIOL ROYOROYO DESIGN STUDIOP. O. BOX 14071SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94114TEL: 415.225.4255EMAIL: oriol@royo-studio.comSURVEYOR:SAVIOR MICALLEFSAVIOR P. MICALLEF LAND SURVEYING421 WILDWOOD DRIVESOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94080TEL: 805.709.2423EMAIL: saviormicallef@gmail.comCIVIL ENGINEER:AUSTIN PAYNEUPRIGHT ENGINEERING3705 MT. DIABLO BLVD, SUITE BLAFAYETTE, CA 94549TEL: 925.275.5304EMAIL: austin@upcivil.comAPPLICABLE CODES7SHEET INDEX10#NAMEMISCELLANEOUSCONSTRUCTION TYPE:V-BNUMBER OF PARKING:2 COVERED, 2 UNCOVEREDAREA TAKE-OFFSEXISTINGPROPOSEDTOTALBASEMENT(252 SF)+88 SF88 SFCOVERED GARAGE0+503 SF503 SFFIRST FLOOR2,058 SF+171 SF2,229 SFSECOND FLOOR841 SF+3591,200 SFPERGOLA(168 SF)0-TOTAL AREA3,319 SF1,121 SF4,020 SFLOT COVERAGELOT SIZE:9,128 SQ. FT.MAX LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED:40% OR 3,651.2 SQ. FT.EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:2,226 SF / 9,128 SQ. FT. = 24.4%PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:HOUSE STRUCTURE = 2,349 SFLANDSCAPE PLANTERS = 202.3 SF (REFER TO SHT. L.9)TOTAL = 2,551.3 / 9,128 SQ. FT. = 28%FLOOR AREA RATIOALLOWABLE F.A.R. FOR INTERIORLOTS W/ ATTACHED GARAGE:32% + 1,100.32 x (9,128 SQ. FT.) + 1,100 = 4020.96TOTAL PROPOSED FLOOR AREA:4,020 SQ. FT.SETBACKSREQUIREDPROVIDEDFRONT SETBACK35'-0"42'-1"SIDE SETBACK (WEST)7'-0"3'-8" (EXISTING CONDITION)SIDE SETBACK (EAST)7'-0"15'-7"REAR SETBACK TO 1ST FLOOR15'-0"21'-4"REAR SETBACK TO 2ND FLOOR20'-0"22'-4"BUILDING HEIGHTMAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT:30' OR 2 1/2 STORIES WHICHEVER IS LESS, MEASUREDFROM CURBEXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT:41'-4" FROM TOP OF AVG. CURB TO HIGHEST (E) RIDGEPROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT:36'-0" FROM TOP OF AVG. CURB TO TOP OF NEW ROOFAVERAGE SLOPE AT SITE:15.4%1. CONSTRUCTION HOURS:WEEKDAYS: 8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M.SATURDAYS: 9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS)CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDSAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 AM AND 5:00 PM.2. GRADING PERMIT:IF REQUIRED, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A GRADING PERMIT FROMTHE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.3. DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NATURE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THE CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY WILL BE RESCINDED ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. A NEW CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY WILL BE ISSUED AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FINALED. NO OCCUPANCY OF THEBUILDING IS TO OCCUR UNTIL A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.4. A SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION WILL BE PROVIDED UPON SUBMITTALOF PLANS TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PLAN REVIEW.33 1445 ALVARADO AVE.APN: 027-183-0602820 HILLSIDE DR.2816 HILLSIDE DR.10'-8 1/2"31'-2"11'-11"51'-11"49'-3 1/2"16'-7"47'-9 1/2"3'-9"4'-0"3'-9"11'-5 1/2"(E) SIDEWALK (E) PLANTER (E) PLANTER A L V A R A D O A V E. 4'-0 1/2"25'-11 1/2"PROPERTY LINE 135.62'PROPERTY LINE 70' PROPERTY LINE 71.101'1435 ALVARADO AVE.APN: 027-103-0807'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACKPROPERTY LINE 123.15'3229814564117'SIDE YARDSETBACK 35'-0"FRONT YARD SETBACK20'-0"REAR YARDSETBACK3'-10" (E) SIDE 16'-5" (E) SIDE 14'-0"6'-5 1/2"121212777117.07'117.00'120.10'3'-8"102.89'103.13'106.00'101.55'100.35'99.76'100.29'APN: 027-183-0602820 HILLSIDE DR.2816 HILLSIDE DR.10'-8 1/2" NEW2ND FL. ADDITION31'-2"11'-11"51'-11"16'-7"42'-1"3'-9"3'-10"3'-9"11'-5 1/2"(E) SIDEWALK (E) PLANTER (E) PLANTER A L V A R A D O A V E. 4'-2 1/4"25'-11 1/2"PROPERTY LINE 135.62'PROPERTY LINE 123.15'PROPERTY LINE 70' PROPERTY LINE 71.101' 2'-1 1/2"21'-5 1/2" 30'-0"21134456'-5 1/2"14'-0"35'-0"FRONT YARDSETBACK16'-5" (E) SIDE SEE LANDSCAPEDRAWINGS FORSITE-RELATEDINFORMATION1435 ALVARADO AVE.APN: 027-103-08017'-5 1/2"10'-0"117.07'120.10'101.55'102.89'100.29'103.13'106.00'3'-8"117.00'UP101.75'22'-8"23'-11"UPUP115.06'111.40'16'-1"6620'-0" REAR YARDSETBACK15'-7" 7'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK 7'-0" SIDE YARD SETBACK 75'-6 1/2"A1.0EXISTING &PROPOSED SITEPLANPROJECTNORTHPROPOSED CURB CUT1KEY NOTES:PROPOSED DRIVEWAY2These drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022EXISTING SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"2DEMOLISH (E) ROOF1KEY NOTES:DEMOLISH (E) PLANTER2(E) PERGOLA TO BE DEMOLISHED3CUT INTO EARTH FOR (N) DRIVEWAY4REMOVE (E) BALCONY RAILING5(E) CURB CUT TO BE ABANDONED6(E) TREE TO BE REMOVED7INDICATES SPOT ELEVATIONS TO BESURVEYED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONALLEGEND:DEMOLISH (E) LOW-HEIGHT WALL8DEMOLISH (E) PORTION OF PLANTER9NOT USED10REMOVE (E) LANDSCAPING11(N) TERRACE / ROOF OF PROPOSED GARAGE3PROPOSED ADDITION4(N) COVERED VERANDAH5EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN, TYPICAL12ABANDON (E) CURB CUT FOR (N) CURB CUT6(N) ELECTRIC GATE7 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE A L V A R A D O A V E.SIDEWALK3' TALL WALLEXISTING GRADE LINECURB CUT(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERTY LINE101.62' (+0'-0")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")(E) RIDGE142.91' (+41'-4")(E) FAMILY(E) LIVING(N) GARAGE(N) CLOSET(N) BEDRM.(N) BATH(N) BEDRM.(E) BATH(E) STAIRS(E) FOYER12'-0" MAX A1.1PROPOSED SITESECTIONThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022PROPOSED SITE SECTIONSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"1DOCUMENTATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD GARAGESNOT TO SCALE2LEGEND:GARAGE AT FRONT (CENTERED)GARAGE AT THE SIDEGARAGE AT THE SIDE TOWARDS REAR OF LOTSUBJECT PROPERTYN E I G H B O R H O O D G A R A G E SGARAGES AT THE FRONT(CENTERED)GARAGES AT THE SIDEGARAGES AT THE SIDE &SETBACK FROM THE FRONT9 (33%)3 (11%)14 (52 %)TOTAL DOCUMENTED:27 (100%)NORTH3 UPBG1HEA3FD2C4567100STAIRS8'-9 7/8"13'-5"5'-8 3/8"6'-11 3/8"12'-6 7/8"1FLOOR LINE ABOVEFLOOR LINE ABOVE1/A3.01/A3.31/A3.11/A3.2 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 2EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+6'-11")EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0"EXISTING BASEMENTHEAD HEIGHT BETWEEN 5' TO 7'= 110 SQ. FT.11'-11"9'-3"17'-11 5/8"6'-3 1/4"3'-0"3'-0"142 SF< 5'-0" HEAD HT.34A2.0EXISTING BASEMENTFLOOR PLANPROJECTNORTHEXISTING HVAC EQUIPMENT1KEY NOTES:EXISTING WATER HEATER2WALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 15, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1EXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:DEMOLISHED / REMOVEDEXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREA:142 SFFLOOR AREAEXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED3DEMOLISH EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY BASE4 T.O. (N) GARAGE SLAB103.15' (+0'-0")UPBG1HEA3FD2C4567UP100STAIRS101GARAGE 22'-1 1/4"18'-0" 20'-0" 21'-5 1/2" 14'-4 7/8"PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE12'-9"20'-7 3/4"2/A3.02/A3.32/A3.12/A3.2 FLOOR LINE ABOVEFLOOR LINE ABOVENEW DRIVEWAY3'-4 3/8"10 TREADS AT 10"=8'-4"3'-0" 3'-0"3'-1"9'-8 3/4"12'-5 3/4"12(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+6'-11")2A4.02A4.088 SF503 SF1A4.01A4.0EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.EXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.9'-3"4'-10 1/2"(E) BASEMENT< 5'-0" HEAD HT.EARTH / FILLEXISTINGCRAWLSPACE< 3'-0" HEAD HT.FLOOR LINE ABOVE A2.1PROPOSEDBASEMENT FLOORPLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 8, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022PROJECTNORTHPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1WALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:DEMOLISHED / REMOVEDEXISTING HVAC EQUIPMENT1KEY NOTES:EXISTING WATER HEATER2PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR AREA:591 SFFLOOR AREAEXTERIOR WALL SCONCE, SHIELDEDDOWN BG1HEA3FD2C4567DNUPDN211PORCH209FAMILY208BED202DINING201LIVING210HALL100STAIRS206LAUNDRY207BATH205POWDER204KITCHEN203NOOK200FOYER23'-3 1/2"4'-2 1/8"6'-6 1/8"4421883354843760'-10 1/4"24'-2 5/8"17'-7 7/8"11'-11"5'-6 3/4"11'-2 1/8"5'-4 1/2"5'-9 1/2"4'-6 3/8"12'-10 1/4"10'-8 7/8"TYP.TYP.TYP.649'-3"29'-11 3/4"16'-6 3/8"10'-3 3/4"17'-11" 25'-0 3/8"14'-9" 13'-5 3/8"24'-5 1/4" 2'-8 7/8"16'-7"41'-10 1/2"15'-3 3/8"6'-4"1/A3.01/A3.31/A3.11/A3.2 12114941010TYP.(E) 1ST FL. FINISH117.59' (+14'-5")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY F.F.116.91' (+13'-9")117.07'13A2.2EXISTING FIRSTFLOOR PLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 15, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022PROJECTNORTHDEMOLISH (E) WALL1KEY NOTES:REMOVE (E) DOOR2EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1REMOVE (E) WINDOW3REMOVE (E) PLUMBING FIXTURES4DEMOLISH (E) PLANTER5REMOVE (E) PLANTER6DEMOLISH (E) BALCONY7WALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:DEMOLISHED / REMOVEDDOOR TO BE REMOVEDREMOVE (E) APPLIANCE8DEMOLISH (E) CABINETS9(E) FLOOR TO BE LOWERED10DEMOLISH (E) STEPS11SHORE MASONRY FIREPLACE AS NECESSARY FOR (N)GARAGE BELOW; EXISTING WOOD-BURNING HEARTH TOBE REPLACED WITH NEW GAS FIREPLACE INSERT;CHIMNEY TO BE LINED WITH NEW FLUE AS NECESSARY12EXISTING 1ST FLOOR AREA:2,058 SFFLOOR AREADEMOLISH EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY13 DNUPDNBG1HEA3FD2C4567209FAMILY208GUEST BED202DINING201LIVING210HALL100STAIRS206MUD RM.207BATH204KITCHEN203BR NOOK200FOYER205POWDER212VERANDAHSHOWERWASHERDRYERREF2/A3.02/A3.32/A3.12/A3.2 21'-2"4'-3 3/8"8'-5 7/8"2'-0" 9'-0 7/8" 13'-1 1/4"DWISLANDVERANDAH F.F.116.87' (+13'-8 1/2")24'-2 5/8"17'-7 7/8"11'-11"11'-2 1/8"5'-4 1/2"5'-9 1/2"17'-9 3/4"10'-8 7/8"7'-0 5/8"49'-3"29'-11 3/4"10'-0"10'-3 3/4"17'-11"9'-5"23'-3 1/2"3'-7 1/2" 13'-5 3/8"63'-11 7/8"17'-1 5/8"6'-6 3/8"PORCH(E) 1ST FL. FINISH117.59' (+14'-5")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY F.F.116.91' (+13'-9")2A4.02A4.0171 SF1A4.01A4.0117.07'1221'-0"A2.3PROPOSED FIRSTFLOOR PLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 2, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROJECTNORTHNEW FIREPLACE INSERT TO REPLACE EXISTING SOLIDWOOD-BURNING FIREPLACE1KEY NOTES:NEW JULIET BALCONY2WALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR AREA:2,229 SFFLOOR AREAEXTERIOR WALL SCONCE, SHIELDEDDOWN DNBG1HEA3FD2C4567100STAIRS300BED301BATH302CLOSET303BED304TERRACECLOSETCLOSET332154441TYP.TYP.TYP.29'-11 3/4" 1/A3.01/A3.31/A3.11/A3.212'-6"11'-11"3'-6 5/8"31'-9 7/8"18'-10 3/8"12'-11 1/2"15'-11 1/8"4'-11 3/8"7'-0 5/8"16'-11 1/4"17'-3 1/8"6'-6 1/2"12'-4 3/4"5'-9 3/8"(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+23'-10 1/4")6A2.4EXISTING SECONDFLOOR PLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 15, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022KEY NOTES:EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROJECTNORTHDEMOLISH (E) WALL1REMOVE (E) DOOR2REMOVE (E) WINDOW3REMOVE (E) PLUMBING FIXTURE4DEMOLISH (E) LOW-HEIGHT WALL5WALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:DEMOLISHED / REMOVEDDOOR TO BE REMOVEDEXISTING 2ND FLOOR AREA:841 SFFLOOR AREADEMOLISH EXISTING BRICK CHIMNEY INSIDE WALL6 DNBG1HEA3FD2C4567100STAIRS304PRIME BATH305CLOSET306PRIME BED307CLOSETCLOSET303BED 2300BED302BED 1308HALL4'-0" 10'-2"9'-11 7/8"SHOWER2/A3.02/A3.32/A3.12/A3.2 29'-11 3/4"25'-11 3/8"4'-0 3/8"9'-8"2'-3 5/8"9'-5 7/8"42'-6 1/2"32'-2 3/4"28'-5 3/8"7'-9 3/4"6'-3 3/8"10'-6 1/8"5'-0"11'-8 1/8"6'-6 1/2"5'-9 3/8"10'-6 1/8"6'-10 1/8"5'-1 5/8"23'-8 1/8"18'-10 3/8"15'-11 1/8"30'-9 1/2"1'-5 1/4"12'-4 1/2"16'-11 1/4"(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+23'-10 1/4")2A4.02A4.01A4.01A4.0301BATH2'-3 5/8" 9'-11 7/8"A2.5PROPOSED SECONDFLOOR PLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: April 14, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROJECTNORTHWALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR AREA:1,200 SFFLOOR AREA BG1HEA3FD2C45671/A3.01/A3.31/A3.11/A3.2 RIDGE LINERIDGE LINERIDGE LINE 130'-3 5/8"10'-8 5/8"11235 3/4 : 12 35 3/4 : 12 2A2.6EXISTING ROOFPLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 15, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022DEMOLISH (E) ROOF. SALVAGE CLAYROOF TILES FOR POTENTIAL REUSE1KEY NOTES:DEMOLISH BRICK CHIMNEY IN ITS ENTIRETY2EXISTING ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROJECTNORTHWALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:DEMOLISHED / REMOVEDDEMOLISH LOW-HEIGHT WALL3 BG1HEA3FD2C45672/A3.02/A3.32/A3.12/A3.2 26'-3 1/4"NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION 10'-10 1/2"NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION17'-5 1/2"NEW COVERED VERANDAH BELOW6'-5 1/2"NEW SECOND FL.ADDITION21'-5 1/2" NEW GARAGE ADDITION BELOW 14'-0" 10'-0" RIDGE LINE 5 3/4 : 12 1A4.01A4.02A4.02A4.0RIDGE LINEFLATROOF5 3/4 : 125 3/4 : 121A2.7PROPOSED ROOFPLANThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: December 15, 2021 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROJECTNORTHWALL ASSEMBLYSEE A9.XXA1(N) DOOR TAG(N) WINDOW TAGEXISTING WALLNEW WALLLEGEND:PATCH ROOF WITH NEW CLAY ROOF TILEWHERE CHIMNEY WAS REMOVED1KEY NOTES: (E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")(E) WALL/ STUCCO SIDING TO BEREMOVED(E) GUARDRAIL TOBE REMOVED(E) WOOD WINDOW & TRIM TO BEREMOVED(E) WOOD WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED,SHOWN DASHED(E) CHIMNEY BEYOND TO BE REMOVED41'-1 3/4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 126(E) WOOD TRIM, SHOWN DASHED, TOBE REMOVED, TYPICAL(E) ABANDONED BRICK CHIMNEY TOBE DEMOLISHED IN ITS ENTIRETY(E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN(E) BALCONY SUPPORTSTO BE REMOVED(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM TO REMAIN(E) WOOD PICTURE WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM TO REMAIN(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")12'-2"(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH (E)(N) WROUGHT-IRON GUARDRAIL(N) SLIDING DOORS(NO DIVIDED LITES THIS FACADE)(N) CLAY ROOF TILETO MATCH (E)(N) FIBERGLASS-CLAD WINDOWS(NO DIVIDED LITES THIS FACADE)(N) GUTTER TO MATCH (E)41'-1 3/4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 126PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 12'-0"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE7'-6"12'-0"45.00°DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE7'-6"AVERAGE ELEVATION = 109.91'AVERAGE ELEVATION = 115.54'36'-0"(N) CLAY ROOF TILE TO MATCH EXISTING7'-1 3/4"9'-0"NEW LIGHT FIXTURE,TYP., SHIELDED DOWN(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)EMERGENCYESCAPE &RESCUE OPNG.13 SF(E)(N)(N)(N)(N)3'-6"(N)(N) INFILL3'-5"4'-4"NEW METAL DOWNSPOUT,PAINTED DARK COLOR TOMATCH EXISTING(N) WOOD GARAGEDOORS, STAINED45.00°A3.0EXISTING &PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATIONS - EASTThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST (STREET ELEVATION)SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EAST (STREET ELEVATION)SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"233 (E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")(E) WOOD WINDOW TO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) CLAY ROOF TO BE REMOVED &SALVAGED FOR POTENTIAL REUSE, TYP.(E) WOOD WINDOW, SHOWN DASHED,TO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) CHIMNEY BEYOND TO BE REMOVED(E) STAINED-GLASS WINDOW TO BE SALVAGED FORPOSSIBLE REUSE41'-4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE125 3/83 3/812(E) METAL RAIL TO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) CLAY ROOF TILE TO REMAIN(E) STUCCO TO REMAIN, TYPICAL(E) WOOD TRIM, SHOWN DASHED,TO BE REMOVED, TYPICAL(E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN;INSTALL NEW FLUE AS REQUIRED(E) ABANDONED BRICK CHIMNEYTO BE ABANDONED IN ITS ENTIRETY(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM TO REMAIN(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW &STUCCO TRIM TO REMAIN(E) WOOD WINDOWS & STUCCO TRIMTO REMAIN(E) WOOD WINDOWS & STUCCO TRIMTO REMAIN(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")FILL IN (E) WINDOW TO MATCH (E) WALL(N) CLAY ROOF TILE TO MATCH EXISTING(N) GARAGE ADDITION BEYOND(N) WOOD WINDOW W/ TRUE DIVIDEDLITES, TYPICAL(N) WOOD DOOR WITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES41'-4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE125 3/8NEW 2ND FLOOR ADDITION(N) FIBERGLASS-CLAD WINDOW WITH TRUEDIVIDED LITES, TYPICAL, U.O.N.36'-0"(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(N) CLAY ROOF TILE TO MATCH EXISTING(N) EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER TAILS(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING(E)(N)(N) WALL SCONCE AT EXTERIOR LANDINGS,TYPICAL, SHIELDED DOWN(N) METAL DOWNSPOUT, PAINTEDDARK COLOR TO MATCH EXISTINGSTUCCO RETURN/ STUCCO TRIM PROFILE TO MATCH (E) , TYP.A3.1EXISTING &PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATION - NORTHThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - NORTHSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"2333 (E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")(E) WOOD DOOR TO BE REMOVED(E) ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED;SALVAGE CLAY ROOF TILES FOR REUSE(E) WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED, TYP.(E) WOOD WINDOW, SHOWN DASHED,TO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED(E) METAL RAILING TO BE REMOVED(E) BRICK PLANTER BOX TO BE REMOVED(E) TILED STEPS TO BE REMOVED(E) RETAINING WALL TO BE REMOVED5 3/41241'-1 3/4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 126(E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM BEYOND TO REMAIN(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM BEYOND TO REMAIN(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW & STUCCO TRIM BEYONDTO REMAIN(E) WOOD CASEMENT WINDOW &STUCCO TRIM BEYOND TO REMAIN(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")(N) COVERED VERANDAH(N) STEPS TO GRADE; REFER TOLANDSCAPE DRAWINGSFILL IN DOOR TO MATCH (E) WALL(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH (E)(N) FIBERGLASS-CLAD WINDOW WITHTRUE DIVIDED LITES, TYPICAL(N) CLAY TILE ROOFTO MATCH (E)5 3/41241'-1 3/4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 126PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 12'-0" 7'-6" 12'-0"DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEAVERAGE ELEVATION = 109.91'AVERAGE ELEVATION = 115.54'45.00°DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE36'-0"(N) CLAY TILE TO MATCH EXISTING(N) EXPOSED WOOD RAFTER TAILS(N)(N)(N)(N)(E)(E)(E)4'-0"4'-0"(N)EMERGENCYESCAPE &RESCUE OPNG.13 SF4'-0"4'-0"(N)EMERGENCYESCAPE &RESCUE OPNG.13 SF3'-1" 3'-1" 3'-6 7/8"2'-1 3/4"3'-3 7/8"(N)EMERGENCYESCAPE &RESCUE OPNG.6.9 SF(N) METAL DOWNSPOUT,PAINTED DARK COLOR TOMATCH EXISTINGSTUCCO RETURN/ STUCCO TRIM PROFILE TO MATCH (E)45.00°7'-6"A3.2EXISTING &PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATION - WESTThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST (REAR)SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - WEST (REAR)SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"2333 (E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")(E) PLANTER TO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) DOOR TO BE REMOVED(E) ROOF TO BE DEMOLISHED(E) CHIMNEY TO BE DEMOLISHED(E) WINDOW & TRIM TO BE REMOVED(E) DOOR TO BE REMOVED(E) RAILING TO BE REMOVED(E) DOOR TO BE REMOVED, TYP.(E) LOW WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED(E) RETAINING WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED(E) WINDOW & TRIM TO BE REMOVED41'-1 3/4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 125 9/16(E) ABANDONED BRICK CHIMNEYTO BE ABANDONED IN ITS ENTIRETY(E) WOOD PICTURE WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM BEYOND TO REMAIN(E) WOOD PICTURE WINDOWS &STUCCO TRIM BEYOND TO REMAIN(E) WOOD PICTURE WINDOW &STUCCO TRIM BEYOND TO REMAIN(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE - EXISTING NON-CONFORMING142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")STUCCO RETURN/ STUCCO TRIM PROFILE TOMATCH (E), TYP.(E) CHIMNEY TO REMAIN; INSTALLNEW FLUE AS REQUIRED FOR NEWGAS FIREPLACE INSERT(N) CLAY ROOF TILE TO MATCH (E)(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH (E)(N) WROUGHT-IRON RAILINGAT NEW JULIET BALCONY(N) GARAGE ADDITION; (N) STUCCO FINISHTO MATCH EXISTING(N) WOOD WINDOWS AND DOORSWITH TRUE DIVIDED LITES(N) FIBERGLASS-CLAD WINDOW WITH TRUEDIVIDED LITES, TYPICAL, U.O.N.(N) STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH (E), TYP(N) COVERED VERANDAH;(N) STUCC0 FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING(N) CLAY ROOF TILE TO MATCH (E)FILL IN (E) WALL; STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH (E)(N) STEPS TO GRADE;REFER TO LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS41'-1 3/4"EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT TAKEN FROM CURB TO T.O. EXISTING RIDGE 125 9/16NEW 2ND FLOOR ADDITIONRELOCATED STAINED-GLASSWINDOWS(N) WOOD CORBELING BELOWJULIET BALCONY(N) CLAY TILE ABOVE GARAGEADDITION TO MATCH EXISTING(E) CLAY ROOF TILE TO REMAIN3'-2"(E)(E)(E)(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)(N) CLAY ROOF TILE TO MATCH EXISTING(N) WOOD EXPOSED RAFTER TAILS(N) WALL SCONCE, SHIELDEDDOWN, TYPICAL FOR ALL EXTERIORLIGHT FIXTURES(N)(E)SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS L.1-L.8 FORFULL LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND DETAILSSEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS L.1-L.8 FORFULL LANDSCAPE DESIGN AND DETAILS4'-0"4'-0"(N)EMERGENCYESCAPE &RESCUE OPNG.13 SF3'-1"(N) METAL DOWNSPOUT, PAINTEDDARK COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING(N) FIBERGLASS-CLAD WINDOW WITH TRUEDIVIDED LITES, TYP.STUCCO RETURN/ STUCCO TRIM PROFILE TOMATCH (E), TYP.A3.3EXISTING &PROPOSEDEXTERIORELEVATION - SOUTHThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTHSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATION - SOUTHSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"233 12346710'-8 5/8"NEW ADDITION5101GARAGE201LIVING200FOYER205POWDER209FAMILY302BED 1300BED307CLOSET100STAIRS8'-11 1/2"301BATH(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")AVERAGE T.O. CURB AT PROPERY LINE101.62' (0'-0")10'-7 3/8" NEW ADDITION 36'-0" 12'-0"MAX GARAGE CEILING HEIGHT ALLOWED(N) STAIRS BYOND1208GUEST BED206MUD RM.207BATH204KITCHEN202DINING23467304MASTER BATH306MASTER BED303BED 210'-8 5/8"NEW ADDITION10'-7 3/8" NEW ADDITIONCRAWLSPACE 58'-11 1/2" 5'-7"(E) 2ND FL. FINISH127.01' (+25'-4 1/2")(E) RIDGE142.91' (+41'-4")(E) SUNKEN FAMILY RM.116.91' (+15'-3 1/2")PROPOSED GARAGE103.15' (+1'-6 1/2")(E) RIDGE141.24' (+39'-7 1/2")117.59' (+15'-11 1/2")(E) 1ST FL. FINISH(E) RIDGE130.55' (+28'-11")(E) BASEMENT110.07' (+8'-5 1/2")101.62' (0'-0")36'-0"A4.0EXISTING &PROPOSEDBUILDING SECTIONThese drawings, specifications, ideas, designs, and arrangementspresented thereby are and shall remain the property of Larson ShoresArchitecture + Interiors. No part thereof shall be copied, disclosed toothers or used in connection with any work or project other than thespecific project for which they were prepared and developed without thewritten consent of Larson Shores Architecture + Interiors. Visual contactwith these drawings or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidenceof acceptance of these restrictions.OWNERS:RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME | CA 94010 APN #: 027-103-070PLANNING SUBMITTAL26 MAY 2021SUBMITTAL:SUBMITTALS HISTORY & REVISIONS:SHEET TITLE:SHEET NUMBER:ARCHITECT:#DESCRIPTIONDATEMIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON1441 ALVARADO AVEBURLINGAME, CA 94010EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.comLARSON SHORES ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS1940 UNION STREET #22OAKLAND, CA 94607PHONE/FAX: 510-444-9788PROJECT ARCHITECT: JOSH LARSONDATE OF LATEST UPDATE: September 28, 2022 11-30-23PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL02/10/20212PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 208/9/20223PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEWRESUBMITTAL 309/29/2022LONGITUDINAL BUILDING SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"1LONGITUDINAL BUILDING SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" - 1'-0"2 - 6 TREE '--- �, /// _J rn... .I DRIVEWAY VWALLS .... �"' BLOCK 'I>� J ❖'?,•>< CONCRETE }� "'"' ............ . .., ·- -10" ALM ·'-''., �---"-,-.,�;::'� DRIVEWAt /WALLS '- ,, DRAIN / PIPE L. LAWN 104.40 ALVARADO \ cw .. 'I>'?, ...... q. ,,, .. ❖q CONCRETTE PATIO ............. ........... LAWN LAWN N 55'04'00" W 70.00' , 3'HIGHWALL "'q ❖•v '-"'",,;, CONCRETE SIDEWAY r n "'., "'' ..._,§>· )( <:,':> � � J❖q [] I [] CONC.WALL -,'I-A.... �:fl), --i ,,,....,<I. '' ,J ,,,,¢. en ... -�"' O> • I ...,¢·0 5"FRUIT I\ 0 I � .,_'I,'?> ti 106.00 , .1 I .. -,.-:1::-�---:,,'li'---,jl!r-.,,,,,.,--------OHE---------A ,<:,'I-' � L. CHE .,_"3v ' CHE "I. ,o,,· ·, � .i.u,.j,l/ .. �llEE '\ UTII ITY q POLE CONCRETE GUTTER [l,r;'-"' .. - '?,q '-"''I,· A V E N u E (50 ' R/W) 103.97 BENCHMARK STATEMENT: THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE ON AN ASSUMED DATUM . SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT· THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY WAS MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION ON THE GROUND AND REPRESENTS MEASUREMENTS MADE FEBRUARY 2021. THE BOUNDARY SHOWN IS A RECORD BOUNDARY ONLY. A TITLE REPORT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE SURVEYOR BY THE CLIENT. NO PROPERTY CORNERS WERE FOUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NO WARRANTY IS MADE ABOUT THE BOUNDARY SHOWN. NO EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN. 02-25-21 SAVIOR P. MICALLEF DATELAND SURVEYOR, LS 8289 (805)709-2423 0z LL. 0 >-w > 0::: ::::) (J) 0 :r: Q_ <( 0::: 0 Q_ 0 I-- i;; 'b � - .!l ID m □"' w ::::) z w > <( 0 0 <( 0::: <( > __J <( ..--""'" ""'" ..-- :I Iii � f m □ □ Drawing Number: 1 OF ' � C. C. " 1 <( z a::: 0 LL _J <( u >-I-z => 0 u 0 wI-<( � z <( w� <( z _J a::: => CD 0 >-I-u 0 z�0 , BASEMENT DOOR EL=109.46’ THRESHOLD EL=117.59' THRESHOLD EL=117.52' THRESHOLD EL=117.57’ 102.89 103.08 102.88 103.13 103.13 109.11 103.03 106.00 102.90 101.86 101.54 101.38 104.40 101.76 101.55 105.63 101.01 101.01 100.34 100.39 100.98 101.23 101.44 99.76 100.35 100.49 100.63100.29 101.44101.55 109.05 108.15 102.49 102.34103.68 104.20105.58 108.05 109.48109.37 109.71 109.47 117.80 112.34 111.62 111.30 112.11 107.62 110.07 109.45 111.09 112.15 112.06 112.62 111.23113.75 114.29 115.06 113.97 113.19 113.94 116.05 115.46 116.88117.61118.39 117.72118.78 111.66 111.74 113.23113.20 113.68 113.20 113.84 114.30114.51114.83 115.02 115.21 117.00 117.30 117.05 115.29 115.22 114.50 114.42 114.56 114.63 117.07 114.92 115.33 115.54 117.31 115.33115.33115.40115.43 115.54 116.21 117.02 119.81 119.84120.10 120.05 119.87 119.83 119.30 118.39119.14 118.48 115.51 117.96 118.21 115.39 115.96116.67 117.91 107.88 104.47105.13105.80106.46 BASEMENT DOOR EL=109.46’ THRESHOLD EL=117.59' THRESHOLD EL=117.52' THRESHOLD EL=117.57’ 102.89 103.08 102.88 103.13 103.13 109.11 103.03 106.00 102.90 101.86 101.54 101.38 104.40 101.76 101.55 105.63 101.01 101.01 100.34 100.39 100.98 101.23 101.44 99.76 100.35 100.49 100.63100.29 101.44101.55 109.05 108.15 102.49 102.34103.68 104.20105.58 108.05 109.48109.37 109.71 109.47 117.80 112.34 111.62 111.30 112.11 107.62 110.07 109.45 111.09 112.15 112.06 112.62 111.23113.75 114.29 115.06 113.97 113.19 113.94 116.05 115.46 116.88117.61118.39 117.72118.78 111.66 111.74 113.23113.20 113.68 113.20 113.84 114.30114.51114.83 115.02 115.21 117.00 117.30 117.05 115.29 115.22 114.50 114.42 114.56 114.63 117.07 114.92 115.33 115.54 117.31 115.33115.33115.40115.43 115.54 116.21 117.02 119.81 119.84120.10 120.05 119.87 119.83 119.30 118.39119.14 118.48 115.51 117.96 118.21 115.39 115.96116.67 117.91 107.88 104.47105.13105.80106.46 10” DBH CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS - CABBAGE PALM 3’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 12” DBH CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS - CABBAGE PALM 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 10” DBH PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 7’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 102.48 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 16” DBH BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE T PROJECT NORTH 1 SITE PLAN - EXISTING SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0” 2 SITE PLAN - TREE REMOVAL SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0” 1445 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-060 1441 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-070 1435 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-0802820 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-1402816 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-15016” DBH BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 4’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 16” DBH BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE KEY NOTES: 2 1 EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK LAWN STRIP 3 EXISTING EXTERIOR STONE WALL - 3’ HGT. 4 EXISTING METAL GATE 5 EXISTING DRIVEWAY - BRICK & CONCRETE EXISTING DRIVEWAY LEDGE - 10” HGT. EXISTING PLANTING EXISTING LAWN EXISTING FRONT STEPS EXISTING RAILING HOUSE - MAIN ENTRANCE EXISTING COVERED GAZEBO EXISTING SHORT ROCK WALL EXISTING FENCE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 21” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS - CABBAGE PALM 3’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 10” DBH PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 7’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 102.48 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 48” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE T PROJECT NORTH 1445 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-060 1441 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-070 1435 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-0802820 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-1402816 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-1505” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 40” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 4’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 43 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE LEGEND: EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED 4 3 1 5 6 7 8 9 2 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 CONCRETE SIDEYARD15 15 22 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 101.17 26” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS - CABBAGE PALM 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE ALVARADO AVEALVARADO AVE10 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 101.17 1 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE L.1 SITE PLAN - EXISTING PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 102.89 103.08 102.88 103.13 103.13 109.11 103.03 102.90 101.86 101.54 101.38 101.55 101.01 101.01 100.34 100.39 100.98 101.23 99.76 100.35 100.49 100.63100.29 101.44101.55 117.80 112.62 111.23113.75114.29 115.06 113.97 113.19 113.94 THRESHOLD EL=117.59' 101.87 102.04 103.98 105.36 105.54 101.70102.25 117.07 116.60 114.38 113.78 112.57 111.26 110.95 107.48107.64109.57109.66 115.03 106.11 103.60 103.60 106.11 110.30 110.30 108.14 108.14 113.78 112.47 115.03 111.09 116.91 116.91 120.00 119.93 119.32 118.82 108.14 110.76 106.50 115.10 115.10 115.10 119.32 118.41119.32 106.11 115.35115.95 116.43 120.00 120.00 118.36 118.71 116.91 107.88 104.47105.13105.80106.46 103.07 GARAGE EL=103.15 103.05 105.48 104.07 116.91 xxx.xx xxx.xx 11% slope 2% slope2% slope 2% slope102.50 102.65 102.89 2% slope102.93 105.51 114.39 115.03 115.03 107.41 108.14 106.11 110.30 110.76 110.76 111.40 103.60 103.60 101.9 1 L.111L.10 1L.10 1 L.11 UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP 1445 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-060 1435 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-0802820 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-1406” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 1 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0” T PROJECT NORTH 10” DBH PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 7’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 102.48 ALVARADO AVEUPUPUPUPUPUPUP1441 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-070 PROPOSED WATER FEATURE PROPOSED PATHWAY PROPOSED PATIO PROPOSED BUILT-IN BENCH & FIRE PIT PROPOSED ARTIFICIAL LAWN - 716.4 sq ft PROPOSED STEPS PROPOSED HOT TUB. UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT KEY NOTES: EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP PROPOSED EXTERIOR WALL PROPOSED AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC SLIDING METAL GATE PROPOSED PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY CAR TURN-AROUND PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATE PROPOSED WALKWAY PROPOSED PLANTING PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE - RECESSED IN WALL PROPOSED SECONDARY PATH PROPOSED ENTRANCE ARCH - MAIN WALKWAY ENTRANCE PATIO EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE PROPOSED VERANDA LEGEND: EXISTING GRADE TO BE KEPT PROPOSED GRADE CONCRETE WALKWAYS & PATIOS- MATERIAL TO BE DECIDED STEP - SAME MATERIAL AS WALKWAY WALL - MATERIAL TO BE DECIDED ARTIFICIAL LAWN NOTES 1. LIVING SPACE within PROPERTY LINE: 3,160.06 sq ft 2. LIVING SPACE outside of PROPERTY LINE - STREET STRIP: 349.79 sq ft 3. TOTAL LIVING SPACE: 3,509.85 sq ft (MIN. 4 NON-FRUIT TREES) 4. EXISTING FENCES TO BE PRESERVED 4 1 8 9 12 2 3 5 6 7 10 16 1719 20 21 18 14 15 1 3 3 8 8 9 99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 13 17 17 18 222816 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-150PROPOSED BENCH 23 FLAGSTONE SET IN GRAVEL 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 23 PROPOSED BUILT-IN BARBECUE. TO BE DESIGNED24 24 UP IRRIGATION BOXES25 25 25 UP 48” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 40” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 4’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 43 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 1 1 UP21 21 21 21 1 UP 21 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 13 2 ARCH REMOVED 2 PROPOSED CITRUS TREE 15 gal PROPOSED CITRUS TREE 15 gal PROPOSED LAGERSTROEMERIA X ’NATCHEZ’ 36” BOX PROPOSED LAGERSTROEMERIA X ’NATCHEZ’ 36” BOX PROPOSED LAGERSTROEMERIA X ’NATCHEZ’ 36” BOX PROPOSED OLEA EUROPAEA ’ARIZONA FRUITLESS MULTITRUNK 36” BOX PROPOSED OLEA EUROPAEA ’ARIZONA FRUITLESS MULTITRUNK 36” BOX 11 22 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 101.17 L.2 SITE PLAN - PROPOSED PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 Street Garden Plant Type Symbol Scientific Name Common Name Mature Size Qty.Size WUCOLS* Tree Lagerstroemeria x ‘Natchez'Natchez Crape Myrtle 25’ H & 15’ W 2 24" Box L Shrub Rosmarinus officinalis 'Roman Beauty'Roman Beauty Rosemary 2-3' H & W 2 5 gal L Succulent Agave x 'Blue Glow'Blue Glow Agave 1-2' H & 2-3' W 14 5 gal L/VL Grass-like Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince'Canyon Prince Lyme Grass 3-5’ H & W 5 5 gal L Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff'Dwarf Mat Rush 2-3' H & W 6 5 gal L Vine Ficus pumila Creeping Fig Kept in wall within columns 6 5 gal M Front Yard Plant Type Symbol Scientific Name Common Name Mature Size Qty.Size WUCOLS* Tree Lagerstroemeria x ‘Natchez'Natchez Crape Myrtle 25’ H & 15’ W 1 36" Box L Olea europaea 'Arizona Fruitless' Multitrunk Multitrunk Arizona Fruitless Olive Kept at 12-15' H & W 6 36" Box VL Citrus x meyeri Meyer Lemon Kept at 8-10’ H & W 1 15 gal M Citrus x latifolia Bearss Lime Kept at 8-10’ H & W 1 15 gal M Shrub Olea europaea 'Little Ollie'Little Ollie Dwarf Olive 4-6' H & W 15 5 gal VL Rosmarinus officinalis 'Roman Beauty'Roman Beauty Rosemary 2-3' H & W 6 5 gal L Lavandula angustifolia 'Hidcote Giant'Hidcote Giant English Lavender 2-3' H & W 8 5 gal L Rosmarinus officinalis 'Huntington Carpet'Huntington Carpet Rosemary 1-2' H & 4-8' Cascading 12 5 gal L Westringia fruticosa ‘Morning Light'Morning Light Coast Rosemary 3-4’ H & 4-5’ W 7 5 gal L Succulent Agave x 'Blue Flame'Blue Flame Agave 2-5' H & W 8 5 gal L Grass-like Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff'Dwarf Mat Rush 2-3' H & W 30 5 gal L Muhlenbergia dubia Pine Muhly 3’ H & W 11 1 gal L *WUCOLS IV CLASSIFCATION FOR BURLINGAME VL: VERY LOW L: LOW M: MODERATE H: HIGH UPUP1 PLANTING PLAN - FRONT YARD SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0” T PROJECT NORTH 10” DBH PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 7’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 102.48 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE ALVARADO AVEUPUPUP UPUPUPLEGEND: MINI-MULCH - MIN 3” LAYER OVER WEED BARRIER GRAVEL or PEBBLES - MIN 3” LAYER OVER WEED BARRIER UP 1 22 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 101.17 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 2 2 L.3 PLANTING PLAN - FRONT YARD PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 **FINAL SPECIES TO BE DECIDED BEFORE PLANTING *WUCOLS IV CLASSIFCATION FOR BURLINGAME VL: VERY LOW L: LOW M: MODERATE H: HIGH Plant Type Symbol Scientific Name Common Name Mature Size Qty.Size WUCOLS* Tree Olea europaea 'Arizona Fruitless' Multitrunk Multitrunk Arizona Fruitless Olive Kept at 12-15' H & W 1 36" Box VL Hedge Prunus caroliniana 'Bright 'N Tight'Bright 'N Tight Carolina Cherry Laurel Kept at 7' H, 5’ W & 2' D 23 15 gal L Shrub Cordyline australis ‘Pink Champagne'Pink and White Cabbage Palm 6’ H & 3-4’ W 3 15 gal L Rosmarinus officinalis 'Roman Beauty'Roman Beauty Rosemary 2-3' H & W 5 5 gal L Buxus x ‘Green Mountain’ - Globe Topiary Form Green Mountain Boxwood - Globe Topiary Form Kept at 3’ H & W 7 5 gal M Westringia fruticosa ‘Morning Light'Morning Light Coast Rosemary 3-4’ H & 4-5’ W 5 5 gal L Hydrangea macrophylla ‘Endless Summer’**Endless Summer Bigleaf Hydrangea**3-5’ H & W 4 5 gal M Hydrangea macrophylla ‘Pistachio’**Pistachio Bigleaf Hydrangea**3-5’ H & W 3 5 gal M Succulent Agave attenuata Fox Tail Agave 4' H & 6' W 19 5 gal L Grass-like Chondropetalum tectorum Cape Reed 3-5' H & W 10 5 gal L Lomandra longifolia 'Lime Tuff'Dwarf Mat Rush 2-3' H & W 37 5 gal L Leymus condensatus ‘Canyon Prince'Canyon Prince Lyme Grass 3-5’ H & W 4 5 gal L Muhlenbergia dubia Pine Muhly 3’ H & W 6 1 gal L Vine Jasminum nitidum Angelwing Jasmine 10-15' Climbing 9 5 gal L UPUP UP UP UP 1445 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-060 1435 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-0802820 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-1406” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 1 PLANTING PLAN - BACKYARD SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0” T PROJECT NORTHUPUPUPUP1441 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-070 2816 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-150UPUPLEGEND: MINI-MULCH - MIN 3” LAYER OVER WEED BARRIER GRAVEL or PEBBLES - MIN 3” LAYER OVER WEED BARRIER UP 1 UP L.4 PLANTING PLAN - BACKYARD PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 102.89 103.08 102.88 103.13 103.13 109.11 103.03 106.00 102.90 101.86 101.54 101.38 101.76 101.55 101.01 101.01 100.34 100.39 100.98 101.23 99.76 100.35 100.49 100.63100.29 101.44101.55 117.80 112.62 111.23113.75114.29 115.06 113.97 113.19 113.94 THRESHOLD EL=117.59' 101.87 102.04 103.98 105.36 105.54 101.70102.25 117.07 116.60 114.38 113.78 112.57 111.26 110.95 107.48107.64109.57109.66 115.03 106.11 106.11 110.30 110.30 108.14 108.14 113.78 112.47 115.03 111.09 116.91 116.91 120.00 119.93 119.32 118.82 108.14 110.76 115.10 115.10 115.10 119.32 118.41119.32 106.11 115.35115.95 116.43 120.00 120.00 118.36 118.71 116.91 107.88 104.47105.13105.80106.46 103.07 GARAGE EL=103.15 103.05 105.48 104.07 116.91 xxx.xx xxx.xx 11% slope 2% slope2% slope 2% slope102.50 102.65 102.89 2% slope102.93 105.51 114.39 115.03 115.03 107.41 108.14 106.11 110.30 110.76 110.76 111.40 103.60 103.60 106.50 103.60 103.60 101.9 1 L.111L.10 1L.10 1 L.11 UPUPUPUPUPUPUPUP UP UP UP 1445 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-060 1435 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-0802820 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-1406” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 6” DBH QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA COAST LIVE OAK 3’6” RADIUS DRIPLINE 1 SITE PLAN- PLANTERS AREAS SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0” T PROJECT NORTH 10” DBH PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 7’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 102.48 ALVARADO AVEUPUPUPUPUPUPUP1441 ALVARADO AVE APN: 027-103-070 PROPOSED WATER FEATURE PROPOSED PATHWAY PROPOSED PATIO PROPOSED BUILT-IN BENCH & FIRE PIT PROPOSED ARTIFICIAL LAWN - 716.4 sq ft PROPOSED STEPS PROPOSED HOT TUB. UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT KEY NOTES: EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK PLANTING STRIP PROPOSED EXTERIOR WALL PROPOSED PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY CAR TURN-AROUND PROPOSED ENTRANCE GATE PROPOSED WALKWAY PROPOSED PLANTING PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE - RECESSED IN WALL ENTRANCE PATIO EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE PROPOSED VERANDA LEGEND: EXISTING GRADE TO BE KEPT PROPOSED GRADE CONCRETE WALKWAYS & PATIOS- MATERIAL TO BE DECIDED STEP - SAME MATERIAL AS WALKWAY WALL - MATERIAL TO BE DECIDED ARTIFICIAL LAWN NOTES 1. LIVING SPACE within PROPERTY LINE: 3,160.06 sq ft 2. LIVING SPACE outside of PROPERTY LINE - STREET STRIP: 349.79 sq ft 3. TOTAL LIVING SPACE: 3,509.85 sq ft (MIN. 4 NON-FRUIT TREES) 4. EXISTING FENCES TO BE PRESERVED 4 1 8 9 2 3 5 7 10 16 1719 20 21 18 14 15 1 3 3 8 8 9 99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 13 17 17 18 222816 HILLSIDE DRAPN: 027-103-150PROPOSED BENCH 23 FLAGSTONE SET IN GRAVEL 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 23 PROPOSED BUILT-IN BARBECUE. TO BE DESIGNED24 24 UP IRRIGATION BOXES25 25 25 UP 48” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 40” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 4’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 43 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE BETULA PENDULA - WHITE BIRCH 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 1 1 UP21 21 21 21 1 UP 21 9 22 1/2” CIRCUNFERENCE AT 54” OVER NATURAL GRADE PYRUS KAWAKAMII - EVERGREEN PEAR 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 101.17 9 9 9 9 9 GROUND PLANTING AREA More than 30” from EXISTING GRADE Less than 30” from PROPOSED ADJACENT GRADE TERRACED PLANTING AREA CONNECTED TO THE GROUND More than 30” from EXISTING GRADE More than 30” from PROPOSED ADJACENT DRIVEWAY TERRACED PLANTING AREA CONNECTED TO THE GROUND Less than 30” from EXISTING GRADE More than 30” from PROPOSED ADJACENT DRIVEWAY TERRACED PLANTING AREA CONNECTED TO THE GROUND More than 30” from EXISTING GRADE Less than 30” from PROPOSED ADJACENT PATIO TERRACED PLANTING AREA CONNECTED TO THE GROUND More than 30” from EXISTING GRADE Less than 30” from PROPOSED ADJACENT PATIO 5. PLANTING AREAS MORE THAN 30” FROM EXISTING GRADE or MORE THAN 30” FROM PROPOSED ADJACENT GRADE 5.1 MORE THAN 30” FROM EXISTING GRADE & LESS THAN 30” FROM PROPOSED ADJACENT GRADE: 84.0 sq ft 5.2 MORE THAN 30” FROM EXISTING GRADE & MORE THAN 30” FROM PROPOSED ADJACENT GRADE: 48.8 sq ft 5.3 LESS THAN 30” FROM EXISTING GRADE & MORE THAN 30” FROM PROPOSED ADJACENT GRADE: 69.5 sq ft 1 12 13 PROPOSED AUTOMATIC ELECTRIC SLIDING METAL GATE PROPOSED SECONDARY PATH PROPOSED ENTRANCE ARCH - MAIN WALKWAY 2 6 PROPOSED CITRUS TREE 15 gal PROPOSED CITRUS TREE 15 gal PROPOSED LAGERSTROEMERIA X ’NATCHEZ’ 36” BOX PROPOSED LAGERSTROEMERIA X ’NATCHEZ’ 36” BOX PROPOSED LAGERSTROEMERIA X ’NATCHEZ’ 36” BOX PROPOSED OLEA EUROPAEA ’ARIZONA FRUITLESS MULTITRUNK 36” BOX PROPOSED OLEA EUROPAEA ’ ARIZONA FRUITLESS MULTITRUNK 36” BOX 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 5” DBH FRUIT TREE 6’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 3” DBH FRUIT TREE 5’ RADIUS DRIPLINE 11 L.9 SITE PLAN- PLANTERS AREAS PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 1 FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0” KEY NOTES: STREET EXTERIOR WALL - 5’-0” MAX. HEIGHT STEPS TERRACES BACKYARD ENTRANCE WALL - NOT TO EXCEED 9’-0” FROM ADJACENT GRADE SIDE STEPS METAL RAILING SIDE YARD ENTRANCE WALL 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 4 2 2 NEIGHBORING EXTERIOR WALLS9 2 NEIGHBORING SECONDARY STONE WALL10 2 103’103’ 104’104’ 100’100’ 101’101’ 102’102’ 107’107’ 108’108’ 105’105’ 106’106’ 111’111’ 112’112’ 109’109’ 110’110’ 115’115’ 116’116’ 113’113’ 114’114’ 117’ 118’ 119’ 120’ 119’ 120’ 117’ 118’ 4 6 7 2 2 1 9 10 2 3 4 3 5 9 L.10 FRONT ELEVATION - PROPOSED PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 103’103’ 104’104’ 101’101’ 102’102’ 107’107’ 108’108’ 105’105’ 106’106’ 111’111’ 112’112’ 109’109’ 110’110’ 115’115’ 116’116’ 113’113’ 114’114’ 117’117’ 120’120’ 121’121’ 118’118’ 119’119’ 1 SIDE ELEVATION - PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0” KEY NOTES: STREET EXTERIOR WALL STEPS TERRACES BACKYARD ENTRANCE WALL - NOT TO EXCEED 9’-0” FROM ADJACENT GRADE SIDE STEPS NORTHWEST TERRACES BENCH 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 5 6 1 3 4 4 4 4 3 NTE 5'-0"2 7 7 L.11 SIDE ELEVATION - PROPOSED PLANNING / DESIGN REVIEW RESUBMITTAL 02 FEBRUARY 2022 CARRIE FINLAY SHORES RESIDENTIAL ADDITION1441 ALVARADO AVE.BURLINGAME, CA 94010APN: 027-103-070MIKAYLA & ROBERT CAMERON 1441 ALVARADO AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 EMAIL: mikaylancameron@gmail.com 11-30-23 02/10/2022 MODIFICATIONS 1 xx/xx/xxxx MODIFICATIONS 2 3 3 3 3 38 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 912 Linden Avenue Meeting Date: October 24, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. Applicant: Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes APN: 026-251-270 Architect: KTGY Architecture and Planning Lot Area: 5,660 SF Property Owner: SF21G, LLC (Thomas James Homes) Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low Density Residential Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish all structures on the site and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and new attached one-car garage. The project proposes a total floor area of 2,907 SF (0.51 FAR) where 2,911 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes 88 SF front porch exemption). The new dwelling would contain three bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a three-bedroom house. The new attached garage measures 12’-6” x 21’-0” (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Per Code Section 25.10.035(1), a Special Permit is not required for replacement of an existing attached garage. There are two existing landscape trees on site ; an existing protected-size Redwood tree (42-inch diameter) which would remain and an existing non-protected size Yucca tree (5-inch diameter) which would be removed. With this project, six new 24-inch box landscape trees and one 24 -inch box fruit tree are proposed for a total of eight trees on site (existing to remain and new). A Certified Arborist Report, prepared by HMH on June 2, 2022, is included in the attachments for reference. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes an attached ADU (419 SF) within the main dwelling and located at the front, right side of the dwelling. Review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Plan ning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)). 912 Linden Avenue Lot Area: 5,660 SF Plans date stamped: October 12, 2022 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-4” 29’-11” 16’-4” (block average) 20’-0” Attached garage: 28’-1” 25’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 5’-0” 7’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Item No. 9b Design Review Study Design Review 912 Linden Avenue -2- PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 23’-7” 23’-7” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,717 SF 30.3% 2,264 SF 40% FAR: 2,907 SF 0.51 FAR 2,911 SF 1 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (12’-6” x 21’-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (10' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Building Height: 27’-4” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies C.S. 25.10.55(A)(1) 1 (0.32 x 5,660 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2,911 SF (0.51 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials:  Windows: fiberglass  Doors: fiberglass, metal garage door  Siding: stucco  Roof: composition shingle and standing seam metal  Other: cementitious 4” lap siding on gable ends, cementitious porch columns Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborh ood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structura l components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Design Review 912 Linden Avenue -3- 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 Titl e 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review C riteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shap e, 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant KTGY Architecture and Planning, architect SF21G, LLC (Thomas James Homes), property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated June 13, 2022 Arborist Report, prepared by HMH and dated June 2, 2022 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed October 14, 2022 Area Map 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 Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): THOMAS JAMES HOMES 255 Shoreline Dr Suite 428, Redwood City, CA 94065 912 Linden Avenue Letter of Explanation June 13, 2022 The 5,660 sq. ft. parcel located at 912 Linden Avenue has a width of 50 ft. and an average lot depth of 113 ft. It is located in the R-1 Zone. There is an existing single story traditional home of 1,193 sq. ft. with attached 273 sq. ft. single car garage and a 193 sq. ft. rear accessory structure. The existing home is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a new two-story single- family residence traditional style home. The new floor plan of 2,816.63 sq. ft. will have 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths with a 1 bedroom/ 1 bath attached ADU of 418.83 sq. ft. and an included attached 1-car garage. An open floor plan is designed to appeal to families. Design features include hip and gable/shed roof forms with moderate pitches, articulation for human scale massing, window grids and decorative corbels at the gables. Materials proposed are horizontal siding at the body and compositional roof shingle for the main roof to blend into the neighborhood. An accent standing seam metal roof is added at the front porch as a modern feature to emphasize / define the entry area. A classic color palette is proposed for the architecture to balance and blend well into the neighborhood of grays and whites. The attached single car garage is significantly set back from the living space, so it does not dominate the front of the home allowing the covered porch/ entry area to be an inviting central feature. The first story living space on the right is prominent from the porch and garage creating a more human scale experience at the street to better balance with the existing adjacent homes. The 2nd floor massing is significantly setback, partially within the first story roof forms, and uses an 8ft plate height to reduce massing. Two gable forms create smaller elements to again speak to the scale of the neighborhood. For privacy of the homebuyer and neighbors, windows and doors are located rear and front facing or are reduced in size, screened with trees or placed offset from neighboring windows. There are 7 trees identified including 2 trees onsite and 5 trees offsite. Onsite: (1) 42 dbh Protected Sequoia tree is proposed to be protected and retained. (1) unprotected 5 dbh Yucca tree is proposed for removal due to development. (7) new trees are proposed to be planted onsite in addition to the (1) tree to remain. Tree protection will be provided for the trees to remain onsite and offsite during construction through fencing as well as construction methods to save the trees from being impacted. We look forward to adding to the charm and sense of community and welcome any questions the City may have as we go through the Design Review Application process. Best, Anna Felver, Planning Manager at Thomas James Homes afelver@tjhusa.com | 650. 402.3024 CERTIFIED ARBORIST REPORT October 15, 2021 Rev. February 1, 2022 Rev. June 2, 2022 5985.43 PROJECT 912 Linden Avenue Burlingame, CA PREPARED FOR Thomas James Homes PREPARED BY HMH 1570 Oakland Road San Jose, CA 95131 William Sowa ISA Certified Arborist #WE-12270A TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Overview 2 Methodology 2 Summary of Findings 2 Table 1 - Tree Quantity Summary 3 Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary 4 General Observations and Recommendations 6 Recommendations for Tree Protection During Construction 9 Maintenance Recommendations for Trees to Remain 10 Terms and Conditions 12 Exhibit A – Existing Tree Map 13 Tree Protection Detail 14 Tree Photographs 15 HMH 1 of 16 06/02/2022 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW HMH was contracted to complete a survey, assessment and arborist report for trees located within the limit of work illustrated on Exhibit A. The project site a single-family lot with one residential unit and a small shed on a .13 acre lot. The site is surrounded by single-family homes with Linden Avenue along the frontage of the property. Our scope of services includes locating, measuring DBH, assessing, and photographing the condition of all trees within the limit of work. Disposition and health recommendations are based on current site conditions. Site development/design may affect the preservation suitability. In addition, trees located outside the limit of work may be included if they may potentially be impacted by development of the site. Tree locations are approximate, and their exact location should be determined by a licensed land surveyor. It should not be assumed that all trees inventoried are owned by the property owner. Check city and/or county codes for regulations regarding trees in the public right of way, setbacks, and/or easements. METHODOLOGY Our tree survey work is a deliberate and systematic methodology for cataloging trees on site: 1. Identify each tree species. 2. Note each tree’s location on a site map. 3. Measure each trunk circumference at 48” above grade per ISA standards for trees six inches or greater. 4. Evaluate the health and structure of each tree using the following numerical standard: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - A tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - A tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that may that might be mitigated with care. 2 - A tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - A tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and or trunk, mostly epicormic growth; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 0 - Tree is dead. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS HMH conducted a tree inventory of three (3) on site trees and one (1) tree that straddles the property line of the adjacent lot as well as (3) trees on adjacent lots. The trees are located within the limit of work outlined in Exhibit A. One (1) of the trees inventoried is classified as protected tree under the City of Burlingame Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance. The tree on the lot line would also be considered protected. A protected tree is: Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; or A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance, or other factor; or A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. HMH 2 of 16 06/02/2022 Species Quantity % of Site Acer rubrum 1 25% Sequoia sempervirens 2 50% Yucca aloifolia 1 25% Total Trees 4 100% TABLE 1 - TREE QUANTITY SUMMARY Tree Quantity by Species HMH 3 of 16 06/02/2022 Suitability for Preservation is based on the following Health Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0 Abbreviations and Definitions CD Codominant branches CDB Dieback in Crown CR Crowded D Decline DBH Diameter at Breast Height EG Epicormic Growth EH Exposed Heartwood H Hazardous HD Headed IB Included Bark LC Low crotch LN Leaning Tree ML Multiple Leaders PT Phototropism S Suckers SD Structural Defects SE Severe SL Slight SR Surface Roots ST Stress WU Weak Union Protected Tree Any tree with a circumference of forty-eight (48) inches or more when measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade; or A tree or stand of trees so designated by the city council based upon findings that it is unique and of importance to the public due to its unusual appearance, location, historical significance, or other factor; or A stand of trees in which the director has determined each tree is dependent upon the others for survival. Weak union or fork in tree branching structure. A tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and or trunk, mostly epicormic growth; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. Shoot arising from the roots. A tree that in it's current condition, presents a hazard. Forked branches nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction an lacking a normal branch union. Tree shows obvious signs of decline, which may be indicative of the presence of multiple biotic and abiotic disorders. Tree exhibits phototropic growth habits. Reduced trunk taper, misshapen trunk and canopy growth are examples of this growth habit. Exposure of the tree's heartwood is typically seen as an open wound that leaves a tree more susceptible to pathogens, disease or infection. Roots visible at finished grade. Environmental factor inhibiting regular tree growth. Includes drought, salty soils, nitrogen and other nutrient deficiencies in the soil. Poor pruning practice of cutting back branches. Often practiced under utility lines to limit tree height. Tree leaning, see notes for severity. More than one upright primary stem Indicates the severity of the following term. Indicates the mildness of the following term. TABLE 2 - TREE EVALUATION SUMMARY Prepared By: William Sowa ISA Certified Arborist WE-12270A A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. A tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. A tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that may that might be mitigated with care. Good - Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate - Trees in somewhat declining health and/or exhibits structural defects that cannot be abated with treatment. Trees will require more intense management and will have a shorter lifespan than those in the 'Good' category. Poor - Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to decline, regardless of treatment. Date of Evaluation: 10/11/2021 DBH MEASUREMENT HEIGHT: 48" A tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. Tree is dead. Multiple central leaders originating below the DBH measurement site. Tree is bounded closely by one or more of the following: structure, tree, Etc. Naturally or secondary conditions including cavities, poor branch attachments, cracks, or decayed wood in any part of the tree that may contribute to structural failure. Structural defect where bark is included between the branch attachment so the wood can't join. Such defect can have a higher probability of failure. Condition where branches in the tree crown die from the tips toward the center. Watersprouting on trunk and main leaders. Typically indicative of tree stress. Measurement of tree diameter in inches. Measurement height varies by City and is noted above. HMH 4 of 16 06/02/2022 TREE # BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME DBH (INCHES) CIRCUMFERENCE (INCHES) PROTECTED TREE HEALTH PRESERVATION SUITABILITY REMOVE OR RETAIN NOTES 1 Sequoia sempervirens Redwood Tree 42.0 132 YES 3 Moderate RETAIN CR 2 Sequoia sempervirens Redwood Tree 36.0 113 YES 3 Moderate RETAIN CR, on lot line 3 Yucca aloifolia Spanish Bayonet 5.0 16 NO 3 Moderate REMOVE - DEVELOPMENT 4 Acer rubrum Red Maple 5.5 17 NO 4 Good RETAIN Street tree 5 Picea abies Norway Spruce 34.0 107 YES 4 Moderate RETAIN Offsite, CR by redwoods, SD 6 Ficus sp.Ficus 16.0 50 YES 3 Moderate RETAIN Offsite, ST, CDB 7 Ficus sp.Ficus 12, 11 72 YES 3 Moderate RETAIN Offsite, ST, CDB HMH 5 of 16 06/02/2022 Table 1 - Tree Quantity Summary summarizes tree quantities by both species and size. Each species that was inventoried as part of this scope is included. This is a useful tool for analyzing the mixture of trees as part of the project. The size table is useful when calculating mitigation requirements in the case of tree removal as well as aiding in determining tree maturity. Table 2 - Tree Evaluation Summary lists each tree number, botanical name, common name, DBH, circumference, ordinance trees, health rating, preservation suitability, general notes and observations and recommendations. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Species: Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood Tree) Tree number 1 Quantity: 1 Observations / Recommendations: The redwood tree is a large specimen located at the back of the lot and makes up a very large canopy cluster of conifer trees include on large cedar tree that is offsite and tree #2 that is over the lot line. The tree is in good health however due to it’s proximity to the others it has structural defects in the crown. If the cedar tree is removed there will be an obvious lopsidedness to this tree. The root structure is also very large so any construction activity could weekend the tree. Redwood trees are higher water use plants and if this tree is to be retained it should receive supplemental irrigation until regular irrigation can be established around the root zone. Species: Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood Tree) Tree number 2 Quantity: 1 Observations / Recommendations: Tree # 2 is the other large specimen that makes up the three large canopy space along with the cedar and tree #1. This tree is probably technically offsite as most of the trunk and root mass is on the adjacent project. However, there is a portion of the root crown that encroaches into the project. If there is any construction activity around this area it could weekend the tree. Redwood trees are higher water use plants and if this tree is to be retained it should receive supplemental irrigation until regular irrigation can be established around the root zone. Tree 1 Tree 1 Tree 2 HMH 6 of 16 06/02/2022 Species: Yucca Aloifolia (Spanish Bayonet) Tree number 3 Quantity: 1 Observations / Recommendations: The yucca tree is in moderate shape. It is planted close to the fence and had developed a lean and misshapen trunk. There is low value for this tree from an ornamental point of view and removal is recommended. Tree 3 Species: Acer rubrum (Red Maple) Tree number 4 Quantity: 1 Observations / Recommendations: The maple tree is a street tree and looks like it has been planted as a replacement tree awhile back. The tree is in good shape and good health. Tree protection and supplemental irrigation through construction is recommended. Tree 4 HMH 7 of 16 06/02/2022 Species: Picea abies (Norway Spruce) Tree number 5 Quantity: 1 Observations / Recommendations: This spruce tree is on an adjacent property. It is in good health and moderate condition. It is being crowded by the redwood trees surrounding it and therefore has developed some structural defects in the canopy. The critical root zone beneath the canopy should be protected and grading and excavation in this area should be avoided if possible. Tree 5 Species: Ficus sp. (Ficus) Tree number 6 & 7 Quantity: 2 Observations / Recommendations: These ficus trees are on an adjacent property. They are in moderate shape and health. Both canopies are overhanging the property by just a couple feet. The critical root zone beneath the canopy should be protected and grading and excavation in this area should be avoided if possible. Tree 6 Tree 7 HMH 8 of 16 06/02/2022 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION Site preparation: All existing trees shall be fenced within or at the drip line (foliar spread) of the tree. Depending on the location of the tree the fencing may not be able to be at the dripline. Examples of this would be public right of way, near property lines or around existing structures to remain. Where complete drip line fencing is not possible, the addition of straw waddles and orange snow fencing wrapping the trunk shall be installed per the tree protection detail. The fence should be a minimum of six feet high, made of galvanized 11-gauge wire mesh with galvanized posts or any material superior in quality. A tree protection zone (TPZ) sign shall be affixed to fencing at appropriate intervals as determined by the arborist on site. See tree protection detail for additional information, including tree protection zone sign. If the fence is within the drip line of the trees, the foliar fringe shall be raised to offset the chance of limb damage from active construction. Active Construction: All contractors, subcontractors and other personnel shall be warned that encroachment within the fenced area and dripline is prohibited without the consent of the certified arborist on the job. This includes, but is not limited to, storage of lumber and other materials, disposal of paints, solvents or other noxious materials, parked cars, grading equipment or other heavy equipment. If construction activity needs to happen in the TPZ the fence can be moved temporarily for delivery of construction materials. The contractor should make accommodations to off load items such as trusses, timber, plasterboard, wallboard, concrete, gypsum board, flooring, roofing or any other heavy construction material outside the foliar spread of the tree so there is no heavy equipment needed that could cause damage to the canopy of the tree or compact the root zone. The tree protection fencing should be reestablished per the plans and details immediately after any activity through the TPZ. Penalties, based on the cost of remedial repairs and the evaluation guide published by the international society of arboriculture, shall be assessed for damages to the trees. Grading/excavating: All grading plans that specify grading within the drip line of any tree, or within the distance from the trunk as outlined in the site preparation section above when said distance is outside the drip line, shall first be reviewed by a certified arborist. Provisions for aeration, drainage, pruning, tunneling beneath roots, root pruning or other necessary actions to protect the trees shall be outlined by an arborist. If trenching is necessary within the area as described above, said trenching shall be undertaken by hand labor and dug directly beneath the trunk of the tree. All roots 2 inches or larger shall be tunneled under and other roots shall be cut smoothly to the trunk side of the trench. The trunk side should be draped immediately with two layers of untreated burlap to a depth of 3 feet from the surface. The burlap shall be soaked nightly and left in place until the trench is back filled to the original level. An arborist shall examine the trench prior to back filling to ascertain the number and size of roots cut, so as to suggest the necessary remedial repairs. Remedial repairs: An arborist shall have the responsibility of observing all ongoing activities that may affect the trees and prescribing necessary remedial work to ensure the health and stability of the trees. This includes, but is not limited to, all arborist activities brought out in the previous sections. In addition, pruning, as outlined in the "pruning standards" of the western chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, shall be prescribed as necessary. Fertilizing, aeration, irrigation, pest control and other activities shall be prescribed according to the tree needs, local site requirements, and state agricultural pest control laws. All specifications shall be in writing. For pest control operations, consult the local county agricultural commissioner's office for individuals licensed as pest control advisors or pest control operators. HMH 9 of 16 06/02/2022 Final inspection: Upon completion of the project, the arborist shall review all work undertaken that may impact the existing trees. Special attention shall be given to cuts and fills, compacting, drainage, pruning and future remedial work. An arborist should submit a final report in writing outlining the ongoing remedial care following the final inspection. MAINTENANCE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TREES TO REMAIN Regular maintenance, designed to promote plant health and vigor, ensures longevity of existing trees. Regular inspections and the necessary follow-up care of mulching, fertilizing, and pruning, can detect problems and correct them before they become damaging or fatal. Tree Inspection: Regular inspections of mature trees at least once a year can prevent or reduce the severity of future disease, insect, and environmental problems. During tree inspection, four characteristics of tree vigor should be examined: new leaves or buds, leaf size, twig growth, and absence of crown dieback (gradual death of the upper part of the tree). A reduction in the extension of shoots (new growing parts), such as buds or new leaves, is a fairly reliable cue that the tree’s health has recently changed. Growth of the shoots over the past three years may be compared to determine whether there is a reduction in the tree’s typical growth pattern. Further signs of poor tree health are trunk decay, crown dieback, or both. These symptoms often indicate problems that began several years before. Loose bark or deformed growths, such as trunk conks (mushrooms), are common signs of stem decay. Any abnormalities found during these inspections, including insect activity and spotted, deformed, discolored, or dead leaves and twigs, should be noted and observed closely. Mulching: Mulch, or decomposed organic material, placed over the root zone of a tree reduces environmental stress by providing a root environment that is cooler and contains more moisture than the surrounding soil. Mulch can also prevent mechanical damage by keeping machines such as lawn mowers and string trimmers away from the tree’s base. Furthermore, mulch reduces competition from surrounding weeds and turf. To be most effective, mulch should be placed 2 to 4 inches deep and cover the entire root system, which may be as far as 2 or 3 times the diameter of the branch spread of the tree. If the area and activities happening around the tree do not permit the entire area to be mulched, it is recommended that as much of the area under the drip line of the tree is mulched as possible. When placing mulch, care should be taken not to cover the actual trunk of the tree. This mulch-free area, 1 to 2 inches wide at the base, is sufficient to avoid moist bark conditions and prevent trunk decay. An organic mulch layer 2 to 4 inches deep of loosely packed shredded leaves, pine straw, peat moss, or composted wood chips is adequate. Plastic should not be used as it interferes with the exchange of gases between soil and air, which inhibits root growth. Thicker mulch layers, 5 to 6 inches deep or greater, may also inhibit gas exchange. Fertilization: Trees require certain nutrients (essential elements) to function and grow. Urban landscape trees may be growing in soils that do not contain sufficient available nutrients for satisfactory growth and development. In certain situations, it may be necessary to fertilize to improve plant vigor. Fertilizing a tree can improve growth; however, if fertilizer is not applied wisely, it may not benefit the tree at all and may even adversely affect the tree. Mature trees making satisfactory growth may not require fertilization. When considering supplemental fertilizer, it is important to consider nutrients deficiencies and how and when to amend the deficiencies. Soil conditions, especially pH and organic matter content, vary greatly, making the proper selection and use of fertilizer a somewhat complex process. To that end, it is recommended that the soil be tested for nutrient content. A soil testing laboratory and can give advice on application rates, timing, and the best blend of fertilizer for each tree and other landscape plants on site. Mature trees have expansive root systems that extend from 2 to 3 times the size of the leaf HMH 10 of 16 06/02/2022 canopy. A major portion of actively growing roots is located outside the tree’s drip line. Understanding the actual size and extent of a tree’s root system before applying fertilizer is paramount to determine quantity, type and rate at which to best apply fertilizer. Always follow manufacturer recommendations for use and application. Pruning: Pruning is often desirable or necessary to remove dead, diseased, or insect-infested branches and to improve tree structure, enhance vigor, or maintain safety. Because each cut has the potential to change the growth of (or cause damage to) a tree, no branch should be removed without reason. Removing foliage from a tree has two distinct effects on growth: (1) it reduces photosynthesis and, (2) it may reduce overall growth. Pruning should always be performed sparingly. Caution must be taken not to over-prune as a tree may not be able to gather and process enough sunlight to survive. Pruning mature trees may require special equipment, training, and experience. Licensed and insured tree maintenance companies are equipped to provide a variety of services to assist in performing the job safely and reducing risk of personal injury and property damage and should be consulted for this type of work. (See also ANSI A300 Part 1 Pruning Standards- https://www.tcia.org). Planting and Irrigation: Any new planting and irrigation that is to occur under the drip line of an existing tree should be conducted with care to avoid the root system. Generally installation of an irrigation mainline should be avoided under the dripline of the existing tree. Refer to the Grading/Excavating section for installation of any irrigation lines to be installed under the drip line of an existing tree. Any new planting should match the water use of the existing tree (as defined by WUCOLS). The irrigation hydro zone for the new planting should also match the requirements of the existing tree. Removal: There are circumstances when removal is necessary. An arborist can help decide whether or not a tree should be removed. Professionally trained arborists have the skills and equipment to safely and efficiently remove trees. Removal is recommended when a tree: (1) is dead, dying, or considered irreparably hazardous; (2) is causing an obstruction or is crowding and causing harm to other trees and the situation is impossible to correct through pruning; (3) is to be replaced by a more suitable specimen, and; (4) should be removed to allow for construction. Pruning or removing trees, especially large trees, can be dangerous work. It should be performed only by those trained and equipped to work safely in trees. HMH 11 of 16 06/02/2022 TERMS AND CONDITIONS The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to consultations, inspections and activities of HMH. 1. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically mentioned in those reports and correspondence. HMH assumes no liability for the failure of trees or parts of trees, either inspected or otherwise. HMH assumes no responsibility to report on the condition of any tree or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client. 2. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. HMH does not take responsibility for any defects, which could have only been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots was not performed unless otherwise stated. HMH does not take responsibility for any root defects, which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. 3. HMH shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or attend court by reason of this appraisal or report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of additional fees for such services as described by HMH or in the schedule of fees or contract. 4. HMH guarantees no warrantee, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability of the information contained in the reports for any reason. It is the responsibility of the client to determine applicability to his/her case. 5. Any report and the values, observations and recommendations expressed therein represent the professional opinion of HMH, and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding to be reported. 6. Any photographs, diagrams, graphs, sketches or other graphic material included in any report, being intended solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys, unless otherwise noted in the report. Any reproductions of graphic material or the work produced by other persons, is intended solely for clarification and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information does not constitute a representation by HMH as to the sufficiency or accuracy of that information. 7. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. HMH 12 of 16 06/02/2022 1 2 3 5 67 4 LINDEN AVENUEExisting Tree Map Exhibit A NNN HMH 13 of 16 06/02/2022 HMH 14 of 16 06/02/2022 2 3 4 Redwood Tree Red Maple TreeYucca Tree 12 Redwood Tree HMH 15 of 16 06/02/2022 6 7 Ficus Ficus 5 Norway Spruce HMH 16 of 16 06/02/2022 912 Linden Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-251-270 CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com TITLE SHEET T1.0CONSTRUCTION HOURS 912 Linden Ave October 5th, 2022 Planning Application KTGY Group, Inc. 1814 Franklin St. Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: 510.272.2910 ARCHITECT: CIVIL ENGINEER: APPLICANT: CBG 2633 Camino Ramon #350 San Ramon, CA 94583 Phone: 925.866.0322 Contact Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com Thomas James Homes 255 Shoreline Dr STE 428 Redwood City, CA 94065 Phone: 650.382.0648 Contact Cynthia Thiebaut cthiebaut@tjhusa.com Burlingame, Ca 94010 VICINITY MAPCODE SHEET INDEX ARCHITECTURAL T1.0 Title Sheet & Data Sheet D1.0 Demo Plan A1.0 Site Plan A1.1 Lot Coverage A1.2 Floor Area Diagrams A2.0 First Floor Plan A2.1 Second Floor Plan A3.0 Roof Plan A4.0 Exterior Elevations & Materials List A4.1 Exterior Elevations & Materials List A4.2 Sections A5.0 Street Scape Photo Compilation A6.0 Exterior Color Board AS-BUILT DRAWINGS 1of3 Floor Plan 2of3 Roof Plan 3of3 Elevations LANDSCAPE L1.1 Construction Plan L2.1 Construction Details L3.1 Irrigation Plan L3.2 Irrigation Legend & Notes L3.3 Irrigation Details L4.1 Planting Plan L4.2 Planting Legend & Notes L4.3 Planting Details L5.1 Tree Protection Plan & Detail CIVIL 1 Topographic Survey SHEET INDEX PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE Square Footage - Existing Residence: 1st Floor (Excluding Garage):+1193 s.f. Studio: +193 s.f. Garage: +273 s.f. Total Area:+1659 s.f. Square Footage Per City Standard: 1st Floor (Excluding Garage):1213.21 s.f. 2nd Floor:1314.43 s.f. Garage: 288.99 s.f. Total Area:2816.63 s.f. Square Footage Per Industry Standard: 1st Floor:1213 s.f. 2nd Floor:1338 s.f. Total Living:2551 s.f. Garage: 289 s.f. Total Area: 2840 s.f. LANDSCAPE: HMH 1570 Oakland Road San Jose, CA. 95131 Phone: 408.487.2200 PROJECT DATA PROJECT DIRECTORY "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 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 weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right-of-way must now be included on the plans. 2019 California Residential Code (CRC) 2019 California Mechanical Code (CMC) 2019 California Plumbing Code (CPC) 2019 California Electrical Code (CEC) 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) 2019 California Energy Code (CEC) 2019 California Green Building Standards Code 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Type of Construction: V-B Occupancy Group: R-3 Garage: U Fire Sprinklers: NFPA 13-D An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 13-D in one and two family dwellings. This project shall comply with all other regulations and ordinances adopted by the local governing agencies. RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXCCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com Linden Avenue SCALE : =DEMO PLAN 1/8"11'-0" DEMO PLAN D1.0 Second Floor Line First Floor Line 1-CAR GARAGE ADU (Hatched Area) PROPOSED 2-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (FFE + 102.4') COVERED PORCH105'-4"50'-0"121'-2"52'-5"16'-4" ADU S.B.29'-9"7'-11"14'-1"13'-8"39'-5"28'-7" Gar. / 1st Flr. S.B.(16'-4" Min.)39'-6"3'-10"23'-7" 1st / 2nd Flr. S.B.(20'-0" Min.)5'-6" ADU S.B.14'-5"11'-11"13'-2" 5'-0" 1st Flr. S.B. 5'-0"4'-0"19'-4"13'-8"5'-6"1'-0"1'-6"15'-0" M in. Rear S.B. 4'-0" Min. Side S.B. 4'-0" Min. Side S.B.29'-11" 2nd Flr. S.B.(20'-0" Min.)9'-0" 2nd Flr. S.B. (6'-6" Min.) 11'-2" 2nd Flr. S.B. (6'-6" Min.) 7'-0" 1st Flr. S.B.5'-4"4'-6"2'-0" EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING RESIDENCE gas meter elec. meter tele. / cable ac pad w/ low screen wall 17'-7"28'-1"9'x18' PARKING SPACE 10'x18' PARKING SPACE OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWCCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com Linden Avenue SCALE : =SITE PLAN 1/8"11'-0" SITE PLAN A1.0 SITE PLAN NOTES: POST-PROJECT IMPERVIOUS AREA: BUILDING: 2,020 SF (PER ARCH) LANDSCAPE IMPERVIOUS: 1,350 SF (PER LS PLANS) TOTAL: 3,370 SF 40% OF LOT AREA: 5,660 SF X 40% = 2,264 SF POST-PROJECT IMPERVIOUS AREA EXCEEDS 40% OF TOTAL LOT SIZE. RUNOFF MITIGATION WITH A DRY WELL IS PROPOSED. ALL DRAINAGE SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC AND TO BE CONFIRMED IN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. BACK OF WATER METER AND SEWER CLEANOUT CONNECTIONS PER PLUMBING PLANS DURING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. SEE TOPO SURVEY T-1 FOR EXISTING SITE PLAN. 13'-8"18'-0"3'-0"15'-8"2'-10"15'-1"14'-8"7'-11"14'-1"19'-4" 15'-111 2"21'-01 2" 22'-01 2"8'-412"14'-212"14'-5" 11'-8" 13'-5" 12'-5" 3'-0"1'-512"12'-111 2"12'-71 2" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 18 17 1914'-212"1'-6" 10 111213 145'-4"2'-0"512"2'-3"8'-111 2"1'-71 2"7"4'-512"7'-312"CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com MAX. LOT COVERAGE = 5,660.00 X 40% = 2,264.00 SQ. FT. ACTUAL COVERAGE AREA = 1,213.21 + 288.99 + 100.11 = 1,602.31 SQ. FT. (28%) PORCH 87.67 S.F. SCALE:11/4"=1'-0"LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM A1.1 BLOCK CALCS: HOUSE - 1ST FLOOR 1. 19'-4" x 13'-8"= 264.22 SQ. FT. 2. 15'-11.5" x 18'-0"= 287.25 SQ. FT. 3. 21'-0.5" x 14'-1"= 296.34 SQ. FT. 4. 22'-0.5" x 8'-4.5"= 184.60 SQ. FT. 5. 3'-0" x 1'-5.5"= 4.38 SQ. FT. 6. 12'-5" x 14'-2.5"= 176.42 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 1213.21 SQ. FT. GARAGE 7. 15'-11.5" x 3'-0"= 47.88 SQ. FT. 8. 12'-11.5" x 15'-8"= 203.01 SQ. FT. 9. 13'-5" x 2'-10"= 38.01 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 288.99 SQ. FT. PORCH / OUTDOOR LIVING / MISC 10. 11'-8" x 7'-3.5"= 85.07 SQ. FT. 11. 0'-7" x 4'-5.5"= 2.60 SQ. FT. 12. 1'-7.5" x 0'-5.5"= 0.74 SQ. FT. 13. 2'-3" x 0'-5.5"= 1.03 SQ. FT. 14. 2'-0" x 5'-4"= 10.67 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 100.11 SQ. FT. ADU - NOT INCLUDED IN COVERAGE 17. 12'-7.5" x 14'-2.5"= 179.38 SQ. FT. 18. 1'-6" x 14'-8" = 22.00 SQ. FT. 19. 14'-5" x 15'-1" = 217.45 SQ. FT. ADU TOTAL = 418.83 SQ. FT. 1ST FLOOR 1,213.21 S.F. GARAGE 288.99 S.F. ADU 418.83 S.F. 13'-8"18'-0"3'-0"15'-8"2'-10"15'-1"14'-8"7'-11"14'-1"19'-4" 15'-111 2"21'-01 2" 22'-01 2"8'-412"14'-212"14'-5"11'-8"13'-5" 12'-5" 3'-0"1'-512"12'-111 2"12'-71 2" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 17 16 1814'-212"1'-6" 10 11 12 13 14 19'-4"28'-212"7'-712"11'-9"17'-3"14'-6"17'-212"10'-6" 22'-71 2" 22'-71 2" 12'-7" K-6369SUNSTRUCKBATHACRYLIC 1'-6"11'-11" 15 7'-712"CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE:11/4"=1'-0"FIRST FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMSCALE:21/4"=1'-0"SECOND FLOOR AREA DIAGRAM FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS A1.2 MAX. FLOOR AREA = 5,660.00 X 32% + 1,100 = 2,911.20 SQ. FT. ACTUAL FLOOR AREA = 1,213.21 + 1,314.43 + 288.99 = 2,816.63 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 1,314.43 S.F. 1ST FLOOR 1,213.21 S.F. GARAGE 288.99 S.F. BLOCK CALCS: HOUSE - 1ST FLOOR 1. 19'-4" x 13'-8"= 264.22 SQ. FT. 2. 15'-11.5" x 18'-0"= 287.25 SQ. FT. 3. 21'-0.5" x 14'-1"= 296.34 SQ. FT. 4. 22'-0.5" x 8'-4.5"= 184.60 SQ. FT. 5. 3'-0" x 1'-5.5"= 4.38 SQ. FT. 6. 12'-5" x 14'-2.5"= 176.42 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 1213.21 SQ. FT. GARAGE 7. 15'-11.5" x 3'-0"= 47.88 SQ. FT. 8. 12'-11.5" x 15'-8"= 203.01 SQ. FT. 9. 13'-5" x 2'-10"= 38.01 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 288.99 SQ. FT. ADU - NOT INCLUDED IN FAR 16. 12'-7.5" x 14'-2.5"= 179.38 SQ. FT. 17. 1'-6" x 14'-8" = 22.00 SQ. FT. 18. 14'-5" x 15'-1" = 217.45 SQ. FT. ADU TOTAL = 418.83 SQ. FT. BLOCK CALCS: HOUSE - 2ND FLOOR 10. 19'-4" x 28'-2.5"= 545.36 SQ. FT. 11. 10'-6" x 17'-2.5"= 180.69 SQ. FT. 12. 22'-7.5" x 7'-7.5" = 172.52 SQ. FT. 13. 12'-7" x 11'-9"= 147.85 SQ. FT. 14. 17'-3" x 14'-6"= 250.13 SQ. FT. 15. 11'-11" x 1'-6" = 17.88 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR TOTAL = 1314.43 SQ. FT. ADU 418.83 S.F. Floor Plan Summary: 3 Bedrooms 3.5 Baths 2550.73 s.f. Living ADU 1 Bedroom 1 Bath 418.83 s.f. Living 2969.56 s.f. Total Living Zoning: R-1 Lot Coverage: Lot Size:5660.00 s.f. Coverage Max.:40% 5660.00 x .40 = 2264.00 s.f. Max. Proposed: 1602.31 s.f. (28%) (Excludes ADU) FAR Requirement: Lot Size:5660.00 s.f. FAR Max.:32% + 1100 s.f. Max. 5660.00 x .32 + 1100 = 2911.20 s.f. Max. (Includes Garage) (Excludes ADU) FAR Provided: 1st Floor: 1213.21 s.f. Garage: 288.99 s.f. Subtotal: 1502.20 s.f. 2nd Floor: 1314.43 s.f. Total: 2816.63 s.f. *ADU Kitchen Notes: Refrigerator has separate doors for the refrigerator and freezer compartments. Cooking facility is a permanent stove and/or oven. Bedroom 11'-4" x 10'-0" ADU Living 13'-6" x 13'-3" Kitchen* Bath 32x60 media wall 248026805080 BI-PASS2880 288028'-7" GAR / 1ST FLR. SB(16'-4" MIN.)39'-6"13'-8"23'-6" Rear S.B.16'-4" ADU SB29'-9"7'-11"14'-1"13'-8"39'-5" Rear S.B.4'-0" Min. Side S.B.1'-0"13'-11 2"11'-111 2"14'-5" 4'-0" Min Side S.B.1'-6" 39'-6"65'-4255256"39'-6" 1'-6"1'-0"13'-8"19'-4"4'-0" 5'-0" Side S.B. 5'-6" Side S.B.4'-0"7'-912"gas meter elec. meter tele. / cable Garage 12'-6" x 20'-1" Elec. W.H. 8080 SECT. GAR. DR. drop zone Porch Entry up av closet 3080248028802880 walk-in pantry 2480Great Room 18'-5" x 16'-6"10080 MULTI-SLIDE GL. DR. (TEMP)Dining Room 24'-8" x 13'-9" Kitchen (3) 3050 SH W/ 3026 FG BLW. (TEMP)2050 SH3050 SH3050 SH2050 SH2050 SH2040 SH Pdr15'-0" M in.Rear SB2020 FG2050 SH3050 SH3050 SH3050 SH 3050 SH3050 SH3050 SH3'-5 " 6'-0"8'-0"4'-0"6'-0"1/A4.22/A4.2 12'-6"21'-012"media wall / fireplace 4'-1"5'-4"ac pad w/ low screen wall 3050 SH 3050 SH5050 FG 2'-0" ADU ac pad EGRESSCCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE : =FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4"11'-0" FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.0 W.I.C. 27'-0" l.f. Primary Bedroom 18'-5" x 14'-0" (Volume Ceiling) Primary Bath dn Hall Laund. Bedroom 2 12'-1" x 11'-0" (Volume Ceiling) Bedroom 3 11'-0" x 13'-0" (Volume Ceiling) Bath 2 Bath 3 20'-0" Min. Front SB20'-0" M in. Rear SB 6'-6" Min. 2nd Flr. SB 6'-6" Min. 2nd Flr. SB 2040 SH (TEMP) 3050 SH 2020 FG3050 SH3050 SH2040 SH (TEMP)2040 SH2050 SH2050 SH3050 SH 3050 SH5050 FG (2) 2046 SH (TEMP)3050 FG2040 SH266826682868286824682468 24682468 2468 5068 BI-PASS 2020 FG 2/A4.2 1/A4.23050 SH 2040 SHEGRESS K-6369SUNSTRUCKBATHACRYLIC EGRESSEGRESS2050 SHCCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE : =SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/4"11'-0" SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.1 SOLAR ZONERIDGERIDGE RIDGERIDGE5:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS ROOF PLAN OVERHANG : 12" RAKE : 12" ROOF PITCH :5:12 U.N.O1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"DS 6"6"1'-0"VALLEYVALLEYHIPHIP6"DS DS HIPH I P RHIPHIPHIPVALLEY5:12 HIPH I P CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE : =ROOF PLAN 1/4"11'-0" ROOF PLAN A3.0 +27'-4"9'-034"RIGHT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINE NG +100.70' (Low Point) NG +100.84' GLIP +102.00' 45 0 45 0 7'-6"12'-0"12'-0"7'-6"30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT LIMIT MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40'8'-034"PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 6'-9"D.H.E. 101.0 = 100.5 + 101.5 2 D.H.E. 100.8 = 100.3 + 101.3 2 T.O.C. 100.2 = 100.3 + 100.1 2 5'-0" SIDE SB 5'-6" SIDE SB UPPER FLOOR TOP OF RIDGE 127.53 1'-3"5'-6"5'-6"3'-6"2'-6"4'-0"12 9 4 56783101114 14 A.T.O.C. 100.8 = 101.5 + 100.2 2 1'-7"16 EGRESS 17 NG +101.04'NG +101.08'NG +100.84'6'-0"9'-034"MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40'8'-034"PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 6'-9"1'-3"2'-6"2'-6"3'-6"2'-6"3'-6"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"1 2 4 58 10121314 10'-0" 34'-0" 15 EGRESS 3'-0" 3'-0" 17 CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE : =LEFT ELEVATION 1/4"21'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.0 SCALE : =FRONT ELEVATION 1/4"11'-0"Notes: Fiberglass windows with no divided lites. PROVIDED: 3050 SH WINDOW PROVIDES OVER 7 SQ. FT. OF NET OPENING FOR EGRESS WITH +34" WIDTH & +28" HEIGHT OPENING CRC: R310.2 Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings Emergency escape and rescue openings shall have minimum dimensions as specified in this section. R310.2.1 Minimum Opening Area Emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a net clear opening of not less than 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2). The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and resue opening from the inside. the net clear height of the opening shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mm) and the net clear width shall not be less than 20 inches (508 mm). Material List: Composition Shingle Roofing Stucco Finish Standing Seam Metal Roofing 1 1 2"x 3 1 2" Trim Surround w/ 2x On Edge At Head And Sill (Typ.) Marvin Fiberglass Windows & Sliding Glass Doors (Typ.) Fiberglass Front Door Metal Garage Door 2x6 Fascia w/ Ogee Gutter and Round Downspout Cementitious 4" Lap Siding w/ 1 1 2"x 5 1 2" Trim w/ 2x On Edge Cementitious Panel Column Coach Light Tele. - Cable & Elec. Meter Gas Meter Fence Line - 6'-0" High (See Landscape) Fence Line - +19" High (See Landscape) ADU Address Visible From Street. Sizing & Labeling Per Building & Fire Municipal Codes. Downspout typ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NOTES KEYNOTES RIGHT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINE NG +101.08'NG +101.04'6'-0"MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40' PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 9'-034"8'-034"6'-9"1'-3"3'-0"2'-6"3'-0"1 2 4 5 14 3'-0"8 EGRESS 17 NG +100.70' (Low Point) NG +100.91'NG +100.97'6'-0"MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40' PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 9'-034"8'-034"6'-9"1'-3"LINE OF LANDING 3'-6"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"6'-0"3'-0"1 2 4 5 8 14 3'-6"12'-0" 15 14 EGRESS 17 CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE : =RIGHT ELEVATION 1/4"21'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.1 SCALE : =REAR ELEVATION 1/4"11'-0" NOTES KEYNOTES Material List: Composition Shingle Roofing Stucco Finish Standing Seam Metal Roofing 1 1 2"x 3 1 2" Trim Surround w/ 2x On Edge At Head And Sill (Typ.) Marvin Fiberglass Windows & Sliding Glass Doors (Typ.) Fiberglass Front Door Metal Garage Door 2x6 Fascia w/ Ogee Gutter and Round Downspout Cementitious 4" Lap Siding w/ 1 1 2"x 5 1 2" Trim w/ 2x On Edge Cementitious Panel Column Coach Light Tele. - Cable & Elec. Meter Gas Meter Fence Line - 6'-0" High (See Landscape) Fence Line - +19" High (See Landscape) ADU Address Visible From Street. Sizing & Labeling Per Building & Fire Municipal Codes. Downspout typ. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Notes: Fiberglass windows with no divided lites. PROVIDED: 3050 SH WINDOW PROVIDES OVER 7 SQ. FT. OF NET OPENING FOR EGRESS WITH +34" WIDTH & +28" HEIGHT OPENING CRC: R310.2 Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings Emergency escape and rescue openings shall have minimum dimensions as specified in this section. R310.2.1 Minimum Opening Area Emergency escape and rescue openings shall have a net clear opening of not less than 5.7 square feet (0.530 m2). The net clear opening dimensions required by this section shall be obtained by the normal operation of the emergency escape and resue opening from the inside. the net clear height of the opening shall be not less than 24 inches (610 mm) and the net clear width shall not be less than 20 inches (508 mm). HALLGARAGE BATH 2 HALL ATTIC COATS / STORAGE WH +27'-4"9'-034"RIGHT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINE 45 0 45 0 7'-6"12'-0"12'-0"7'-6"30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT LIMIT MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40'8'-034"PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 6'-9"D.H.E. 101.0 = 100.5 + 101.5 2 D.H.E. 100.8 = 100.3 + 101.3 2 T.O.C. 100.2 = 100.3 + 100.1 2 5'-0" SIDE SB 7'-0" SIDE SB UPPER FLOOR 1'-3"NG +101.08'NG +100.70' (Low Point) A.T.O.C. 100.8 = 101.5 + 100.2 2 1'-7"15'-0"TOP OF RIDGE 127.53 FRONT PROPERTY LINE NG +100.70' (Low Point) NG +101.08' MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40' PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 9'-034"8'-034"6'-9"1'-3"A.T.O.C. 100.8 = 101.5 + 100.2 2 1'-7"KITCHEN HALL ENTRYPORCH GREAT ROOM CLOSETBATH 3 PRIMARY BEDROOM ATTIC CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Jill Williams K31M200A-TR912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei Amanda Mazzei amazzei@ktgy.com SCALE : =SECTION B 1/4"21'-0" BUILDING SECTIONS A4.2 SCALE : =SECTION A 1/4"11'-0" CCOPYRIGHT Developer PHONE NO. FAX NO. It is the clients responsibility prior to or during construction to notify the architect in writing of any perceived errors or omissions in the plans and specifications of which a contractor thoroughly knowledgeable with the building codes and methods of construction should reasonably be aware. Written instructions addressing such perceived errors or omissions shall be received from the architect prior to the client or clients subcontractors proceeding with the work. The client will be responsible for any defects in construction if these procedures are not followed. Project Contact: Email: Principal: Project Designer: KTGY Project No:2021-1076.01 No.Date Description Architecture + Planning The Leamington Building 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94612 ktgy.com 510.272.2910 255 SHORELINE DR. SUITE 428 REDWOOD CITY CA. 94065 ( 650) 980-8340 Franklin LaPointe flapointe@ktgy.com Jill Williams 912 Linden AvenueBURLINGAME, CAAmanda Mazzei SCALE : =DEMO PLAN 1/8"11'-0" DEMO PLAN D1.0 912 LINDEN AVENUE (SUBJECT PROPERTY) 912 LINDEN AVENUE (SUBJECT PROPERTY) 916 LINDEN AVE & 912 LINDEN AVE920 LINDEN AVE & 916 LINDEN AVE 912 LINDEN AVE & 908 LINDEN AVE 908 LINDEN AVENUE 908 LINDEN AVENUE TO ROSE COURT 920 LINDEN AVE, 916 LINDEN AVE & 912 LINDEN AVE SCREET SCAPE PHOTO COMPILATION SCREET SCAPE PHOTO COMPILATION A5.0n/a 912 LINDEN AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401010.12.22 K29 A TRADITIONAL KRISTIN LASKY KTGYThisisanexampleofdesignspecificationsforthisparticularplanandelevation.Detailedspecifications,finishesandfixturesaresubjecttochange,onhomespriortosale,atanytimewithoutnoticeorobligation.Squarefootagesandlotdimensionsareapproximateandmayvaryinconstructionanddependingonthestandardofmeasurementused,engineeringandmunicipalrequirements,orothersite-specificconditions.Roomsize,walls,windows,doors,porchesandbalconiesvaryperhomeelevationandlocation.Notanofferorsolicitationtosellrealproperty.ThomasJamesHomesisaregisteredtrademarkofThomasJamesHomes,LLC.©2018ThomasJamesHomes.Allrightsreserved.CADRELicense#02057367NOTE: RENDERINGS SHOWN ARE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE AN ACTUAL DEPICTION OF THE HOME OR IT’S SURROUNDINGS HOUSE NUMBERS GAF ROOF SHINGLES CHARCOAL PURE WHITE SW 7OO5 o STUCCO o GABLE SIDING o DOOR & WINDOW TRIM WINDOW FRAMES: BLACK STANDING SEAM BLACK FENCE STAIN NAVAJO WHITE GARAGE DOOR CLOPAY GRAND HARBOR DESIGN 11, INSULATED TOP: SOLID FRONT DOOR MASONITE VISTA GRANDE 3/4 LITE 4 SDL PANEL DOOR 2 SDL PANEL SIDELITES EXTERIOR RENDERINGS (NOT TO SCALE) EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE 6W x 17”H x 7-1/2”D IRON ORE SW 7069 o FRONT DOOR o GARAGE DOOR o PORCH TRIM & COLUMNS o FASCIA & EAVES o GUTTERS 912 LINDEN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA LINDEN AVENUE8'-8"104'-8"13'-4"52'-2"68'-5"34'-0"6" 6" TYP 6'-6" 19'-4"12'-0"15'-0"1'-9"1'-9" 4" TYP EQEQ17'-4"7'-0"13'-11"12'-0"12'-0"5'-3"Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L1.1 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMGRAPHIC SCALE 1/8 inch = 1 foot ( In Feet ) 32168408 1/8" = 1'-0" JH CONSTRUCTION PLAN CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID AND PRIOR TO COMMENCING INSTALLATION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST, THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND STAKING ALL SEWER, WATER AND UTILITY LINES ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE THAT MIGHT BE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY COST INCURRED FOR REPAIR, RESTORATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF AFOREMENTIONED UTILITIES DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DEVIATIONS BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. HARDSCAPE AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHALL BE PLACED PER GEOTECHNICAL SOILS REPORT. UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, ALL MATERIALS DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE DISPOSED OF OFF-SITE. COSTS INCURRED DUE TO REPAIR, RESTORATION, OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE DESIGNATED "TO BE PROTECTED" OR "TO REMAIN" WHICH ARE DAMAGED AS A RESULT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, MATERIALS TO BE PURCHASED AND FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE NEW. CONCRETE INDICATED FOR SAWCUTTING AND REMOVAL SHALL BE CUT TO A TRUE LINE WITH NEATLY SAWED EDGES. IF A SAWCUT IS WITHIN THREE FEET (3') OF AN EXISTING EXPANSION OR CONTROL JOINT, CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED TO THAT NEAREST JOINT. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS, MANUFACTURER'S CUT OR DATA SHEETS FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIALS. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SUCH FURNISHED MATERIALS. ABANDONED PIPES SHALL BE CAPPED OR PLUGGED IN A MANNER APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. PLANS WERE DESIGNED BY REFERENCING 1. GRADING NOTES PREPARED BY CBG CIVIL ENGINEERS DATED: JANUARY 4, 2022. 2. GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS PREPARED BY ROMIG ENGINEERS DATED: JANUARY 21, 2022. PROJECT NOTES SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE FOLLOWED PER THE REPORT. PHYSICAL COPIES OF THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CLIENT, PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LOCAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO STATE AB1881 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE OR AGENCY ADOPTED WELO AS FOLLOWS: (1) SUBMIT SOIL SAMPLES TO A LABORATORY FOR ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. (A) SOIL SAMPLING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LABORATORY PROTOCOL, INCLUDING PROTOCOLS REGARDING ADEQUATE SAMPLING DEPTH FOR THE INTENDED PLANTS. (B) THE SOIL ANALYSIS MAY INCLUDE: SOIL TEXTURE, INFILTRATION RATE DETERMINED BY LABORATORY TEST OR SOIL TEXTURE INFILTRATION RATE TABLE, PH, TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS, SODIUM, PERCENT ORGANIC MATTER, AND RECOMMENDATIONS. (2) THE PROJECT APPLICANT, OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE, SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: (A) IF SIGNIFICANT MASS GRADING IS NOT PLANNED, THE SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL AGENCY AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE; OR (B) IF SIGNIFICANT MASS GRADING IS PLANNED, THE SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE LOCAL AGENCY AS PART OF THE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. (3) THE SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE, IN A TIMELY MANNER, TO THE PROFESSIONALS PREPARING THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLANS TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO THE DESIGN PLANS. (4) THE PROJECT APPLICANT, OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE, SHALL SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION VERIFYING IMPLEMENTATION OF SOIL ANALYSIS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LOCAL AGENCY WITH CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION AUDIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 23 BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SECTION 492.12, OR LOCAL AGENCY APPROVED ORDINANCE: IRRIGATION AUDIT, IRRIGATION SURVEY, AND IRRIGATION WATER USE ANALYSIS PRIOR TO PROJECT ACCEPTANCE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE WORK IS COMPLETE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MOST CURRENT CODES, ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING AGENCY. HMH IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGES WHICH OCCUR TO THE CODES, ORDINANCES OR REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE GOVERNING AGENCY'S APPROVAL OR DURING INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES OR PROCEDURES, OR FOR SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND PROGRAMS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK. HMH IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTRACTOR'S FAILURE TO CARRY OUT THE WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, NOR RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR, SUBCONTRACTORS, OR THEIR AGENTS OR EMPLOYEES, OR OF ANY OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING PORTIONS OF THE WORK. AS REQUESTED BY THE OWNER, HMH WILL VISIT THE SITE AT INTERVALS APPROPRIATE TO THE STAGE OF CONSTRUCTION TO REVIEW THE PROGRESS AND QUALITY OF WORK AND TO DETERMINE IN GENERAL IF THE WORK IS BEING PERFORMED IN A MANNER INDICATING THAT THE WORK, WHEN COMPLETED, WILL BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, HMH WILL NOT MAKE EXHAUSTIVE OR CONTINUOUS ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS TO CHECK QUALITY OF THE WORK. THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED BY HMH FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK OR THE QUALITY OF PERFORMANCE OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR(S). CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPERVISE AND DIRECT THE WORK, USING THE CONTRACTOR'S BEST SKILL AND ATTENTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR AND HAVE CONTROL OVER CONSTRUCTION MEANS, METHODS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCES, AND PROCEDURES AND FOR COORDINATING ALL PORTIONS OF THE WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE OWNER FOR ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES, SUBCONTRACTORS AND THEIR AGENTS AND EMPLOYEES, AND OTHER PERSONS PERFORMING PORTIONS OF THE WORK UNDER A CONTRACT WITH CONTRACTOR. IN THE EVENT OWNER CONSENTS TO, ALLOWS, AUTHORIZES OR APPROVES OF CHANGES TO ANY PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND THESE ALTERATIONS ARE NOT APPROVED IN WRITING BY HMH, OWNER RECOGNIZES THAT SUCH ALTERATION AND THE RESULTS THEREOF ARE NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HMH IN ADDITION, OWNER AGREES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HMH HARMLESS FROM ANY DAMAGE, LIABILITY OR COST (INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS OF DEFENSE) ARISING FROM SUCH ALTERATIONS. THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ON THE PLANS WERE OBTAINED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AT THE TIME THE PLANS WERE DRAFTED AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE A REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE LOCATION OR THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF SUCH UTILITIES. IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT AT 1-800-642-2444 PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK. IN OTHER AREAS, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT A SIMILAR AGENCY/ORGANIZATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROPER PROJECT MAINTENANCE AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE. ANY LACK OF OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE MAY RESULT IN DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OR PERSONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RESULTS OF ANY LACK OF OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE. CONSTRUCTION LEGEND DESCRIPTION SYMBOL ALIGN PAPLANTING AREA TYPTYPICAL DETAIL NOTES: 1.SEE SHEET L2.1 FOR CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. 2.SEE SHEET L5.1 FOR TREE PROTECTION PLAN AND DETAIL. TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3.ALL CONCRETE PAVING ADJACENT TO WALLS SHALL HAVE AN EXPANSION JOINT WHETHER SHOWN ON PLANS OR NOT. 4.FENCE LOCATIONS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC. FINAL LOCATIONS ARE TO BE COORDINATED IN THE FIELD BY CONTRACTOR. 5.CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO SHEET GP-1 FOR SITE GRADING AND DRAINAGE INSTALLATION. 6.SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ELEVATION OF CONCRETE PAD, SEE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR EXACT PAD LOCATION AND SIZE. SEE MEP DRAWINGS FOR AC UNIT CONDENSATE DISCHARGE METHOD. IF REQUIRED, INSTALL DRYWELL PER MEP PLANS. CONFIRM DRYWELL LOCATION WITH TJH PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONCRETE PAVING PEDESTRIAN METAL HEADER WOOD FENCE, 6'-0" HEIGHT, 233 LFL2.1 A SPLIT RAIL FENCE, 46 LF CONCRETE PAVING VEHICULAR EQEQUAL CONTROL JOINT EXPANSION JOINT SITE COVERAGE CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION % OF LOTSF TOTAL LOT COVERAGE TOTAL LANDSCAPE COVERAGE PERMEABLE LANDSCAPE COVERAGE SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER LAWN 10.1 18.2 40.3 60.6 100.0 3,432 BUILDING FOOTPRINT 39.42,228 5,660 2,280 571 1,029 LAWN PROPOSED TREE, TYPICAL PA WOOD GATE 6'-0" HEIGHTL2.1 A IMPERMEABLE LANDSCAPE COVERAGE CONCRETE PAVING 20.4 20.4 "I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE." SIGNATURE DATE 1,152 1,152 BARK MULCH, NON-IRRIGATED 10.3583 L2.1 B EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK TO REMAIN PA PA EXISTING WOOD FENCE OFF SITE TO REMAIN CLCENTER LINE CL PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA CONCRETE PAD FOR AC UNIT, SEE NOTE 6 R 5 ' - 0 " EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED, ALOE YUCCA, ON SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, ON SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, RED MAPLE, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, NORWAY SPRUCE, OFF SITE FRONT SETBACK CALCULATIONS DESCRIPTION % OF LOTSF TOTAL FRONT SETBACK COVERAGE IMPERMEABLE LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 35.8 100.0 292 PERMEABLE LANDSCAPE COVERAGE 64.2524 816 DECOMPOSED GRANITE 1.797 DECOMPOSED GRANITE 10/4/22 10/4/22 B AS NOTED JH CONSTRUCTION DETAILS A Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L2.1 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMWOOD FENCE AND GATE, 6'-0" HEIGHT SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.ALL WOOD SHALL BE COMMON REDWOOD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.ALL FASTENERS AND GATE HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZED. 3.SECURE LEDGER TO BUILDING FRAMING WITH 1/4" x 4" LAG SCREWS AND WASHERS, COUNTERSUNK. APPLY SILICONE CAULKING PRIOR TO INSERTING LAG SCREW. 4.STEP FENCE AT POSTS. FOR GRADES 1:6 (17%) OR GREATER, SLOPE PANELS WITH GRADE. 5.STAIN BOTH SIDES WITH SEMI-TRANSPARENT EXTERIOR STAIN, COLOR PER BUILDER, SEE REPRESENTATIVE STAIN COLORS. 8'-0" O.C .MAX.6'-0"±22'-6"CONCRETE FOOTING, SLOPE TOP TO DRAIN AWAY FROM POST 1 NATIVE GRADE14 6x6 POST, ACQ TREATED2 2x8 CAP4 2x6 BOTTOM RAIL5 9 1x6 BOARD, OVERLAP 1" AS SHOWN 10 1x4 FRAME7 FENCE SECTION / ELEVATION FENCE SECTION 14 1 7 9 16 4 14 1 2 5 9 7 GATE SECTION / ELEVATION3"4'-0" 12 6 13 15 7 6 9 14 1 1x2 FRAME8 HEAVY DUTY GATE HINGE12 SELF-CLOSING GATE LATCH, 5'-0" ABOVE GRADE 13 1'-0"3"PROVIDE FULL BLOCKING AT EACH SIDE OF GATE 2x4 DIAGONAL BRACE, BACKYARD SIDE OF GATE 11 ADJACENT BUILDING WALL15 2x6 GATE FRAME6 GATE SECTION FENCE PLAN VIEW CAP OMITTED FOR CLARITY GATE PLAN VIEW TOP OF GATE FRAME OMITTED FOR CLARITY 10 9 7 6 6 11 2 14 1 6 7 10 6 9 7 5 9 7 5 7 9 8 8 7 5 6 9 9 11 6 7 4 6 11 9 16 1x6 FASCIA BOARD16 16 17 REPRESENTATIVE STAIN COLORS: 2 2x12 KICKER, ACQ TREATED3 3 3 SPLIT RAIL FENCE SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.RAILS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO POST WITH MORTISE AND TENON JOINTS TYPICAL OF A SPLIT RAIL FENCE. 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 SECTION / ELEVATIONSECTION CONCRETE FOOTING, SLOPE TOP TO DRAIN AWAY FROM POSTS 1 3x4 SPLIT CEDAR POST2 3x3 SPLIT CEDAR RAIL3 NATIVE GRADE4 1'-9"1'-6"4'-0" O.C. MAX. 1'-0"3"7"10/4/22 912 LINDEN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA LINDEN AVENUE Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L3.1 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PM45' 1" 0.2 5 CENTER FEED 1/8" = 1'-0" JH GRAPHIC SCALE 1/8 inch = 1 foot ( In Feet ) 32168408 IRRIGATION PLAN ANTI-SIPHON REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, PRESSURE REGULATOR, AND FILTER FOR DRIP SYSTEMS IA W ELECTRIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WEATHER SENSOR (OMIT IF CONTROLLER IS CONNECTED TO INTERNET) PVC BALL VALVE TREE BUBBLER NON PRESSURE LATERAL LINE DRIPZONE LATERAL LINE SLEEVE (4" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) IRRIGATION LEGEND DESCRIPTION SYMBOL SPRAY / BUBBLER ANTI-SIPHON VALVE POP-UP SPRAY HEADS, 12' RADIUS IAW ECO-WRAP IRRIGATION LINE STATION # GPM SIZE ZONE TYPE APPROX. LENGTH OF DRIP TUBING DRIP IRRIGATION LINES VALVE TAG # GPM X" XXXX' X" GPM # CENTER FEED NOTES: 1.SEE SHEET L3.2 FOR IRRIGATION LEGEND AND NOTES. 2.IRRIGATION PLANS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC FOR GRAPHIC CLARITY. 3.EXACT LOCATION OF WEATHER SENSOR TO BE DETERMINED BY SITE SUPERINTENDENT. SEE SHEET L3.2 FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PLACEMENT OF WEATHER SENSOR. EXISTING WATER METER 1 3.0 1" 2 5.8 1" 4 0.5 1" 339' 1" 2.0 6 CENTER FEED 1 2 3 4 5 6 230' 1" 1.4 3 CENTER FEED EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, ON SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, RED MAPLE, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, NORWAY SPRUCE, OFF SITE 10/4/22 NONE JH 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONNECT P.O.C. FROM DOWNSTREAM OF HOSE BIB OR IRRIGATIONS STUB AND COMPLETE THE ENTIRE SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 2.DRAWINGS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC AND DO NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE ALL THE OFFSETS AND FITTINGS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN A PLANTING AREA WHEREVER POSSIBLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. 3.EQUIPMENT INCLUDING MAIN, LATERALS, AND VALVES SHOWN IN HARDSCAPE AREAS ARE FOR DESIGN CLARIFICATION ONLY AND SHALL BE INSTALLED WHENEVER POSSIBLE WITHIN PLANTED AREAS A REASONABLE, REACHABLE DISTANCE FROM HARDSCAPE OR TURF AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 4.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL WIRE AND PIPE UNDER HARDSCAPE AREAS IN SEPERATE P.V.C. SCHEDULE 40 SLEEVES. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE PIPING AND SLEEVING LOCATION PRIOR TO HARDSCAPE INSTALLATION. SLEEVING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODES. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, CONTROL WIRES SHALL OCCUPY THE SAME TRENCH AS PIPES. EACH CONTROLLER SHALL HAVE AN INDEPENDENT GROUND WIRE. 5."I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM ACCORDINGLY FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN." INSTALL IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL LOCAL AND STATE CODES AND ORDINANCES. 6.THE EXISTING WATER PRESSURE AT THE WATER METER IS UNKNOWN. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT 45 - 55 PSI. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND WATER PRESSURE. IF ANY DISCREPANCY EXISTS BETWEEN DESIGN AND ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING FOR A DECISION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE INSTALLATION. 7.SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON A MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE (P.S.I.) AND A MAXIMUM DEMAND (G.P.M.) AS SHOWN AT EACH POINT OF CONNECTION ON THE DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PRESSURE AND DEMAND AT EACH POINT OF CONNECTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING INSTALLATION AND SUBMIT SUCH IN WRITING TO THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES EXIST, THEY SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. 9.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE AND EFFECTIVE COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTING AREAS. DURING THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE ALL PLANT MATERIAL RECEIVES AS MUCH WATER AS IS NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHMENT AND TO SUSTAIN GOOD PLANT HEALTH. 10.CONTRACTOR SHALL FLUSH ALL LINES AND ADJUST IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS. COSTS INCURRED DUE TO ANY ADJUSTMENTS FOR 100% COVERAGE, INCLUDING THOSE REQUESTED BY THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 11.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE INSTALLATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH THE LAYOUT AND INSTALLATION OF THE PLANT MATERIAL TO ENSURE THAT THERE WILL BE COMPLETE AND UNIFORM IRRIGATION COVERAGE OF PLANTING. THE IRRIGATION LAYOUT SHALL BE CHECKED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO DETERMINE IF ANY CHANGES, DELETIONS, OR ADDITIONS ARE REQUIRED. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED AND TESTED PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF ANY PLANT MATERIALS. 12.TRENCHING DEPTHS FOR IRRIGATION PIPES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: MAIN = 24", ALL LATERALS = 12". ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FROM THE TOP OF THE PIPE. PROVIDE A MINIMUM 3" SAND ENVELOPE AROUND ALL MAINLINE PIPE. 13.MINIMUM LATERAL SIZE SHALL BE 3/4". SEE PIPE SIZING CHART FOR SIZING. 14.IF SETTLEMENT OCCURS ALONG TRENCHES AND ADJUSTMENT(S) TO PIPES, VALVES, OR HEADS IS REQUIRED, THE CONTRACTOR, AS PART OF WORK UNDER THIS CONTRACT, SHALL MAKE ALL ADJUSTMENTS WITHOUT EXTRA COSTS TO THE OWNER. 15.IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO FILL AND REPAIR ALL DEPRESSIONS AND REPLACE ALL NECESSARY LAWN AND/OR PLANTING DUE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF IRRIGATION FOR ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ACCEPTED COMPLETION OF MAINTENANCE. 16.CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE THAT ALL MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT, AND WORKMANSHIP FURNISHED BY HIM BE FREE OF DEFECTS FOR ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE ACCEPTED COMPLETION OF MAINTENANCE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LIABLE FOR REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENT OF FAILED MATERIAL DURING THIS GUARANTEE PERIOD. 17.ALL PLASTIC FITTINGS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 18" APART TO FACILITATE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF INDIVIDUAL FITTINGS. 18.SPLICING OF 24 VOLT WIRES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED EXCEPT IN VALVE BOXES. CONTRACTOR TO LEAVE A 24" COIL OF EXCESS WIRE AT EACH SPLICE AND EVERY 100' ON CENTER ALONG WIRE RUN. TAPE WIRE BUNDLES 10' ON CENTER. NO TAPING WILL BE PERMITTED INSIDE SLEEVES. WIRE CONNECTORS SHALL BE SCOTCH DBY OR APPROVED EQUAL, INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 19.CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE SIZED AS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN VALVE BOXES AS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS. BOXES SHALL BE SET FLUSH WITH THE FINISH GRADE OR SURFACE AND PERMANENTLY MARKED AS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS. IRRIGATION NOTES 20.EXACT LOCATION OF CONTROLLERS TO BE DETERMINED AT JOB SITE BY PROJECT MANAGER. USE THIN WALL METAL CONDUIT ABOVE GRADE AND IN GARAGES. PAINT ALL CONDUIT TO MATCH BUILDING OR WALL COLOR. USE WATERPROOF CONNECTIONS FOR OUTDOOR INSTALLATION. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. SEAL ALL CONDUIT HOLES WITH SILICONE OR EQUAL. PROGRAM CONTROLLER TO IRRIGATE USING MULTIPLE REPEAT CYCLES OF SHORT DURATION. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO PREVENT RUNOFF OF WATER AND SLOPE/SOIL EROSION DUE TO PROLONGED APPLICATIONS OF WATER. FOR CONTROL WIRE INSTALLED IN GARAGE, COORDINATE WITH ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND PROJECT ELECTRICIAN FOR CONNECTIONS BETWEEN PODIUM OR WALL PENETRATIONS TO IRRIGATION CONTROLLER LOCATION(S). 21.CONTROL WIRES SHALL BE 14 GAUGE (RED). SEPARATE WIRES SHALL RUN FROM THE CONTROLLER TO EACH VALVE. COMMON GROUND WIRES SHALL BE 12 GAUGE (WHITE) ALL CONTROL WIRES LEADING FROM VALVES TO CONTROLLER SHALL BE LOOPED-UP A MINIMUM OF 30" INTO EVERY VALVE BOX INTERCEPTED ON THE WAY TO THE CONTROLLER. 22.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE CONTROLLER POWER HOOK-UP WITH PROJECT ELECTRICIAN. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HIS PORTION OF WORK WITH THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS. 23.FINAL LOCATION FOR CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNERS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLING. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ALL LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR INSPECTION AND TESTING OF INSTALLED BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE. 24.BUBBLERS SHALL BE LOCATED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TREES. 25.ALL WATER TO DRAIN AWAY FROM BUILDING PER LOCAL BUILDING CODE. 31.DO NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT OBSTRUCTIONS, GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN THE AREA DIMENSIONS EXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ENGINEERING. SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS OF DIFFERENCES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE EVENT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY. 32.A LAMINATED, COLOR CODED, REDUCED SIZE IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL BE FURNISHED TO THE OWNER AFTER FINAL ACCEPTANCE. PLACE ANOTHER LAMINATED COPY INSIDE THE CONTROLLER CABINET DOOR. 33.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO DEMOLITION OR PROTECTION OF EXISTING MAINLINE AND CONTROLLER WIRE FOR FUTURE USE. 34.IF THE INTENT IS TO DEMO ANY IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT IN NEW CONSTRUCTION AREA, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL NEW MAINLINE AND CONTROLLER WIRE TO NEW REMOTE CONTROL VALVE AS DESIGNED PER THIS PLAN, TYPICAL. 35.CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL DRIPLINE ON SLOPES PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS WITH 25% INCREASED SPACING AT BOTTOM 1/3 OF SLOPE. 36.CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE AN IRRIGATION AUDIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL WELO AND TITLE 23 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES SECTION 492.12: IRRIGATION AUDIT, IRRIGATION SURVEY, AND IRRIGATION WATER USE ANALYSIS PRIOR TO PROJECT ACCEPTANCE. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 37.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION AS REQUIRED TO THE LOCAL REVIEWING AGENCY. SEE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS TITLE 23 WATERS DIVISION 2 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES CHAPTER 2.7 MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE APPENDIX C. 38.SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE FOLLOWED PER THE REPORT. PHYSICAL COPIES OF THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CLIENT, PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LOCAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO STATE AB1881 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE OR AGENCY ADOPTED WELO. 39.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HAND WATERING INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING AREAS DURING PLANT ESTABLISHMENT: BIO-CELL AREAS, SODDED AREAS. THESE AREAS WILL NEED SUPPLEMENTAL HAND WATERING IF THEY ARE IRRIGATED BY DRIP UNTIL ROOTS ARE ESTABLISHED AS DRIP IRRIGATION MAY NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT WATER TO THESE AREAS FOR HEALTHY PLANT ESTABLISHMENT. 40.PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICE. 41.CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR. 42.A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, IRRIGATION PLANS, OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. 43.WATER SUPPLIED BY CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE. IRRIGATION LEGEND AND NOTES BUBBLERS ANTI-SIPHON DRIPZONE CONTROL KIT INC. REMOTE CONTROL VALVE, PRESSURE REGULATOR & FILTER FOR DRIP AND TREE BUBBLER VALVES IRRIGATION LEGEND DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL PVC BALL VALVE MANUFACTURER/MODEL/SIZE DRIP OPERATING PRESSURE MODEL NOZZLE GPM OPERATING PRESSURE MODEL ON GRADE TREE BUBBLER 0.2520-75 PSI NIBCO PVC BALL VALVE 4660-S OR EQUAL, LINE SIZE DESCRIPTION DESCRIPTION IRRITOL 2700 ANTI-SIPHON SERIES WEATHER SENSOR IA HUNTER PRO HC WIFI ENABLED 12-STATION CONTROLLER WITH HUNTER HC FLOW METERWALL MOUNT ET BASED ELECTRIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER W SPRAY OPERATING PRESSURE MODEL NOZZLE GPMDESCRIPTION SPRAY / BUBBLER ANTI-SIPHON VALVE RADIUS TORO FB-25 MOUNTED ON TORO SHRUB ADAPTERS IN QUANTITIES AS FOLLOWS: 2 PER 15 GALLON OR 24" BOX TREE 4 PER 36" BOX TREE AND LARGER 20-75 PSIPOP-UP SPRAY HEADS TORO 570Z-PRX SERIES 6P OT-12 (360, TQ, TT, 210, H, 150, T, Q, 60)1.46, 1.15, 0.99, 0.82, 0.74, 0.62, 0.49, 0.37, 0.2512' MOUNT IN AN AREA EXPOSED TO RAIN CONDITIONS AND OUT OF REACH FOR VANDALISM. 2.4G WIRELESS CONNECTION IS REQUIRED FOR OPERATION. PLEASE VISIT HTTPS://WWW.HYDRAWISE.COM TO ENROLL AND SET UP ACCOUNT WITH SCHEDULE TO TRANSFER TO FUTURE HOMEOWNER WR-CLIK IRRITOL 2700 ANTI-SIPHON SERIES Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L3.2 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMHUNTER ECO-WRAP 15-50 PSI ECO-WRAP-17, FLEECE-WRAPPED HDL-CV NOTE: INSTALL HUNTER ECO-WRAP PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS NOTE: INSTALL TORO DL2000 PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS FOR GROUND COVER & SHRUB AREAS: DL2000 DRIPLINE SPACING =18" EMITTER SPACING =18" DRIPPER FLOW =0.53 GPH MODEL TORO FCH-H-FIPT, MINIMUM ONE PER VALVE TORO DL-MP9 MINIMUM ONE PER VALVE TORO YD-500-34 MINIMUM ONE PER VALVE SPRAY, ROTOR, AND BUBBLER VALVES DRIP TUBING VALVES GALLONS PER MINUTE THROUGH VALVE CONTROL VALVE SIZE CONTROLLER STATION NUMBER ZONE TYPE, IF APPLICAPBLE LENGTH OF DRIP TUBING, IF APPLICABLE FLUSH VALVE FOR DL2000 SYSTEM OPERATION INDICATOR FOR DRIP SYSTEM AIR VACUUM RELIEF VALVE FOR DRIP SYSTEM ON-GRADE TORO DRIP TUBING NONPRESSURE IRRIGATION SUPPLYLINE-3/4" MIN. PRESSURE SUPPLY MAINLINE SLEEVE: 2x ENCLOSED PIPE DIAMETER OR AS INDICATED CONTROLLER STATION NUMBER GALLONS PER MINUTE THROUGH VALVE CONTROL VALVE SIZE TORO DL-2000 SERIES (RGP-212-10) SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE NONPRESSURE DRIP IRRIGATION LATERAL, SIZED PER PIPE SIZING CHART 12" COVER 24" COVER 24" COVER CLASS 200 PVC PIPE 1120 SCHD. 40 PVC PIPE FOR SIZES 1-1/2" AND SMALLER 1120 CLASS 315 PVC PIPE FOR SIZES 2" AND LARGER 1120/SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE NOTES 12" COVER 30 PSI REQUIRED DRIP EQUIPMENT NOT GRAPHICALLY DEPICTED ON PLANS: (INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.) DRIP TUBE FITTINGS TORO TRI-LOC FITTINGS DESCRIPTIONIRRIGATION LINES AND SLEEVES XXXX' 1" GPM # CENTER FEED 1" GPM # PIPE SIZING CHART FLOW RATE PIPE SIZE 0.0 - 9.0 0.75" 9.1 - 18.0 1.00" 18.1 - 30.0 1.25" 30.1 - 40.0 1.50" 40.1 - 60.0 2.00" 60.1 - 70.0 2.50" (DIAMETER)(GPM) 10/4/22 AS NOTED JH IRRIGATION DETAILS Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L3.3 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMA B CFIK J G H E DVALVE BOX INSTALLATION DIAGRAMS SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SLEEVE BELOW ALL HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS. 2.SLEEVING SHALL BE TWICE THE DIAMETER OF WIRE BUNDLE CONTAINED WITHIN. 3.CENTER VALVE BOX OVER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE TO FACILITATE SERVICING. 4.SET VALVE BOX 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE IN PLANTING AREAS AND FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREAS. 5.PLACE VALVE AND VALVE BOX IN PLANTING AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE. 6.SET VALVE BOXES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER AND PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE OF LAWN, WALK, FENCE, ETC. 7.AVOID HEAVILY COMPACTED SOIL AROUND VALVE BOX TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO VALVE BOX. 8.DO NOT INSTALL VALVE BOX IN HARDSCAPE. 9.VALVE BOXES IN PLANTING AREAS SHALL HAVE BROWN LIDS EXCEPT FOR RECYCLED WATER VALVES, IN WHICH CASE THE LIDS SHALL BE PURPLE. 10.PROVIDE A MINIMUM 2" CLEAR BETWEEN PIPES. 14" x 19" VALVE BOX1 MAIN LINE3 LATERAL LINE4 WIRING IN CONDUIT5 2 16" x 25" VALVE BOX MAIN LINE, LATERAL LINE, AND WIRING IN SAME TRENCH 6 INSTALL WIRING BENEATH AND BESIDE MAIN LINE, TAPE AND BUNDLE AT 10'-0" INTERVALS 7 3" SAND ENVELOPE AROUND MAIN LINES8 TIE A 2'-0" LOOP IN WIRING AT ALL CHANGES OF DIRECTION 30° OR GREATER, UNTIE AFTER ALL CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE 9 EDGE OF LAWN, WALK, FENCE, ETC.10 3 1 45 6 2 SECTION 7 88 9 1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"1'-0"11 10 PLAN VIEW PLAN VIEW SHOWN WITHOUT VALVE BOX LIDS SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" WALL SURFACE ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CONDUIT, CONNECT TO POWER SOURCE, J-BOX INSIDE CONTROLLER WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER, SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR SPECIFICATION WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRE IN CONDUIT, SIZE AND TYPE PER LOCAL CODES NOTES: 1.THIS DRAWING IS PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE ONLY. 2.INDIVIDUAL PROJECT REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL CODES MAY DICTATE DIFFERENCES IN INSTALLATION PROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ON THIS DETAIL. 2 3 4 1 ELEVATION 1 2 4 33 3.ALL ELECTRICAL WORK MUST CONFORM TO LOCAL CODES. 4.VERIFY CONTROLLER LOCATION WITH PROJECT ELECTRICIAN. 5. REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. DRIPLINE SOIL STAPLE SCALE: 4" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.LOCATE STAPLES ALONG TUBING PER MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 FINISHED GRADE 3 DRIPLINE 4 SOIL STAPLE 5 MULCH, DEPTH PER SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANTING PLAN SECTIONELEVATION 3 2 4 5 1 3 2 4 5 1 SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" TREE BUBBLER 6 NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.ALLOW 6" BETWEEN TRUNK AND BUBBLER. 4.IF APPLICABLE, PLACE ALL BUBBLERS ON UPHILL SIDE OF TRUNK. 5.CONCEAL ALL EQUIPMENT UNDER MULCH. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 IRRIGATION LATERAL 3 4 SUPER FUNNY PIPE ADAPTER, MALE THREADS, 3/4" x 3/8" 5 SUPPER FUNNY PIPE, 3/8" 6 SUPER FUNNY PIPE ADAPTER, FEMALE THREADS, 1/2" x 3/8" 7 8 BUBBLER ROOT BALL 9 SOIL STAPLE, SEE SOIL STAPLE DETAIL PVC TEE, SxSxT, WITH 3/4" THREADED OUTLET 10 MULCH SECTION 9 5 7 10 4 3 2 8 1 POP-UP SPRAY HEAD SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.ALWAYS INSTALL POP-UP SPRAY HEAD PERPENDICULAR TO FINISHED GRADE. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 FINISHED GRADE 3 LAWN 4 SPRAY IRRIGATION LATERAL 5 PCV TEE, SxSxT, WITH 1/2" THREADED OUTLET 6 1/2" PVC NIPPLE, SCH 80 7 POP-UP SPRAY HEAD, PLACE FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE AS SHOWN, MAINTAIN 2" CLEAR FROM EDGES OF HARDSCAPE SECTION 2 3 7 4 5 6 1 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" DRIPLINE END-FEED LAYOUT NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.SPACE DRIPLINE PER IRRIGATION LEGEND. PLACE PERIMETER DRIPLINE 2" TO 4" FROM PLANTING AREA PERIMETER. 1 PLANTING AREA PERIMETER 2 DRIP CONTROL VALVE 3 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD 4 PVC CONNECTION, MANIFOLD TO DRIPLINE 5 DRIPLINE 6 PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD 8 DRIPLINE OPERATION INDICATOR 9 AIR / VACCUUM RELIEF LATERAL, BLANK DRIPLINE TUBING, PLACED ON MOUND OR BERM 10 AIR / VACUUM RELIEF VALVE, PLACED AT HIGH POINT, PLUMBED TO BLANK DRIPLINE TUBING7DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE 9PLAN 7 8 3 2 10 1 5 4 6 4 DRIPLINE CENTER-FEED LAYOUT SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.SPACE DRIPLINE PER IRRIGATION LEGEND. PLACE PERIMETER DRIPLINE 2" TO 4" FROM PLANTING AREA PERIMETER. 1 PLANTING AREA PERIMETER 2 DRIP CONTROL VALVE 3 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD 4 PVC CONNECTION, MANIFOLD TO DRIPLINE 5 DRIPLINE 6 PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD 8 DRIPLINE OPERATION INDICATOR 9 AIR / VACCUUM RELIEF LATERAL, BLANK DRIPLINE TUBING, PLACED ON MOUND OR BERM 10 AIR / VACUUM RELIEF VALVE, PLACED AT HIGH POINT, PLUMBED TO BLANK DRIPLINE TUBING7DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE 9PLAN 7 8 10 1 5 7 2 44 3 66 4 DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.ONE FLUSH VALVE SHALL BE PLACED FOR EVERY 7 GPM PER ZONE AT LOW POINTS. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD, SEE DRIPLINE LAYOUT DETAILS 3 PCV TEE, SxSxT, WITH 3/4" THREADED OUTLET 4 3/4" PVC NIPPLE, SCH 80 5 DRIPLINE FLUSH VALVE 6 PEA GRAVEL SUMP, 6" WIDE, 18" DEEP 7 BRICK SUPPORTS 8 PLASTIC VALVE BOX, 6" ROUND, LID SHALL BE 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE, HEAT BRAND "FV" ON LID IN 1" LETTERS SECTION 5 1 8 7 3 2 4 6 SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" BALL VALVE SECTION NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 IRRIGATION MAINLINE, MINIMUM 18" DEEP 3 PVC ELBOW, 45 DEGREES, SCH 40 4 PVC, SCH 40 5 PVC, SCH 40, MINIMUM 8" LONG BOTH SIDE OF BALL VALVE 6 BALL VALVE 7 8 PEA GRAVEL SUMP, 6" WIDE, 6" DEEP BRICK SUPPORTS 9 PLASTIC VALVE BOX, 6" ROUND, LID SHALL BE 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE, HEAT BRAND "BV" ON LID IN 1" LETTERS 1 23457869 DRIP CONTROL VALVE SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.THE VALVE MUST BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 6" ABOVE THE HIGHEST EMITTER IT CONTROLS. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 MAINLINE 3 PVC ELBOW, OR TEE TO ADDITIONAL CONTROL VALVES AS NECESSARY 4 3/4" PVC, SCH 80 5 PVC MALE ADAPTER SECTION / ELEVATION 6 DRIP CONTROL VALVE 7 Y-FILTER 8 PRESSURE REGULATOR 9 PVC ELBOW 10 DRIP LATERAL LINE 11 CONTROL WIRES, SHALL HAVE 12" SERVICE COIL AND WATERPROOF WIRE SPLICE CONNECTORS 7 6 11 5 4 5 109 2 3 1 8 SPRAY / BUBBLER CONTROL VALVE SCALE: 2" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS. 2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 3.THE VALVE MUST BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 6" ABOVE THE HIGHEST EMITTER IT CONTROLS. 1 NATIVE SOIL 2 MAINLINE 3 PVC ELBOW, OR TEE TO ADDITIONAL CONTROL VALVES AS NECESSARY 4 3/4" PVC, SCH 80 5 PVC MALE ADAPTER SECTION / ELEVATION 6 DRIP CONTROL VALVE 7 8 9 PVC ELBOW SPRAY / BUBBLER LATERAL LINE CONTROL WIRES, SHALL HAVE 12" SERVICE COIL AND WATERPROOF WIRE SPLICE CONNECTORS 6 9 5 4 5 87 2 3 1 10/4/22 912 LINDEN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA LINDEN AVENUE 1/8" = 1'-0" JH GRAPHIC SCALE 1/8 inch = 1 foot ( In Feet ) 32168408 PLANTING PLAN Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L4.1 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PM1 ACE RUB 24" BOX 1 UMB CAL 24" BOX NOTES: 1.TREES TO BE PLANTED MINIMUM 5' FROM UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 2.SEE SHEET L3.3 FOR PLANTING LEGEND AND NOTES. 3.SEE SHEET L3.4 FOR PLANTING DETAILS. 4.A MINIMUM 3" LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURF, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. SHRUB LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME EUPHORBIA CHARACIAS ACER RUBRUMACE RUB CITRUS MEYERICIT MEY ACER PALMATUM 'BUTTERFLY'ACE BUT TREE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME EUPHORBIA 'ASCOT RAINBOW' UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICAUMB CAL CAREX TUMULICOLA BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' AGAVE ATTENUATA LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM' FICUS PUMILA BOLERO PLUS BY DELTA BLUEGRASS SALVIA CLEVELANDII OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'VARIEGATA' VINE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME GROUNDCOVER LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME DYMONDIA MARGARETAE SALVIA SPATHACEA 1 ACE BUT 24" BOX 1 ACE BUT 24" BOX 1 CIT MEY 24" BOX EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, ON SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, RED MAPLE, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, NORWAY SPRUCE, OFF SITE 10/4/22 NONE JH PLANTING NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO FURNISH AND INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS. UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS AND HARDSCAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATIONS. PLANT LIST ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKEOFF AND VERIFY SIZES AND QUANTITIES BY PLAN CHECK. A SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE FOLLOWED PER THE REPORT. PHYSICAL COPIES OF THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLIENT, PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LOCAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL CONFORM TO STATE AB1881 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO) OR LOCAL AGENCY ADOPTED WELO. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A SOILS MANAGEMENT REPORT AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS AND PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION. SAMPLES OF FERTILIZERS, ORGANIC AMENDMENT, SOIL CONDITIONERS, AND SEED SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO INCORPORATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SUCH FURNISHED MATERIALS. ALL WORK ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING HYDROSTATIC, COVERAGE, AND OPERATIONAL TESTS AND THE BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION OF TRENCHES SHALL BE PERFORMED PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATIONS. LOCATIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REVIEWED ON SITE BY THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. TREES SHALL BE PLANTED NO CLOSER THAN TEN FEET (10') FROM UTILITIES. TREES PLANTED WITHIN FIVE FEET (5') OF HARDSCAPE OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A ROOT BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE CITY ARBORIST TO VERIFY ANY PROPOSED SPECIES (EVEN IF SHOWN ON THE PLANS), LOCATIONS, AND QUANTITIES OF ALL PROPOSED TREES PRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIAL. A MINIMUM 3" LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURF, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAMPLE OF PROPOSED BARK MULCH FOR APPROVAL. BARK MULCH SHALL BE LYNGSO SMALL FIR BARK (3/4" TO 1-1/2") OR APPROVED EQUAL. FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP 6" OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF 6" INTO THE SOIL. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1) FOR STANDARD FORM TREES, CALIPER SIZE SHALL BE MEASURED 6" ABOVE THE SOIL LINE FOR CALIPERS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 4" FOR CALIPERS GREATER THAN 4", CALIPER SHALL BE MEASURES 12" ABOVE THE SOIL LINE. FOR MULTI-TRUNK TREES THE CALIPER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY TAKING THE AVERAGE OF THE CALIPER OF THE TWO LARGEST TRUNKS. CALIPER IS MEASURED 6” ABOVE ORIGINATION POINT OF THE SECOND LARGEST TRUNK OR 6” ABOVE GROUND IF ALL TRUNKS ORIGINATE FROM THE SOIL. CALIPER SIZES STANDARDS: 15 GALLON: 0.75-1.25" 24" BOX: 1.25-2" 36" BOX: 2-3.5" 48" BOX: 3.5-5" 60" BOX: 4-6" WATER NEEDS CATEGORY BASED ON WUCOLS IV (JANUARY 2014) LANDSCAPE COEFFICIENT METHOD: CATEGORY PERCENTAGE OF ETo (H) HIGH:0.7-0.9 (M) MEDIUM:0.4-0.6 (L) LOW:0.1-0.3 (VL) VERY LOW:<0.1 SITE CLEANLINESS: THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP THE SITE CLEAN FOR SOIL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES AND FOR ANY OTHER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS. SHOULD EXISTING CONDITIONS REQUIRE MITIGATION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALERT THE OWNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PERFORMING WORK. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION: A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, IRRIGATION PLANS, OR LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. PLANTING LEGEND AND NOTES Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L4.2 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMSHRUB LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME EUPHORBIA CHARACIAS ACER RUBRUMACE RUB EUPHORBIA RED MAPLE 5 GALLON 24" BOX MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZECOMMON NAME H x W WUCOLS 4' x 4' 55' x 40'M L 1 4 CITRUS MEYERICIT MEY MEYER LEMON 24" BOX 10' x 10'M1 ACER PALMATUM 'BUTTERFLY'ACE BUT BUTTERYFLY JAPANESE MAPLE 24" BOX 10' x 10'M4 TREE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZECOMMON NAME H x W WUCOLS PLANTING LEGEND ASCOT RAINBOW EUPHORBIA 5 GALLON 3' x 3'L11EUPHORBIA 'ASCOT RAINBOW' QUANTITY QUANTITY UMBELLULARIA CALIFORNICAUMB CAL CALIFORNIA BAY LAUREL 24" BOX 30' x 20'L1 BERKELEY SEDGE 5 GALLON 2' x 2' L57CAREX TUMULICOLA BLONDE AMBITION 5 GALLON 2' x 2' L53BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION' AGAVE ATTENUATA FOXTAIL AGAVE 15 GALLON 4' x 4' L6 LIGUSTRUM JAPONICUM 'TEXANUM'WAXLEAF PRIVET 15 GALLON 6' x 4 M7 FICUS PUMILA BOLERO PLUS BY DELTA BLUEGRASS CREEPING FIG LAWN 5 GALLON SOD CLIMBING M SOD H 18 DWARF OLIVE VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE 15 GALLON 5 GALLON 3' x 3' 3' x 3' L L 3 29 SALVIA CLEVELANDII OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE' PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA 'VARIEGATA' CLEVELAND SAGE 5 GALLON 3' x 3'L9 VINE LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZECOMMON NAME H x W WUCOLS GROUNDCOVER LEGEND SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME MINIMUM CONTAINER SIZECOMMON NAME H x W WUCOLS QUANTITY SPACING DYMONDIA MARGARETAE DYMONDIA 4 INCH 2" x 1'L - 6" O.C. SALVIA SPATHACEA HUMMINGBIRD SAGE 5 GALLON 2' x 2 L16 10/4/22 AS NOTED JH PLANTING DETAILS A Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L4.3 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMSCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 2" DEEP BASIN AROUND ROOT BALL, TREES PLANTED IN TURF SHALL NOT HAVE BASINS NATIVE GRADE CINCH TIE TREE 1 9 8 FOOT TAMP BASE2 BACKFILL, PUDDLE AND SETTLE PRIOR TO PLANTING TREE 3 AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS, 3 PER 15 GALLON, 6 PER 24" BOX, AND 8 FOR 36" BOX 4 TREE5 ROOT BALL6 PINE LODGE POLE STAKE, 2" DIAMETER, PLACED ON WINDWARD SIDES OF TREE AND OUTSIDE OF ROOT BALL 7 NOTES: 1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. 2.ROOT BALL CROWN SHALL EXTEND 1" ABOVE FINNISH GRADE. 3.TREE INSTALLED IN TURF AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 'ARBOR-GUARD' AT BASE OF TRUNK. 2x DIAMETER OF ROOT BALLSECTION 2 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 6"9 BCDSCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 2 1 GROUNDCOVER EDGE OF PLANTING AREA PLANT, SPACING VARIES, SEE PLANTING LEGEND 1 NOTES: 1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. 2.SPACING SHALL BE TRIANGULATED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3.INFILL PLANTS AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SPACING AT IRREGULAR EDGES. 2 EQUAL EQUAL 1/2 PLANTSPACINGPLUS 6"EQUALEQUALPLAN VIEW SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" VINE NOTES: 1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. 2.ROOT BALL CROWN SHALL EXTEND 1" ABOVE FINNISH GRADE. 2x DIAMETER OF ROOT BALLSECTION 2 1 3 4 9 6 6"VINE AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS, 2 PER VINE 6 2" DEEP BASIN AROUND ROOT BALL FOOT TAMP BASE 5 BACKFILL, PUDDLE AND SETTLE PRIOR TO PLANTING VINE NATIVE GRADE ROOT BALL 2 1 3 4 7 7 WALL OR FENCE8 ATTACH VINE TO WALL OR FENCE TO SUPPORT BRANCHING STRUCTURE 9 5 8 SHRUB SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" NOTES: 1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANT MATERIALS. 2.ROOT BALL CROWN SHALL EXTEND 1" ABOVE FINNISH GRADE. 2x DIAMETER OF ROOT BALLSECTION 2 1 3 4 5 6 6"NATIVE GRADE 2 3 4 SHRUB5 6 7 AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS, 3 PER SHRUB 2" DEEP BASIN AROUND ROOT BALL FOOT TAMP BASE BACKFILL, PUDDLE AND SETTLE PRIOR TO PLANTING SHRUB ROOT BALL 1 7 10/4/22 912 LINDEN AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA LINDEN AVENUE 1/8" = 1'-0" JH GRAPHIC SCALE 1/8 inch = 1 foot ( In Feet ) 32168408 TREE PROTECTION PLAN AND DETAIL TREE PROTECTION NOTES SECTION I SITE PREPARATION: ALL EXISTING TREES SHALL BE FENCED OFF WITHIN OR AT THE DRIP LINE (FOLIAR SPREAD) OF THE TREE. THE FENCE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET HIGH, MADE OF WIRE WITH STEEL STAKES, SUCH AS CYCLONE FENCING. IF THE FENCE IS WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREES, EVERY ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO RELOCATE THE FENCE AT THE DRIPLINE OF THE TREE. IF NOT POSSIBLE, THE TREE SHALL BE PRUNED TO REDUCE THE CHANCE OF LIMB BREAKAGE FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ENCROACHING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE. ALL CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS AND OTHER PERSONNEL SHALL BE WARNED THAT ENCROACHMENT WITHIN THE FENCED AREA IS FORBIDDEN WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CERTIFIED ARBORIST ON THE JOB. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, STORAGE OF LUMBER AND OTHER MATERIALS, DISPOSAL OF PAINTS, SOLVENTS OR OTHER NOXIOUS MATERIALS, PARKED CARS, GRADING EQUIPMENT OR OTHER HEAVY EQUIPMENT. PENALTIES, BASED ON THE COST OF REMEDIAL REPAIRS AND THE EVALUATION GUIDE PUBLISHED BY THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE, SHALL BE ASSESSED FOR DAMAGES TO THE TREES. SECTION II GRADING/EXCAVATING: ALL GRADING PLANS THAT SPECIFY GRADING WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF ANY TREE, OR WITHIN THE DISTANCE FROM THE TRUNK AS OUTLINED IN SECTION I WHEN SAID DISTANCE IS OUTSIDE THE DRIP LINE, SHALL FIRST BE REVIEWED BY THE CERTIFIED ARBORIST. PROVISIONS FOR AERATION, DRAINAGE, PRUNING, TUNNELING BENEATH ROOTS, ROOT PRUNING OR OTHER NECESSARY ACTIONS TO PROTECT THE TREES SHALL BE OUTLINED BY THE ARBORIST. IF TRENCHING IS NECESSARY WITHIN THE AREA AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, SAID TRENCHING SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY HAND LABOR. ALL ROOTS 2 INCHES OR LARGER SHALL BE TUNNELED UNDER AND OTHER ROOTS SHALL BE CUT SMOOTHLY TO THE TRUNK SIDE OF THE TRENCH. THE TRUNK SIDE SHOULD BE DRAPED IMMEDIATELY WITH TWO LAYERS OF UNTREATED BURLAP TO A DEPTH OF 3 FEET FROM THE SURFACE. THE BURLAP SHALL BE SOAKED NIGHTLY AND LEFT IN PLACE UNTIL THE TRENCH IS BACK FILLED TO THE ORIGINAL LEVEL. THE ARBORIST SHALL EXAMINE THE TRENCH PRIOR TO BACK FILLING TO ASCERTAIN THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF ROOTS CUT, SO AS TO SUGGEST THE NECESSARY REMEDIAL REPAIRS. SECTION III REMEDIAL REPAIRS: THE ARBORIST ON THE JOB SHALL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OBSERVING ALL ONGOING ACTIVITIES THAT MAY AFFECT THE TREES, AND PRESCRIBING NECESSARY REMEDIAL WORK TO INSURE THE HEALTH AND STABILITY OF SAID TREES. THIS INCLUDES, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, ALL ARBORIST ACTIVITIES BROUGHT OUT IN SECTIONS I AND II. IN ADDITION, PRUNING, AS OUTLINED IN THE "PRUNING STANDARDS" OF THE WESTERN CHAPTER OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE, SHALL BE PRESCRIBED AS NECESSARY. FERTILIZING, AERATION, IRRIGATION, PEST CONTROL AND OTHER ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PRESCRIBED ACCORDING TO THE TREE NEEDS, LOCAL SITE REQUIREMENTS, AND STATE AGRICULTURAL PEST CONTROL LAWS. ALL SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE IN WRITING. FOR PEST CONTROL OPERATIONS, CONSULT THE LOCAL COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONERS OFFICE FOR INDIVIDUALS LICENSED AS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS OR PEST CONTROL OPERATORS. SECTION IV FINAL INSPECTION: UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, THE ARBORIST SHALL REVIEW ALL WORK UNDERTAKEN THAT MAY IMPACT THE EXISTING TREES. SPECIAL ATTENTION SHALL BE GIVEN TO CUTS AND FILLS, COMPACTING, DRAINAGE, PRUNING AND FUTURE REMEDIAL WORK. THE ARBORIST SHOULD SUBMIT A FINAL REPORT IN WRITING OUTLINING THE ONGOING REMEDIAL CARE FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION. A TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT TREE PROTECTION LEGEND DESCRIPTION SYMBOL PROPOSED TREE, SEE PLANTING PLAN TREE PROTECTION FENCING TREE MITIGATION TABLE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY NOTES: 1.SEE SHEET L3.2 FOR PROPOSED TREE SPECIES. 2.SEE ARBORIST REPORT BY WILLIAM SOWA, CERTIFIED ARBORIST WE-12270A, DATED: FEBRUARY 1, 2022. Land Use Entitlements Land Planning Landscape Architecture Civil Engineering Utility Design Land Surveying Stormwater Compliance 1570 Oakland Road (408) 487-2200 San Jose, CA 95131 HMHca.com DRAWN BY: PROJECT NO: CAD DWG FILE: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: DATE: SCALE: HMHC DATE DESCRIPTIONNO912 LINDEN AVENUETHOMAS JAMES HOMESBURLINGAME, CAS:\PROJECTS\598500\LA\598543 912 LINDEN AVE\PRODUCTION\598543LCD.DWG598543LCD.DWG L5.1 5985.43 JH BG OCTOBER 4, 2022 PLOTTED: 10/4/2022 3:34 PMSCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 6'-0" HIGH TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE, INSTALLED AT DRIP LINE TREE PROTECTION 1 INSTALL TRUNK WRAP IF DRIP LINE FENCE IS NOT PRACTICAL, INSTALL FOUR (4) LODGE POLES AROUND EACH TREE, WRAP TRUNK IN STRAW WADDLE, THEN WRAP IN ORANGE SNOW FENCING UP TO BRANCHING STRUCTURE 2 NOTES: 1.TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED BEFORE GRADING OR EQUIPMENT IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 2.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONSULT WITH THE PROJECT ARBORIST TO DETERMINE FERTILIZING AND WATERING SCHEDULES FOR EXISTING TREES. 3.WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN A TREE'S DRIP LINE, FENCING SHALL BE LOCATED BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST. 4.NO CONSTRUCTION WASTE, EITHER LIQUID, SOLID, OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE WHICH COULD ENTER INTO THE ROOT SYSTEM (OIL, GASOLINE, CHEMICALS, OR OTHER HARMFUL MATERIALS) SHALL BE DEPOSITED, DISPOSED OF, OR STORED WITHIN OR NEAR A TREE'S DRIP LINE. 5.WIRE, SIGNS, ROPES, PULLEYS, ETC., SHALL NOT BE ATTACHED TO ANY TREE. 6.IF TRENCHING WITHIN A TREE'S DRIP LINE IS NECESSARY, CONSULT WITH PROJECT ARBORIST. 7.IF TREE PRUNING IS NECESSARY, IT SHALL BE CARRIED OUT BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST. 8.ONLY TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF OR ADJACENT TO GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION AREAS SHALL RECEIVE TREE PROTECTION. 9.INSTALL ONE SIGN TO DRIP LINE FENCING PER AREA. SECTION 1DRIP LINETREE PROTECTION ZONE DO NOT REMOVE EXCEPT FOR UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE PROJECT ARBORIST SIGN SCALE: 1" = 1'-0" 2'-0"8"1-1/2"1"DRIP LINE2 4 1 2 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED, ALOE YUCCA, ON SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, ON SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, REDWOOD, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, RED MAPLE, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, FICUS, OFF SITE 3 EXISTING TREE TABLE # RETAIN / REMOVESPECIESDBHCONDITION TREES ON SITE PROTECTED TREES ON SITE NON-PROTECTED TREES ON SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED 2 1 1 1 0 TREES ANALYZED IN ARBORIST REPORT 4 NON-PROTECTED TREES TO BE REMOVED TREES TO REMAIN ON SITE NEW TREES TO BE PLANTED TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES (EXISTING TO REMAIN AND NEW TREES TO BE PLANTED) 1 1 6 7 PROTECTED 5 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN AND PROTECT, NORWAY SPRUCE, OFF SITE 6 7 10/4/22 LOT 23BLOCK 9(22 M 66)EXISTING SINGLESTORY RESIDENCEFF 103.45(1,448 SQ. FT. ±)LINDEN AVENUEF:\3085-000\BURLINGAME\912 LINDEN AVE\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-LOT SURVEY_912 LINDEN AVE.DWG10/26/2021 7:44 AM TITLE REPORTLEGAL DESCRIPTION:LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONSBENCHMARK:AREA:ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:NOTES:EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS:#110SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT:JOB NO.: 3085-000912 LINDEN AVENUETOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYCITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIASCALE: 1" = 10'DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2021CIVIL ENGINEERSSURVEYORSPLANNERSSAN RAMONWWW.CBANDG.COMSACRAMENTO(925) 866-0322(916) 375-18773020100OF SHEETSSHEET NO.11FLOOD ZONE:VICINITY MAPSITE CITY OF BURLINGAME Co mm u n ity Developme nt Depaftme nt MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT October 19,2022 Directo/s Report Planning Commission Meeting Date: Odober 24, 2022 Fazia Ali, Assistant Planner FYI - REVIEVII OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 620 TRENTON WAY, ZONED R-,I. Summary: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling at 620 Trenton Way, zoned R- 1 , was approved by the Planning Commission on June 27 , 2022 (see attached June 27, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit for this project has not yet been issued. With this FYI application, the applicant is proposing several changes to the exterior of the dwelling on all four building elevations. The project architect provided a detailed list of the proposed changes to the project in the attached explanation letter dated October 18, 2022; proposed changes have been clouded on the attached plans, date stamped Oclobet 18,2022. The proposed changes do not affect the footprint or envelope of lhe structure. Other than the changes detailed in the applicant's letter and revised plans, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. lf the Commission feels there is a need for more study, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant- Attachments: June 27 ,2022 Planning Commission Minutes Explanation Letter, dated Oclobet 18,2022 Originally approved and proposed building elevations, date stamped Odobet 18,2022 R LINGAME City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY FIALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME. CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission a 7:00 PM Online 620 Trenton Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (eX2) of the CEQA Guidelines.(Ted Catlin, Dreiling Tenones Architecture lnc., applicant and architect; Patricia and Griffin Tormey, property owners) (96 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali Ailach4en,s; 620 Trenton Wav - Staff Report All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hudn prcvided an oveNiew of the staff repofi. OBir Gaul opened the public heaing Ted Catlin, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaulclosed the public headng Commi ssion Di scu ssi onDirecton > I want to thank the applicant for listening to our comnents and addressing them with the revised plans. This rendition is beautiful and addressad all of our concems The upper floor fits much more nicely against he first story. I appreciate the added detail with t,e shutters on the second floor windows upstairs. The raised porch roof was a peiect solution to address nof only the stackng of the secgnd floor over the first froor, bd arso ,o address the interconnection with the roof over the garage. I support moving this project forward. Vicechair Pfafi made a motion, secondsd by Commissioner Tss, to approve the applicaUon. The moton c.rried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Pfafi and Tse Absent 2 - Lowenthal. and Schmid Itonday , June 27 , 2022 620 Trenton Wav - Attachments 620 Trenton Wav - Plans '18 October 2022 RECEIVED ocr 182022 Dear CommissioneG and Staff, l'm writing to you with some updates to the project at 620 Trenton Way, including some changes from the original Planning Approval that the Owners would like to make. Once the Owners engaged with contraclors, it bec€me clear that in order to make the poect viable, they would need to reduce some ofthe original scope to bring the poect into their budget. \ /e worked with them to make some strategic revisions so that the overall exterior design approved by the Planning Commisgion would remain. To try and balance out some ofthese deductive changes, we've also made some other minor additions / revisions that Commissioners had suggested during the original Design Reyiew. A4.1 South (Front) Elevation - We have made changes to some window types to fit he divided light layouts seen throughout the rest of the house, along with some other manor revisions. The revisions include: a. Revise window type to be double hung instead of casement at the First Floor Office. b. Added replacement sidelighE to match the style of the rest of the house (a suggestion from a Commissioner during the original Design Review). c. Removed the seat wall at the Porch, which creates a more open, welcoming Front Porch. d. Remove (1) of the (2) original skylights from the proposed plans. 2. A4.2: East (Side) Elevation - We have removed some windows and the sliding doors ftom the scope, and adjusted the window placements to balance the iaeade as a result. The revisions indude: a. Remove ('l) window at c€ntilevered wood panel area. b. Revise placement ofwindows along Second Floor to account icr changes to interjor partition wall locations and create more balanced fagade. c. Remove set ofsliding doors at First Floor, replace with (N) windows to match the rest ofthe house 3. A/1.3: North (Rear) Elevation - VVe have removed some windows from the scope, along with the decorative chimney. The revisions indude: a. Remove chimney from scope.b. Remove (2) windows at cantilevered wood panel area, but added shutteB and shingles to maintain character (a suggestion from a Commissioner during the original Deslgn Revaew for other windows, which we are now applying to this location as well). c. Replace (E) window at Garage at First Floor with a (N) window to match the rest ofthe house. d. Revise (N) double doors to Garage at First Floor to a (N) single door. 4. A/t.4: West (Side) Elevation - We made a minor revision of the window sizes. The revisions include a. Revise size of windovE at Second Floor. Along with these exterior changes, we have revised the interior partition layout on the Second Floor Plan. These changes don'l affect the number of bedrooms and don't change the Floor Area. The Owners realized they may have been overbualding by adding a (N) Master Suite on the Second Floor when they had a periectly fine (E) Master Suite on the First Floor, and we have changed the plans to ulilize what was already working instead ofthrowing it away. ln summary, due to a finite budget, conversations with contractors, and a second look at their desired home, the Owners are requesting the approval ofthese changes to the originally approved design. We humbly ask that you approve this FYI to the proiect on behalf of the Tormey family. Sincerely, Ted Catlin, Project Manager Dreiling Terrones Architecture To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 620 Trenton way - Planning FYI 1. CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD.PLANNING DIVISION RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISIONOCT 18 2022