Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - PC - 2022.12.12
Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Online6:30 PMMonday, December 12, 2022 Please note that the Zoom Webinar login information for the Study Session and Regular Planning Commission Meeting are the same. STUDY SESSION - 6:30 pm - Online Discussion of Exterior Lighting in Residential Zoning Districtsa. MemorandumAttachments: To log into the Study Session, please click on the link below: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 892 8114 5130 Passcode: 463897 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 892 8114 5130 Passcode: 463897 Agenda continues on next page. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/9/2022 December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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 November 21, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 135-2022 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 135-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the December 12, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 12, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/9/2022 December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 892 8114 5130 Passcode: 463897 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 892 8114 5130 Passcode: 463897 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft November 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft November 14, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Draft November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. Draft November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 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. Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/9/2022 December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 7. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2023 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurina. 2023 Planning Commission Calendar - Memorandum 2023 Planning Commission Calendar 2023 Draft City Council Calendar Attachments: 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e) (2). (Chris Spaulding, architect; Michael Liu, property owner and applicant) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz b. 2517 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2517 Easton Dr - Attachments 2517 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2316 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines.(James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., applicant and designer; Andy and Monica MacMillian, property owners) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. 2316 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2316 Easton Dr - Attachments 2316 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: 732 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a second story balcony and declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(2). (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer and applicant; Shabana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz b. 732 Vernon Way - Staff Report 732 Vernon Way - Attachments 732 Vernon Way - Plans Attachments: Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/9/2022 December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for as -built changes to a previously approved new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Joseph Hassoun, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (106 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon c. 1327 Benito Ave - Staff Report 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: 839 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Babak Nematollahi, applicant and designer; Southwest Investment Funds LLC, property owner) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi d. 839 Crossway Rd - Staff Report 839 Crossway Rd - Attachments 839 Crossway Rd - Plans Attachments: 912 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; SF 21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner; KTGY Architecture and Planning, architect) (113 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi e. 912 Linden Ave - Staff Report 912 Linden Ave - Attachments 912 Linden Ave - Plans Attachments: 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1915 Carmelita Avenue - zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Anthony and Gail Mosse, property owners) (93 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. 1915 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 1915 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 1915 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 5 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/9/2022 December 12, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of December 5, 2022 556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - FYI review of Planning Commission requested changes to a previously 21-unit residential condominium project. a. 556 El Camino Real - Memorandum 556 El Camino Real - Attachments 556 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: 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, December 12, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on December 12, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2022, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 6 City of Burlingame Printed on 12/9/2022 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 8, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 FROM: Kevin Gardiner, Community Development Director Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Discussion of Exterior Lighting in Residential Zoning Districts Background: At the November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission suggested that exterior lighting in residential zoning districts be discussed as a Future Agenda Item. The Commission expressed concern about the brightness of exterior light fixtures on single-unit dwellings as depicted in the following images: Discussion: The purpose of this study session is to discuss exterior lighting on residential buildings. The Burlingame Municipal Code addresses outdoor/exterior lighting in Title 25 (Zoning Code) and Title 18 (Building Construction), as noted below. You will see that both sections require that 1) the cone of light and/or glare from lighting fixtures be kept entirely on the property, 2) that shielded light fixtures be used to focus light downward, and 3) that light fixtures not exceed nine feet above adjacent grade or required landing. The Burlingame Municipal Code does not have regulations on the lighting type, color, or lumens from lighting sources. Chapter 25.31 (Site Planning and General Development Standards), Code Section 25.31.100 (Outdoor Lighting and Illumination), includes the following regulations: A. Glare. Exterior lighting on all properties shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge, or wall. B. Shielded Light Fixtures. On all residential properties, exterior lighting outlets and fixtures shall not be located more than nine feet above adjacent grade or required landing. Only shielded light fixtures which focus light downward shall be allowed, except for illuminated street numbers required by the Fire Department. Community Development Department Memorandum December 8, 2022 Page 2 Chapter 18.16 (Electrical Code), Code Section 18.16.030 (Exterior Lighting Restricted), includes the following regulations: 1. Exterior lighting on all residential and commercial properties shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, edge or wall. 2. On all residential properties exterior lighting outlets and fixtures shall not be located more than nine (9) feet above adjacent grade or required landing; walls or portions of walls shall not be floodlit; only shielded light fixtures which focus light downward shall be allowed, except for illuminated street numbers required by the fire department. 3. Variances to the provisions of this section may be approved by the planning commission, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 25.16 of this code, except that notice of the application for the variance shall only be given to property owners within fifty feet. 4. This section shall not apply to signs having an approved permit for an illuminated sign pursuant to Title 22 of this code. The building inspectors check for compliance with the height limitation (9’-0” above adjacent grade or required landing) during the rough electrical inspection, during which time exterior light fixtures are not installed, so the type/design of the light fixture is not available for review. Building inspectors generally do not review the design of exterior light fixtures, however they do notify builders of the regulations regarding exterior lighting. Shielding on light fixtures come in many different forms, including designs with larger shielding at the top of the fixture or opaque glass. The following examples of shielded light fixtures tend to be the most effective in diffusing and/or focusing light downward: Lastly, staff notes that any complaints received about excessive brightness from exterior lighting are forwarded to the Code Enforcement Division. These typically include lighting without any type of shielding for security purposes. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 14, 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 124-2022 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 124-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the November 14, 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 November 14, 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 November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 813 0279 3828 Passcode: 643502 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 813 0279 3828 Passcode: 643502 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft October 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.Draft October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Tse6 - Recused:Schmid1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. Page 2City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Overview of the North Rollins Specific Plan. Staff Contact: Kevin Gardiner Staff Report North Rollins Specific Plan – Public Review Draft Attachments: Community Development Director Gardiner introduced the specific plan consultant team, including representatives from KTGY, Gates + Associates, Kimley -Horn, and Rincon Consultants. The consultant team presented an overview of the draft specific plan. Commission Questions and Discussion: >Housing projects are putting in mostly housing and not much else other than open space, and our office projects are putting in office and not much more as far as amenities for doing a small plaza or something. It's great that we’re encouraging the grocery and ground floor but without more direction on that, I'm afraid they are going to skip it and choose the easier benefits. Who wants to be the first to invest in retail and grocery in an area that actually doesn't have any people in it yet? It's going to take ten years to get a grocery store. (John Moreland, Rincon Consultants: There is a requirement for retail space along Rollins Road. The community benefit is going above and beyond an additional requirement and furthermore on top of the requirements is we also want to have the design of Rollins Road appear commercial so whether there are residential amenities or other spaces, it has the consistent street scene along Rollins Road. It is difficult to identify which property is going to have the grocery store, so we think the community benefit is the best approach for a grocery store. In other cities they had been able to encourage uses through the economic development staff working with developers and trying to encourage that and promote a grocery store within this area, and working with the landowners identifying a spot that if someone is willing to encourage that grocery store to the development at that location.) >Why are we saying that a grocery store needs to have ten thousand square feet? There are smaller grocery stores that can have smaller spaces for milk and eggs, just little spaces. Can we make that a smaller space? What are the challenges that you've seen and how do we overcome those challenges? (Moreland: The grocery store square footage can definitely be adjusted. Our retail division has worked with grocery store developers and right now. For frame of reference, a Trader Joe's would be looking for 15,000 square feet. Sprouts and Whole Foods are in the 20,000 square foot range. What we wanted to distinguish as part of the specific plan is something different than maybe just a convenient shop that may have other items and may not be considered a food mart that may be able to provide all the groceries. Could it be 6,000 square feet? Yes, but I wouldn't recommend anything lower than 6,000 square feet. One thing that might help promote the feasibility of a grocery store is showing the pipeline of how many residential projects could theoretically be in this area and how fast this area is growing.) > We're asking developers to give us public spaces but the public spaces that we've seen are kind of within the development that they are doing themselves. Looking at Figure 2.6, there's an area under the power lines that is now currently being used for some parking for Facebook. Could we ask the developers for some kind of an in lieu fee instead of having them build a small park or a public benefit for that particular project? Put a fee aside so if we decide that we want to, the city can purchase a parcel or somebody gives us some land that we decide that we want to create a park there. The public spaces that I'm seeing are not really public benefits in my opinion. I'd like to see a big plaza, so if somebody wants to build a plaza, we have some funds and they dedicate it to the city. (Moreland: We've seen the implementation where there is an in -lieu program that looks at the area and identifies places for parks. A developer could negotiate with the city and receive the credit for open space above and beyond. It's a pretty common practice elsewhere.) (Casey Case, Gates + Associates: The utility corridor has been designated for open space. It has power lines overhead and a lot of infrastructure underneath. It fits best for a semi-passive recreation opportunity, but in some of our studies, we did take a look at the projects on the books at the time and identified their open space and used our 1/8 radius to locate potential other park locations. That was the guidance in our design guidelines, that the open space that is associated with development is for open, public use. We have language to make it obvious that it's open and Page 3City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes available so it's not tucked behind other things. In addition to that, really playing up the connections between the spaces. It's not an individual park spaces in and of themselves. One of the things we're trying to accomplish with a lot of jurisdictions is creating the network between all of those because it's not just the destination, it's going from one to the other, so that's why a lot of our language is about the paseos and the wind rows and connecting to the linear park, so it's not just the destinations themselves.) >I think it would be really nice if we have a uniformed streetscape lighting program in the sense that the developers know exactly what light we're going to use, what company it is, how tall the street lighting is going to be. Also I think lighting is a safety issue for pedestrians and cars and the bikes and everybody else, so I strongly want to keep that very uniform. >I’m looking at all these beautiful pictures from the presentation and I'm thinking, how do we get there from here? I'm not seeing it. For example in 5.5.2 it says where a total lot area or development is 50,000 square feet or greater, a pedestrian plaza or other public open space, gathering space shall be provided that meets the following criteria. It's a minimum of 1,500 square feet in size, with a minimum dimension of 30. I feel that the size of the open space should be commissariat with the size of the project. There are some are enormous projects and just to say well, it's over 50,000 square feet, so it should have a 1,500 square feet plaza, it doesn ’t seem to be in proportion. I’m thinking an in-lieu system might be better where the city is actually saying whether it's under those utility wires or whatever, the ideas or a chain of them here and there or perhaps even obtaining land on a site that is going to remain industrial but maybe they want to let some of it go for that. It seems this may be a more attainable way to get this. >I was disappointed and surprised to see how prescriptive the planting specifications are. It's probably boilerplate from the Native Plant Council, so I pulled some sheets where I was shocked to see that first of all, there is nothing else besides native plant vegetation can be planted. Nothing listed on the Native Plant Council's invasive plants list, and I think that it is very prescriptive. Certainly nothing to do with our General Plan, and we had a good section about landscaping and sensitive areas which this is not, it's landfill. The General Plan encourages planting of natives, but does not force it. The projects we've seen come through are definitely are not all native and they tend to be more native adaptive landscaping. Fin ally, were you aware that the street tree list that has been established here for roads, none of them are native. And a couple of them, at least one is on the bad list from the Native Plant Council. I'm asking if you would revisit that one. >I was thinking about the community benefits and some of the support services that we want to see come together in this neighborhood. I was wondering if there was a way to overlay some type of a metrics and some type of master plan that could help future developers and existing property owners to pick and choose whether they want a café here, a dry cleaner, whatever type of support spaces or event center or whatever it may be, to make this neighborhood thrive and vibrant. So instead of developers thinking for example they have a space and they ’re thinking of it being a caf é, but maybe we already have too many cafes in this area. Could we give them some options to choose so we also build a little bit of core retail and community spaces that would really make it an activated neighborhood? When I say the master plan, I mean an overlay on top of these five areas that we're developing and maybe dot in where might be a good location for a café, where might be a good spot for a laundromat or whatever it might be to give developers some kind of guideline of what we might want or need to support all the residents and workers in this area. (Moreland: In terms of the guidance, a marketing study would assess and identify that this area is providing x-amount of residential and would need these services, and based on that, there could be an overlay or guidance). >It looks like there is only one major crosswalk area in this neighborhood, or am I misreading it? Do you know how many crosswalks are planned to get to the other side? (Moreland: I believe there's one type of crosswalk design that would be repeated at all three cul -de-sacs intersecting with Rollins Road. As development comes in, you could look at a new crossing location at the intersection. Along with those three cul-de-sacs, there's also crossings at the paseo paths.) (Mike Mowry, Kimley -Horn: It's slightly outside the plan area, but Millbrae will have an upgraded crossing at the intersection of Rollins Road and Adrian Road.) >These crosswalk intersections with the bulb out areas seems like they would be natural nodes for retail and these community support services. I also agree with the suggestion of creating a universal lighting plan for this whole area. >Just a question for school -aged kids, which elementary school are the kids supposed to be attending Page 4City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from this neighborhood and how will they get there? (Gardiner: Right now the area is in the boundaries of Franklin, but there are no residences in this area yet. It is a challenge to get to the school areas from here. One interest is the possibility of having a crossing under the railroad or above railroad. That is not an insignificant endeavor but it would be part of a strategy for a route to school. We have been coordinating with the district and based on current enrollment trends, they should have sufficient capacity but will need to figure out which district assign the kids to.) >Is there a projected residential population if everything goes to plan and certain density was reached? I don't know if you have a number just based on the housing units. it's a little harder to estimate school-aged children based on the type of housing much, so I'm thinking general population. (Moreland: The specific plan is implementing the density that's identified in the General Plan, with a small adjustment, to be around 1,800 units so it would be around 4,500 or 5,000 people total.) Assuming one of every five, that's one thousand kids. That's something to consider; we love the density, we love the population growth, and obviously we need more housing but I don't see any schools being built. >I’m not understanding on how the pattern of the street frontage works with the setbacks. (Moreland: What we really want along Rollins Road is to increase the pedestrian experience. We want a wider sidewalk. We looked at alternatives to potentially pinching the Rollins right -of-way down, really trying to keep Rollins Road as a transit corridor that accommodates both bikes as well as accommodate the truck traffic that's there. We don't really envision the curb to curb dimension being dimensional so we're saying the movable property line is going to be requiring a wider sidewalk that would encroach into the private property. There would be a ten -foot-wide sidewalk, five feet would be within the public right -of-way and an additional five feet on private right -of-way so you get a 10-foot-wide sidewalk There would need to be easements attached to it but it would feel like a 10-foot sidewalk. Beyond the 10-foot sidewalk, the building would be setback ten feet from the property line. So five feet will be used for landscape or additional sidewalk area like a cafe or anything like that along the sidewalk.) (Gardiner: I'll add, this was something we already had built into the interim zoning. As complicated as it sounds, it's not that complicated and the three projects approved so far have utilized this approach. They have all mapped the public access easements as part of their maps so it's a way to create a more consistent streetscape without knowing exactly where the property line is going to fall in an individual place, but you know that you want a ten-foot sidewalk regardless. Plus the planting zone and the amenity zones creates that consistency regardless of the specifics of a site. We have a good street section diagram that shows the geometry of the lanes and the sidewalks and the bike lanes, so we could add buildings to the diagram to better explain this.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing to allow for public comment. There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Community Development Director Gardiner acknowledged that there is a lot of material in the draft, and invited commissioners to mark up their drafts if they would like to provide further comments. This was also done for the General Plan and was effective. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.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. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301(e)(2). (Joshua Larson, architect and applicant; Mikayla and Robert Cameron, property owners) (101 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1441 Alvarado Ave - Staff Report 1441 Alvarado Ave - Attachments 1441 Alvarado Ave - Plans Attachments: Page 5City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes The item was pulled for discussion by a member of the public. All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Robert Cameron and Joshua Larson, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Michael Rudolph, 1435 Alvarado Avenue: Good evening commissioners, with regard to 1441 Alvarado Avenue, the Cameron ’s proposal for modifications to their house. When it came up before the commissioners in their last meeting, we were in general agreement with the Cameron ’s plans. However, we did indicate that we had some concerns about the landscaping. So, if you refer to the PDF file 1441 Alvarado Avenue plans.pdf, slide seven shows our house and the Cameron ’s house. It shows landscaping that goes above our roof line which we are concerned will take away our current views of both the airport and the bay. When we spoke with the Cameron ’s in the last meeting, they said their architect would be willing to work with us to make sure that that didn't happen. So, we are very concerned that what appears to be olive trees and the street trees are going to interfere with our views and want to express concern about that. Again, not being familiar with this process, whether there could be something that needs to be entered into the record on the commissioner's side that we have expressed that concern because we don't want to find three or four years from now that we don't have a view. Thank you very much. (Cameron: The amount of foliage was an initial attempt to ensure the beautification of the street and the neighborhood and promote as much of a green atmosphere to minimize the presence of the building. With that said, we are very much willing to ensure that our neighbors are able to enjoy the views that they have today as we enjoy them as well, and to be able to find a resolution here to ensure that all parties were happy. We’re happy to ensure that we select a variety that does not impair that view. Our interests are aligned as we want to ensure that the entrance to the home is still visible through that arch way.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It is not the house that is going to prevent this project from moving forward. We are talking about a landscaping item that needs to be negotiated between neighbors. It seems to me that there is not an item that we can put in place as a condition of approval. >Gardiner: The commission can't really regulate the maintenance of landscaping and landscaping can change over time. It does seem like there's willingness and interest from the applicant to coordinate with the neighbors and that's very encouraging. That starts to get outside of the realm of the design review and the different permits being requested, particularly with maintenance. > Assuming it's just a regular olive tree, it says 20 to 30 feet, so it's not an enormous tree. It should be easy to control. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.1855-1881 Rollins Road, zoned RRMU - Application for a Vesting Tentative Map for a Lot Combination of three existing parcels. (BKF Engineering, Engineer; SJ Amoroso Properties Co, E and S Property LLC, and ANRM Holdings LLC, property owners) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: Victor Voong Page 6City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Memorandum 1855-1881 Rollins Rd - Vesting Tentative Map Attachments: Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application on consent. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.740 Paloma Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Dain Adamson, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF 21G, 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 from this item . Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Hannah Chu and Anna Felver, designers, 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: >I appreciate all the changes made. The applicant has listened to a lot of the feedback that we gave in the previous meeting. The front looks a lot better. All of the changes really made each elevation look better and I really appreciate that. I'm stuck right at the moment with the fiberglass. We've not seen those come through or approved them lately. So, I’m not convinced that it's a good choice. > I am familiar with Ultrex by Marvin and it appears as a clad window, so I'll vouch for that brand and material for a window. You'll see them around town. It's the standard for Marvin now. The reason is because a lot of the window manufacturers are getting away from the wood windows just for warping, durability and weather proofing. They last longer. I have a bigger concern about the fiberglass front door because fiberglass doors look like fiberglass doors. They don't look like wood doors. I have brought them and put them in, but typically in the backdoor on an apartment building. Haven't seen a fiberglass front door that looked really good especially in a craftsman house. I just think a wood door would look better . I'm also concerned about that tall skinny look on it. > I was also going to vouch for the Marvin windows. I’m currently reviewing a project of ours, a fiberglass entry door compared to wood door mainly due to the weather exposure and orientation of the home facing south in my situation. I have installed a fiberglass entry door before. Not often, it depends on Page 7City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes the brand of course, they can look very realistic with wood texture and you can have them unfinished to be stained onsite or pre-finished. There's a number of ways they can be prepared for installation. Suggests to have the applicant provide that information to us, what brand they might be using for the entry door, just to give us a little bit more information. Maybe as an FYI so we know it's not some stamped fiberglass door you would put on the side of a garage entrance or something, which is what we usually imagine when we think about fiberglass doors. Not so much as what brand but a spec sheet so we can see what quality entry door would be proposed. >I'm a fan of the grids on the window, so I was disappointed to see those go away. They add a lot of character to the home. The windows were still quite sizable, especially the front elevation with the proposed single hung windows, that top half could have grids very easily. >Generally, it has come a long way from what we first saw which I really appreciate. I commented last time about how narrow the door looked and now I know why. It's artificially stretched because it's a taller door. If it's three feet wide that's fine. Now that you have the grid in the door and without the grid in the windows, something looks out of proportion. It looks really large. The top grid disappeared and it would be more cohesive if you put that back in because it really is an older neighborhood. You could get away with it but it lost some of the charm. Is the garage door metal? Do we typically see metal garage doors? >It doesn't specify that on sheet A 3.2. We have had metal doors in the past, I'm not a fan because they dent when kids kick a ball on them. So we have a few things, it sounds like there's a desire for grids to be put back in the windows, which I would go along with. We are asking for a cut sheet on the fiberglass entry door to be provided and then the garage door to be either fiberglass or wood. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve with the application with the following condition: >Prior to issuance of a building permit an FYI application shall be submitted which shall include specifications for the fiberglass entry door, and revised plans showing grids on all windows as originally proposed, and specifying the garage door material to be either wood or fiberglass. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.877 Mahler Road, zoned I-I - Application for a Master Sign Program for wall signs above the first story of 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. (Carl Cook, United Signs and Kerry Apex, applicants; Fast Signs, sign designer; 877 Mahler LLC, property owner) (36 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 877 Mahler Rd - Staff Report 877 Mahler Rd - Attachments 877 Mahler Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Aurora Sanchez, designer, represented the applicant. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Page 8City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is pretty straightforward. I don't see anything that's disruptive to the area with the size or the location of the signs. It's a natural spot on this building to put them so I ’m in favor of the project. I would like to see this move forward. > My compliment goes to this one, particularly for the sign that is on the building itself and not necessarily for the podium one, the font looks really great with the building. It looks like a 1950s building. It looks nice. Nice job. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - c.1 Adrian Court, zoned RRMU - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved 265-unit mixed-use development project (proposed changes to art wall). This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 (Infill Development Projects) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Carmel Partners, applicant and property owner; BDE Architecture, architect) (47 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1 Adrian Ct - Staff Report 1 Adrian Ct - Attachments 1 Adrian Ct - Original Plans 1 Adrian Ct - Proposed Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lisa Phyfe and Debi Zumtobel, 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: >Concerns about the longevity and maintenance of the mural paint. >Suggests to consider putting some foliage on that wall instead of a mural. Like climbing vines or something that could be really nice and green, which might have that impression of a little bit more greenery from the ground up. Or consider featuring a local artist. We have lost an amazing artist in town by the name of Dale Perkins. He’s done a number of works in Burlingame and maybe we could do a tribute to something that he created or something to that nature. >(Phyfe: When it comes to the greenery and planning, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe providing art at this wall is a condition of approval for the project, so we had assumed it was required to stay as art.) > (Hurin: The art wall was originally offered by the previous developer. The code doesn't require it per Page 9City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes se, but the developer offered to do an art wall. At the time they didn't have the concept down, so the commission asked that it come back as an FYI item to review the art wall. Now that it's been changed because of that condition, it's before you now. There aren't any specific regulations or requirements for an art wall, what it should look like and what should go on the art wall.) >Maybe that's something that the applicant can look at. Consider another way to create the wall that might also help with its maintenance. >Consider a wall to be built of something that wouldn't require maintenance that would have some textural or color interests. Tile can be applied in patterns and almost a large mosaic. It might be very pricey, but another way to build an art wall or some kind of interest wall. It doesn't have to be an art wall but something with textural interest and it can be done in color. To this previously proposed poppy design, even though it was really large and to the pedestrian scale, you can read very easily that those were poppies on the wall. You can't get too much distance from this wall where this wall would be located in relationship to where one would walk and be able to enjoy it. You lose the sense of scale with what's currently being proposed. Trying to imagine being up close to this wall, I don't know if you can see the birds on what's currently being proposed. Scale is fine but maybe if it was more open, more obvious what the imagery is so one can enjoy it and consideration of some other type of material that the wall could be built out of. >I actually like the previous solution a lot better. I'm not inspired by the new solution and I agree that it's going to wear. I have never seen a painted mural last. Whereas a baked enamel metal panel actually could last quite a long time without fading. It would have more three -dimensional interest on that wall than the painted solution. Conceptually, it's nowhere near where I ’m thinking that wall would be more attractive . I would actually side with putting the vines on. Unless we're actually approving the design, I don't know that I would approve this conceptually either. So I’m not necessarily in favor of making the change. >I'm not in favor of this mural. We can come up with something better for that wall and create something that is more beneficial to that wall, to that community and for maintenance. > I would have to agree with that. The original proposal was better, it gave depth and is more dimensional. Something flat isn't going to work. I agree with my fellow commissioner, unless we have concept or the actual art, I don't know that we should be moving forward with it. I'm in favor of the art, it's going to be less maintenance than a vine and it could ultimately last longer. My fellow commissioner was talking about tiles, but you can do cast -in-place concrete with relief. Not necessarily like what they have on the freeway but that whole idea, even though those retaining walls look like big huge pieces of stone as you're going down 92 freeway out to Half Moon Bay. There are things you can do with concrete that are zero maintenance and they will last forever. There are other ways where we can go with this. I am not for a flat one dimensional mural. >I agree with everything that have been said. A vine is certainly preferential to what we have seen. I like the 3D look of the poppies. To piggyback on the discussion we started this evening on making a special neighborhood, this is part of that neighborhood. It would be fun to have something different, happy and to start some motion in that direction. You have to start somewhere. So here, we have something on our plate and was part of the approval. Sorry to say, I can't approve the second concept. >We all, more or less, agree that we're not in favor of the proposed project and we would like to see something that is a little more specific as opposed to a concept. >(Spansail: We've had some commissioners go the direction of maybe not having it be an art wall, having vines or some other material on there. Is that something that would be considered because we want to make sure the applicant knows whether to stick with the original condition of an art wall or if there's more flexibility on that?) >I would rather see art than a vine wall. >Wondering if the Planning Commission is the right group. Are we experts in art appreciation? Is there an art commission in Burlingame or some other venue that should be adjudicating this? I don't feel like I ’m well qualified to be an art critic. >I actually would like to see the art. The reason I like the poppies is you would see it from the park that's in the parking lot that we've spent an hour and a half talking about. Because that wall was close to 20-feet tall, the top of the poppies will go way above the six -foot fence that separates this project from the parking lot that's behind. Granted that it is a parking lot now, but we just looked at how we want to see that whole central area become more pedestrian -friendly. So, it wouldn't just be the dogs and the people Page 10City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes who live there that are going to appreciate this. I would agree with my fellow commissioner, I would like to see it remain as an art installation. I just don't see the proposal that was before us tonight being something that adds value. >I, too, would like to see the originally proposed in the form of an art wall, not necessarily having to be metal panels, but I love the graphics from the poppies. The color and the vibrancy was brought to life in that area compared to what was proposed this evening. I’m open to some other contextual interest whether it is tile, some kind of pre -formed, and pre -cast panels that can be installed on a wall. Something that conveys that originally approved design and proposed art but can be in other materials with some textural interest would be what I would be looking for. >I’m good with artwork. We can take off the vines for now, so the applicant knows which direction we can all go in. >The commission would like to see an art wall there because it would be helpful and beneficial to the park area and to the development. However, we are looking for something more than one dimensional art and we can give them artistic license with that. >The paint makes me nervous. It's not going to look good. I mean, who is going to be bothering the company or trying to get every paint job done when it's faded. I'm not for the paint unless it ’s something that's more 3-dimensional as opposed to one -dimensional. The metal, whatever original was, sounds like it’s more permanent like a car paint. It sounds like something that's longer lasting. That's great and fine. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - d.500 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for a Special Permit for building height for a new elevator enclosure on the roof deck of an existing four -story office building. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Carlos Castillo, Element One Architecture, applicant and architect; Waterfront Plaza Properties LLC, property owner) (13 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 500 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 500 Airport Blvd - Attachments 500 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Will Johnson and Carlos Castillo, 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: >I truly appreciate the challenge on this one in trying to make this work. Struggling with a 20-foot tall tower on top of a 47-foot building. I appreciate the applicant putting up the story poles because that made it even more evidently clear what I thought the last time. I understand the need but I ’m not at all in favor of the solution. Page 11City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > I get the reasoning for bringing an elevator up, but I have to agree with everybody. A 20-foot tower on top of a 47-foot building, we need to be able to come up with something better. > Consider taking the elevator outside of the building. There's an inside corner area that if you went up the side it would be less weird looking than in the middle of the roof. Because the story poles don't lie. I saw it in every direction as I circled the project. Study the possibility of putting it on the backside of the building, going up the side and cladding it in glass instead, not the most economical but it might make it look less intentionally in the wrong place. >I totally appreciate the need. I appreciate the reason. I appreciate the challenges and the desire to solve this in an economical fashion. It doesn't change the fact that it's a 20-foot eyesore on top of a 47 -foot building. So, I have not come up with a way to change that other than figuring out how to recess it . Only other way would be looking at a different elevator that's hydraulic that pushes up from underneath and not an overhead which needs so much over travel. I have never seen a 20-foot tall elevator penthouse. I don't know how to make this any better for them at this point, not without adding a tremendous amount of cost. So, I’m struggling with how we help them resolve this. >This is just an eyesore and I can't see approving it. Again, they have to come up with maybe a different device that might work in this situation. This not going to work. >I understand they are in a pickle. It's an existing elevator. Not that they can rebuild that anywhere they want around the building, but historically throughout architecture and design, you come up with decorative elements to hide the things you don't want to see. Consider some type of a false shell around what they are proposing. Part of the problem is that it's tall and it's skinny. But if it had a shell around it that serves no purpose other than decoratively to make it a little wider so that scale feels a little bit wider and shorter respectively and finish off the shell so it looks like the building. Some kind of glass panels wrapped around it or something so at least it looks like the building instead of just a shaft sticking up. It's just an idea if there's no other way to relocate this elevator. They need to build something to service this elevator shaft. >There's got to be a way to make it blend in. It's not so tall but it doesn't blend in with the building . Regarding my fellow commissioner ’s comment, if I’m reading the drawings correctly, this is a hydraulic plan underneath but there's a requirement by code for four feet above the car when it's at the height of it so a guy doesn't get crushed in there. If the elevator was ten feet, it's still 20 feet. >Just one last comment that came up at the last review, so they are going to upgrade the elevator to get equipment onto the roof but it doesn't land you on the roof. It lands you on a platform that is five steps above the roof, so they are still going to have a problem with people having to carry things on stairs. It seems to me that simple roof mounted equipment hoisted on the end of the parapet, a small crane where they can bring stuff up from the ground to the roof would be solving the problem much more economically for them and wouldn't create an eyesore in the building, so maybe they just go back to square one and think about what is the use case for this in the first place. Just to permanently mount it. It's like a window washer crane, right. That can just lever off the side of building and lift up the side. >That’s a very good point because their argument is they want all these solar panels. Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing. >I want to address a comment regarding the stairs. As we thought that the elevator is the safest and most efficient way to get there. The stairs were unavoidable but five or six stairs is far preferable than going up. It's 19 steeper steps on an access ladder and it's safer when carrying equipment up when you have room to carry that equipment up and down. We would prefer to get this approved of course. It serves a functional purpose. But if rejection is eminent, I would prefer to continue this. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to continue the item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - e.777 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for a new 13-story office/research and development building. (LPC West, applicant and property owner; Gensler, architect) (24 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 12City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1. Application for Commercial Design Review and Special Permits for building height and development under Tier 3/Community Benefits. 2. Environmental Review - Proposed Finding: The project does not require further review under CEQA pursuant to the streamlining provisions contained in Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Consistency with the General Plan). 777 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 777 Airport Blvd - Attachments 777 Airport Blvd - CEQA 15183 Checklist 777 Airport Blvd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Brandon Wang, Mark Hoffman and Benedict Tranel, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The focus of this presentation was on the ground level cafe. I'm one thousand percent behind that. I appreciate you guys doing that. I know that sometimes doesn't pan out economically but it's a great benefit. Consider making the amenity area on the first floor something that was open to the public as with the building tenants. Maybe a cafeteria type place because there will be a lot of foot traffic from the hotel . People are looking for things to do. Otherwise, good job. >Thank you again for the presentation. It has gotten better each time. I appreciate the effort being put into it, especially the effort into bringing down the scale of the building, the incredible effort on the public park in the back and the open space. I recognize there's a lot of money and effort being put into that area as a public amenity and it's great. The cafe piece worked really great. All of that is good. I encourage your amenity programming to consider how food and beverage might benefit your tenants as well. This area doesn't have a lot of places. So your little 1800 square foot cafe will be potentially mobbed. There is still more opportunity in that amenity space for good programming that would help in that area. But otherwise, great job. I’m in support of this project and want to see it go forward. >They've done a great job addressing all our comments, great project and I’m ready to approve it. >It has been really wonderful listening to and working with this group. For them listening to our comments and taking them to heart. I love the design. It's really looking beautiful and can't wait to see it constructed. Thank you very much. I definitely see us moving forward with this project. >It's a really nice project that has come a long way since we first saw it. The overall architecture has really risen to the occasion, no pun intended. It will be a good landmark building and with Topgolf going in across. The cafe leaves more to be desired but we'll have a Topgolf across the street and other amenities going down the road. My little concern is that the cafe, although it sounds nice in that location, it's going to be facing the freeway. It may get a little loud. Does that matter? I don't think so. I would love more Page 13City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes amenity space but I think they've done a nice job here and I look forward to approving it. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. I think Gensler did a great job. >I would agree. Let’s get this thing into engineering so we can save that 32 feet and not have to go to concrete. But to reiterate my point, if you can make more public space, it would be very helpful and beneficial to the city, to the hotel guests and even to the tenants of the building. It's going to be a landmark building and the first things you see when you get off at Anza Boulevard which will be a more popular off-ramp in the coming years. With Topgolf across the street, it will be a good addition to the area . It's a good development. I really like to see this move forward. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the environmental review. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the entitlements application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1353 Columbus Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF 21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1353 Columbus Ave - Staff Report 1353 Columbus Ave - Attachments 1353 Columbus Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item . Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Miranda Clark & Anna Felver, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Matt Reidy, 1349 Columbus Ave: Good Evening. I would like to compliment the team from Thomas James Homes, they are very upfront and had a nice conversation with the neighbors here. My wife and I own the home adjacent to this property. If you look at the house from the street, we are on the left hand side. I just want to note for the record that it is a bit tricky topography on the property where it slopes. It also has some retainage at the rear of the property but there is also a good 7’ down from our property down to the elevation of the lots between us. It has always been a little bit of a slope, probably was put around a hundred years ago when the first homes were built. I just want to bring that to your attention so that when we do fill work and looking at retention walls, we have to be careful about that. Maybe there is a change of slope problem and erosion which could affect our house on that side. I would also like to note that we have a couple of mature trees on the boundary line and to be careful during construction work to preserve it as best as they can. Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 14City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Consider a weather protection, maybe a cantilever or awning at the rear elevation entry door, it looks a little bit exposed. >Provide some ventilation at the attic. Some gable venting could add decoratively to the design. >We typically see plate height at 9’-0” on the first floor and 8”-0” on the second floor. The drawings indicate 9’-1” and 8’-1” respectively. >Fix drafting error on the front elevation where the door and side lite is located. >Overall, it is a good project. I would like to see some clarifications on the materials, specifically the shutters and the decorative foams at the front. I want to hear form my fellow commissioners about their take on the plate heights. I know it is just an inch but if we give an inch here, the next one will be 9’-2”. >The electrical panel looks very odd to me. I see what they are doing, corner boards that build out a shaft for the mechanical, but it just looks very strange. There are other ways to do it. There is plenty of room on that nice long wall. With a 2 x 6 exterior wall, there will be plenty of room. I’d like to see it addressed and dealt in a better fashion. >I am not fully comprehending all of the slope within the drawings. I looked at two different landscape drawings that show different stair configurations. I appreciate the neighbor being transparent about the side to side conditions of the properties. There needs to be a more thorough retaining on the civil drawings and show this because they are asking us to approve it to go over the height limit on a 5’ floor to curb. The design of the house can go down 1’-6” easily. They need to work a little bit on that. The square footage numbers on the plan don ’t match the staff report and the FAR and lot coverage don ’t add up. Please provide clarification there. The front windows, we don ’t really see 8’- 0” windows. All of a sudden, we are seeing them in all of this company ’s projects. It is not typical for homes in Burlingame. I had 7’- 0” windows and I thought they were tall. You need to rethink some of these. The window on the right side of the porch is not scaled correctly. The side lite on the door does not work. We keep pushing all these windows up high underneath the eaves and there will be structural problems with that. Pushing these windows to 8’- 0” in all of these projects is creating a problem. Overall, the project looks pretty good but there are things that we have brought up that should be looked at for the next time when it comes back. >I wanted to reiterate the point my fellow commissioner brought up about the 8’- 0” windows. That is not really working for me. It is not nestled very nicely inside the front porch, it seems very tall underneath that porch and it is no longer relating itself to the front door. In the earlier project, they said they have the 8’- 0” tall door to match the windows. This one does not do either. I would want to see that window pushed down as well as the side lite. It just looks strange that both of them are floating taller than the tall door. I don ’t even know if I like the 8’- 0” tall entry door. That area needs to be re -looked at. One of the definitions of a Cape Cod home is symmetry. On the rear elevation, the windows on the primary bedroom, over the family room windows down below, should be split up or separated a little bit symmetrically over the roof of the covered porch. Something should adjust there to make it balanced. Also consider a weather protection above the rear door if possible. >I don’t understand why the 9’- 1” plate height is allowed and does not trigger a Special Permit. Usually, you see a 9’- 0” plate height and the ceiling becomes 8’- 11”. It is interesting that this is 9’- 1”, I don’t know if this is finished or unfinished. Please clarify, make it really clean and 9’-0” finish and same with the 8’-1” at the second floor. I don ’t see a need for the increased building height. Once you adjust for the grade, you are going to have some height issues to address. Consider looking at that as may be the reason for height request because the drawings were presented as if it is on a flat parcel. I don ’t see some justification for that height. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to place the application 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 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.2316 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc, Page 15City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes applicant and designer; Andy and Monica MacMillian, property owners) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 2316 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2316 Easton Dr - Attachments 2316 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, 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: >There is an area on the site that can accommodate more trees. Please provide a planting plan. >I don’t really like the parking space. There needs to be some clarification on the parking space on how the section through the new driveway will work. It slopes up about 1’- 6”, if not 2’- 0”in the space of that parking spot. Also, please clarify the location of the power pole. It is a lot closer to the curb cut than is shown on the plans. There are opportunities for clarification regarding this curb cut and parking space . It is not a deal breaker but there are unintended consequences coming. Otherwise, I don ’t have any issues with the ADU or the addition, it looks fine. > They have done a really good job on this. It looks very classy. The parking part is a real bummer. I don’t know how it’s all going to work out. It is a very lovely design. When the trees get planted in the front or back it will be even better. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the application on the on Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - c.2105 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for Second Floor Plate Height and Declining Height Envelope for a second story addition to an existing two -story dwelling. (Aaron Avelar, applicant and property owner; OXB Studio, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2105 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2105 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2105 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Page 16City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aaron Avelar, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Martin John Lee, 2103 Carmelita Avenue: The proposal extends beyond the declining height envelope, not by a small amount, but by an enormous amount. More than half of the proposed development encroaches on the declining height plane. The significant departure beyond the declining height envelope results in a significant loss of natural daylight to the adjacent property and an increase in overshadowing. The proposed increased in height will further compound the issue of overshadowing to the neighboring property. There are a significant number of new windows proposed on the second floor addition on the side elevation (five in total). Because the addition extends beyond the declining height plane, this will result in significant increase in overlooking onto the neighboring property . On the rear elevation, the portion of the second floor that extends beyond the declining height envelope has a set of French doors and balcony. These will also result in overlooking into neighboring property. If the proposal is setback within the required declining height envelope, this will not be an issue. All of the above issues are a result of the proposed addition stepping significantly beyond the declining height envelope. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The architecture is really good. The second floor, especially at the back, and roofline looks a lot better. It was really well proportioned. I like that they are saving the house, so I am in favor of this. >I totally echo my fellow commissioner ’s comments. I completely understand the need for the Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope and I totally support that based on the findings. The applicant gave a reasonable response regarding the Special Permit for the second story plate height. In keeping with the architecture of the home, with the applicant mentioning interior details, I can understand why an 8’-6” plate height would certainly be nice to have and would fit, so I am in favor. >I can appreciate the way that the Declining Height Envelope was calculated may reflect the actual site, but it changes the departure point considerably. I would be in favor in looking at something that is not as quite restrictive as that, but this house is pushing dramatically over to the left and is going to tower over that neighbor’s house on the left. The pop out for the bathroom overdoes it. Consider moving the wall further in and not make it lopsided. I like the architecture. The new windows at the second floor are big and will just pound on the left side neighbor. There needs to be more consideration on that. I don ’t see supporting these Variance requests given how much impact it will have on the left side neighbor. >I echo what my fellow commissioner just said. I feel that the left side of the house is towering over the left side neighbor. The property and the street slope upwards. There is a little bit of imbalance with so much of the addition over on the left side and extending way beyond the Declining Height Envelope. I can understand the challenges that they are working with and can accept some penetration of the Declining Height Envelope. I don’t feel that the primary bathroom needs to have the vanity protrude out at the bay window extension. It can be a beautiful and generously laid out bathroom tucked in to reduce the encroachment on the left side. I feel for the neighbors to the left as well and cannot support that much penetration at the Declining Height Envelope, at least at this point. >Similarly, I agree with my fellow commissioners. I very much appreciate the reuse and the respect of the home, its architecture and its history. I do think there is room to pull the addition in a bit because it will definitely be a burden more than the usual. Good job so far but more can be done to help the issue. >I agree with the recent comments. It is a nice looking addition but it is a little lopsided on the left side . Suggests to show a different point of departure if the lot did not slope to help bolster the argument for the Declining Height Envelope. We all get it that the property slopes at the back, but if this is shown to us as if it is a flat lot, it might be presented to us that it would be acceptable. The left side needs to be revisited a bit. >I agree, that left side needs to be looked at. Otherwise, it is a nice project. They have tied it in well with the existing home. Page 17City of Burlingame November 14, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Following up on the declining height envelope suggestion, an interesting way to look at it more objectively would be an average of the front and the rear corners on the existing building in that driveway. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reported that at the November 7th City Council meeting, the Building Reach Code was introduced and will go forward. There were no amendments proposed, so the ordinance will go forward for adoption in the next council meeting. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda items were proposed. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:44 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 14, 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 November 14, 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 28, 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 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 28, 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 November 21, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 135-2022 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 135-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the November 28, 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 November 28, 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 November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 851 9213 0685 Passcode: 705870 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 851 9213 0685 Passcode: 705870 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no meeting 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 There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.3080 Arguello Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jack Tam, Team 7 International, architect; Hin Fang Tsang, property owner) (78 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 2City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3080 Arguello Dr - Staff Report 3080 Arguello Dr - Attachments 3080 Arguello Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with the neighbor at 1618 Escalante Way and was able to view the story poles from his property. Commissioner Tse noted that she spoke to the neighbor by phone and met with her husband at the same Escalante Way address, located on the left hand side of this subject property. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Andrew Tang, designer and Hin Tsang, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >David Menke, no address provided: I just heard that an additional structure will be built on that lot . Can you elaborate how big that will be and how many people will be living in there? Is it a pool house or an accessory unit? (Kolokihakaufisi: Clarified that the detached structure is a storage shed.) >Bob (last name not provided), 3067 Arguello Drive: I am the homeowner across the street. They have paid good attention to the April Planning Commission criticisms. Unlike my own situation when 3051 Arguello Drive was approved, it does block a bedroom view to the bay even though there is a tree . This is a much finer design and they paid attention to the details. Since I look at it across the street from my living room window, I would not be opposed, but I will support them going forward with the project. >Public comment sent via email by Catherine and Andrew Wong, 1618 Escalante Way: We, the owners and occupants of 1618 Escalante Way, oppose the revised proposal to add a second floor. As shared in the April 2022 public hearing regarding 3080 Arguello Drive, our primary concerns have been the following:1) The impact to our existing view of bay waters, Mount Diablo /East Bay, airplane descent path, and the local Burlingame landscape. 2) The loss of privacy. 3) The inability for us to adapt to the changes given that we completed a 3-year renovation in 2020. With the erection of story poles on 11/12/22, we can now confirm that the addition of a second floor will in fact impact all of the above. With our renovation, we made major changes to the layout in order to create a family space centered around the back half of the house and to maximize enjoyment of the view. We added two large sets of floor-to-ceiling sliding doors /windows, and enlarged all other east -facing windows. To ensure privacy while preserving the view, we replaced the previous three foot fence between our property and 3080 Arguello with a six -foot metal fence. 3080 Arguellos' proposed second story looms well above the new fence. It is obtrusive from every east -facing window and door in our home -- dining room, kitchen, family room, office and bedroom. Furthermore, its large profile is highly visible from the sidewalk in front of our property. Lastly, we would like to confirm that between the April 2022 public hearing and now, 3080 Arguello has not reached out to communicate with us regarding their plans for remodel. Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns regarding obstruction of view, loss of privacy, obtrusiveness and communication. >Public comment sent via email by Manho and Sha Lee Yeung, 3072 Arguello Drive: We have been residents in Burlingame and have lived at 3072 Arguello Drive for more than 30 years. We support the proposed project on 3080 Arguello Drive to remodel the existing first floor and to add a second floor. We attended an informational meeting hosted by Mr. and Mrs. Tsang last year. We have also noticed the story poles recently installed there. We understand the proposed project has been design to fit with our existing neighborhood which we appreciate. We also understand the proposed second floor addition is at the lower back section of the existing property to reduce visual impacts and view blockage. We support the proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Page 3City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I was able to get into Andrew ’s house today and view the story poles from the family room, basically their living area. I appreciate all the work with the applicants but it absolutely is blocking the view that I saw of the bay and Mt. Diablo. I appreciate the changes in the design but I can ’t support the project simply based on the view blockage that I saw. If the applicant does choose to go forward with a similar project, I would also encourage them to look at the windows because the proposed aluminum windows would be a non-starter in my opinion. >The applicant has done a nice job of keeping a very low profile addition, only a matter of a few feet higher than the current one story home. It is unfortunate that they were not able to meet with the neighbor on Escalante Way. If that neighbor is listening to this meeting, if there ’s any future discussions about this project, it would behoove you to allow the 3080 Arguello Drive applicants to come and see how the views may be impact your home. After looking at the house today with the story poles in the distance, I too can see that there is a considerable amount of view blockage on the main floor. It is their views of Mt. Diablo in the distance that is now completely blocked and all they can see is sky if the second story is added on, that is in their family room space. Upstairs on the bedroom level of the house, one bedroom is being used as a home office and most of the water view is blocked. There is still some distant view remaining of the East Bay view, but a good amount of it is blocked horizontally. The other room, which is the current primary bedroom also serving somewhat as a home office, seems to have escaped the majority of any view blockage, just a tiny bit in the corner and I don ’t think that is an issue . The real issue is the communication between these two parties, not helping each other out to come up with a reasonable solution to allow one to add on to their house in a way that could minimize view blockage for the neighbor. I know this is not in our purview, but from the letter sent by the neighbor, there is some tree pruning issues brought up between the two properties. Encourage the applicant and neighbor to work together to find a reasonable solution. But as currently proposed, I cannot support the project as presented. >I was really hoping that when we did see the story poles it wouldn ’t be a significant view blockage as it is. Even not going in, just standing at Escalante Way looking through their side yard, all I saw was view blockage. To me, that is the big one from the living spaces right over the top of the fence, that is all gone. I don’t see that this particular solution addresses the view issues here for this particular location. I appreciate the work that was done on the design, it looks a lot better and a lot more cohesive than it did back in April. I also can appreciate that the second floor addition is as far away from the Escalante Way neighbor as possible. But that doesn ’t change the fact that it is about six feet taller than the top of the fence and making that view go away. A potential better solution would be a split -story because you can lower the right side of the house and almost keep the same roof height, but it is a considerably bigger project than you intended on doing. I’m not sure I see a solution in being able to add a second story without impacting the views given the way it works right now. Again, I appreciate the effort but I don ’t see us amenable to support the Hillside Area Construction Permit request. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The new windows are an issue for me, they should be revisited. Visiting the project site and looking at the story poles, I could not see allowing this project to move forward. >Visiting the project site and looking on Google maps, it seems that the Escalante Way corner property has always been a two story home although remodeled. It looks to me that homes that were lining back by the eucalyptus trees, where no homes were behind them or on a corner, have minimal chances of view blockage compared with most of the ones located mid -block. We didn’t ever make a rule about it. Everybody is allowed to do a second story, but I think that is what happened in that location so I do understand the issue with the home on the corner and blocked views. The design is well done besides the window issue. It looks nice on its own. Wondering if it can make a difference if the addition remains the same but pulled down a foot or a foot and a half. Otherwise, I do agree that it is an issue as it is currently proposed. >The issue of the view blockage was there to begin with. Wish the applicant spent more time with the neighbor on that. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 4City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.2105 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for second floor plate height and declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing two -story dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Aaron Avelar, applicant and property owner; OXB Studio, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2105 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2105 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2105 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Aaron Avelar, applicant and property owner, and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment submitted by Gayle Etienne, 2115 Carmelita Avenue: The plans we reviewed shows modifications that enhance our neighborhood. They appear to be within the property lines. Jim and I are on board with the changes submitted. >Liz Schenk, no address provided: I live across the creek from the applicant and I am concerned that it is going to impose on my privacy. This house already extends out over the creek which concerns me because he can look right over my yard. If he extends, it ’s going to be quite intrusive I believe. My second concern is, with this project he already throws a lot of trash in the creek and I am concerned that there will be more trash in the creek. >Martin Lee, 2103 Carmelita Avenue: I live directly next to the property. I was present during the last commission hearing and I found out about the application at the last minute. The applicant didn ’t bother to contact me in person but I found out about it by chance. It was great to hear clear directions from the commission at the last meeting and the recurring comment about “punching down”, which is exactly my concern. I am an architect, I deal with the codes and controls everyday and we try to work within those controls. On some occasion instead of saving, with good reasons, justification and considerations, sometimes these things can be approved. Unfortunately, this development is significantly beyond the height control. Over half of the new proposal is exceeding the height control. My greatest concern, by trying to show roughly with the drawings I sent to the commission, with the development there will be the loss of light and overshadowing onto the side of my house. If you look from the elevation on Carmelita Avenue, my house is on the left hand side, the sun is on the right and during the day the development causes overshadowing. I have shown a possible solution of decreasing the side about five to six feet which reduces the amount of overshadowing and it does not undermine the integrity of the internal planning. I was trying to be as reasonable as possible. If I was being unreasonable. I would try to shove it up to the other side on the right hand side so all of the overshadowing will happen onto the roof. There was clear direction from the commission on the “punching down.” I am disappointed that very little has changed, almost no difference in the proposal. I would request a setback of five to six feet, I ’ve shown that this can easily be done to maintain some of the light and to reduce overshadowing. I would also request that the side windows be on a higher level and be translucent to maintain privacy. Thank you so much for your time. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the project; the architecture was well done. The homeowner is well within his rights to tear this house down and build a brand new house. I don ’t think that would be a better solution. I do see that changes were made. I am inclined to approve it. >I appreciate the pulling back of the pop -out, that was really the hardest part of the proposed design . I also can appreciate the showing of the declining height relative to the front and rear corners of the house which I believe emulates what we have in mind about the declining height envelope if we were on a flat lot situation. In most cases, we would probably approve a house that has its driveway and the second story that far back from the property line. When you consider what the declining height envelope on a flat lot looks like, this does not seem that egregious. I do however sympathize with the neighbor next door, now it really becomes a two -story wall. We are missing a bit of articulation because we ’ve asked him to push back the pop -out. So now we are back to more of a large flat wall. I can sympathize that the windows may be placed higher to provide some privacy, but that does not change the shading issue. The other windows in the front and the existing 80's renovation don ’t necessarily fit. If you are going to put some money on the roof and try to bring back that front elevation, it might be another area to consider although it is not a deal breaker. I’m struggling a little bit with it because I do sympathize with the neighbor, but it doesn ’t seem like it is overpowering like it did previously when it was definitely popping out over the driveway. >I like the project and that they made some adjustments. I like that they are keeping the charm of the home and trying to make it better than scraping it and starting new. I could see approving this project. >I appreciate that the previously proposed bump -out has been retracted. I agree with my fellow commissioner that the left wall was left very plain, solid and tall. I feel for the neighbor to the left. I like what the neighbor had proposed. I don ’t know if the applicant was able to review the proposed setting back of the upper floor on the left side of the house to provide some articulation to the left wall to reduce the overwhelming massing facing that neighbor. I feel that the bedroom and the bathroom are still generously sized. Obviously, the applicant is within their rights to that or the FAR limitations and such, but it would be something worth considering to aid in the design of that left wall a little bit with the neighbor. I also do appreciate that the applicant is trying to work with an existing home, trying to preserve the character of it and along the way improving it as well. I am also stuck in the middle. I don ’t fully support it as proposed. I would like to see a little bit of improvement on that left wall. >On the one hand, I agree with the comment that when we get new projects they could very well be in the declining height envelope, they encroach a lot and we usually let it go because it is the style of the house. Here, we have someone who is trying to save what they have which is very cool. I do see that the driveway is narrow. I think it is a large addition. Wondering if an additional pull back is possible. You don’t have to do what the neighbor has proposed, but there as some interesting ideas in there to consider. Even if it is not pulled back as much it may help with the articulation. I am also having some problems with the lack of articulation and size of that wall. >I really like this project. I am a big fan of trying to save our old structures in Burlingame. It is a give and take that we have to play here, otherwise we are just forcing people to tear down homes. I don ’t think that is a good direction. If you are going to have an issue on the left side wall, you have to have an issue on the wall on the other side. That is a two -story wall on a very narrow driveway. We are talking about the small side on the neighbor at 2103 Carmelita Avenue, but we have the same issue on the other side. That part of the house obviously is not being touched which is why we are not addressing it. I like what they have done to pull back the bump out. I certainly sympathize with the next door neighbor, but I don’t think it is a better alternative for the neighborhood to tear it down and potentially get a much more underwhelming house. I am inclined to approve the project. They have done a nice job and it fits the neighborhood well. >I would agree. It is a good looking addition to the house. We typically see flat walls on the driveway side where you try to break it down with a belly band or some window sidings. Regarding the window in the bathroom between the two sinks, you might find a window not to your liking. I'd encourage you to put a higher window, maybe about six feet in height, and make it a longer, horizontal window. I know you want to get light in, but I am looking at that wall and seeing a long mirror or something. The window in that spot will be in a bad place, however it goes along with the rest of the windows in the wall. That can easily come back as an FYI if it is something of interest. I am glad that you were able to do the declining Page 6City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes height envelop projection from the street level because that was the problem I had with how much was going on with the declining height envelope in the original application. The point of departure was very low and not realistic to what the house will look like from the street and that is mainly our concern. I can support the project as well. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Chris Spaulding, architect; Michael Liu, property owner and applicant) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 2517 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2517 Easton Dr - Attachments 2517 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Liu, property owner, represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This project is straightforward; it is beautifully designed. >The second floor windows at the proposed Rear (East) Elevation are somewhat big and out of proportion. Otherwise it is a nice looking project. >I would agree. The addition blends in well and it is not intruding on anyone ’s privacy. The project is well done. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.732 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a second story balcony and declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer and applicant; Shabana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Page 7City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 732 Vernon Way - Staff Report 732 Vernon Way - Attachments 732 Vernon Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide a planting irrigation plan to avoid potential damage to the balcony. >Clean up drafting errors. Make sure all windows match and are more cohesive between the first and second floor. >Clarify intention for the garage door, existing to remain or proposed new. Consider adding an arrow on the address for the ADU if the Fire Department allows the existing garage door to remain. >Suggest looking at alternatives or adding decorative pieces for the thin post on the front porch to make it a little bit more attractive. >Make sure that the plants in the planter on the second floor deck are raised and you have a place for the water to go. Make an effort to channel it for a better solution. The plants are a great idea. I agree with my fellow commissioner to ensure that they are maintained. It is a good solution to provide some privacy. I would like to see this go forward. >Work with staff on the JADU and update the front porch. >For this house, the look of the garage door is really important. Suggests doing a different type of door that is something similar to the existing that will function and work for the Fire Department. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - c.1116 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and Special Permit for a second story balcony. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Sanjiv and Deepti Sinha, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1116 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report 1116 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1116 Rosedale Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she is the architect for the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Page 8City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >Norm Bennett, 1112 Rosedale Avenue: I am the next door neighbor. I just want to let you know that my wife and I support the project. Deepti and their family need the room. They worked really hard to come up with a really good design. I just want to add my support. >Public comment sent via email by Ramon Durham: We are the resident owners of 1113 Hamilton Lane, Burlingame, a single story dwelling with existing solar panels adjoining the dwelling at 1116 Rosedale Avenue. We appreciate the applicant ’s desire to add space to their home. We wanted to mention a couple of concerns regarding the changes to the rear, right side of the property where the shed currently exists. One: The second story balcony on the rear, right side of the home will offer a direct view into the bedroom of our child, dining areas, and backyard. This is a major privacy concern for us. Two: It looks like the right, rear side of the second story projects further out from the rest of the second story along with the larger windows. Given the direction of sunlight, we request the Planning Commission and the applicant to consider the larger windows and the projection view to be a part of this on our single story dwelling. Thank you for your time and we look forward to a constructive discussion. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I can appreciate the comments from the neighbor at the rear. In looking at Google Earth, I am not sure which one is which. I would agree that the trees that might be replaced in the area of the shed might provide some shading against that balcony and the upper windows. Suggest looking at the rear fence area again and a little bit more coordination with the rear neighbor. Reach out to the neighbor, show them where the trees will be located, and have that discussion. I can appreciate the neighbor not wanting this property to be looking over their yard and the balcony does that. The windows are on the larger side at the rear; the window at the stairwell is quite large. I know people want to have more light to come into the stairwell, but that is a huge window looking to the side and mainly looking at the neighbor . Similarly, on the other side, a couple of windows could be 5 feet high in the primary bedroom instead of being lower windows looking at the side. Some work with the neighbors on the windows and on the back would make this a great project. Otherwise, the finishes and everything look good. I could see it going forward. >I like the project overall, but I was struck when I visited the site that it is a neighborhood of single story homes. I am not saying to not do a second story, there are some that exist, but this one is going to tower above the rest. In looking at the front elevation, consider reworking the roof. The upper roof of the front elevation looks so big and the renderings didn ’t help. The plate heights are fine, but the roof needs some modification to try to bring it down. The front door looks tall and the garage door looks tall and skinny, maybe that is what ’s giving me this vertical idea of it. Maybe in 15 -20 years they are all going to be two story houses and it won ’t seem so big, but right now with all those other single story homes, I am afraid what this might look like sitting in that neighborhood all by itself. >I had the same exact perception when I saw the front elevation. It almost looks like the first floor at the front door is being squashed by the weight of the upper floor. I do think that the size of the roof may be compounding that. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Recused:Tse1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. Page 9City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1327 Benito Ave - FYI Memorandum 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners expressed concerns with the as-built changes noted in the FYI Memorandum. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS > Commissioner Comaroto suggested that in the future the Commission discuss exterior lighting and concerns with brightness levels. >Commissioner Schmid suggested that in the future the Commission discuss the process for ensuring that design review projects are built as approved, and how to address projects that deviate from the approved design. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 28, 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 November 28, 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 December 8, 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 10City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 5, 2022 Item No. 7a TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 FROM: Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review and adopt the proposed schedule of Planning Commission meetings for 2023. The Commission's adopted Rules of Procedure require that before the beginning of each calendar year, the Commission shall adopt an annual calendar of meetings for the coming year. Background: The attached calendar shows the proposed schedule of Planning Commission meetings for 2023. Please note that one meeting will fall on a Tuesday, that being on October 10th after the Indigenous Peoples’ Day holiday. Also, please note that Thanksgiving Day falls on Thursday, November 24th, with a Planning Commission meeting scheduled on Monday, November 27th. In years past, it has been customary for the Planning Commission to cancel its second meeting in December (December 26th). In addition, in order to provide flexibility for summer schedules, the second meeting in July (July 2 4th) has also been canceled. These cancellations are reflected in the attached calendar. The City Council will be adopting its calendar for 2023 at their meeting on December 19, 2022; a draft is attached for your review. The joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting has been scheduled on Saturday, April 22nd at 9:00 a.m. (location yet to be determined). The Commissioner's Dinner has been tentatively scheduled on Friday, March 10th (location to be determined). Ruben Hurin Planning Manager Attachments: Proposed 2023 Planning Commission Schedule Draft 2023 City Council Calendar City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P (650) 558-7250 www.burlingame.org CITY OF BURLINGAME 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE REGULAR MEETINGS JOINT MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES January 9 January 23 February 13 February 27 March 13 Commissioner's Dinner Friday, March 10, 2023 (tentative) March 27 April 10 April 24 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Saturday, April 22, 2023 – 9:00 a.m. May 8 May 22 June 12 June 26 July 10 Second meeting in July is canceled. August 14 August 28 September 11 September 25 October 10 (Tuesday) October 9, 2023 is Indigenous Peoples’ Day October 23 November 13 November 27 December 11 Second meeting in December is canceled. January 8, 2024 City of Burlingame Community Development Department 501 Primrose Road P (650) 558-7250 www.burlingame.org Planning Commission Submittal Requirements 1. Completed applications with signatures and properly dimensioned plans may be submitted at any time. Please refer to submittal checklist for details which must be included on plans. 2. Within thirty (30) days of the date an application is submitted, the assigned Planner will contact the applicant and provide planning comments on the submitted plans as well as preliminary comments from other departments. Any required revisions to the plans will be noted in the comments. The applicant will be requested to submit ten sets of revised and complete plans to the Planning Division. 3. Those comments on plans from Planning, Building, Fire, Parks, Engineering and Stormwater Division staff appropriate to planning review must also be addressed in the resubmittal to the Planning Division in order to finalize a submittal. Planning staff assigned to the project will assist in determining what is needed. A project cannot move to the waiting list to be put on an agenda until it is determined to be complete by the planner assigned. 4. When a submittal is deemed complete by the Planning Division, the project will be placed on a waiting list for the next available Planning Commission agenda for study. In order to be placed on the waiting list for the agenda, complete submittals must be received by the Planning Division no later than 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 days before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Since the number of slots on the agenda is limited, complete applications will be placed on that agenda based on the order in which they are received and determined to be complete. Any complete submittals remaining when an agenda is full will be assigned to the next agenda on which there is space. 5. If the Planning Commission requests changes to the plans at the study meeting, plans must be submitted to the Planning Department by 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 12 days before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, in order to be placed on the agenda for the following meeting. If the revised plans are not submitted by that time, the item will be scheduled for the next agenda on which there is space based on when the revised plans are submitted. 6. Some minor homeowner requests (excluding fence exceptions or design review) may be scheduled for an Action hearing date without first going to a study meeting. Check with staff to see if this applies. 7. For items not subject to public hearing to be placed on the Commissions "FYI" calendar (minor revisions to previously approved applications as determined by staff), plans must be submitted to the Planning Division by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, 10 days before the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting. 8. Planning Commission reserves the right to postpone the action on any item upon concluding additional information is required to make a decision. 9. Action on a project is not final until 10 days after the Planning Commission’s action. This is called the appeal period. Anyone may appeal a project. If appealed, City Council will set the project for their next available meeting. Action on a project is only final after the end of the appeal period or, if the project is appealed, the City Council vote. 10. Separate application must be made to the Building Department prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Planning Commission approval does not constitute issuance of a Building Permit. 2023 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR City Council meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month. When Monday is a holiday, the meeting is usually held on Tuesday or Wednesday. Study meetings are held as scheduled. Meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. Meetings are live online on the City’s website at www.burlingame.org. For more information, please view the City’s website or call the City Clerk at 650-558-7203. REGULAR MEETINGS Monday, January 2 (canceled) Tuesday, January 17 Monday, February 6 Tuesday, February 21 Monday, March 6 Monday, March 20 Monday, April 3 Monday, April 10 Monday, May 1 Monday, May 15 Monday, June 5 Tuesday, June 20 Monday, July 3 Monday, July 17 (canceled) Monday, August 7 (canceled) Monday, August 21 Tuesday, September 5 Monday, September 18 Monday, October 2 Monday, October 16 Monday, November 6 Monday, November 20 Monday, December 4 Monday, December 18 STUDY MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES Saturday, January 28 2022/23 Goals Session, 9:00 a.m. Friday March 10 Commissioners Dinner (tentative) Wednesday, March 15 Saturday, April 22 Wednesday, May 3 Wednesday, May 10 Wednesday, December 6 2022-23 Mid-Year Budget Session 6:30 p.m. Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting 9:00 a.m. City Attorney’s Annual Performance Evaluation, 6:00 p.m. 2023-24 Budget Study Session, 6:30 p.m. City Manager’s Annual Performance Evaluation, 6:00 p.m. City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2517 Easton Drive Meeting Date: November 28, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Property Owner and Applicant: Michael Liu APN: 027-195-070 Architect: Chris Spaulding Lot Area: 13,404 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing two-story, single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The site also contains an existing detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The project proposes a first and second story addition at the rear of the main dwelling which would increase the floor area from 3,566 SF (0.27 FAR) to 3,726 SF (0.28 FAR) where 5,380 SF (0.40 FAR) is the maximum allowed. There are three bedrooms in the existing house and with this application, there is no change in the number of bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required on -site. One covered parking space is provided in the attached garage (10’-1” x 20’-3” clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(b)). 2517 Easton Drive Lot Area: 13,404 SF Plans date stamped: November 7, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-4” 16’-4” 1 no change no change 15’-0” 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 3’-6” 2 4’-8” 3 no change no change 6'-0” 6'-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 135’-9 ¾” 135’-9 ¾” 128’-1” (to addition) 131’-10½” (to addition) 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,852 SF 21% 2,912 SF 22% 5,362 SF 40% FAR: 3,566 SF 0.27 FAR 3,726 SF 0.28 FAR 5,389 SF 4 0.40 FAR 1 Existing nonconforming front setback to second story measuring 16’-4” where 20’-0” is required. 2 Existing, nonconforming left side setback measuring 3’-4” where 6’-0” is required. 3 Existing, nonconforming right side setback measuring 4’-8” where 6’-0” is required. 4 (0.32 x 13,404 SF) + 1,100 SF = 5,389 SF (0.40 FAR). Item No. 7b Consent Calendar Design Review 2517 Easton Drive -2- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED # of bedrooms: 3 no change --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (10’-1” x 20’-3”) 1 uncovered (9’x18’) no change 1 covered (10’ x 18’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 22’-10” no change 30’-0” Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-4” 8’-4” 8’-4” 8’-4” 5 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: (E) Encroachment on right side complies C.S. 25.10.055 5 Proposed second floor plate height to match existing plate height (8’-4”). No Special Permit required for additions that match an existing plate height up to 8’-6”. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows • Doors: wood front entry door, wood garage door • Siding: stucco • Roof: clay tile roofing • Other: metal railing Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 28, 2022, the Commission voted to place this item on the Consent Calendar (see attached November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). Vice-Chair Pfaff commented that the second floor windows at the proposed Rear (East) Elevation are somewhat big and out of proportion , but that it should not hold up the project. There were no changes made to these windows. 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 o f 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 addressin g 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 Design Review 2517 Easton Drive -3- 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 adeq uate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed exterior improvements enhance the existing architecture; that the massing o f the addition blends in with the design of the existing house in that the building envelope, plate heights, and roof configuration matches the existing house , and that architectural details , such as stucco exterior, clay tile roofing, and aluminum clad wood-frame windows are compatible with the character of the existing dwelling and with the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed developme nt as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, 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. 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 November 7, 2022, sheets A1 through A6; 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; Design Review 2517 Easton Drive -4- 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planni ng Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 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 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 sha ll be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 11. 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. Michelle Markiewicz Associate Planner c. Chris Spaulding, architect Michael Liu, property owner and applicant Attachments: November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 28, 2022 a.2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Chris Spaulding, architect; Michael Liu, property owner and applicant) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 2517 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2517 Easton Dr - Attachments 2517 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Liu, property owner, represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This project is straightforward; it is beautifully designed. >The second floor windows at the proposed Rear (East) Elevation are somewhat big and out of proportion. Otherwise it is a nice looking project. >I would agree. The addition blends in well and it is not intruding on anyone ’s privacy. The project is well done. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 1City of Burlingame PLANNING APPLICATION GSM ffi i., ru $TY * EVffi tfi PtuI f; N T m E p& RT M r f{ T*P tA ru fxi I N G S lVlS 8* N 501 PRIMROSE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, BURLINGAME, CA 94010.3997 TEL: 650.558.7250 | FAX: 650.696.3790 | E-MAIL: PLANNINGDEPT@BURLINGAME.ORG. *!.* =-li-i - $*= -t ?" a' ASSESSOR',S PARCEL # (APN)ZONING PROJECT DESCRIPTION z,aF =E,oIl.z. t.-(Jluao*,& il il $r $; :il;; [rL ru,l Ge" -7 51- 7a iY' -FOR PROJECT REFUNDS* - Please provide an address to t ADDRESS z"o F =tol! =F2 cJo-o- PHONE PHONE E.MAIL M,t lte C-,Vta1 {a q1 #-- {>V-;f i4 BURLINGAME BUSINESS LICENSE f a*c,l--b-A @Thv;l fv^h , n'(t ha M i rlra u fl. -LLt;^es (7 €ur{-" DP HruuE AppRqsE c :Et,u IIJ23o lJ-c)b el!IL I HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN HEREIN IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF\ 6 DATE I AM AWARE OF THE PROPOSED APPLICATION AND HEREBY AUTHORIZE THE ABOVE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION/DIVISION. rd it $t L bg l>'z DATE <,,{ -Tt TI-a,mozr - z,o u.lvt3 l&u- F an APPLICATION TYPE EI ACCESSORY DWELL|NG UN|T (ADU) El M|NOR MOD|F|CAT|ON E specrRl prRMrT (sP) E VARIANCE MR) E coruorrroruRl usE PERMIT (cuP) tr I orsroru REVTEW (DSR) tr gf xrlusror AREA coNSTRUcloN pERMtT E WIRELESS FENCE EXCEPTION OTHER: DATE REGEIVEO: 25t? ?^a<"To-ut DP ffi r-{;i;-!:]_-5+;-ji:+ralGEjG li#i&ilffiffi Ii $r@*re*re--@@!!:Eir5p.3@.rets n, lr $, AUTHORTZATTON Tg REPRODUCE pl_ANS I HEREBY GRANT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THE AUTHORITY TO REPRODUCE UPON REQUEST AND/OR POST PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICAIION ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AS PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS AND WAIVE ANY CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY ARISING ouT oF oR RELATED T0 sucH ACTION _A!tfu,: . {tNlilALS oF ARcHtrEcT/DEstGNER) _."'sIlsMP.s- Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling at 2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, Michael Liu, property owner, APN: 027-195-070; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a ll 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 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review 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 12th day of December, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 2517 Easton Drive Effective December 22, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 7, 2022, sheets A1 through A6; 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 th is 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 stru ctures 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 s ets 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 project archit ect 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 EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 2517 Easton Drive Effective December 22, 2022 Page 2 certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 11. 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. 2517 Easton Drive 300’ noticing APN: 027-195-070 IEASTON DRIVE (60' WIDE)DESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22A1PROJECT DESCRIPTION:·REMODEL & ADDITION TO [E] 2-STORY HOUSE·ENLARGED SUNROOM ON 2ND FLOOR·NO TREE WILL BE REMOVEDPROJECT ADDRESS:2517 EASTON DR, BURLINGAME CA 94010PROJECT OWNER: TIFFANY & MICHAEL LIUAPN: 027-159-070ZONING: R-1TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-BBUILDING OCCUPANCY: R-3 / ULOT SIZE: 13,404 SQ. FT. [ 0.31 ACRE ]ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA:[ 0.32 x 13,404 ] + 1,100 SQ.FT.= 5,389 [INCL. GARAGE]BUILDING AREA[E] MAIN FLR [INCL. GARAGE]1,774±[E] AREA OVER 12' HIGH 122MAIN FLR ADDITION 77[E] UPPER FLR 873 ± UPPER FLR ADDITION 83TOTAL2,929 [E] COVERED PORCH 14 ±[E] A.D.U.1,006TOTAL FLOOR AREA: 2,803+14+1006 = 3,823REMODELED FLOOR AREA = 534 SQ.FT.TOTAL ADDITION AREA = 160 SQ.FT.PROPOSED [N] DECK = 470 SQ.FT.ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE:40% x 13,404 = 5,362 SQ.FT.LOT COVERAGEMAIN HOUSE 1,865 ±ADU 1,006[N] DECK OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE 470TOTAL 3,341 ±P R O J E C T D A T AV I C I N I T Y M A PExisting drainage pattern to remain. Direct flowfrom new addition into rear landscaped areas.No grading required except for foundation /crawlspace excavations & finish shaping for properdrainage.Final grades to slope 5% for 10' from structuresDownspouts flow to discharge across splashblocks into landscaped areas.Water shall not be allowed to pond adjacent tofoundations.GRADING & DRAINAGE NOTESThe contractor shall furnish all material, labor, scaffolding,utensils, and apparatus required for the work shown onthese plans and pay for the full freightage cartage, taxes,and handling of material associated with the work.All work shall comply and conform to all codes andregulations, including the 2019 CBC, CMC, CPC, CEC,CRC, & CAL Green, & 2019 California Energyrequirements, and all local, state and federal requirements,codes and regulations, unless otherwise noted.Contractor shall be solely responsible for job and worksitesafety.All work is to be performed in accordance with these plansand specifications and to the satisfaction of the owner.Bidders shall visit the site and familiarize themselves withall existing conditions, and be prepared to carry out thework within the existing limitations.Verify all dimensions in the field, written dimensions haveprecedence over scaled dimensions. Any discrepanciesbetween drawings and/or specifications and actualconditions shall be brought to the attention of thearchitect for immediate clarification prior to proceedingwith the work.Change orders shall be in writing.Substitutions will be considered, but do not substitutematerials, equipment, or methods without specificadvanced approval by the architect.Contractor shall notify the architect of all modifications todrawing by the building department and of all changesrequested by the inspector.Follow manufacturer's instructions carefully. Manufacturer'soperating instructions and guarantees shall be given tothe owner at the end of the job.All features of construction not fully shown shall be of thesame type and character as that shown for similarconditions. For special conditions or discrepancies,notify the architect before bidding or proceeding withwork.All material shall be of the best of their respective kinds,new, and subject to the approval of the owner. All work isto be performed in the best manner by skilled workmen.It is the responsibility of the contractor & sub-contractorsto notify the architect and/or engineer of anydiscrepancies, inconsistencies, errors or omissions in theplans & specifications which might affect the work, prior toproceeding with the work.G E N E R A L N O T E SContractor to install straw waddles along downhill sideof work area (as shown on Site Plan).Contractor shall be responsible that no mud or muddywater leaves the property.CONSTRUCTION-PHASESTORM-WATER MANAGEMENTB U I L D I N G D I V I S I O N N O T E S1.Project shall comply with the 2019 CALIFORNIABUILDING CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE(where applicable), 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICALCODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, AND2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, 2019 ENERGYCODE including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance1889.2.As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 (2009) requiresnon-compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced bywater-conserving plumbing fixtures when a property isundergoing alterations or improvements. This law appliesto all residential and commercial properties built prior toJanuary 1, 1994.3.Any hidden conditions that require work to be performedbeyond the scope of the building permit issued for theseplans may require further city approvals including reviewby the planning commission. The building owner, projectdesigner, and/or contractor must submit a revision tothe city for any work not graphically illustrated on thejob copy of the plans prior to performing the work.4.Grading permit, if required, will be obtained from theDepartment of Public Works.5.Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes musthave at least one window or door that complies with theegress requirements.6.Finished headroom height for each room on the secondfloor complies with 2013 CRC SECTION 305.1.7.No person shall erect (including excavation and grading),demolish, alter or repair any building or structure otherthan between the following hours except in the case ofurgent necessity in the interest of of public health andsafety, and then only with prior written approval from theBuilding Official, which approval shall be granted for aperiod not to exceed three days. No work on Sundaysand Holidays. Holidays are:-First day of January-Third Monday of February-Last Monday of May-Fourth day of July-First Monday of September-Eleventh day of November-Fourth Thursday in November-Twenty-fifth day of DecemberIf the first day of January, fourth day of July, the eleventhday of November or the twenty-fifth day of Decemberfalls upon a Sunday, the following Monday is a holiday.CONSTRUCTION HOURS per city of Burlingame MunicipalCode 18.07.110Monday through Friday8 AM to 7 PMSaturdays9 AM to 6 PMStormwater requirements are required to beimplemented at stand-alone single family homeprojects that create /or replace 2,500 sq.ft. ormore of impervious surface. These requirementsare in addition to any city requirements.1.Any project in the city, regardless of size,shall comply with city's NPDES (storm water)permit to prevent storm water pollutionfrom construction activities.2.Best Management Practices (BMPS)requirements apply on any projects usingarchitectural copper.3.Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.4.Direct roof runoff from driveways and/oruncovered parking lots onto vegetatedareas.5.Minimize land disturbances and imperioussurfaces (especially parking lots)6.Landscaping6.1.1.Retain existing vegetation aspracticable.6.1.2.Select diverse species appropriateto the site. include plants that arepest and/or disease-resistant,drough-tolerant, and/or attractbeneficial insects.6.1.3.Minimize use of pesticides andquick-release fertilizers.6.1.4.Use efficient irrigation system;design to minimize runoff.7.Best Management Practice (BMP):7.12.Attach the San Mateo countywidewater pollution preventionprogram's construction BMP plansheet to project plans and requirecontractor to implement theapplicable BMP's on the plan sheet.7.13.Use sediment controls or filtrationto remove sediment whende-watering and obtain allnecessary permits.7.14.Trap sediment on-site , usingBMPS such as sediment basins ortraps, earthen dikes or berms, siltfences, check dams, soil blanketsor mats, covers for soil stockpiles, etc.7.15.Protect adjacent properties andundisturbed areas fromconstruction impacts usingvegetative buffer strips, sedimentbarriers or filters, dikes, mulchingor other measures as appropriate.7.16.Limit construction access routesand stabilize designated accesspoints.7.17.No cleaning, fueling, or maintainingvehicles on-site, except in adesignated area where wash-wateris contained and treated.7.18.Store, handle, and dispose ofconstruction materials/wasteproperty to prevent contact withstorm water.7.19.Contractor shall train and provideinstruction to allemployees/subcontractos re:construction BMPS.7.20.Control and prevent the dischargeof all potential pollutant, includingpavement cutting wastes, paints,concrete, petroleum products,chemical, wash water or sediments,rinse water from architecturalcopper and non-storm waterdischarges to storm drain andwatercourse.7.21.Plumb interior parking garage floordrains to sanitary sewer.7.22.Design for discharge of firesprinkler test water to landscapeor sanitary sewer.7.23.Provide notes, specification , orattachments describing thefollowing:7.23.1.1.Construction,operation, andmaintenance of erosionand sediment controls,include inspectionfrequency,7.23.1.2.Methods and schedulefor grading, excavation,filling, clearing ofvegetation, andstorage and disposal ofexcavated or clearedmaterial;7.23.1.3.Provisions fortemporary and/orpermanent irrigation.S T O R M W A T E R D I V I S I O N N O T E S1.Rehabilitated landscape must comply withthe water conservation in landscapeordinance irrigation plan.2.No existing tree over 48 inches incircumference at 54 inches from base oftree may be removed without aprotected tree permit from the ParksDivision (558-7330).PARKS DIVISION NOTESEXISTING AREA2,9697,112LOCATIONBUILDINGDRIVEWAYTOTALWALKS & PATIOS3,8333102,9796,6383,34931010<474><484>0PROPOSED AREAINCREASED AREAP U B L I C W O R K S N O T E S1.Any work in the City right-of-way, suchas street sidewalk area, publiceasements, and utility easements isrequired to obtain EncroachmentPermit prior to starting work.2.All work in the City right-of-way shallcomply with City Standards andDetails. Standard Details are availableat:https://www.burlingame.org/departments/public_works/city_standard_details.php3.Based on the scope of work, this is aType I project that requires aStormwater Construction PollutionPrevention Permit. This permit isrequired prior to issuance of a BuildingPermit. An initial field inspection isrequired prior to the start of anyconstruction (on private property or inthe public right-of-way).4.All damaged and displaced curb,gutter and/or sidewalk fronting sitemust be replaced prior to final ofBuilding Permit.5.Construction hours in the City Publicright-of-way are limited to weekdaysand non-City Holidays between 8:00AM - 5:00 PM. This includesconstruction hauling.6.Per Municipal Code section18.08.090, no storm water orunderground water draining from anylot, building, or paved area shall beallowed to drain to adjacent propertiesnor shall this water be connected tothe city's sanitary sewer system.Regardless of the slope of the sourceproperty, such water shall drain toeither artificial or natural stormdrainage facilitiesby gravity or pumping.7.All water lines connections to citywater mains for services or fire lineprotection are to be installed per citystandard procedures and materialspecifications. Contact the city WaterDepartment for connection fees. Ifrequired, all fire services and services2" and over will be installed by builder.All underground fire serviceconnections shall be submitted asseparate Underground Fire Servicepermit for review and approval.8.No structure shall be built into City'sright-of-way. The property line onEaston Drive is approximately twelvefeet (12') measured from face of curb.9.The project shall comply with the City'sNPDES permit requirements toprevents storm water pollution.10.All debris / garbage containers locationshall be on property. In a situationwhere that is not possible, anencroachment permit is required fromPublic Works Department for placingdebris / garbage containers in publicright-of-way. No wet garbage fluid shallenter public right-of-way or the stormdrain system.11.It is the responsibility of the owner and/ or contractor to notify UndergroundService Alert (USA) at least 48 hoursbefore the start of any excavationwork.1.Storm drainage shall drain towardsthe street frontage or to the citystorm drain system.2.All displaced/damaged sidewalk,driveway, curb and gutter will bereplaced.3.Provide sewer backwaterprotection certification.ENGINEERING DIVISION NOTESIMPERVIOUS AREASARCHITECTURALSHEET A1PROJECT DATA, GENERAL & SITE NOTES,VICINITY MAPSHEET A1.1EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANSHEET A1.2 SURVEYSHEET A2EXISTING & PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLANS,PROPOSED ROOF PLANSHEET A3EXISTING & PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLANSSHEET A4EXISTING & PROPOSED FRONT & REARELEVATIONSSHEET A5EXISTING & PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATIONSSHEET A6SECTIONSD R A W I N G I N D E XC O N S U L T A N T SARCHITECTCHRIS SPAULDING, ARCHITECT801 Camelia St, Ste. E, Berkeley, CA 94710Ph.: (510) 527-5997Email: chris@csarchitect.netSURVEYORAMERICAN LAND SURVEYING, INC.1390 Market St, #200San Francisco, CA 94102Ph: (415) 888-8580Email: rwengineering@gmail.comGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERROMIG ENGINEERS1390 El Camino Real, 2nd Flr.San Carlos, CA 94070Ph: (650) 591-5224Email: info@romigengineers.comORIGINAL SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"84048EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLAN - NO CHANGES ARE PROPOSED1/8" = 1' - 0"PITTOSPORUMPITTOSPORUMBAMBOOPITTOSPORUMTREE CANOPYFROMADJACENT LOT LANDS OFLIUAP:027-195-070LANDS OFJAUNICHAP:027-195-080ILANDS OFSNYDER & CHOIAP:027-195-060S45°06'3 0 " W 23.37'S21°30'00"E66.92'N55°04'34"W185.71'N55°04'34"W237.33'60.00'EASTON DRIVE (60' WIDE)500495495 490490480480480 480475475475485485469 4712'-4"43'-6"3'-3"4'-0"50'-5"14'-5"3'-3"3'-3"S34°55'26"W 25'-2"LANDS OFLIUAP:027-195-070LANDS OFJAUNICHAP:027-195-080ILANDS OFSNYDER & CHOIAP:027-195-060S45°06'3 0 " W 23.37'S21°30'00"E66.92'N55°04'34"W185.71'N55°04'34"W237.33'60.00'EASTON DRIVE (60' WIDE)500495495 490490480480480 480475475475485485469 4712'-4"50'-5"25'-2"14'-5"S34°55'26"W ORIGINAL SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"84048PROPOSED SITE PLAN1/8" = 1' - 0"DESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22A1.1PLOTTED ON SURVEY BY AMERICAN LAND SURVEYING, INC. , DATED 12-22-2017, FILE# ALS17058. AMERICAN LAND'S PHONE # [415] 888-8580DINING ROOMADDITIONLEVEL 502.65'[SHOWN INHATCH]1A1STRAWWADDLESEXIST. GASEXIST. OVERHEADELEC, TEL, TVEXISTINGWATER37'-0"7'-0"14'-0"8'-4"22'-6"4'-10"7"3'-10"4'-0"3'-8"3'-10"4'-9"16'-11"21'-5"7'-7"10'-8"17'-4"5'-9"18'-0"8'-11"14'-9"12'-4"15'-9"6'-3"15' REQUIRED 1ST STORY REAR SETBACK5'-1"[N] DECK &STEPS (SHADED)ORIGINAL SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"84048EXISTING SITE PLAN1/8" = 1' - 0"29'-4"APPROX. FLOWLINE OF CREEK17'-7"APPROX. FLOWLINE OF CREEK15'-0" REQUIRED 1STSTORY FRONT SETBACK15'-0" REQUIRED 1STSTORY FRONT SETBACK20'-0" REQUIRED 2NDSTORY FRONT SETBACK20'-0" REQUIRED 2NDSTORY FRONT SETBACK6' REQUIRED 1ST & 2NDSTORY SIDE SETBACK6' REQUIRED 1ST & 2NDSTORY SIDE SETBACK20' REQUIRED 2ND STORY REAR SETBACK15' REQUIRED 1ST STORY REAR SETBACK20' REQUIRED 2ND STORY REAR SETBACK6' REQUIRED 1ST & 2NDSTORY SIDE SETBACK6' REQUIRED 1ST & 2NDSTORY SIDE SETBACK16'-4" [E] 1ST & 2NDSTORY FRONTSETBACK (NO CHANGE)16'-4" [E] 1ST & 2NDSTORY FRONTSETBACK (NO CHANGE)2ND FLOORCANTILEVER2ND FLOORCANTILEVER 4'-8" [E] 1ST STORY RIGHT SIDE SETBACK (NO CHANGE) 2'-9" [E] 2ND STORYRIGHT SIDE SETBACK(NO CHANGE) 4'-8" [E] 1ST STORY RIGHT SIDE SETBACK (NO CHANGE) 2'-9" [E] 2ND STORYRIGHT SIDE SETBACK(NO CHANGE)3'-6" [E] 1ST STORYLEFT SIDE SETBACK(NO CHANGE)2ND FLOOREXTERIORWALLPERIMETER2ND FLOOREXTERIORWALLPERIMETER21'-10" 2NDFLOORLEFT SIDESETBACK(NO CHANGE)21'-10" 2NDSTORYLEFT SIDESETBACK(NO CHANGE)3'-6" [E] 1ST STORYLEFT SIDE SETBACK(NO CHANGE)178.4' TOREAR ⅊181.1' TOREAR ⅊178.4' TOREAR ⅊181.1' TOREAR ⅊176.0' 1ST &2ND STORYADITION TOREAR ⅊REMOVE [E]EXTERIORSTAIR DDMSPCMSPCMSPCMSPCGFIWPA2PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN1/4"=1'-0"0510152025DESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22CLOFAMILY ROOMLIVING ROOMSTAIR HALLENTRYPWDRPANTRYSTOKITCHENGARAGEDINING ROOMBEDROOM 3CLOBATH210 30 DUAL PANE,METAL FRAME18 49 SINGLE PANE, METAL FRAME 38 21 SINGLE PANE, METAL FRAME 18 49 SINGLE PANE, METAL FRAME 711 83 410 83 410 73 33 53 18 32 48 42 46 31 DUAL PANE,ALUM FRAME34 70 SOLIDWOOD DR[E] KITCHEN[E]PANTRY[E]PWDR[E] GARAGE[E] LIVINGROOM[E] ENTRY /STAIR HALL[E] ENTRY[E] STOBALCONY[N] LANDING[E] BEDROOM 3[E] CLO[E] BATH 3INDICATES EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVEDINDICATES EXISTING WALL TO REMAININDICATES NEW CONSTRUCTIONL E G E N D10'-8" ±17'-4" ±5'-9" ±17'-11" ±2'-4" ± 43'-51 2" ± 17'-11 2" ±2'-6" ±23'-10" ±16'-2"8'-11" ±14'-9"12'-4"6'-3" 7'-7" ±21'-5" ±5'-1" ±4'-0"20'-4"12'-3"14'-8" ±22'-10" ± 3'-3" 3'-3"60 56 CSMT80 80 FRENCH DRSTEMPERED GLASS℄ ROOM50 70 FRENCH DRSTEMPERED GLASS[E] HALLEEXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING DOOR TO REMAINEEEEEEEEEEEREMOVE[E] WALLDN 734" MAXFROM TOP OFTHRESHOLDDN42"-HIGH IRONGUARDRAIL W/ PICKETSSPACED SUCH THAT A4" SPHERE CAN NOTPASS THROUG1DNDNSEE EXTERIOR STAIR NOTES ON FLOOR PLAN NOTES SHEET A342"-HIGH IRONGUARDRAIL W/ PICKETSSPACED SUCH THAT A4" SPHERE CAN NOTPASS THROUGENLARGE [E] STAIRS -VERIFY RISERS @734" MAX & 10" MIN.TREADSREMODELEDFAMILY ROOM-[E] VAULTED CEILING-[E] LIGHTING TO REMAIN- ALL [E] ELEC. OUTLET TOREMAIN. ADD [N] ASSHOWNCONT.HANDRAIL[E] FIREPLACE3'-412"ENLARGEDDINING ROOM-RE-DO [E] LIGHTING-ALL [E] ELEC. OUTLET TOREMAIN. ADD [N] ASSHOWNTILED FLOORING ONWATERPROOF MASTIC3'-3"A A4DN 734" MAXFROM TOP OFTHRESHOLDEXISTING LOWER FLOOR PLAN1/4"=1'-0"0510152025[E] TERRACEPROPOSED ROOF PLAN1/8"=1'-0"151050AREA W/DOTTEDHATCHINDICATESUPPER ROOFSHADEINDICATES[N] ROOFALL [E] & [N] ROOFPITCHES ARE 4:12 ±A BBVAULTED DA3DESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22SUNROOM49 32 DUAL PANE,ALUM FRAMEMASTERBEDROOMMASTER BATHMA. CLOSTAIR HALLLAUNDRYCLOBATH 2BEDROOM 232 410 ARCH-TOP18 38 18 32 64 73 FRENCH DRS32 52 19 32 31 32 DUAL PANE,ALUM FRAME NOTE:ALL [E] WINDOWS ARE SINGLE PANE - METALFRAME, EXCEPT NOTED OTHERWISEPROPOSED UPPER FLOOR PLAN1/4"=1'-0"0510152025ENLARGEDSUNROOM[E] MA.CLO[E] MASTERBEDROOM[E] BEDROOM 2[E] MASTERBATHROOM[E] STAIRHALL[E] LAUNDRY[E] CLO[E] BATH 2INDICATES EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVEDINDICATES EXISTING WALL TO REMAININDICATES NEW CONSTRUCTIONL E G E N D13'-2"5'-2"17'-212"21'-2"19'-01 2"35'-6"19'-01 2" A ALIGN W/ DINING ROOM REAR WALL BELOW90 50 CSMT℄ ROOM 50 50 CSMT 50 50 CSMT℄ROOM℄ROOMEEXISTING WINDOW TO REMAINEXISTING DOOR TO REMAINEEEEEEEEEEEEGRESSEXISTING UPPER FLOOR PLAN1/4"=1'-0"051015202532 410 ARCH-TOP32 410 ARCH-TOP A BB EXISTING & PROPOSED FRONT (WEST) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"EXISTING CLAY TILE ROOFING, TYPICAL412STUCCO, TYPICALPROPOSED REAR (EAST) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"8'-4" 1ST FLR. PLATE [E] & [F] 502.070510150510151ST FLR502.65'WEEP SCREED, TYP. -PLACED 2" MIN. ABOVEPAVED AREAS AND 4" MIN.ABOVE GRADEDESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22A48'-4" 2ND FLR. PLATE 1ST FLR512.0'9'-4"TO MATCH EXISTING, TYPICALNEW CLASS 'A' CLAY TILE ROOFINGNEW STUCCO TO MATCHEXISTING, TYPICALLINTELMETAL FRAMEWINDOWS W/STUCCO TRIM,TYPICAL4'-0" FROM TOP OF PLATE TO HIGHEST ROOF RIDGE AVERAGE TOP OF CURB = (502.9 + 500.1) : 2 = 501.5'1'-2" ± 22'-10" ± FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO HIGHEST RIDGE1A4[E] PORCH LEVELRAISE [E] PORCH LEVEL TODINING ROOM LEVEL8'-4" 2ND FLR. PLATE8'-4" 1ST FLR. PLATE EXISTING CLAY TILE ROOFING, TYPICALSTUCCO,TYPICALNEW STUCCO TOMATCH [E], TYPICALNEW ALUMINUM-CLADWOOD-FRAMEWINDOWS, TYPICAL -TO MATCH [E]APPEARANCE ASMUSH AS POSSIBLEEXISTING REAR (EAST) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"051015WOODGARAGEDOOR[E][E][E][E][E][E][E][E][N][E][E][N][N][E][E]22'-10" ± FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO HIGHEST RIDGEAVERAGE TOP OF CURB = (502.9 + 500.1) : 2 = 501.5'7'-6"497.05'⅊45°DECLININGHEIGHTENVELOPE⅊45°7'-6"DECLININGHEIGHTENVELOPE497.05'14'-0" 14'-0"497.05'⅊4 5 °DECLININGHEIGHTENVELOPE⅊45°DECLININGHEIGHTENVELOPE497.05'14'-0" 14'-0"3'-6"4'-8"4'-8"3'-6" PROPOSED LEFT SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"051015051015NOTE:-PAINT ALL ROOF METAL TO MATCH TILE COLOR-RUN ALL VENTS & FLUES TO LEAST VISIBLE LOCATIONS-MORTAR ALL HIPS & RIDGESDESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22A51ST FLR502.65'1ST FLR512.0'1ST FLR502.65'1ST FLR512.0'8'-4" 1ST FLR. PLATE 8'-4" 2ND FLR. PLATE [N] DECKLEVEL500.5'[E] & [F] 502.07[E] & [F] 497.74LIVING RM500.57'42" IRON / METAL RAILW/ PICKETS SPACEDSUCH THAT A 4"SPHERE CAN NOTPASS THROUGHSHADEINDICATESADDITIONNEW ALUMINUM-CLADWOOD-FRAME WINDOWS,TYPICAL - TO MATCH [E]APPEARANCE AS MUSHAS POSSIBLE8'-4" 1ST FLR. PLATE 8'-4" 2ND FLR. PLATE NEW STUCCO TOMATCH [E], TYPICAL[E] STUCCOTYPICAL[E] CLAY TILE ROOFING, TYPICAL[N] CLASS 'A' CLAY TILE ROOFINGEXISTING RIGHT SIDE (SOUTH) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"051015EXISTING LEFT SIDE (NORTH) ELEVATION1/4"=1'-0"051015[E][E][E][N][E][N][E][N]WOOD DOORMETAL-FRAMEDFRENCH DOORS22'-10" ± FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO HIGHEST RIDGEAVERAGE TOP OF CURB = (502.9 + 500.1) : 2 = 501.5'22'-10" ± FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO HIGHEST RIDGEAVERAGE TOP OF CURB = (502.9 + 500.1) : 2 = 501.5' DESIGN REVIEW SETPLAN CHECK SETPERMIT SETCONSTRUCTION SETREVISIONSBYDATESCALEDRAWNJOBSHEETOFSHEETSREVISIONSBYDRAWINGS PREPARED BYC H R I S S P A U L D I N GA R C H I T E C T801 CAMELIA ST., SUITE E, BERKELEY, CA 94710PHONE 510 527-5997 chris@csarchitect.netPRELIMINARY SETP R O P O S E D R E M O D E L & A D D I T I O N F O RM I C H A E L & T I F F A N Y L I U R E S I D E N C E2 5 1 7 E A S T O N D R. ( A P N : 0 2 7 - 1 5 9 - 0 7 0 ) B U R L I N G A M E C A L I F O R N I A5-17-21CS/DBTIFFANY LIUAS NOTED69-28-2210-23-2210-27-22ENLARGEDDINING ROOM1ST FLR502.65'1ST FLR512.0'[E] MASTERBEDROOMSECTION A-A1/4"=1'-0"0510158'-4" ± [E] 1ST FLR PLATE 8'-4" ± [E] 2ND FLR PLATE 42" IRON / METAL RAILW/ PICKETS SPACEDSUCH THAT A 4"SPHERE CAN NOTPASS THROUGHNOTE: EAVETO MATCH [E]VENTED ATTIC[E] VENTED CRAWLSPACEGSM CAP FLASHINGOVER STUD PONYWALLS[E] MASTERBATHROOMENLARGEDSUNROOM[E] KITCHENHALL[E] PANTRY[E] POWDERVENTED ATTICDECKVENTEDCRAWLSPACEDASH LINEINDICATES[E] FRAMINGTO REMAINBEAM BEYOND[E] FOUNDATION[E] FOUNDATION8'-4" ± TO MATCH [E]VENTEDCRAWLSPACEFINISH FLOORELEVATION TOMATCH [E]22'-10" ± FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO HIGHEST RIDGEAVERAGE TOP OFCURB = (502.9 +500.1) : 2 = 501.5'A6VENTED ATTICVENTED ATTICVENTED ATTICVENTED ATTIC[E] KITCHEN[E] GARAGEREMODELEDFAMILY ROOMENLARGEDDINING ROOM[E] MA.CLO[E] MASTERBEDROOM1ST FLR502.65'1ST FLR512.0'8'-4" ± [E] 1ST FLR PLATE 8'-4" ± [E] 2ND FLR PLATE 2'-1"[E] VENTED CRAWLSPACE[E] VENTED CRAWLSPACE22'-10" ± FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO HIGHEST RIDGEAVERAGE TOP OFCURB = (502.9 +500.1) : 2 = 501.5'4'-13 4" ± 5'-71 2" ±SECTION B-B1/4"=1'-0"05101512'-33 8"5'-4" WIDTH OFAREA OVER 12' HIGH City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 2316 Easton Drive Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc. APN: 027-153-180 Property Owners: Andy and Monica MacMillan Lot Area: 5,948 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot with an existing two-story, single-unit dwelling and a detached garage. The project proposes a first and second story addition to the main dwelling which would change the floor area from 2,934 SF (0.49 FAR) to 2,689 SF (0.45 FAR) where 2,803 SF (0.47 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). Staff would note that there is a net decrease in floor area because the existing detached garage would be demolished and replaced with a new accessory dwelling unit, which is exempt from floor area ratio. With this application, the number of bedrooms in the main dwelling would increase from four to five (office on first floor qualifies as a bedroom). Per Code Section 25.48.030(L)(5) of the ADU regulations, when a garage is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. Therefore, the proposed project has no covered parking requirement and no covered parking is proposed. One (9’ x 18’) uncovered parking space is required for the ADU since it is not located within one half mile walking distance of public transit. The applicant is providing this uncovered space in a parking area off Easton Drive. Per State law and C.S. 25.48.030(L)(2), the parking space may be provided in a setback area unless specific findings are made that parking in the setback areas is not feasible based upon specific site or regional topographical or fire and life safety conditions. The proposed project complies with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes building a new 792 SF detached accessory dwelling unit at the exterior side of the lot. Review of the ADU application is administrative and not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(b)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Design Review 2316 Easton Drive -2- 2316 Easton Drive Lot Area: 5,948 SF Plans date stamped: November 27, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-9” 19’-9” no change no change 15’-0” 20’-0” Side Setbacks (exterior, 1st flr): (2nd flr): (interior, 1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-5” 15’-5” 5’-7” 8’-7” 17’-5” (to addition) 18’-11” (to addition) no change 8’-7” (to addition) 7'-6” 12’-0” average 4’-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 41’-8” 50’-8” no change 41’-8” 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,376 SF 23% 1,488 SF 25% 2,379 SF 40% FAR: 2,934 SF 0.49 FAR 2,689 SF 0.45 FAR 2,803 SF 1 0.47 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 5 --- Off Street Parking: 2 covered (21’-1” x 21’-2”) 0 uncovered 0 covered 1 uncovered for ADU (9’ x 18’) 0 covered 1 uncovered for ADU (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 26’-10” 26’-10” 30’-0” Plate Height: 9’-0” 8’-1” no change 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ (0.32 x 5,948) + 900 SF = 2,803 SF (0.47 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood front entry door • Siding: stucco • Roof: composition shingle • Other: wood shutters and wood columns Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 14, 2022, the Commission had comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached November 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). Design Review 2316 Easton Drive -3- The applicant submitted a response letter, dated November 23, 2022 and revised plans, dated November 27, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project (see attachments). 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 addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed exterior improvements enhance the existing architecture; that the massing of the additions blends with the construction of the existing house, and that architectural details, such as the wood front door, stucco exterior and framed front entry doors are compatible with the character of the existing dwelling and with the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, 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. Design Review 2316 Easton Drive -4- 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 November 27, 2022, sheets A1 through A8 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; 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 Design Review 2316 Easton Drive -5- framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. James Chu, applicant and designer Andy and Monica MacMillan, property owners Attachments: November 14, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Response Letter, dated November 23, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 14, 2022 b.2316 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc, applicant and designer; Andy and Monica MacMillian, property owners) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There is an area on the site that can accommodate more trees. Please provide a planting plan. >I don’t really like the parking space. There needs to be some clarification on the parking space on how the section through the new driveway will work. It slopes up about 1’-6”, if not 2’-0”in the space of that parking spot. Also, please clarify the location of the power pole. It is a lot closer to the curb cut than is shown on the plans. There are opportunities for clarification regarding this curb cut and parking space. It is not a deal breaker but there are unintended consequences coming. Otherwise, I don ’t have any issues with the ADU or the addition, it looks fine. > They have done a really good job on this. It looks very classy. The parking part is a real bummer. I don’t know how it’s all going to work out. It is a very lovely design. When the trees get planted in the front or back it will be even better. >It is a good project. I don ’t disagree with my fellow commissioners. I think we can discuss it more when this comes back to regular action. Page 1City of Burlingame 210 Industrial Rd. Suite 205, San Carlos, CA 94070 James@chudesign.com Office: (650) 345-9286 Ext. 1001; Cell: (650) 400-8933 November 23, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Commissioner 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 2nd story addition remodel at 2316 Easton Dr Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Planning Commissioner: Per your design review comment, we have relocated the proposed parking space entering from Easton Dr. Pls see site plan. This will allow for larger outdoor space for owner. The proposed driveway will have less slope driving up from Easton Dr. Thank you for your time in reviewing the above changes. Sincerely, James Chu x RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION 7.22.22 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-family dwelling and attached garage at 2316 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, Andy and Monica MacMillan, property owners, APN: 027-153-180; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 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 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review 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 12th day of December, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 2316 Easton Drive Effective December 22, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped November 27, 2022, sheets A1 through A8 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 and Design Review 2316 Easton Drive Effective December 22, 2022 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; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff would inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 2316 Easton Drive 300’ noticing APN: 027-153-080 RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION11.27.22REVISED Item No. 8b Regular Action Item City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permits Address: 732 Vernon Way Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permits for second floor balcony and declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Tim Raduenz, Form One Design APN: 029-171-530 Property Owners: Shobana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty Lot Area: 4,300 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, pro vided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing split-level, single-unit dwelling and attached garage; the property is located immediately adjacent to Washington Park . The proposed project includes a second story addition situated on the right side of the dwelling. With this application, the floor area would decrease from 2,500 SF (0.58 FAR) to 2,470 SF (0.57 FAR) where 2,476 SF (0.58 FAR) is the maximum allowed. Staff would note that there is a net decrease in floor area because the existing attached garage would be converted to a new junior accessory dwelling unit, which is exempt from floor area ratio. There are four bedrooms in the existing house and with this application, there is no change in the number of bedrooms. The proposed project includes converting the existing attached garage into a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU), which does not require existing parking to be replaced (C.S. 25.48.030 (L) (4)). All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. A Special Permit is being requested for a 70 SF second story balcony at the rear of the house (Special Permit required for any second story balcony; 75 SF maximum allowed). In addition, the application includes a request for a Special Permit for declining height e nvelope (39 SF, 1’-4” x 29’-4”) of the right side of the proposed second story addition extends beyond the declining height envelope). Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes converting the existing attached garage on the ground floor of the house into a 500 SF junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). Review of the JADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the JADU complies with the ADU Ordinance. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ▪ Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)); ▪ Special Permit for a second floor balcony (70 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.10.035(7)); and ▪ Special Permit for declining height envelope (DHE) along the right side of the house (39 SF of the proposed addition extends beyond the DHE) (C.S. 25.10.035(2)). Design Review and Special Permits 732 Vernon Way 2 732 Vernon Way Lot Area: 4,300 SF Plans date stamped: December 1, 2022 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (Main floor): (Upper floor): 15’-0” 23’-8½” no change 23’-9” 15'-0" or block average 20’-0” or block average Side (left): (right): 6’-7" 2’-2" 1 no change no change 4’-0” 4’-0” Rear (Main flr): (Upper flr): 13’-1" 2 40’-8” no change 46’-10” 15’-0" 20’-0" Lot Coverage: 2,021 SF 47% 1,930 SF 44.9% 1,720 SF 40% FAR: 2,500 SF 3 0.58 FAR 2,470 SF 0.57 FAR 2,476 SF 4 0.58 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’ x18’, clear interior) + 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) existing garage conversion into JADU 5 --- Building Height: 21’-11” 25’-7” 30'-0" Plate Height (Main flr): (Upper flr): (New Upper flr): 8’-4” 8’-4” n/a no change no change 8’-0” 9’-0” 8’-0” 8’-0” DH Envelope: Complies Special Permit requested for DHE encroachment on right side (39 SF) 6 C.S. 25.10.055 Second Floor Balcony: n/a 70 SF 7 (8’-0” right side setback) 75 SF (8’-0” side setbacks) 1 Existing nonconforming right side setback measuring 2’-2” where 4’-0” is required. 2 Existing nonconforming first floor rear setback measuring 13’-1” where 15’-0” is required. 3 Existing nonconforming floor area ratio measuring 2,500 SF where 2,476 SF is allowed. 4 (0.32 x 4,300 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2,476 SF (0.58 FAR) 5 When garages are converted into a JADU or ADU, replacement parking is not required (C.S. 25.48.030 (L) (4)). 6 Special Permit requested for declining height envelope (39 SF encroachment into the DHE on the right side). 7 Special Permit requested for a second floor balcony (70 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit). Design Review and Special Permits 732 Vernon Way 3 Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: Aluminum clad wood window with wood trim around windows. • Siding: Painted stucco. • Roof: Asphalt shingles. • Other: Wood bracket, wood doors. Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on November 28, 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 November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans date stamped December 1, 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. At the Design Review Study meeting, the Commission asked the applicant to consider proposing a different type of door that is similar to the existing garage door being replaced, and that will also be acceptable by the Fire Department. Planning staff met with the Fire Department and they confirmed that when a garage is converted to a JADU or ADU, the garage door must be removed to ensure that when the Fire Department arrives on-site in an emergency, there is no confusion as to the use within the space. Furthermore, the Zoning Code requires that in this case, the existing vehicle garage door be replaced with architectural features the same as those of the primary dwelling unit, including the same wall cladding, window type, and trim that remove any appearance that the structure was originally a garage. The Fire Department and Public Works Division will also require separate addressing for the JADU so that it is clear where the JADU is located. Since the Design Review Study meeting, the applicant revised the previously proposed replacement doors with a design that is more consistent with the existing front entry doo to the main dwelling (see revised Proposed Front Elevation, sheet A3.0). 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. Design Review and Special Permits 732 Vernon Way 4 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 second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed exterior improvements enhance the existing architecture; that the massing of the addition blends in with the design of the existing house in that the building envelope, plate heights, and roof configuration matches the existing house , and that architectural details, such as stucco exterior, asphalt shingle roofing, and aluminum clad wood windows are compatible with the character of the existing dwelling and with the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, and building height requirements. Required Findings for a Special Permits: 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 Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the proposed addition are consistent with the character of the street and neighborhood which consists of one and two -story single- unit dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and massing. 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the prop osed addition are consistent with the existing street and neighborhood in that the hip and gable roof configurations and pitches, stucco siding, and articulation in elevations are consistent with those architectural features found on existing structures in the neighborhood; that the right side of the existing house is over three feet from average top of curb and therefore places the proposed second story addition further upwards compared to standard construction ; and that the architectural style that would result from a code complying project would not be compatible or true to the massing and style of the house if the second Design Review and Special Permits 732 Vernon Way 5 floor were offset in order to comply with Declining Height Envelope. 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. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit (Second Floor Balcony): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the proposed second story are consistent with the existing dwelling and that the 70 SF second s tory balcony is within the maximum balcony size allowed (75 SF) and is setback from the side property lines as required (8’-0” proposed right side setback where 8’-0” is the minimum required). 2. The variety of façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed second floor balcony are consistent with the existing structure and will be screened by a planter box with vegetation.. 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 submitte d to the Planning Division date stamped December 1, 2022, sheets T1.0 , A1.0 through A9.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 Design Review and Special Permits 732 Vernon Way 6 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 r atio 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. Michelle Markiewicz Associate Planner c. Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, applicant and designer Attachments: November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant Response Letter, dated December 1, 2022 Project Application Special Permit Applications Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 28, 2022 b.732 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a second story balcony and declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer and applicant; Shabana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 732 Vernon Way - Staff Report 732 Vernon Way - Attachments 732 Vernon Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide a planting irrigation plan to avoid potential damage to the balcony. >Clean up drafting errors. Make sure all windows match and are more cohesive between the first and second floor. >Clarify intention for the garage door, existing to remain or proposed new. Consider adding an arrow on the address for the ADU if the Fire Department allows the existing garage door to remain. >Suggest looking at alternatives or adding decorative pieces for the thin post on the front porch to make it a little bit more attractive. >Make sure that the plants in the planter on the second floor deck are raised and you have a place for the water to go. Make an effort to channel it for a better solution. The plants are a great idea. I agree with my fellow commissioner to ensure that they are maintained. It is a good solution to provide some privacy. I would like to see this go forward. >Work with staff on the JADU and update the front porch. >For this house, the look of the garage door is really important. Suggests doing a different type of door that is something similar to the existing that will function and work for the Fire Department. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 1City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Page 1 of 1 Form + One ▪ Design & Planning ▪ 4843 Silver Springs Drive▪ Park City ▪ UT ▪ 84098 ▪ (415) 819.0304 ▪ tim@formonedesign.com Form + One 4843 Silver Springs Drive Park City, UT 84098 P+ 415.819.0304 E + tim@formonedesign.com TRANSMITTAL FORM To: City of Burlingame (Michelle Markiewicz) From: Tim Raduenz Subject: 732 Vernon Planning Commission Responses Date Sent: 12/01/2022 Number of Pages: 1 Response to Planning Commission Comments: 1. Windows (existing + new) more consistent: Response: We have reviewed, confirmed and made the existing and proposed more consistent, this was needed review and was going to be addressed. 2. Front Entry Porch Design: Response: We have updated the design of the existing porch 3. Planter @ the 2nd floor balcony: Response: We have added more details into the workings of this design + will forward to building department as well. 4. Entry Door to Garage/ADU: Response: We will be working with planners to get a very good look that works with all departments, it is the main feature of the existing home, so it needs to be done with a little design. To that end, we believe the corrections and changes to this project have been made, to make this an approvable project. We look forward to moving on to building submittal. Best, Tim Raduenz 732 VERNON WAY 029-171-530 R1 REMODEL (E) FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN, BEDROOM, BATHROOM, AND LAUNDRY AREA.REMODEL (E) SECOND FLOOR TO HAVE (2) BATHS.PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR ADDITION FOR (N) MASTER SUITE & DECK @ REAR OF HOUSE.PROPOSED JADU ON GARAGE LEVEL. TIM RADUENZ 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DR.PARK CITY, UT. 84098 415.819.0304 TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY TIM RADUENZ 732 VERNON WAYBURLINGAME, CA. 94010 RAVICHAKRAB@GMAIL.COM 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DR.PARK CITY, UT. 84098 415.819.0304 TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM T.R. 24809 08.04.2022 919.323.0533 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. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST FOR 2ND STORY BALCONY @REAR OF HOUSE 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. 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. SPECIAL PERMIT REQUEST FOR: DHE 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. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, & SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permits for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling at 732 Vernon Way, zoned R-1, Shobana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty, property owners, APN: 029-171- 530. WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and a ll 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 substan tial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental r eview, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition are exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of December, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, & Special Permits 732 Vernon Way Effective December 22, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 1, 2022, sheets T1.0 , A1.0 through A9.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 withou t 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, & Special Permits 732 Vernon Way Effective December 22, 2022 Page 2 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. 732 Vernon Way 300’ noticing APN: 029-171-530 SITETITLE PAGE See DetailsT1.0APPLICABLE CODESREFERENCE SYMBOLSBUILDING DATACONSULTANTSDESIGNER FORM + ONE DESIGN CONTACT: TIM RADUENZ 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE PARK CITY, UT 84098 P: 415.819.0304 E: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COMOWNERS SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010TITLE 24 RICK ROCKLEWITZ NRG COMPLIANCE INC. P.O. BOX 3777 SANTA ROSA, CA. 95402 P: 707.237.6957SURVEY SAVIOR P. MICALLEF LAND SURVEYING 421 WILDWOOD DR. S. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 P: 805.709.2423SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY732 VERNON WAYBURLINGAME, CA. 94010T1.0GNCGSWFARFAR21OF1A1.0A1.1AB2.0A2.0A2.1A2.2A3.0A3.1A3.2A3.3A4.0A4.1A5.0A9.0TITLE PAGEGENERAL NOTESCAL GREENCONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESEXISTING FLOOR AREA CALC.PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALC.TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYEXISTING + PROPOSED SITE PLANPROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN / IMPERVIOUS SURFACEARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSEXISTING + DEMO FLOOR PLANSPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANPROPOSED SECOND + THIRD FLOOR PLANEXISTING + PROPOSED ROOF PLANEXISTING + PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONEXISTING + PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONEXISTING + PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONEXISTING + PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONPROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONSPROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONCONSTRUCTION DETAILSFINISH SCHEDULEFIXTURE OR EQUIPMENT SYMBOL T.W. 12.0 T.P 15.6 T.C 14.0 78 92203BED RM.CDABSheet numberMATCH LINE, SHADED SIDE ISCONSIDEREDNumber indicates color and / or materialEXISTING CONTOURSNEW OR FINISHED CONTOURSTOP OF PAVEMENTTOP OF WALLTOP OF CURBSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEREVISION SYMBOLSCloud around revisionWORK, CONTROL, OR DATUM POINTCOLOR / MATERIAL SYMBOLROOM REFERENCEEXT. DOOR & WINDOW SYMBOLIndicates door & window numberINTERIOR DOOR SYMBOLIndicates door numberRoom nameRoom numberNumber indicated elevation, wall sectionor detailBLDG & WALL SECTION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewLetter indicates building sectionSheet numberINTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewLetter indicates building elevationSheet numberDETAIL REFERENCENumber indicates wall sectionEXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewSheet numberTITLE SYMBOLSSheet numberGRID LINE REFERENCEEXTERIOR FINISHESWALL FINISH: (E) STUCCO (PROTECT) REPAIRWHERE NEEDEDROOF: CLASS A, ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLESWINDOWS: (E) WOOD CLAD WINDOWS(N) TO MATCH SIERRA PACIFIC OR EQ.Particle Bd.Prefabricate(d)Plate (line)PlasterPlywoodPanel(ing)Paint(ed)PairPre CastPressure TreatedQuarry TileRiserRadiusReinforceRelocateRemoveRequiredResilentRough OpeingRedwoodSee Struct. Dwg.ShelfSheathingSimilarSealerSpecificationSquareStandardStainless SteelSuspendedSymmetricalTreadTowel BarTemperedTougue & GrooveThroughTop of SurfaceToilet PaperDispenserTypicalUnless OtherwiseNotedUnfinishedVerticalVert. GrainWhite BrothersWoodWindowWrought IronWith (out)WaterproofWater ResistantWainscotPBDPFBPLPLASPLYWDPNLPNTPRPRCSTPTQTRRADREINFRELOREMOREQDRESILRORWDSSDSHSHRSIMSLRSPECSQSLDS. STLSUSPSYMTTBTEMPT>HRUTOSTPDTYPUONMECHUNFVERTVGWBWDWDWWIW/OWPWRWSCT&d@CO#ABABVACACOUSADHADJAGGALAPAPXBDBELBLKBMBOTBRKBSBTWNCABCEMCERCICLGCLKGCLRCMUCNTRCOLCOMPOCONCCONNCONSTCONTCPTDBLDEMODFDIADIAGDNDRDSDRAEAELELECENCLEQEQPTEW(EX)AndPennyAngleAtCenter lineDia. or roundPerpendicularPound or No.Anchor BoltAboveAsphalt Conc.AcousticalAdhesiveAdjustableAggregrateAluminumAccess PanelApproximateBoardBelowBlock(ing)BeamBottomBrickBoth SidesBetweenCabinetCementCeramicCast IronCeilingCaulkingClearConc. Mas. UnitCounterColumnCompositionConcreteConnect(ion)ConstructionContinuousCarpetDoubleDemolishDouglas FirDiameterDiagonalDownDoorDown SpoutDrawerEachElevationElectricalEnclosureEqualEquipmentEach WayExistingEXHEXPEXPOEXTFBOFDNFINFLFLASHFLOURFLXFOCFOFFOXFOFPLFTGFURRFUTGAGALVGBGIGLGRGYPHBDHDHDRHWDHORINTINSULJSTJTLAMLTLVRMASMCMECHMEMBMFRMIRMNTMTLNICNTSO/OCOPNGOPPPPARExhaustExpansionExposedExteriorFurinshed byOwnerFoundationFinishFloor (line)FlashingFluorescentFlexiableFace of Conc.Face of Fin.Face of StudFinished OpeningFireplaceFootingFurringFutureGaugeGalvanizedGrab BarGrab IronGlass/GlazingGrade (Ground)GypsumHard BoardHeavy DutyHeaderHardwareHorizontalInteriorInsulationJoistJointLaminateLightLouverMasonryMedicine CabinetMechanicalMembraneManufacturerMirrorMount(ed)MetalNot inContractNot to ScaleOverOn CenterOpeningOppositePlasticParallelSHEET INDEXELECT/MECH SYMBOLSABBREVIATIONSSCOPE OF WORKVICINITY MAPMATERIAL SYMBOLSDuplex convenience outlet & plateFloor convenience outletGFI duplex convenience outletFourplex outletDuplex conv. outlet, 1/2 hot, 1/2 switched220V amerage as per equipmentGFI/W.P. weatherproof outletFlush mounted floor & ceiling outletJunction boxTelevision outletTelephone outlet & plateFlood lightCeiling fixtureWall lightPorclein recepticle w/ pull chainIndirect cove lightingRecessed ceiling can lights4" recessed low voltage w/ directional trimRecessed ceiling lightWaterproof ceiling fan/light & plateRecessed waterproof exterior up lightSingle pole switch3 way switchSwitch w/ dimmerDoor activated switchMotion detectorTimer (switch)Vacancy sensor w/ dimmer "manual on"Vacancy sensor "manual on"Weatherproof switchCountertop air switchDoorbell pushbuttonChimeSmoke detectorThermostatSpecial outletInstant start florescent lightLandscape lightElectrical panel boardExistingDelete existingReplace existingGas outletHose bibCeiling/floor supply registerCeiling/floor return registerWall diffuserT.V./Computer OutletCentral vacuum inletAutomatic garage door switchAlarm control keypadRE DEE 36" ETC CH T SD CSM S D 3S S FAN S JSSTSV/DSVSWP GFI220vWP G HB4 x 12 CDFD4 x 12 CDFDCvGAMECHANICAL + ELECTRIC DRAWINGSMECH. + ELECT PLANSMECH. + ELECT. CUTSHEETSTITLE-24TITLE-24 CONT.STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSROOF FRAMING PLAN + FOUNDATION PLANSTRUCTURAL DETAILSDETAILS AND GENERAL NOTESME2.0ME3.0ME4.0ME4.1S1S2S3 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.029-171-530: 4,300 SQ.FT. LOT AREA:(E) FAR TOTAL := 2,500 SQ.FT. DEFERRED SUBMITALSCAL GREEN BUILDING MEASURE1. A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON- HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION WASTE GENERATED AT THE SITE WILL BEDIVERTED TO AN OFFSITE RECYCLE, DIVERSION, OR SALVAGE FACILITY PER CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDINANCE + 2019 CGC §4.4083. AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT OR OWNER. 2019 CGC §4.410.14. UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THEBUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2019 CODE REQUIREMENT.2019 CGC §703.15. AT TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THEHEATING, COOLING & VENTILATING EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS OPENINGS WILLBE COVERED W/ TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO REDUCE THEAMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM. (CGC 4.504.1).(*) = FUTURE BUILDING SHEETSGravel / Rock fillPrecast concreteBituminous pavingPlywoodRigid insulationEarthWoodSteelStone VeneerConcrete BlockGypsum boardConcreteBrick VeneerBatt insulationMetal LathMarble / tileExisting constructionWood frame constructionMetalSand/ Mortar/ PlasterExisting const. removed(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)CONSTRUCTION HOURS1. NO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTEROR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE HOURS LISTEDBELOW.CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE CHECKLIST: Single Family to be attached to jobsite building set2019 California Plumbing Code2019 California Mechanical Code2019 California Electric Code2019 California Energy Code CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE2019 California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Standards Code2019 California Residential Code2019 California Building CodeCONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS:SATURDAYS:SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS:8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M.9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.NO WORK ALLOWEDHIDDEN CONDITION NOTES1. Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issuedfor these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning commission.1. REMODEL (E) FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN, BEDROOM, BATHROOM, AND LAUNDRY AREA2. REMODEL (E) SECOND FLOOR TO HAVE (2) BATHS3. PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR ADDITION FOR (N) MASTER SUITE & DECK @ REAR OF HOUSE4. PROPOSED JADU ON GARAGE LEVELNONE(E) FIRST FLOOR= 1,563 SQ.FT.CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYSAND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS)APN #:(N) FAR TOTAL := 2,470 SQ.FT. (E) SECOND FLOOR= 612 SQ.FT.(E) FIRST FLOOR= 1,387 SQ.FT.(N) THIRD FLOOR= 486 SQ.FT.(E) SECOND FLOOR= 597 SQ.FT.BUILDING + PUBLIC WORKS NOTES:REACH CODE1. NATURAL GAS IN NOT ALLOWED FOR SPACE HEATING, SPACE COOLING,WATER HEATING, OR CLOTHES DRYING FOR NEW BUILDINGS.1. PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRES A SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE PRIOR TO PERMIT BEING ISSUED. PLEASE CONTACT PUBLICWORKS @ 650.558.7230.2. STORM WATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED, NOTE: AN INITIAL FIELD INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIORTO START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION (ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.3.RECYCLING + WASTE REDUCTION FORM WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED + APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDINGPERMIT, CONTACT JOE MCCLUSKEY OUR RECYCLING SPECIALIST @ 650-558-7273.4. A GRADING PERMIT IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.ZONING: R1USE OF BUILDING: RESIDENTIALTYPE OF CONST.: V-BNUMBER OF (E) STORIES: 2-STORY SPLIT LEVELNUMBER OF (N) STORIES: 3-STORY MULTI LEVEL(E) NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 1PARKING: (E) 1- STALLSPRINKLERED (E): YES(E) ATTACHED GARAGE= 325 SQ.FT.(N) JADU= 500 SQ.FT.CITY OF BURLINGAME REACH CODE ORDINANCE #1979 (EFFECTIVE OCT. 16, 2020) SITETITLE PAGE See DetailsT1.0APPLICABLE CODESREFERENCE SYMBOLSBUILDING DATACONSULTANTSDESIGNER FORM + ONE DESIGN CONTACT: TIM RADUENZ 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE PARK CITY, UT 84098 P: 415.819.0304 E: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COMOWNERS SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010TITLE 24 RICK ROCKLEWITZ NRG COMPLIANCE INC. P.O. BOX 3777 SANTA ROSA, CA. 95402 P: 707.237.6957SURVEY SAVIOR P. MICALLEF LAND SURVEYING 421 WILDWOOD DR. S. SAN FRANCISCO, CA. 94080 P: 805.709.2423SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY732 VERNON WAYBURLINGAME, CA. 94010T1.0GNCGSWSW2FARFAR21OF1A1.0A1.1AB2.0A2.0A2.1A2.2A3.0A3.1A3.2A3.3A4.0A4.1A5.0A9.0TITLE PAGEGENERAL NOTESCAL GREENCONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESSTORMWATER MANAGEMENT DETAILSEXISTING FLOOR AREA CALC.PROPOSED FLOOR AREA CALC.TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYEXISTING + PROPOSED SITE PLANPROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN / IMPERVIOUS SURFACEARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSEXISTING + DEMO FLOOR PLANSPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANPROPOSED SECOND + THIRD FLOOR PLANEXISTING + PROPOSED ROOF PLANEXISTING + PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONEXISTING + PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONEXISTING + PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONEXISTING + PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONPROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONSPROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONCONSTRUCTION DETAILSFINISH SCHEDULEFIXTURE OR EQUIPMENT SYMBOL T.W. 12.0 T.P 15.6 T.C 14.0 78 92203BED RM.CDABSheet numberMATCH LINE, SHADED SIDE ISCONSIDEREDNumber indicates color and / or materialEXISTING CONTOURSNEW OR FINISHED CONTOURSTOP OF PAVEMENTTOP OF WALLTOP OF CURBSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEREVISION SYMBOLSCloud around revisionWORK, CONTROL, OR DATUM POINTCOLOR / MATERIAL SYMBOLROOM REFERENCEEXT. DOOR & WINDOW SYMBOLIndicates door & window numberINTERIOR DOOR SYMBOLIndicates door numberRoom nameRoom numberNumber indicated elevation, wall sectionor detailBLDG & WALL SECTION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewLetter indicates building sectionSheet numberINTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewLetter indicates building elevationSheet numberDETAIL REFERENCENumber indicates wall sectionEXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewSheet numberTITLE SYMBOLSSheet numberGRID LINE REFERENCEEXTERIOR FINISHESWALL FINISH: (E) STUCCO (PROTECT) REPAIRWHERE NEEDEDROOF: CLASS A, ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLESWINDOWS: (E) WOOD CLAD WINDOWS(N) TO MATCH SIERRA PACIFIC OR EQ.Particle Bd.Prefabricate(d)Plate (line)PlasterPlywoodPanel(ing)Paint(ed)PairPre CastPressure TreatedQuarry TileRiserRadiusReinforceRelocateRemoveRequiredResilentRough OpeingRedwoodSee Struct. Dwg.ShelfSheathingSimilarSealerSpecificationSquareStandardStainless SteelSuspendedSymmetricalTreadTowel BarTemperedTougue & GrooveThroughTop of SurfaceToilet PaperDispenserTypicalUnless OtherwiseNotedUnfinishedVerticalVert. GrainWhite BrothersWoodWindowWrought IronWith (out)WaterproofWater ResistantWainscotPBDPFBPLPLASPLYWDPNLPNTPRPRCSTPTQTRRADREINFRELOREMOREQDRESILRORWDSSDSHSHRSIMSLRSPECSQSLDS. STLSUSPSYMTTBTEMPT>HRUTOSTPDTYPUONMECHUNFVERTVGWBWDWDWWIW/OWPWRWSCT&d@CO#ABABVACACOUSADHADJAGGALAPAPXBDBELBLKBMBOTBRKBSBTWNCABCEMCERCICLGCLKGCLRCMUCNTRCOLCOMPOCONCCONNCONSTCONTCPTDBLDEMODFDIADIAGDNDRDSDRAEAELELECENCLEQEQPTEW(EX)AndPennyAngleAtCenter lineDia. or roundPerpendicularPound or No.Anchor BoltAboveAsphalt Conc.AcousticalAdhesiveAdjustableAggregrateAluminumAccess PanelApproximateBoardBelowBlock(ing)BeamBottomBrickBoth SidesBetweenCabinetCementCeramicCast IronCeilingCaulkingClearConc. Mas. UnitCounterColumnCompositionConcreteConnect(ion)ConstructionContinuousCarpetDoubleDemolishDouglas FirDiameterDiagonalDownDoorDown SpoutDrawerEachElevationElectricalEnclosureEqualEquipmentEach WayExistingEXHEXPEXPOEXTFBOFDNFINFLFLASHFLOURFLXFOCFOFFOXFOFPLFTGFURRFUTGAGALVGBGIGLGRGYPHBDHDHDRHWDHORINTINSULJSTJTLAMLTLVRMASMCMECHMEMBMFRMIRMNTMTLNICNTSO/OCOPNGOPPPPARExhaustExpansionExposedExteriorFurinshed byOwnerFoundationFinishFloor (line)FlashingFluorescentFlexiableFace of Conc.Face of Fin.Face of StudFinished OpeningFireplaceFootingFurringFutureGaugeGalvanizedGrab BarGrab IronGlass/GlazingGrade (Ground)GypsumHard BoardHeavy DutyHeaderHardwareHorizontalInteriorInsulationJoistJointLaminateLightLouverMasonryMedicine CabinetMechanicalMembraneManufacturerMirrorMount(ed)MetalNot inContractNot to ScaleOverOn CenterOpeningOppositePlasticParallelSHEET INDEXELECT/MECH SYMBOLSABBREVIATIONSSCOPE OF WORKVICINITY MAPMATERIAL SYMBOLSDuplex convenience outlet & plateFloor convenience outletGFI duplex convenience outletFourplex outletDuplex conv. outlet, 1/2 hot, 1/2 switched220V amerage as per equipmentGFI/W.P. weatherproof outletFlush mounted floor & ceiling outletJunction boxTelevision outletTelephone outlet & plateFlood lightCeiling fixtureWall lightPorclein recepticle w/ pull chainIndirect cove lightingRecessed ceiling can lights4" recessed low voltage w/ directional trimRecessed ceiling lightWaterproof ceiling fan/light & plateRecessed waterproof exterior up lightSingle pole switch3 way switchSwitch w/ dimmerDoor activated switchMotion detectorTimer (switch)Vacancy sensor w/ dimmer "manual on"Vacancy sensor "manual on"Weatherproof switchCountertop air switchDoorbell pushbuttonChimeSmoke detectorThermostatSpecial outletInstant start florescent lightLandscape lightElectrical panel boardExistingDelete existingReplace existingGas outletHose bibCeiling/floor supply registerCeiling/floor return registerWall diffuserT.V./Computer OutletCentral vacuum inletAutomatic garage door switchAlarm control keypadRE DEE 36" ETC CH T SD CSM S D 3S S FAN S JSSTSV/DSVSWP GFI220vWP G HB4 x 12 CDFD4 x 12 CDFDCvGAMECHANICAL + ELECTRIC DRAWINGSMECH. + ELECT PLANSMECH. + ELECT. CUTSHEETSTITLE-24TITLE-24 CONT.STRUCTURAL DRAWINGSROOF FRAMING PLAN + FOUNDATION PLANSTRUCTURAL DETAILSDETAILS AND GENERAL NOTESME2.0ME3.0ME4.0ME4.1S1S2S3 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.029-171-530: 4,300 SQ.FT. LOT AREA:(E) FAR TOTAL := 2,500 SQ.FT. DEFERRED SUBMITALSCAL GREEN BUILDING MEASURE1. A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON- HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION WASTE GENERATED AT THE SITE WILL BEDIVERTED TO AN OFFSITE RECYCLE, DIVERSION, OR SALVAGE FACILITY PER CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDINANCE + 2019 CGC §4.4083. AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT OR OWNER. 2019 CGC §4.410.14. UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THEBUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2019 CODE REQUIREMENT.2019 CGC §703.15. AT TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THEHEATING, COOLING & VENTILATING EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS OPENINGS WILLBE COVERED W/ TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO REDUCE THEAMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM. (CGC 4.504.1).(*) = FUTURE BUILDING SHEETSGravel / Rock fillPrecast concreteBituminous pavingPlywoodRigid insulationEarthWoodSteelStone VeneerConcrete BlockGypsum boardConcreteBrick VeneerBatt insulationMetal LathMarble / tileExisting constructionWood frame constructionMetalSand/ Mortar/ PlasterExisting const. removed(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)CONSTRUCTION HOURS1. NO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTEROR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE HOURS LISTEDBELOW.CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE CHECKLIST: Single Family to be attached to jobsite building set2019 California Plumbing Code2019 California Mechanical Code2019 California Electric Code2019 California Energy Code CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE2019 California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Standards Code2019 California Residential Code2019 California Building CodeCONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS:SATURDAYS:SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS:8:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M.9:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.NO WORK ALLOWEDHIDDEN CONDITION NOTES1. Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issuedfor these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning commission.1. REMODEL (E) FIRST FLOOR KITCHEN, BEDROOM, BATHROOM, AND LAUNDRY AREA2. REMODEL (E) SECOND FLOOR TO HAVE (2) BATHS3. PROPOSED THIRD FLOOR ADDITION FOR (N) MASTER SUITE & DECK @ REAR OF HOUSE4. PROPOSED JADU ON GARAGE LEVELNONE(E) FIRST FLOOR= 1,563 SQ.FT.CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE LIMITED TO WEEKDAYSAND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M.(SEE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.04.100 FOR DETAILS)APN #:(N) FAR TOTAL := 2,470 SQ.FT. (E) SECOND FLOOR= 612 SQ.FT.(E) FIRST FLOOR= 1,387 SQ.FT.(N) THIRD FLOOR= 486 SQ.FT.(E) SECOND FLOOR= 597 SQ.FT.BUILDING + PUBLIC WORKS NOTES:REACH CODE1. NATURAL GAS IN NOT ALLOWED FOR SPACE HEATING, SPACE COOLING,WATER HEATING, OR CLOTHES DRYING FOR NEW BUILDINGS.1. PUBLIC WORKS REQUIRES A SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTION CERTIFICATE PRIOR TO PERMIT BEING ISSUED. PLEASE CONTACT PUBLICWORKS @ 650.558.7230.2. STORM WATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTION PREVENTION PERMIT IS REQUIRED, NOTE: AN INITIAL FIELD INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIORTO START OF ANY CONSTRUCTION (ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OR IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.3.RECYCLING + WASTE REDUCTION FORM WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED + APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDINGPERMIT, CONTACT JOE MCCLUSKEY OUR RECYCLING SPECIALIST @ 650-558-7273.4. A GRADING PERMIT IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.ZONING: R1USE OF BUILDING: RESIDENTIALTYPE OF CONST.: V-BNUMBER OF (E) STORIES: 2-STORY SPLIT LEVELNUMBER OF (N) STORIES: 3-STORY MULTI LEVEL(E) NUMBER OF DWELLINGS: 1PARKING: (E) 1- STALLSPRINKLERED (E): YES(E) ATTACHED GARAGE= 325 SQ.FT.(N) JADU= 500 SQ.FT.CITY OF BURLINGAME REACH CODE ORDINANCE #1979 (EFFECTIVE OCT. 16, 2020) MECHANICAL NOTES:1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE(CMC) AND ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES.2. MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR TO ACCEPT SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FORPROPER DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL SYSTEM. SEEMECHANICAL DWGS. BY OTHER FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION.3. MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH GENERALCONTRACTOR TO DESIGN AND INSTALL SUITABLE DISTRIBUTIONSYSTEM PER TITLE 24. MECH. CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ANDDETERMINE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF DUCTS AND REGISTER. SEESHEET INDEX FOR LOCATION OF TITLE 24 CONFORMANCEWORKSHEETS AND ENERGY COMPLIANCE NOTES WITHIN THIS SET.HVAC DUCTS LOCATED IN ATTIC SPACE SHALL BE PLACED AS CLOSE TOPERIMETER AS POSSIBLE SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH USEABLEATTIC STORAGE SPACE.4. MECHANICAL LAYOUT SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC AND IS SHOWN FORDESIGN INTENT ONLY.5. PROVIDE COMBUSTION AIR SUPPLY TO GAS FIRED APPLIANCES BYCOMBUSTION AIR DUCTS PER (CMC) & CPC. VERIFY DUCT SIZE WITHMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.6. FURNACES OR BOILERS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THECALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)7. PER CMC, COMBUSTION AIR DUCTS FROM THE ATTIC SHALL BELOCATED WITHIN THE UPPER AND LOWER 12 INCHES OF THEENCLOSURE. DUCTS SHALL BE SEPARATE AND SHALL NOT BEOBSTRUCTED.8. APPLIANCES DESIGNED TO BE FIXED IN POSITION SHALL BESECURELY FASTENED IN PLACE. SUPPORTS FOR APPLIANCES SHALLBE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO SUSTAIN VERTICAL ANDHORIZONTAL LOADS AS REQUIRED BY CMC. WATER HEATERS TO BESECURED WITH A MINIMUM OF 2 STRAPS, ONE EACH TO BE LOCATED INTHE UPPER AND LOWER THIRD OF THE UNIT.9. UNDERCUT ALL INTERIOR DOORS (AS APPROPRIATE) FOR AIRRETURN CIRCULATION TO VENTS, TYPICAL OF INTERIOR CONDITIONEDSPACES.10. VERIFY ALL FIXTURE LOCATIONS WITH OWNER PRIOR TOINSTALLATION.11. ALL FIXTURES TO BE SELECTED (OR APPROVED) BY OWNER.12. EXHAUST FANS IN LAUNDRY AND BATHROOMS MUST CONNECTDIRECTLY TO THE OUTSIDE AND PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 5 AIRCHANGES PER HOUR. EXHAUST FAN VENTS MUST TERMINATE AMINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM ANY OPENINGS INTO THE BUILDING AND BEPROVIDED WITH BACKDRAFT DAMPERS.13. AT NEW FORCED AIR FURNACE INSTALLATIONS PROVIDE 3' MIN.WORKING SPACE ALONG EACH SIDE (WITH A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 12" ONBOTH SIDES COMBINED), BACK AND TOP OF FURNACE.14. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL LISTED EQUIPMENT SHALLBE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD INSPECTOR AT TIME OF INSPECTION.PLUMBING NOTES:1. VERIFY ALL FIXTURE LOCATIONS WITH OWNER PRIOR TOINSTALLATION.2. ALL FIXTURES TO BE SELECTED AND (OR APPROVED) BY OWNERS.3. ALL NEW WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE 1.28 GALLON/FLUSH MAXIMUM.4. NO DISHWASHER MACHINE SHALL BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO ADRAINAGE SYSTEM OR FOOD DISPOSER WITHOUT THE USE OF ANAPPROVED AIR GAP FITTING ON THE DISCHARGE SIDE OF THEDISHWASHING MACHINE. LISTED AIR-GAPS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHTHE FLOOD LEVEL MARKING AT OR ABOVE FLOOD LEVEL OF SINK ORDRAINBOARD, WHICHEVER IS HIGHER5. (E) ON-DEMAND SYSTEM, CONFIRM WITH OWNER, RECIPROCATINGPUMP AS OPTION.ELECTRICAL NOTES:1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE(CEC) AND ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL CODES ANDORDINANCES.2. PER CEC, ALL ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES INSTALLED AT CRAWLSPACES AT OR BELOW GRADE, AND OUTDOORS SHALL HAVEGROUND-FAULT CIRCUIT-INTERRUPTER (G.F.C.I.) PROTECTION. ALLRECEPTACLES LOCATED IN BATHROOMS SHALL HAVE GROUND-FAULTCIRCUIT INTERRUPTER (G.F.C.I.) PROTECTION.3. SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CBC. A DETECTORSHALL BE INSTALLED IN EACH SLEEPING ROOM AND AT A POINTCENTRALLY LOCATED IN THE CORRIDOR OR AREA GIVING ACCESS TOROOMS USED FOR SLEEPING PURPOSES. A DETECTOR SHALL BEINSTALLED ON EACH LEVEL OF A MULTI-STORY DWELLING, INCLUDINGBASEMENT LEVELS. IN SPLIT-LEVEL OR MULTI-LEVEL FLOORS, ASMOKE DETECTOR SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE UPPER LEVEL, OR ONBOTH LEVELS IF THE LOWER LEVEL CONTAINS SLEEPING AREAS.WHERE THE CEILING HEIGHT OF A ROOM OPEN TO THE HALLWAYSERVING THE BEDROOMS EXCEEDS THAT OF THE HALLWAY BY 24INCHES, SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE HALLWAYAND IN THE ADJACENT ROOM. DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED INACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.WHEN THE VALUATION OF AN ADDITION OR REPAIR EXCEEDS $1,000.00,OR WHEN ONE OR MORE SLEEPING ROOMS ARE ADDED OR CREATEDIN AN EXISTING DWELLING, THE ENTIRE DWELLING SHALL BE PROVIDEDWITH SMOKE DETECTORS LOCATED AS REQUIRED FOR NEWDWELLINGS. IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, REQUIRED SMOKE DETECTORSSHALL RECEIVE THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING WIRINGWHEN SUCH WIRING IS SERVED FROM A COMMERCIAL SOURCE ANDSHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A BATTERY BACKUP. THE DETECTOR SHALLEMIT A SIGNAL WHEN THE BATTERIES ARE LOW. WIRING SHALL BEPERMANENT AND WITHOUT A DISCONNECTING SWITCH OTHER THANTHOSE REQUIRED FOR OVER CURRENT PROTECTION. SMOKEDETECTORS MAY BE SOLELY BATTERY OPERATED WHEN INSTALLED INEXISTING BUILDINGS, OR IN BUILDINGS WITHOUT COMMERCIAL POWER,OR IN BUILDINGS WHICH UNDERGO ALTERATION, REPAIRS, ORADDITIONS REGULATED AS OUTLINED ABOVE.4. TELEPHONE OUTLETS TO BE PREWIRED BY SUBCONTRACTOR.CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE AS REQUIRED. VERIFY LOCATION OFALL TELEPHONE OUTLETS WITH OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5. ELECTRICAL OPENINGS (SWITCHES, RECEPTACLES, ETC.) ONOPPOSITE SIDES OF FIRE RATED WALLS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ATLEAST 24 INCHES APART.6. PER CEC, RECEPTACLE SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 FEETMEASURED HORIZONTALLY ALONG THE WALL.7. PER CEC, AT LEAST ONE WALL SWITCH-CONTROLLED LIGHTINGOUTLET SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EVERY HABITABLE ROOM; INBATHROOMS, HALLWAYS, STAIRWAYS, ATTACHED GARAGES, ANDDETACHED GARAGES WITH ELECTRICAL POWER, AND OUTDOORENTRANCES OR EXITS.8. PER CEC, LIGHTING FIXTURES LOCATED WITHIN CLOTHES CLOSETSSHALL BE MOUNTED ON THE WALL ABOVE THE DOOR OR ON THECEILING. CLEARANCES SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:A. SURFACE MOUNTED INCANDESCENT FIXTURES - 12"B. SURFACE MOUNTED FLUORESCENT FIXTURES - 6" 9. ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING NECESSARYTEMPORARY POWER.10. VERIFY ANY AND ALL LANDSCAPE LIGHTING AND SWITCHES WITHOWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF ROUGH ELECTRICAL.11. ALL ELECTRICAL HANGING FIXTURES TO BE SELECTED ANDPURCHASED BY OWNER. VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS WITH OWNERPRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13. ALL INCANDESCENT LIGHTING FIXTURES RECESSED INTO INSULATEDAREAS SHALL BE APPROVED FOR ZERO CLEARANCE INSULATION COVERPER 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE AND RATED IC OR APPROVEDEQUAL MEETING UL RATING OR OTHER TESTING /RATINGLABORATORIES RECOGNIZED BY THE ICC.14. THIS DRAWING IS FOR LAYOUT PURPOSES ONLY. NEW ELECTRICALSHALL BE DESIGN-BUILD. NEW ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE DESIGNEDAND BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE ANDAPPLICABLE CODES, STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING LIFESAFETY, EMERGENCY, EGRESS AND NIGHT LIGHTING. ELECTRICALCONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING SEPARATE PERMIT.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DESIGN-BUILDELECTRICAL SYSTEM AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE (NEW) SERVICESHOWN (SCHEMATICALLY) ON THE DRAWINGS.GENERAL NOTES:ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY W/ THE 2019 EDITION OF THE CA. BUILDINGCODE AND ALL OTHER CODES AND REQUIREMENTS, IN THEIR MOSTRECENT EDITION INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2. THE INTENTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IS TO INCLUDEALL LABOR, MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATIONNECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE AND PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORKIN AN ACCEPTABLE INDUSTRY'S STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR IS TOOBTAIN ANY REQUIRED PERMITS FOR THIS OR HER WORK.3.THE MIN. ACCEPTABLE QUALITY OF MATERIALS, WORKMANSHIP, ANDMETHOD OF INSTALLATION SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERION:CONFORM TO THE AMERICAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE STANDARDS WHERESUCH STANDARDS EXISTS.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL,PLUMBING, AND FIRE PROTECTION WORK REQUIRED BY THE BUILDINGDEPARTMENT.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID TOREVIEW SCOPE OF WORK, DEMOLITION, ETC.6. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALLDIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE DESIGNER FORREVIEW.7. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED,(U.O.N.)8. DIMENSIONS NOTED CLEAR (CLR.) ARE NOT ADJUSTABLE WITHOUTAPPROVAL FROM THE DESIGNER.9. SAFETY MEASURES: AT ALL TIMES THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BESOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS OF THE JOBSITE INCLUDING SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY.10. CUTTING AND DEMOLITION SHALL BE DONE BY METHODS, WHICHWILL AND WILL NOT JEOPARDIZE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTINGCONSTRUCTION AND WILL NOT DAMAGE PORTIONS TO REMAIN.11. CONTRACTORS SHALL REMOVE, CUT, CAP, AND REPAIR, ASNECESSARY, ANY UTILITES. INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND FIRE SPRINKLERS, WHEREPARTITIONS ARE SCHEDULED FOR DEMOLITION OR ARE NO LONGEROPERATIONAL OR IN SERVICE. ALL OTHER EXISTING UTILITES ARE TOREMAIN FULLY OPERATIONAL.12. IN GENERAL, THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RETAIN ALLMATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT. ANY ITEMSOR MATERIAL NOT DESIRED BY THE OWNER ARE TO BE REMOVED FROMTHE SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.13.CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY DUST PROTECTIONAND/OR BARRICADING REQUIRED TO PROTECT ADJACENT SPACES ANDEXISTING FINISHES. CONTRACTOR OS RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR ANYDAMAGES CAUSED BY CONTRACTOR OR THEIR SUB-CONTRACTORS.14. PATCH AND REPAIR ANY DAMAGES TO FLOORS, WALLS, CEILINGS,HARDWARE, FIXTURES, WINDOWS, ETC. AS A RESULT OF THEDEMOLITION PROCESS. MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT FINISHES ASCLOSELY AS POSSIBLE.15. IF ANY QUESTIONS ARISE TO THE INSTALLATION OF ANYMATERIALS AND/OR EQUIPMENT, OR WITH THE CONSTRUCTIONDOCUMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLARIFY THE QUESTIONS W/THE DESIGNER BEFORE PROCEEDING. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BEMADE W/O THE DESIGNERS AND OR OWNERS APPROVAL.16. TOTAL THICKNESS OF NEW WALLS SHALLMATCH THAT OFADJACENT WALLS.17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DO ALL CUTTING, FITTING, ORPATCHING OF WORK THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE ITS PARTSFIT TOGETHER PROPERLY AND SHALL NOT ENDANGER ANY OTHERWORK BY CUTTING, EXCAVATION, OR OTHERWISE ALTERING THETOTAL WORK OR ANY PART OF IT. ALL PATCHING REPAIRING, ANDREPLACING OF MATERIALS AND SURFACES, CUT OR DAMAGE INEXECUTION OF WORK, SHALL BE DONE W/ APPLICABLE MATERIALSSO THAT SURFACES REPLACED WILL, UPON COMPLETION, MATCHSURROUNDING SIMILAR SURFACES.18. ALL WORK SHALL BE SCHEDULED AND PERFORMED SO AS NOTTO DISTURB ANY OTHER TENANTS IN THE BUILDING. ANY WORKTHAT WILL DISTURB ANOTHER TENANT, ABOVE OR BELOW, OR IN THEFLOOR , SHALL BE PERFORMED MOST EXPEDITIOUSLY AND THEDISTURBED TENANT SHALL HAVE FULL USE OF THE PREMISE.19. ALL TRADES SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS,AND PERFORM ALL NECESSARY, INDICATED, REASONABLY INFERREDOR REQUIRED BY ANY CODE W/ JURISDICTION TO COMPLETE THEIRSCOPE OF WORK FOR A COMPLETE AND PROPER FINISHED JOB. ANYCUSTOMARY AND NECESSARY ITEMS WHICH ARE REASONABLYIMPLIED AND REQUIRED TO COMPLETE PROPERLY THE WORKOUTLINED SHALL BE FURNISHED, EVEN IF NOT SPECIFICALLY SHOWNON THE DRAWINGS OR MENTIONED IN THE SPECIFICATION.20. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONSTRUCTIONCLEAN-UP, DURING AND FINAL.21. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ART (ADA) IS SUBJECT TOVARIOUS AND POSSIBLY CONTRADICTORY INTERPRETATIONS.THESE PLANS AND ANY ACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS ("PLANS")REPRESENT THE DESIGNER'S OPINION REGARDING ITSINTERPRETATION OF THE ADA AS IT APPLIES TO THE SUBJECTPROJECT. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE THATSAID PLANS COMPLY WITH ANY OR ALL POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONSOF THE ADA BY OTHERS. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. General Notes See DetailsGNScale: NAGN1REACH CODE2019 REACH CODE CHECKLIST Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Cal Green See DetailsCG-TIM RADUENZ - FORM+ONE4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVEPARK CITY, UT 8409807.20.22SW / A1.0 CG#1A1.0 CG#2NAME4.0/4.1A2.2, #3A2.2, #1A2.0, #9A2.0, #5A2.0, #11A2.0, #28ME2.0, LTG#1ME2.0, WHF#1A9.0, CG#3A9.0, CG#4A9.0, CG#5ME2.0, PV#1ME2.0, #38ME2.0, #39ME2.0, #41ME2.0, #42A9.0, CG#1A2.0 / NOTE #37A1.0 / #1ME2.0, #47T1.0, CG#1T1.0A2.0, ME2.0ME2.0, #48A2.0, #20A2.0, #21ME2.0, #49ME2.0, #51ME2.0, #52T1.0, CG#3732 VERLIN WAYME2.0, #32BUILDING COMMENTSREVIEW 02-10-21 02-10-21A2.0, POL. CTRL. #7GREEN BUILDING MEASURE1. AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER FOR LANDSCAPING WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE BUILDER ANDINSTALLED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 2019 CGC §4.304.12. A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON- HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTER GENERATED AT THE SITE WILLBE DIVERTED TO AN OFFSITE RECYCLE, DIVERSION, OR SALVAGE FACILITY PER CITY OF BURLINGAME AND 2019 CGC§4.4083. AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT OR OWNER. 2019 CGC§4.410.14. UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TOTHE BUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2019 CODE REQUIREMENT. 2019 CGC§703.15. AT TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THEHEATING, COOLING & VENTILATING EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTSOPENINGS WILL BE COVERED W/ TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCINGAGENCY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM. (CGC 4.504.1).1. PROVIDE 30" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH, 15" ON BOTH SIDES FROM CENTERLINE OF W.C.) AND 24" CLEARANCE INFRONT OF THE W.C. PER CPC 402.52. PROVIDE MIN. SHOWER AREA - 1024 SQ. INCHES, CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30" CIRCLE. SEE PLANS PERCPC 408.63. TEMPERED GLAZING, TYP. AT ALL DOORS AND REQUIRED BY CODE4. PROVIDE DEVICES TO ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM THE WASHER & DISHWASHER, ETC., PERCPC5.NA6. EXHAUST VENT FOR DRYER SHALL TERMINATE TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING AND SHALL BE EQUIPPEDWITH A DRAFT DAMPER AND SHALL BE RIGID METAL DUCT WITH SMOOTH INTERIOR SURFACES PER CMC SECT.504.CAL GREEN SITE DEVELOPMENT1. PROJECTS THAT DISTURB LESS THAN 1 ACRE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN TOMANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE (DURING CONSTRUCTION). A BMP PAGE IS SUFFICIENT.2019 CGC 4.106.22. PLANS SHALL INDICIATE HOW GRADING + PAVING WILL PREVENT SURFACE WATER FLOWSFROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. EXCEPTION: PROJECTS THAT DO NOT ALTER THE DRAINAGEPATH. 2019 CGC 4.106.33. ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (EV( CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY W/ RELEVANT SECTIONS2019 CGC 4.106.4GENERAL NOTESME4.0/4.1A2.0, POL. CTRL. #1A2.0, POL. CTRL. #6A2.0, POL. CTRL. #2A2.0, POL. CTRL. #3A2.0, POL. CTRL. #4A2.0, POL. CTRL. #5 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.See DetailsSWBMP'S & Pollution Prevention Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.See DetailsSW2Stormwater Management DetailsSW2Scale: N.A.2SOAKAGE TRENCHSW2Scale: N.A.1DRYWELL (RECOMMENDED DETAIL)SW2Scale: N.A.2STRAW ROLL DETAIL 14'-0"20'-2"34'-2"71'-1" 7'-8"36'-9"7'-2"19'-6"71'-1"18'-5"4'-8"11'-1"34'-2"REPLACING FURNACE. (N)FURNACE LOCATED INCRAWLSPACEA. 1,563SQ.FT.B. 325SQ.FT.CP. 23SQ.FT.14'-2"4'-0"18'-2"22'-11"13'-10" 36'-9" 36'-9"18'-2"5'-0"C. 502SQ.FT.D. 110 SQ.FT.(FIRST FLOOR)FAR1Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.FLOOR AREA CALC.(SECOND FLOOR)FAR2Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"Existing Floor Area Calc.See DetailsFARFLOOR AREA CALC.LOCATIONAREA FARSQ. FT.:COMPLETE FARA1,563REMARKS:TOTAL FAR:LOT SIZE: 4,300 SQ. FT.DETAILSAPN = 029-171-5301ST FLR 502CMAX FAR = 2,476EXISTING LOT COVERAGESQ. FT.:-2,0212ND FLR 1,563EXISTING 110D110EXISTING TOTAL LOT COVERAGE:2,500MAX LC = 1,720 LOT COVERAGE = LOT SIZE X .40 = MAX LOT= 4,300 X .40 = 1,720 SQ. FT.FAR = (LOT SIZE X .32) + 1,100 = MAX LOT COVERAGE= (4,300 X .32) + 1,100 = 2,476 SQ.FT.* 100 SQ.FT. ALLOWED FOR COVERED PORCHCPEXISTING FRONT PORCH23B325EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE325 20'-2"14'-0"71'-1"34'-2"71'-1"7'-8"36'-9"7'-2"19'-6"18'-5"4'-8"11'-1"34'-2"TVTV4'-3 1/2"3 1/2"5'-0"3 1/2"3'-9 1/2"3 1/2"9'-0"3 1/2"13'-6 1/2"6'-0"JADU 500SQ.FT.A. 1,387SQ.FT.CP. 23SQ.FT.14'-2"5'-2 1/2"19'-4 1/2"36'-9" 21'-7"18'-2"12'-10"5'-0"9'-10 1/2" 3 1/2" 4'-6" 6" 3 1/2"3'-0"3'-0"3'-6"3 1/2"12'-10"6"6" 36'-9"4'-0"4'-7 1/2"3 1/2"4'-7 1/2"B. 487SQ.FT.C. 110 SQ.FT.TV(E) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE612(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(N) D.S.SLOPE 6 12 (N) D.S.6"5 1/2"4'-5 1/2"3 1/2"12'-4"5 1/2"7'-0"SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE31217'-11 1/2"10'-0"5 1/2" 13'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-0" 3 1/2" 3'-0" 3 1/2" 4'-11" 5 1/2" 29'-4" 5 1/2"8'-2 1/2"3 1/2"3'-0" 3 1/2" 8 1/2" 5 1/2" 4'-6"3 1/2"4'-0"6'-8"5 1/2" 29'-4"5 1/2"3'-5 1/2"5 1/2"2'-11 1/2"5 1/2"5'-11"5 1/2"4"3'-0"5 1/2"17'-11 1/2"5'-1"8'-0"1'-4"HATCH AREATO SHOW 1'-4"ENCROACHMENTINTO D.H.E.D. 486SQ.FT.Proposed Floor Area Calc.See DetailsFAR2FLOOR AREA CALC.LOCATIONAREA FARSQ. FT.:COMPLETE FARA1,387REMARKS:TOTAL FAR:LOT SIZE: 4,282 SQ. FT.DETAILSAPN = 029-171-5301ST FLR 487B(FIRST FLOOR)MAX FAR = 2,476FAR21Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"EXISTING LOT COVERAGESQ. FT.:-1,520 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. 2ND FLR 1,387EXISTING 110C110EXISTING (2ND FLR CANTILEVER)3RD FLR 486D-PROPOSED ADDITIONTOTAL LOT COVERAGE:2,470MAX LC = 1,720LOT COVERAGE = LOT SIZE X .40 = MAX LOT= 4,300 X .40 = 1,720 SQ. FT.FAR = (LOT SIZE X .32) + 1,100 = MAX LOT COVERAGE= (4,300 X .32) + 1,100 = 2,476 SQ.FT.* 100 SQ.FT. ALLOWED FOR COVERED PORCHCPEXISTING FRONT PORCH23JADU -JADU-PROPOSED JADU (500 SQ. FT.)FLOOR AREA CALC.(SECOND FLOOR)2Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR AREA CALC.(THIRD FLOOR)3Scale: 3/16" = 1'-0"FAR2FAR2- LOT LINE 42.66'LOT LINE 42.97'LOT LINE 100.00' LOT LINE 100.00'(E) 6" CURBV E R N O N W A Y(E) SIDEWALK(E) GAS METER(PROTECT)(E) ELECT METER(PROTECT)(E) GARAGE(E) 1.5 STORYHOUSE(E) PATIO15'-0"2'-2"6'-7"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 6'-7"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 2'-2"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 15'-0"13'-11"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 13'-11"S 49°30'00" WS 49°30'00" WS 40°19'00" E S 40°30'00" E (E) 16" OAK TREE( 5 0 ' R / W )98.7698.6799.0999.50OHEOHEOHE(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING(E) 6" MAPLETREESEWERCLEANOUTWATERMETER(E) 24" SYCAMORETREE98.7998.6798.6998.9099.2199.3099.1698.9898.9299.1399.1099.3499.4499.49SEWERLAMPHOLENEIGHBORING HOUSE728 VERNON WAY(E) BRICKWALL99.65100.0799.82102.8999.8999.80100.08UTILITYPOLE(E) 6' WD. FENCE(E) 6' WD. FENCEOHE(E) WD. GATE(E) LANDSCAPING(E) BRICKWALL(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LAWN99.95100.04100.11100.00100.00100.00100.31100.62100.06100.34100.25100.35102.85100.0999.9799.8999.9415'-0" REAR SETBACK15'-0" FRONT SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0"4'-0"15'-0"(E) CONC.DRIVEWAY(E) JUNIPERTREE(E) JUNIPERTREE(E) JUNIPERTREEPARKINGSPOT #199.49100.6299.13100.00(E) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE612(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(N) D.S.SLOPE 6 12 (N) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE312LOT LINE 42.66'LOT LINE 42.97'LOT LINE 100.00' LOT LINE 100.00'(E) 6" CURBV E R N O N W A Y(E) SIDEWALK(E) GAS METER(PROTECT)(E) ELECT METER(PROTECT)(E) HOUSE(E) PATIO15'-0"2'-2"6'-7"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 6'-7"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 2'-2"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 15'-0"13'-11"DISTANCE FROM(E) HOUSE TOLOT LINE 13'-11"S 49°30'00" WS 49°30'00" WS 40°19'00" E S 40°30'00" E (E) 16" OAK TREE( 5 0 ' R / W )98.7698.6799.0999.50OHEOHEOHE(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING(E) 6" MAPLETREESEWERCLEANOUTWATERMETER(E) 24" SYCAMORETREE98.7998.6798.6998.9099.2199.3099.1698.9898.9299.1399.1099.3499.4499.49SEWERLAMPHOLENEIGHBORING HOUSE728 VERNON WAY(E) BRICKWALL99.65100.0799.82102.8999.8999.80100.08UTILITYPOLE(E) 6' WD. FENCE(E) 6' WD. FENCEOHE(E) WD. GATE(E) LANDSCAPING(E) BRICKWALL(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LAWN99.95100.04100.11100.00100.00100.00100.31100.62100.06100.34100.25100.35102.85100.0999.9799.8999.94REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY, AND SIDEWALK FRONTINGSITE. PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONSAND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL TO CITY SEWER CLEANOUT. NEWWATER SERVICE TO WATER METER. WHEN APPLICABLE WATER LINESABOVE 2" AND ALL FIRE SERVICES OF ANY SIZE ARE TO BE INSTALLEDBY APPLICANT AND PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDSPECIFICATIONS.(E) HOUSE(E) HOUSE(N) ADDITION46'-10"DISTANCE FROM(N) ADDITION TOLOT LINE 46'-10"7'-3"17'-7"17'-11 1/2"23'-9"DISTANCE FROM(N) ADDITION TOLOT LINE 23'-9"(E) LANDSCAPING 15'-0" REAR SETBACK15'-0" FRONT SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0"4'-0"15'-0"(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(E) CONC.DRIVEWAY(PROTECT)99.49100.6299.13100.00(E) JUNIPERTREE(E) JUNIPERTREE(E) JUNIPERTREE7'-0"8'-0"PARKINGSPOT #1 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Site Plan See DetailsA1.0A1.0Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED SITE PLANGENERAL NOTES & SCOPE1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSULTARBORIST AS REQUIRED.2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREE MAY BEREMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION (558-7330) NO TREESARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT.3. WATER CONSERVATION IN LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE NOT REQUIRED SINCE LANDSCAPE WILLNOT BE REHABILITATED AS NOTED ON PLANS.4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORM WATERDRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.35. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS6. IF CONSTRUCTION IS IN DRIP ZONE OF AN EXISTING PROTECTED SIZE TREE ON THIS SITE OR ANEIGHBORING SITE, AN ARBORIST REPORT AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED.7. IF A NEW A/C UNIT OR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THEBUILDING, THE NEW EQUIPMENT CANNOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL (dBA) OF60 dBA DAYTIME (7:00AM - 10:00PM) OR 50 dBA NIGHTTIME (10:00PM - 7:00AM) AS MEASURED FROMTHE PROPERTY LINE. BMC 25.58.050.CAL GREEN SITE DEVELOPMENT1. PROJECTS THAT DISTURB LESS THAN 1 ACRE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A PLAN TOMANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE (DURING CONSTRUCTION). A BMP PAGE IS SUFFICIENT.2019 CGC 4.106.22. PLANS SHALL INDICIATE HOW GRADING + PAVING WILL PREVENT SURFACE WATER FLOWSFROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. EXCEPTION: PROJECTS THAT DO NOT ALTER THE DRAINAGEPATH. 2019 CGC 4.106.33. ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (EV( CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY W/ RELEVANT SECTIONS2019 CGC 4.106.4PUBLIC WORKS NOTES1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1) REPLACE ALLCURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARYSEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINECONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER=CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITYWORKS WITHIN CITY'S RIGHT-OF WAY.2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRE LINEPROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MATERIALSPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FOR CONNECTION FEES. IFREQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVER WILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER.ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATEUNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.3. THERE ARE TO BE NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS,MAILBOXES, ETC.) BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. NONE OFTHESE STRUCTURES ARE PROPOSED.STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATER FORIRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE.2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTO VEGETATED AREAS.3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTO VEGETATEDAREAS.4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLE SURFACES.5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASED DETENTION.6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, AND MINIMIZECHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OR EQUIVALENT.8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSE SPECIESAPPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/OR DISEASE-RESISTANT,DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS. (C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDESAND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS.9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE OR SANITARYSEWER.10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTIL PERMANENTEROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED.11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS,SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TO BE PROTECTED ANDRETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES.12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THE FOLLOWING: (A)CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS,INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS AND SCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION,FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , AND STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED ORCLEARED MATERIAL, (C) SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDEMETHODS AND SCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FORTEMPORARY AND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHEN DEWATERING ANDOBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENT CONTROLS (E.G.BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS)16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS, EARTHENDIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS OR JUTE MATS, COVERSFOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC.17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFF AROUND THESITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES)18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM CONSTRUCTIONIMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS,DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS.20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN A DESIGNATED AREAWHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED.21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTES PROPERLY TOPREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALLEMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S.23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, INCLUDINGPAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUMPRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROM ARCHITECTURALCOPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES.A1.0Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"1EXISTING SITE PLAN LOT LINE 42.66'LOT LINE 42.97'LOT LINE 100.00' LOT LINE 100.00'(E) 6" CURBV E R N O N W A Y(E) SIDEWALK(E) HOUSE(E) PATIO15'-0"2'-2"6'-7"13'-11"S 49°30'00" WS 49°30'00" WS 40°19'00" E S 40°30'00" E (E) 16" OAK TREE( 5 0 ' R / W )98.7698.6799.0999.50(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING (E) LANDSCAPING(E) 6" MAPLETREE(E) 24" SYCAMORETREE98.7998.6798.6998.9099.2199.3099.1698.9898.9299.1399.1099.3499.4499.49NEIGHBORING HOUSE728 VERNON WAY99.65100.0799.82102.8999.8999.80100.08(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LAWN99.95100.04100.11100.00100.00100.00100.31100.62100.06100.34100.25100.35102.85100.0999.9799.8999.94(E) HOUSE(E) HOUSE(N) ADDITION46'-10"7'-3"17'-7"17'-11 1/2"23'-9" (E) LANDSCAPING 15'-0" REAR SETBACK15'-0" FRONT SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0"4'-0"15'-0"(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(ON SAND)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(E) CONC.DRIVEWAY(PROTECT)99.49100.6299.13100.00(E) JUNIPERTREE(E) JUNIPERTREE(E) JUNIPERTREE7'-0"8'-0"(E) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE612(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(N) D.S.SLOPE 6 12 (N) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE3121,944 SQ. FT. (E)IMPERVIOUSSURFACE AREA(E) BUILDING -NOT CREATING MORE IMPERVIOUSSURFACE. CONFIRM / ADDRESS PUBLICWORKS COMMENTS. BUILDINGSUBMITTAL WILL ADDRESS THEREQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO COMPLY.NOTE: ALL DOWNSPOUTS TO BEDIRECTED TO DRYWELL. DETAILS TOBE INCLUDED IN BUILDING SUBMITTAL. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Drainage Plan / Impervious Surface See DetailsA1.1A1.1Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED DRAINAGE PLAN / IMPERVIOUS SURFACEA1.1Scale: 1/8 = 1'-0"2STRAW ROLL DETAILIMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALC1,944 SQ. FT. (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA) / 4,300 SQ. FT. (LOT SIZE)= 45.21%BUILDING SUBMITTAL WILL ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS NEEDEDTO COMPLY. (E)(E) WD.M.CLT(E)(E) WD.(E) M.BED(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) TILE(E) M.BATH(E)(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) LAUN.(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) FAMILY(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) KITCHEN(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) OFFICE(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) DINING(E)UPUP(E) CONC.(E) GARAGE(E)(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) HALL(E)(E)(E)20" D FLUSH HEARTH(E) WD.(E) LIVINGUP(E) PAVERS(E) PATIOUP14'-0"20'-2"34'-2"71'-1" 7'-8"36'-9"7'-2"19'-6"71'-1"18'-5"4'-8"11'-1"34'-2"(E)(E)(E) SECOND FLOOR OUTLINEA3.01A3.11A3.21A3.31(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)FURNACE(E)(E)(E)(E) SKYLIGHTREPLACING FURNACE. (N)FURNACE LOCATED INCRAWLSPACE(E) WD.(E) LIN.CLT.(E)(E)(E)(E)DN(E)(E) TILE(E) BATH 1(E) WD.(E) BED 2(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) HALL(E)(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) BED 1(E)(E)(E) FIRST FLOOR OUTLINE14'-2"4'-0"18'-2"22'-11"13'-10" 36'-9" 36'-9"18'-2"5'-0"A3.01A3.11A3.21A3.311EXISTING / DEMO 1ST FLOOR PLAN Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Existing + Demo Floor Plans See DetailsAB2.0AB2.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2EXISTING / DEMO 2ND FLOOR PLANAB2.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"LEGEND:EXISTING WALLSWALLS/ITEMS TO BE REMOVESNEW WALLS (E)(N) WD.(N) CLT-4(N) WD.(N) BED-4(N)2/8(N) TILE(N) BATH-4(E) WD.(E) LAUN.(E)(E)(E) WD.(E) FAMILY(E) WD.(E) KITCHEN(N) WD.(N) BED(E) WD.(E) DINING(E)UPUP(N) TILE(N) BATH(E)20'-2"(E)(E) CONC.(E) CLT.(E) WD.(E) HALL(R) 2/620" D FLUSH HEARTH (E) WD.(E) LIVINGUP(E) PAVERS(E) PATIOUP14'-0"71'-1"34'-2"71'-1" 7'-8"36'-9"7'-2"19'-6"18'-5"4'-8"11'-1"34'-2"(E) SECOND FLOOR OUTLINE A3.02A3.12A3.22A3.32(E)(E)(E)(E)36" REF.(N)2/0(N)2/0(PROTECT)18" T / R(N)(N)36x8848x24TV48x2430x3030x30ON / OFF SHOWER HEAD (TEMP.)(N) CASEDOPENING(N)4/0(N)2/818x18QUEEN - 60x8018x18(N) WD.(N) HALLA4.01A4.01(N) 6/0EGRESS(N)2/8(N)2/6(TEMP.)ON / OFF (N)2/8(N) WD.(N) CLT.(UNDER STAIRS)TV(E) CONC.(N) DEN(N)2/0TEMP.SHOWER HEAD 102103105106A4.02A4.02(N)8/0(N)4/0101(E)(E)(E)TEMP.10018x18QUEEN - 60x8018x18(N)3/0(N)3/0OPTION SLIDING DOOR4'-3 1/2"3 1/2"5'-0"3 1/2"3'-9 1/2"3 1/2"9'-0"3 1/2"13'-6 1/2" 2x6 WALL (N)2/8TALL CAB.TALL CAB.SHORT CAB. 36" RANGE 12" SHELVESSTACKINGW / D18" SHELVES(N) PTRY(N) CASEDOPENING(N) SKYLIGHT(N) PTRY(E) SKYLIGHT A4.11A4.11A4.12A4.12IN-FILL WINDOW(PRIVACY)24" SHELVES (N)2/6IN-FILL WINDOW(PRIVACY)(N) JADU(N) JADU(N) JADU(E)104(N) THIRD FLOOR OUTLINE (E)TEMP.HOT PLATE24" CAB. 24" CAB.27" CAB.U/C STOR.(N) 1 HR. FIRE RATED WALLSYSTEM PER CODE - MIN. 1/2"GYP. BD. ON WALLS BETWEENHOUSE & JADU (TYP.)6'-0"(N) KITCHENETTE(R)4/0107(R)3/6108(R)3/6109110(R) 2/6111(R) 2/6112 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Proposed 1st Floor Plan See DetailsA2.0RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (EGRESS + WINDOWS + DRS.)1. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A MIN. NET CLEAR OPERABLE AREA OF 5.7SQUARE FEET.2. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR WIDTH DIMENSION SHALL BE 20"3. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE 24"4. MAX. U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION + SKYLIGHTS 2019 CEC 150.0 (Q)5. MAX. TOTAL AREA, 20%, NO MAXIMUM FOR WEST FACING AREA TABLE 150.1-A, & B6. FENESTRATION MAX. U-FACTOR 0.30. NO SHGC REQUIREMENT TABLE 150.1-A, & B7. DOOR MAX. U-FACTOR: 0.20 TABLE 150.1A, & B2019 CODE REQUIREMENTS: (PLUMBING)1. REQUIRES NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACED BYWATER-CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES WHEN A PROPERTY IS UNDERGOINGALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS. THIS LAW APPLIES TO ALL RESIDENTIAL ANDCOMMERCIAL PROPERTY BUILT PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1994. DETAILS CAN BEFOUND ATHTTP://LEGINFO.CA.GOV/PUB/09-10/BILL/SEN/SB0401-0450/SB407 BILL 20091011CHAPTERED.HTML.2. PER CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE ARTICLE 1101.4 AND CAL GREEN SECTION 301.1,FORALL BUILDING ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALPROPERTY, EXISTING PLUMBING FIXTURES IN THE ENTIRE HOUSE THAT DO NOTMEET COMPLIANT FLOW RATES WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADED. WATER CLOSETSWITH A FLOW RATE EXCESS OF 1.6 GPF WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED WITH W.C. W/A MAX. FLOW RATE OF 1.28 GPF. SHOWER HEADS W/ A FLOW RATE GREATER THAN2.5 GPM WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED W/ A MAX. 1.8 GPM SHOWER HEAD. LAVATORY& KITCHEN FAUCETS W/ A FLOW RATE GREATER THAN 1.8 GPM WILL NEED TO BEREPLACED W/ A FAUCET W/ MAX. FLOW RATE OF 1.5 GPM (OR 1.8 GPM FOR KITCHENFAUCETS)RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS) (CONT.):PLUMBING:- SHOWER MUST BE PROVIDED W/ TEMPERATURE CONTROL (ANIT-SCALD) TYPEVALVE. TOILETS MUST HAVE A MIN. CLEAR SPACE OF 30" WIDE, & 24" CLEAR SPACEIN FRONT. IF NEW, TOILETS MUST BE WATER CONSERVING 1.28 GALLON. SHOWERDOORS SHALL OPEN OUTWARD AND SHALL BE A MIN. 22" WIDE, THE SHOWERHEADCANNOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY AT ENTRANCE. ALL SHOWER COMPARTMENTS,REGARDLESS OF SHAPE,MUST BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30" CIRCLE. JOB-FORMED SHOWER PANLINER MUST SLOPE 14" PER FOOT TO WEEP HOLES IN DRAIN, AND BE INSPECTEDUNDER TEST PRIOR TO COVERING.RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS) (CONT.):BUILDING:- SHOWER WALL SHALL BE FINISHED TO A HEIGHT 72" ABOVE THE DRAIN INLETWITH MATERIAL THAT IS NOT AFFECTED BY MOISTURE. GREEN BD. CANNOT BEUSED AS A BACKER FOR MASTIC TILE WHERE IT WILL BE EXPOSED TO SPLASHINGWATER AND IS NOT ALLOWED ON CEILINGS.CEMENT BOARD WITH A MOISTURE BARRIER AND CORROSION-RESISTANTFASTENERS IS AN APPROPRIATE BACKING MATERIAL IN WET LOCATIONS. MIN.CEILING HEIGHT FOR ALL BATHROOMS IS 7'-0". SAFETY GLAZING ISREQUIRED FOR WINDOWS IN TUB OR SHOWER LOCATIONS WHERE THE BOTTOMEDGE OF GLASS IS LESS THAN 5'-0" ABOVE THE DRAIN. AS PART OF REMODELSMOKE DETECTORS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL BEDROOMS, ADJOINING HALL, ANDAT EACH LEVEL PER THE BUILDING CODE.RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS)(CONT.)ELECTRICAL:- IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE RECEPTACLE WITHIN 3-FEET OF THEOUTSIDE EDGE OF EACH BASIN, THIS RECEPTACLE AND ANY OTHERS LOCATEDWITHIN THE BATHROOM MUST BE GFCI PROTECTED.- A SEPARATE 20-AMP CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED TO SUPPLY BATHROOM OUTLETSONLY, OR A SINGLE BATHROOM.- LIGHTING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE HIGH EFFICACY OR CONTROLLED BY AMANUAL ON OCCUPANTSENSOR SWITCH. (TYPICALLY HIGH EFFICACY LIGHT FIXTURES ARE PIN BASEFLUORESCENT WITH ELECTRONIC BALLAST.MECHANICAL:- A FAN CONNECTED TO THE OUTSIDE CAN BE PROVIDED, FAN EXHAUST SHOULDBE 3-FEET FROM BUILDING OPENINGS AND PROPERTY LINES. BE INSPECTED UNDER TEST PRIOR TO COVERING.GENERAL NOTES:1. PROVIDE 30" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH, 15" ON BOTH SIDES FROM CENTERLINE OF W.C.)AND 24" CLEARANCE IN FRONT OF THE W.C. PER CPC 402.52. PROVIDE MIN. SHOWER AREA - 1024 SQ. INCHES, CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A30" CIRCLE. SEE PLANS PER CPC 408.63. TEMPERED GLAZING, TYP. AT ALL DOORS AND REQUIRED BY CODE4. PROVIDE DEVICES TO ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM THEWASHER & DISHWASHER, ETC., PER CPC5.WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE AN ULTRA LOW FLUSH TYPE W/ 1.28 GALLONS MAX.PER FLUSH, PER CPC & GCG 4.303.1.16. EXHAUST VENT FOR DRYER SHALL TERMINATE TO THE OUTSIDE OF THEBUILDING AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A DRAFT DAMPER AND SHALL BE RIGIDMETAL DUCT WITH SMOOTH INTERIOR SURFACES PER CMC SECT. 504.7. VERIFY ALL FINISH FLOOR CALL-OUTS W/ OWNERS, TYP.8. SUB- PANEL ELECT., VERIFY LOCATION W/ OWNER.9. ALL SHOWER HEADS TO HAVE 1.8 GPM @ 60 PSA FLOW MAX. PER 2019 CPCSECT. 408.2 & (CGC 4.303.1.2)10. ALL SHOWER WALLS TO BE WATERPROOF TO 72" ABOVE DRAIN INLET, WALLFINISHES TO BE OF SMOOTH HARD NONABSORBENT SURFACE, PER CRC R307.2(CEMENT BASED)11. QUALITY INSULATION INSTALLATION INSPECTION (QII) IS REQ'D BY A THIRDPARTY.12. ALL LAVATORY FAUCETS TO HAVE 1.2 GPM, + KITCHEN FAUCETS TO HAVE 1.8GPM FLOW MAX. PER 2019 CPC SECT. 403.7, & 403.6 (CGC 4.303.1.4.4)13. WATER HAMMER ARRESTORS AT ALL APPLIANCES THAT HAVE QUICK-ACTINGVALVES (I.E.) DISHWASHERS HOT WATER LINE AND THE HOT/COLD LINES OF THECLOTHES WASHER) 2019 CPC 609.10.14. CONTROL VALVE FOR SHOWER OR TUB/SHOWER SHALL BE OF THE PRESSUREBALANCE OR THERMOSTATIC MIXING VALVE TYPE, PER CPC 420.0.15. THRESHOLD FOR IN-SWING DOORS SHALL BE 7.75" MAX. AND 7" MAX. FOROUTSWING DOORS.16. (E) GAS METER LOCATION, PG&E, TYPICAL 36" FROM OPERABLE WINDOWS.17. (E) ELECTRICAL METER LOCATION SHOWN.18. MAX. DROP FROM TOP OF THRESHOLD TO THE EXT. LANDING AT ALL SLIDINGAND IN-SWINGING DOORS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7.75", AND NOT MORE THAN 1.5"LOWER THAN THRESHOLD FOR OUTSWING DRS. PER 2019 CRC R311.319. (N) STAIRS TO HAVE MAX. RISER HEIGHT OF 7.75" AND A MIN. TREAD DEPTHOF 10" PER CRC R311.7.4.20. A CAPILLARY BREAK WILL BE INSTALLED IF A SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATIONSYSTEM IS USED. THE USE OF A 4" THICK BASE OF 1/2" OR LARGER CLEANAGGREGATE UNDER A 6 MIL VAPOR RETARDER WITH JOINT LAPPED NOT LESSTHAN 6" WILL BE PROVIDED UNLESS AND ENGINEERED DESIGN HAS BEENSUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION . 2019 CGC §4.505.2 ANDCALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) §R5O6.2.321. BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE WILL NOT BEINSTALLED. WALL AND FLOOR FRAMING WILL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THEFRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURE CONTENT WILLBE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINISH MATERIAL BEING APPLIED. 2019 CGC §4.505.322. FITTINGS (FAUCETS AND SHOWER HEADS) HAVE ALL REQUIRED STANDARDSLISTED ON PLANS AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE TO CGC 4.303.1.3 AND CGC 403.1.423. ANY GAS FIREPLACE SHALL BE DIRECT-VENT SEALED-COMBUSTIBLE TYPE.2019 CGC 4.503.124. PROVIDE 36 INCH MIN. DEEP LANDING OUTSIDE ALL EXTERIOR DOORS (NOTMORE THAN 7.75 INCHES LOWER THAN THE THRESHOLD FOR IN-SWINGING DOORSAND SLIDING DOORS, AND NOT MORE THAN 1.5 INCHES LOWER THAN THETHRESHOLD FOR OUT-SWINGING DOORS) 2019 CRC R311.325. WALLS WITH 2 X 6 AND LARGER FRAMING REQUIRE R-19 INSULATION 150.0(C)226. CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THE CITY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY ARE LIMITED TO THEWEEKDAYS AND NON-CITY HOLIDAYS BETWEEN 8:00 A.M AND 5:00 P.M.27. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR ASINGLE LINE DRAWING OF THE EXISTING AND NEW GAS LINES TO INDICATE THEDISTANCE FROM THE METER TO EACH GAS FIRED APPLIANCE PRIOR TOINSTALLATION. INCLUDE THE SIZE OF THE GAS PIPE TO EACH APPLIANCE AND BTURATING OF EACH APPLIANCE. GAS PIPE SIZING WILL BE SIZED PER TABLE 1216.2(1)IN THE 2019 CPC. NOTE: ANY INSTALLATION OF NEW GAS PIPING PRIOR TO PLANCHECK APPROVAL IS AT THE RISK OF THE CONTRACTOR.1. ALL EXTERIOR 2X6 WALLS: R-21 BATT INSULATION, OR MIN. BYTITLE-242. ALL EXTERIOR 2X4 WALLS: R-15 BATT INSULATIONOR MIN. BY TITLE-243. ALL CEILINGS TO RECEIVE R-32 MIN. INSULATIONOR MIN. BY TITLE-244. ALL UNDER FLOOR TO RECEIVE R-19 BAT INSULATION5. ALL BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY ROOMS, TO RECEIVE SOUND BATT,INSULATION, TYPICAL.6. CEILING INSULATION, MIN. R-30 INSULATION REQUIRED.7. BUILDING ENVELOPE INSULATION: PER CLIMATE ZONE: 3 TABLE150.1-A, & B8. BUILDING ENVELOPE INSULATION: WALLS, ABOVE OR BELOWGRADE, MEET STANDARDS IN TABLE 150.1-A & B9. QUALITY INSULATION INSTALLATION INSPECTION (QII) ISREQUIRED BY A THIRD PARTY.INSULATION: (See Title-24 For Min.)A2.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN1. NUMBERS + ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW+ EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION AS TO BE PLAINLYVISIBLE + LEGIBLE FRONT THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTINGTHE PROPERTY. SAID NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST W. THEIRBACKGROUND, SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF ONE-HALF INCHSTROKE BY FOUR INCHES HIGH, AND SHALL BE EITHERINTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEWCONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS OR REPAIR OF EXISTINGCONSTRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCH ILLUMINATION SHALLNOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. CITY OF BURLINGAMEMUNICAPAL CODE 18.08.010. CBC 2019 CBC 502.1ADDRESS NUMBERING POLICY:GENERAL BUILDING NOTES:1. REDUCED U-FACTOR (0.30) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCEWINDOWS 2019 CAL ENERGY CODE §150.1 (C)3 A2. PROVIDE LIGHTING AT ALL EXT. LANDINGS PER 2019 CRC303.8 OR 2019 CBC 1008.2 AND 2019 CBC 1205.43. ALL ROOMS TO MEET NATURAL LIGHTING + VENTILATIONREQUIREMENTS WILL MEET 2019 CRC R3031. AT LEAST (1) WINDOW OR DOOR THAT COMPLIES WITHEGRESS REQUIREMENTS, 2019 CRC R310, OR CBC 1030EGRESS NOTES:POLLUTANT CONTROL NOTES:1. PAINTS + COATINGS WILL COMPLY WITH VOC LIMITS PER 2019 CGC §4.504.2.22. DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH VOC FINISHMATERIALS. 2019 CGC §4.504.2.43. CARPET SYSTEM INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING INTERIOR WILL MEET THETESTING + PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREENBUILDING CODE. 2019 CGC §4.504.34. WHERE RESILIENT FLOORING IS INSTALLED, AT LEAST 80% OF THE FLOOR AREARECEIVING RESILIENT FLOORING WILL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREENBUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2019 CGC §4.504.45. HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD, + MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS USED ON THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THEBUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOW FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS.2019 CGC §4.504.56. AEROSOL PAINTS + COATINGS SHALL MEET THE PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIRLIMITS FOR ROC AND COMPLY W/ PERCENT VOC BY WEIGHT OF PRODUCT LIMITS,REGULATION 8, RULE 49. PER 2019 CGC 4.504.2.37. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, + CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL FOLLOWLOCAL + REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS2019 CGC §4.504.2.1GENERAL NOTES CONT.:28. HOT WATER PIPING INSULATION §150.0 (j)2 A ii29. LIGHTING - NEW MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDOOR ROOMS §150.0 (K)30. RADIANT BARRIER REQUIRED IN CLIMATE ZONE 3 §150.0 (C) 231. REDUCE U-FACTOR (0.30) AND SHGC (0.20) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS§150.1 (C) 3 A32. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL FOLLOWLOCAL AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICTSTANDARDS 2019 §4.504.2.133. ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, CONDUITS OR OTHEROPENINGS IN SOLE/BOTTOM PLATES AT EXTERIOR WALL WILL BERODENT-PROOFED BY CLOSING SUCH OPENINGS WITH CEMENT MORTAR,CONCRETE, MASONRY OR SIMILAR METHOD ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCINGAGENCY. 2019 CGC § 4.406.134. ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERESETBACK IS 4' PER 2019 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2019 CBC TABLE 705.2. ALLROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE- RESISTIVECONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOURFIRE-RESISTANCE- RATED CONSTRUCTION PER 2019 CRC § R302.1 (1) OR 2019 CBC§705.2.35. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN 5' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BEBUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION. 2019 CRC TABLE R302.1 (1) § OR2019 CBC, TABLE 602.36. REQUIRED: NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACED BYWATER-CONSERVING PLUMBING FIXTURES WHEN A PROPERTY IS UNDERGOINGALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS.37. PLUMBING - INDOOR WATER USE:-THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF WATER CLOSETS WILL NOT EXCEED 1.28GAL/FLUSH (2019 CGC - 4.303.1.1) FOR DUAL FLUSH TOILETS AVERAGE TWOREDUCED FLUSHES WITH ONE FULL FLUSH-THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF URINALS WILL NOT EXCEED 0.125 GAL/FLUSH(2019 CGC - 4.303.1.2-MAX. FLOW RATE FOR SHOWERS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM, @ 80 PSI (2019 4.303.1.3-MAX. FLOW RATE FOR LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM, @ 60 PSI (2019 CGC4.303.1.4.1)-MAX. FLOW RATE FOR KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM, @ 60 PSI, CANTEMPORARILY INCREASE TO 2.2 GPM, BUT MUST DEFAULT BACK TO MAX. FLOWRATE OF 1.8 GPM (2019 CGC 4.303.1.4.4). DN(E) FIRST FLOOR OUTLINE14'-2"5'-2 1/2"19'-4 1/2"36'-9"21'-7"18'-2"12'-10"5'-0"A3.02A3.12A3.22A3.32A4.01A4.01UPA4.02A4.02(R)3/0(N)2/8(N)2/6(E) WD.(E) BED 3(E) WD.(E) HALL(N)2/8(E) WD.(E) BED 2(R)2/9(N)2/8201TEMP.(N)5/0(N)2/618x18QUEEN - 60x8018x1818x18QUEEN - 60x8018x184'-6" TUB(N) SKYLIGHT(N)3/0200EGRESS(N)2/8(E) WD.(N) BATH-2(E) WD.(N) BATH-39'-10 1/2"3 1/2"4'-6"6"3 1/2"3'-0"3'-0"3'-6"3 1/2"12'-10"6"6"36'-9"4'-0"DESKDESK4'-7 1/2"3 1/2"4'-7 1/2"(V.I.F.)4'-6" TUB(V.I.F.)A4.12A4.12202(R)4/0203204(R)3/0205EGRESS(E) FIRST FLOOR OUTLINEA3.02A3.12A3.22A3.32(N) 5/0(TEMP.)(N) TILE(N) M. BATH(N) WD(N) M. W.I.C.KING 78 X 8018 X 1818 X 18(N) 6/0TEMP. / EGR.TEMP.(N) WD(N) M. BEDDN(N) TREX(N) DECK(N)2/0(E) SECOND FLOOR OUTLINE 300301304A4.01A4.01TV303(N)2/4(N) 2/6CASEDA4.02A4.02EPDM OR EQUAL(E) FLAT ROOFCLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE612(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(N) D.S.SLOPE 6 12 (N) D.S.6"DBL. HANG.ADJ. SHELVES(N)2/8(N)2/0(N)2/6(N)2/8305(N) WD(N) STAIRSHEADER (N)2/0306(E) SKYLIGHTSHELVESBENCH (N)2/0(N)2/0(N) LIN. CLT.BENCH5 1/2"4'-5 1/2"3 1/2"12'-4"5 1/2"7'-0"302SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE31217'-11 1/2"10'-0"5 1/2" 13'-7 1/2" 3 1/2" 6'-0" 3 1/2" 3'-0" 3 1/2" 4'-11" 5 1/2" 29'-4" 5 1/2"8'-2 1/2"3 1/2"3'-0" 3 1/2" 8 1/2" 5 1/2" 4'-6"3 1/2"4'-0"6'-8"5 1/2" 29'-4"5 1/2"3'-5 1/2"5 1/2"2'-11 1/2"5 1/2"5'-11"5 1/2"4"3'-0"5 1/2"17'-11 1/2"A4.11A4.11PRIVACYLANDSCAPINGSLIDING(N) WD(N) CLT(N) 3/0CASED(N)4/0307TEMP.TEMP.5'-1"8'-0"1'-4"HATCH AREATO SHOW 1'-4"ENCROACHMENTINTO D.H.E. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Proposed Floor Plan See DetailsA2.1A2.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLANA2.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED 3RD FLOOR PLAN NOTES:1. (EXISTING) (OGEE) G.S.M. GUTTERS, & (3" GSM)DOWNSPOUTS (MATCH EXISTING AS REQUIRED),LINE ALL VALLEYS WITH GSM, AT LEAST 20" WIDEWITH WITH 1/4" EDGE TURNED OVER ANDFASTENED WITH CLEATS. LAP JOINTS AT LEAST 4",BUT DO NOT SOLDER.2. ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE ASPHALT SHINGLESBY CERTAINTEED OR EQUAL (CLASS 'A') O/ 1 LAYEROF 15# FELT PAPER O/ 5/8" PLYWOOD OR PERSTRUCTURAL DWGS. MIN 40 YEAR WARRANTYSHINGLES. (CONFIRM COLOR WITH OWNER)(MATCH EXISTING SHINGLES)3. WHEN INSULATION IS INSTALLED IN ENCLOSEDRAFTER SPACES WHERE CEILINGS ARE APPLIEDDIRECT TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, AMINIMUM AIR SPACE OF 1 INCH MUST BE PROVIDED,INSULATION BAFFLE NEEDED.4. FLASHINGS AND COUNTER FLASHINGS SHALLNOT BE LESS THAN 0.016-INCH (28-GAGE)CORROSION RESISTANT METAL, AND VALLEYFLASHING5. AT THE JUNCTURE OF THE ROOF & VERTICALSURFACES, FLASHING & COUNTERFLASHINGSSHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (26 GAUGE)6. TRUSSES (IF USED) TO INCORPORATE A MIN. 6"HEEL, VERIFY WITH DESIGNER.7. TERMINATION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AIRDUCTS SHALL BE A MIN. OF 3'-0" FROM PROPERTYLINES OR ANY OPENING INTO THE BUILDING (I.E.DRYERS, BATH& UTILITY FANS, ETC., MUST BE 3'-0"AWAY FROM DOORS, WINDOWS, OPENINGSKYLIGHTS OR ATTIC VENTS, PER CODE8. (IF USED) THE TRUSS PLAN AND THE TRUSSCALC. SHALL BE REVIEWED & APPROVED BY THEENGINEER OF RECORD BEFORE SUBMITTING TOTHE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL PRIORTO FABRICATION. TRUSS PLANS SHALL BE WETSIGNED & WET STAMPED BY TRUSS DESIGNENGINEER.9. (IF REQUIRED) FURNACE LOCATED INCRAWLSPACE SHALL BE LISTED FOR CRAWLSPACELOCATION AND PROVIDED WITH 24" WIDE ACCESSPOINT AND 30" WORKING SPACE AT CONTROLS.10. ATTIC VENTILATION AT CALIFORNIA FRAMING TORECEIVE LOW PROFILE VENTS OR OPENING IN THEROOF SHEATHING BELOW11. (AS REQUIRED) ALL TRUSS/RAFTER BLOCKINGTO RECEIVE 2" DIA HOLES IN EVERY BLOCKTYPICAL FOR EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF AIR FLOW.12. ALL MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING VENTS TO BEA MINIMUM 3" ABOVE OR 10'-0" AWAY FROM ALLVENTING SKYLIGHTS. BATHROOM FANS AREPERMITTED TO BE 3'-0" AWAY. 2019 CMC 502.2.1,2019 CPC 906.2.PLUMBING & HVAC NOTE:1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHERWHEN POSSIBLE & LOCATE ON ROOFSSLOPING TO THE REAR OF HOUSE TYP. VERIFYLOCATION W/ DESIGNER.(E) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE612(E) CHIMNEYPROTECT(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.SLOPE612SLOPE612SLOPE312SLOPE 6 12 SLOPE 6 12 EPDM OR EQUAL(E) FLAT ROOFCLASS A: FIRE RATEDGSM GUTTER SYSTEMGSM GUTTER SYSTEM(E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE(E) VALLEY(E) VALLEY(E) V A L L E Y(E) VALLEY(E) ASPHALT ROOF(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECT(E) SKYLIGHTREMOVEEPDM OR EQUAL(E) FLAT ROOFCLASS A: FIRE RATED(N) DECKSLOPE612SLOPE612(N) RIDGE (N) RIDGE12 3 SLOPE (N) ASPHALT ROOFCLASS A: FIRE RATEDTO MATCH (E)(E) D.S.(E)SLOPE612612612612(E) CHIMNEYPROTECT(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.612612312GSM GUTTER SYSTEMGSM GUTTER SYSTEM(E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE (E) RIDGE (E) VALLEY(E) ASPHALT ROOF(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECT(N) VALLEY(N) D.S.(N) D.S.(N) D.S.(N) LIVE ROOFEPDM OR EQUALCLASS A: FIRE RATED123 SLOPE (N ) V A L L E Y (E) SKYLIGHTPROTECTSLOPE312SLOPE612SLOPE612(E)SLOPE(E)SLOPE(E)SLOPE(E)SLOPE(E)SLOPE(E)SLOPE6 12 (E) SLOPE 6 12 (E) SLOPE (N) 14"ØSKYLIGHT(N) 14"ØSKYLIGHT(N) 14"ØSKYLIGHTExisting/ Proposed Roof Plan See DetailsA2.2 Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.A2.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING ROOF PLANPLUMBING & HVAC NOTE:1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHER WHENPOSSIBLE & LOCATE ON ROOFS SLOPING TO THE REAROF HOUSE TYP. VERIFY LOCATION W/ DESIGNER.A2.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED ROOF PLAN D.S.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR. TOPPLATE7'-2"11"8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'111.55'103.22'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINESUB. FLR. @GARAGE99.91'D.H.E. LEFT100.06'1 3/4"D.H.E. RIGHT99.57'AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'7'-6"(E) STUCCO(E) 6' WOOD FENCE(E) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES21'-11" OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (E) WD. GARAGE DR.(E) WD. / CLAD WINDOWS(E) COMP. SHUTTERS12'-0"45°12'-0"45°(E) WROUGHT IRONHANDRAIL1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR. TOPPLATE7'-2"11"8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4" 1'-1" 25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'111.55'103.22'(E) D.S.7'-6" 12'-0" (E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE 3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1" 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT(N)TEMP.6126126123:12 ROOF PITCHD.S.(R)(R)(R)(R)(R)G.S.M. GUTTER SYSTEM(PAINTED), TYP.ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.STANDARD, 3-COAT STUCCO(SMOOTH FINISH) OR OLDSCHOOL PITTED STUCCO(PAINTED)(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)BUMPED OUT (PAINTED)FEATURE(E) CHIMNEY(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)SUB. FLR. @GARAGE99.91'(E)(E)(N)TEMP.SIERRA-PACIFIC WOOD/CLADWDS. + DRS, PUTTY SDL(E) 6' WOOD FENCE(PROTECT)(N)(N)D.H.E. LEFT100.06'1 3/4"6'-7" EXISTING34'-2" EXISTING HOUSE2'-2"EXISTINGD.H.E. RIGHT99.57'7'-6" 12'-0"ADDITIONAVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'45°45°(E)(E) COMP. SHUTTERS1'-4"(E)(E)(E)(E)OPTION: SAME STYLEGLASS AS FRONT ENTRY(E) WROUGHT IRONHANDRAILCLAD (E) POST W/5/4 TO MAKE THICKER Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Existing + Proposed Elevation See DetailsA3.0A3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONA3.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION 1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR.TOP PLATE7'-0 1/4" 11" 8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"111.55'103.22'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE SUB. FLR. @LWR. FLR.100.12'D.H.E. RIGHT99.57'D.H.E. LEFT100.06'3/4" 7'-6"AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'21'-11" OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT(E) STUCCO(E) 6' WOOD FENCE(E) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES(E) EPDM OR EQ. FLAT ROOFSEE ROOF PLAN(E) STUCCO(E) WD. / CLAD WINDOWS12'-0"45°12'-0"45°1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR.TOP PLATE7'-0 1/4" 11" 8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"111.55'103.22'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE 1'-1" 25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT 3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1" 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT (N)(N)TEMP.EGR.(N)TEMP.EGR.612612FLAT ROOF(R)(E)SIERRA-PACIFIC WOOD/CLADWDS. + DRS, PUTTY SDL(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)(N) 42" HGT. RAILING(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)(E) WINDOWS - V.I.F. W/REPLACEMENTS(N) WOOD BRACKETDETAILG.S.M. GUTTER SYSTEM(PAINTED), TYP.ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.STANDARD, 3-COAT STUCCO(SMOOTH FINISH) OR OLDSCHOOL PITTED STUCCO(PAINTED)SUB. FLR. @LWR. FLR.100.12'(N)(E)(E) 6' WOOD FENCE(PROTECT)(N)TEMP.PRIVACY LANDSCAPING16" PLANTER312AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'D.H.E. RIGHT99.57'7'-6" 12'-0"45°D.H.E. LEFT100.06'3/4"2'-1"34'-2" EXISTING HOUSE6'-7" EXISTINGEXISTINGADDITION7'-6" 12'-0"45°(N)8'-0"1'-4"EGR. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Existing + Proposed Elevation See DetailsA3.1A3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"3OPTIONS FOR PLANTER @2ND FLR BALCONYA3.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"4SPECS FOR PLANTER D.S.D.S.1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATERIDGE3'-8"8'-4"3'-9 1/2"15'-9 1/2"115.35'111.55'103.22'1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"(E) GRADE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITAVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'21'-11"111.55'103.22'(E) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES(E) EPDM OR EQ. FLAT ROOFSEE ROOF PLAN(E) WD. / CLAD WINDOWS(E) STUCCO(E) ALUM. CLAD.JALOUSIE WINDOWS1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATERIDGE3'-8"8'-4"3'-9 1/2"15'-9 1/2"115.35'111.55'103.22'(E) D.S.1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4" 1'-1" 25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT111.55'103.22'3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1"(N)(N)(N)(N)TEMP.6:12 ROOF PITCH6:12 ROOF PITCH612D.S.(R)(R)(R)(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)(N) 42" HGT. RAILING(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)STANDARD, 3-COAT STUCCO(SMOOTH FINISH) OR OLDSCHOOL PITTED STUCCO(PAINTED)G.S.M. GUTTER SYSTEM(PAINTED), TYP.ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.SIERRA-PACIFIC WOOD/CLADWDS. + DRS, PUTTY SDL(N)(N)D.S.PRIVACY LANDSCAPING(E) GRADE30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITAVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'71'-1" EXISTING HOUSEADDITIONIN-FILL WINDOWS(PRIVACY) Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Existing + Proposed Elevation See DetailsA3.2A3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONA3.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATION D.S.D.S.D.S.(E) GRADE1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"111.55'103.22'1ST FLR. TOP PLATE (@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR. TOP PLATE7'-2"11"8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'SUB. FLR. @GAR.99.91'AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'21'-11" OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT(E) WD. / CLAD WINDOWS(E) STUCCO(E) ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES(E) EPDM OR EQ. FLAT ROOFSEE ROOF PLAN(E) WROUGHT IRONHANDRAIL(E) BRICK1ST FLR. TOP PLATE (@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR. TOP PLATE7'-2" 11" 8'-4"RIDGE5'-0 1/2"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"111.55'103.22'(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(N)TEMP.6:12 ROOF PITCH312FLAT ROOF6:12 ROOF PITCH6:12 ROOF PITCHD.S.(R)(E)(E)(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)(N) 42" HGT. RAILINGARCHITECTURAL ASPHALTSHINGLES GRACE UNDER-LAYMENT TYP., TYP.(E) STUCCO - REFINISH ASNEEDED. (NEW PAINT)(N) WOOD BRACKETDETAIL(N) BRICK VENEERSIERRA-PACIFIC WOOD/CLADWDS. + DRS, PUTTY SDLSUB. FLR. @GAR.99.91'(E)(E)AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'1'-1"25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1"30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITAVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'71'-1" EXISTING HOUSEADDITION(N)(N)TEMP.(N)(E) WROUGHT IRONHANDRAIL(E) BRICKEGR. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Existing + Proposed Elevation See DetailsA3.3A3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONA3.3Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING LEFT ELEVATION 1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR.TOP PLATE7'-0 1/4" 11" 8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"111.55'103.22'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE 1'-1" 25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT 3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1" 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT SUB. FLR. @LWR. FLR.100.12'(E) 6' WOOD FENCE(PROTECT)AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'D.H.E. RIGHT99.57'7'-6" 12'-0"45°D.H.E. LEFT100.06'3/4" 7'-6" 12'-0"45°(E)(E)(E) CRAWLSPACE(E) DINING(E) HALL(E)(N) BATH(N) JADU(N) HALL(N) JADU(N) BATH-2(N) BATH-3(E) HALL(N) M. BED(N) STAIRS(E) FLAT ROOF412R-32 @ ATTIC,TYP. SEE TITLE-24PRE-FAB TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.61231261211 78" TJI @ 16"O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"T & G PLYWOOD58" GYP. BD,TYP.R-19 @ 2x6WALLS, TYP.SEE TITLE-24ADD RAT PROOFING W/ MIN.6 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER(E) 2x10 @ 16" O.C.(E) 2x10 @ 16" O.C.1'-4"1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR.TOP PLATE7'-0 1/4" 11" 8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4"111.55'103.22'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE 1'-1" 25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT 3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1" 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT SUB. FLR. @LWR. FLR.100.12'(E) 6' WOOD FENCE(PROTECT)AVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'D.H.E. RIGHT99.57'7'-6" 12'-0"45°D.H.E. LEFT100.06'3/4" 7'-6" 12'-0"45°(E)(E)(E) 2x10 @ 16" O.C.(E)(E)(E) CRAWLSPACE(E) LIVING(E) HALL(N) DEN(N) JADU(R) (R) (R)(E)CLT(R)(R)(N) W.C. (N) M. BATH412R-32 @ ATTIC,TYP. SEE TITLE-2461211 78" TJI @ 16"O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"T & G PLYWOODPRE-FAB TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.58" GYP. BD,TYP.R-19 @ 2x6WALLS, TYP.SEE TITLE-24(E) 2x10 @ 16" O.C.612(E) BED-3ADD RAT PROOFING W/ MIN.6 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Proposed Building Sections See DetailsA4.0A4.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONA4.0Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION (E)(E)1ST FLR. SUB FLR.1ST FLR. TOP PLATE3'-8"8'-4" 1'-1" 25'-7" OVERALL HEIGHT111.55'103.22'3RD FLR. SUB FLR.112.62'3RD FLR. TOP PLATE120.62'8'-0"RIDGE124.73'4'-1" 30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITAVERAGE T.O.C.99.15'(N) BED-4(N) OFFICE(E) KITCHEN(N) ISLAND(N) RANGE(BEHIND ISLAND)(E) MICROWAVE(E) REF.(E) DINING(E) LIVING(N) M. BED(N) M. W.I.C.(N) M. BATH(E) CRAWLSPACE(E) FLAT ROOF(E) 2x10 @ 16" O.C.11 78" TJI @ 16"O.C. TYP. W/ 3/4"T & G PLYWOODR-32 @ ATTIC,TYP. SEE TITLE-24PRE-FAB TRUSSES @ 24" O.C.(N) 42" HGT. RAILINGR-19 @ 2x6WALLS, TYP.SEE TITLE-24ADD RAT PROOFING W/ MIN.6 MIL POLY VAPOR BARRIER(E)(E)1ST FLR. TOP PLATE(@ GARAGE)2ND FLR. SUB FLR.2ND FLR.TOP PLATE7'-0 1/4" 11" 8'-4"RIDGE4'-11"(E) GRADE121.24'116.31'107.97'107.08'SUB. FLR. @LWR. FLR.100.12'(N) DEN(N) JADU(N) BATH(N) JADU(N) BED(N) JADU(E) BED-3(N) BATH-2(E) BED-2(E) 2x10 @ 16" O.C.(E) ROOF & TRUSSES(PROTECT)30'-0" HEIGHT LIMITAVERAGE T.O.C.99.15' Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft. Proposed Building Sections See DetailsA4.1A4.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED BUILDING SECTIONA4.1Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION 5/8"3 1/2"4 3/4"2 x4MIN. R-13 (SOUND BATT) @ALL BATHROOMS/LAUNDRY5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BD.TYPCIAL THROUGHOUT HOUSESMOOTH FINISH OR MATCH EXISTING CONDITION2x4 STUD WALL @16" O.C. S.S.D.STAGGER JOINTS EACH SIDE(LOAD BEARING ONLY)NOTES:SEE WWW.GPGYPSUM.COM FORTECHNICAL SPEC'S3/4"5/8"1/2"5 1/2"7 3/8"2 x 6R-21 FIBERGLASS BATT INSULATIONFOR 2x6 WALLS, TYPICAL. IF TITLE-24 SHOWSLOWER MINIMUMS,FOLLOW MORE STRINGENT VALUES.APA RATED SHEATHING EXPOSURE 112" PLYWOOD OR OSBSTUCCO (PAINT)MIN. 2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.58" DENSARMOR PLUS FIREGUARD, ORTOUGHROCK FIREGUARD GYPSUM BD.APPLIED VERTICALLY OR HORIZONTALLYTO STUDS W/ 1-7/8" 6D COATED NAILS 7"O.C. STAGGER JOINTS EACH SIDEBENJAMIN OBDYKE (HYDRO-GAP)ICC - ES REPORT ESR-3394 WALL SIDINGUNDERLAYMENT, OR APPROVED EQUALNOTES:A. VISIT GRACECONSTRUCTION.COM FOR THE MOST CURRENT DETAILS, INSTALLATION VIDEO AND PRODUCT DATA SHEETSB. REMOVE RIPCORD® FROM GRACE VYCOR PLUS FOR EASE OF INSTALLATIONC. IF APPLICABLE, LEAVE RELEASE PAPER ON LOWER HALF OF SILL FLASHING UNTIL FUTURE TIE-IN WITH WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIERD. FOR CONCRETE, MASONRY OR WHERE ADHESION IS MARGINAL, USE PERM-A-BARRIER® WB PRIMER TO PROMOTE VYCOR ADHESIONE. CHECK LOCAL BUILDING CODES FOR WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER REQUIREMENTS AND INSTALL GRACE VYCOR PLUS WITH WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER TO FORM WATER-SHEDDING LAPSF. INSTALL WINDOW PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATION AND USE APPROPRIATE SEALANT FOR WINDOW AND WOOD BUCKG. DETAIL ALSO RELEVANT FOR GRACE VYCOR V40 AND VYCOR BUTYLEXTERIOR WALLSILL PLATE(SEE VCRDET-106 FOR OPTIONS)GRACEVYCOR PLUS123MECHANICALLY FASTEN AS NECESSARY IN CORNERSTHROUGH GRACE VYCOR PLUSWINDOW WITH NAILING FLANGE(SET IN SEALANT EXCEPT ALONGSILL FLANGE)GRACEVYCOR PLUSGRACE VYCORNER™ ORCORNER PATCH RECOMMENDED(SEE VCRDET-507 OR VCRDET-504 FOR OPTIONS)GRADE LINESTANDARD BRICKMOULD, TYP.STANDARDBRICKMOULD, TYP.SIDINGAS PERELEVATIONSREGGIO STANDARDVENT W/ INSECTSCREEN BEHIND (BLK.ALUM. SCREEN &VENT)REGGIO STANDARDVENT W/ INSECTSCREEN BEHIND (BLK.ALUM. SCREEN &VENT)1'-4"VERIFY W/ REGGIOCUT SECTIONELEVATIONSIDING FINISHSTUCCO, PAINTED3 1/2"LARGE WD. SILL REDWOOD(PAINT)34" S.D.L.SIERRA PACIFIC ALUM.WINDOWS (CLAD) ORMARVING.S.M. WINDOW FLASHING(PAINTED TO MATCH TRIM)2 1/2"DOUBLE PAPER @CORNER2x STUD WALLWIDTH VARIESSEE FLR. PLAN5/8" GYP BD. W/PLAST. VEN.WHERE NOTED.INSULATIONR-15 OR PER TITLE 24CORNER BEADDOUBLE PAPER @CORNERR-15 MIN., BATT INSULATIONOR PER TITLE 24APPLY A 3/8" CEMENTPLASTER SCRATCH COATO/ METAL LATH SYSTEM,ALLOW TO CURE FOR 48HRS. INSTALL A 3/8"BROWN LEVELING COAT,ALLOW TO CURE FOR AMIN. OF 25 DAYS. INSTALLA 4.5 OUNCE REINFORCINGMESH OVER THE ENTIREBROWN COAT W. POLY PREP30 BY MERTEX (OR EQUAL),COVERING ENTIRE MESH.APPLY FINISH COAT AND PAINTW/ ELECTROMETRIC PAINTAPPLY A 3/8" CEMENT PLASTERSCRATCH COAT O/ METAL LATHSYSTEM, ALLOW TO CURE FOR 48HRS. INSTALL A 3/8" BROWNLEVELING COAT, ALLOW TO CUREFOR A MIN. OF 25 DAYS. INSTALLA 4.5 OUNCE REINFORCING MESHO/ THE ENTIRE BROWN COAT W/POLY PREP 30 BY MERTEX (OR EQUAL),COVERING ENTIRE MESH. APPLY FINISHCOAT AND PAINT W/ ELECTROMETRICPAINT (TEXTURE PER SAMPLE ANDOWNERS REVIEW (SMOOTH FINISHPREFERRED) Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.See DetailsA5.0Building Details A5.0Scale: 3" = 1'-0"1INTERIOR WALL DTLS.A5.02EXT. WALL DTLS.A5.0Scale: N.A.3WINDOW FLASHING DTLS.A5.0Scale: 3" = 1'-0"6 TYPICAL WINDOW DETAILSierra Pacific or Marvin or EqualA5.0Scale: 3" = 1'-0"4(N) EXT. WALL VENT DTLS.Scale: 3" = 1'-0"5STUCCO EXT. WALL DETAILSA5.0- V.I.F.7'-0"A.1-3/8" SOLID COREPAINT GRADESQ. CORNER 3.5"HINGES TYP. (EMTEK)DOOR HEIGHTS:(VERIFY) FOR COST3'-0"3'-0"6'-8"6'-0"2'-0"1'-6"D.103TEMP. / EGR.F.1051064'-0"4'-0"6'-8"8'-0"A.100TEMP.2'-0"4'-6"4'-0"2'-0"B.1012'-0"2'-0"C.102TEMP.2'-6"2'-6"E.104TEMP.4'-0"5'-0"G.1073'-6"5'-6"H.1081092'-6"5'-6"I.110111112201TEMP.203300TEMP. / EGR.301302TEMP.303TEMP. / EGR.3'-0"5'-0"J.2002'-9"5'-0"K.202204SEE ELEV. FOR GRID PAT.205SEE ELEV. FOR GRID PAT.2'-6"2'-6"4'-0"5'-0"L.304TEMP.2'-6"1'-4"M.3052'-0"3'-6"N.306TEMP.2'-0"2'-0"3'-6"4'-0"O.307TEMP. / EGR. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :11.30.22Drawn :TIM RADUENZ22_22Job No. : Owner : APN#: 029-171-530 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R-1 SHOBANA RAVI + SUKHENDU CHAKRABORTY 732 VERNON WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formLot Size: 4,300 Sq. Ft.See Details ROOM FLOORING REMARKSWALLSPAINT CEILING MILLWORK CROWNPAINT SPECS.INTERIORS:MAIN ROOMS:CEILINGS:EXTERIORS:BATHROOMS:AURA, NATURA(GREEN OPTION), REGAL SELECT, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENTWATERBORNE CELING PAINT, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENTAURA BATH AND SPA, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENTHOUSE:AURA, REGAL SELECT, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT1ST FLR2ND FLRROOM FINISH SCHEDULEROOM FINISH SCHEDULEA9.0Scale: NA1SAFETY GLAZING NOTES (CRC R308.4)A. ALL SLIDING + SWINGING GLASS DOORS TO HAVE SAFETY GLAZING.B. GLAZING IN SHOWER/TUB/SAUNA ROOMS LESS THAN 60" ABOVE THESTANDING SURFACE AND LESS THAN 60" MEASURED HORIZONTIALLYFROM THE WATER'S EDGE OF A BATHTUB, HOT TUB, SPA, WHIRLPOOL ORSWIMMING POOL.C. GLAZING WITHIN A 24" ARC OF A DOOR THAT IS LESS THAN 60" ABOVETHE FLOOR.D. GLAZING WHERE THE EXPOSED AREA IS GREATER THAN 9 SQ. FT.,BOTTOM IS LESS THAN 18" AND AT LEAST 36" ABOVE THE FLOOR, ANDADJACENT TO WALKING SURFACES.E. WITHIN 60" OF THE BOTTOM TREAD OF A STAIRWAY AND LESS THAN 36"ABOVE THE FLOORF. GLAZING IN GUARDS & RAILINGS.G. GLAZING ADJACENT TO STAIRWAYS, LANDINGS, AND RAMPS WITHIN 36"HORIZONTALLY OF THE WALKINGSURFACE LESS THAN 36" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR. EXTERIOR DOORS & WINDOWS LOCATION DOORSDOOR SIZEWxHMATERIALSCOREEXT. FIN. INT.FIN.DETAILSHEADJAMB TRIMSILLREMARKSHDWR.TYPE FIN.NOTESTYPEGLASSSYM.HARDWARE FINISH SPECIFICATION:ENTRY DOOR HARDWARE: (BY OWNER) AND INSTALLED BY CONTRACTORWINDOW HARDWARE: WHITE, TYP. (VERIFY W/ OWNER)1. WOOD/CLAD SIERRA PACIFIC WINDOWS+ DOORS, WITH TRUE S.D.L 3/4"MUNTIN BARS W/ SPACER BAR BETWEEN THE WINDOW PANES + MUNTINBARS ADHERED TO THE INTERIOR + EXTERIOR OF THE WINDOWS.2. EGRESS PER CODE3. DOOR BY SIMPSON OR EQUAL, VERIFY DESIGN WITH OWNER &DESIGNER4. VERIFY OPENING SIZE W/ CONTRACTOR5. PRIVACY GLASS, OPTION BY LOCAL ARTISAN6. DOOR BY SIMPSON FIBERGLASS DOOR OR EQ.7. OVERHEAD DOOR (SHOP DRAWING REQUIRED, VERIFY SIDE MOUNTMOTOR IN FIELD8. TRANSOM ABOVE UNIT TO BE LEADED WINDOW MADE BY LOCALARTISAN.9. NA10. NA11. (*) FIELD MEASURE EXT. DOORS & WINDOWS SCHEDULE A9.0Scale: NA21. NEW MANDATORY U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION + SKYLIGHTS§150.0 (q)2. REDUCED U-FACTOR (0.30) AND SHGC (0.20) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCEWINDOWS 2019 CAL ENERGY CODE §150.1 (c)3 A3. FENESTRATION MAX U-FACTOR 0.30. NO SHGC REQUIREMENT. PERTABLE 150.1-A & B4. MAX TOTAL AREA, 20%, NO MAX FOR WEST FACING AREA. PER TABLE150.1-A & B5. DOOR MAX U-FACTOR 0.20 PER TABLE 150.1-A & BCAL. GREEN REQUIREMENTS EXT. DOORS & WINDOWS ELEVATIONS A9.04Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" INT. DOORS ELEVATIONS A9.05Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0" ROOM APPLIANCE TYPE FINISH REMARKSAPPLIANCE SCHEDULENOTE: ALLOWANCE AND INSTALLED BY ALLOWANCE, CONTRACTOR TO INCLUDE BLOCKING / ROUGH-IN AS NEEDED PER SPEC. SHEETS MANUF. MODEL #KITCHEN(N) RANGE(N) DISHWASHER(N) DISPOSALT.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D., TYPICAL DUAL FUELT.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D., MIN. 100 CFM, VENT TO EXTERIOR PER CODET.B.D.APPLIANCE SCHEDULEA9.0Scale: NA3(N) VENT HOODT.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.T.B.D.FIRST FLOOR CAL GREEN NOTES:1. PAINTS AND COATINGS WILL COMPLY WITH VOC LIMITS PER CGC §4.504.2.22. DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH VOC FINISHMATERIALS. 2019 CGC §4.504.2.43. CARPET SYSTEM INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING INTERIOR WILL MEET THE TESTINGAND PRODUCT REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDINGCODE. 2019 CGC §4.504.34. WHERE RESILIENT FLOORING IS INSTALLED, AT LEAST 80% OF THE FLOOR AREARECEIVING RESILIENT FLOORING WILL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREENBUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2019 CGC §4.504.45. HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD, AND MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARDCOMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS USED ON THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THEBUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOW FORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS.2019 CGC §4.504.56. AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL MEET THE PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIRLIMITS FOR ROC AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS PER CGC 4.504.2.37. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL FOLLOWLOCAL AND REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS2019 CGC §4.504.2.1SECOND FLOOR 3008. NEW MANDATORY U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION + SKYLIGHTS §150.0 (q)9. REDUCED U-FACTOR (0.30) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS 2019 CALENERGY CODE §150.1 (c)3 A10. MAX. TOTAL AREA, 20%, NO MAX. FOR WEST FACING AREA, TABLE 150.1-A, AND B11. DOOR MAX. U-FACTOR 0.20, TABLE 150.1-A, AND BDNOTE # 1, 2TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDD.F. D.F. / P.T.6'-0" x 6'-8"FRENCH. DR.(N) M. BED3RD FLR TBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) M. BED WOODFinish Schedule A9.03RD FLR 2ND FLR 1ST FLRLO E (T)TBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) M. W.I.C. WOODTBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) M. BATH TILETBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) STAIRS WOOD301302303304305306307NOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLAD(N) M. W.I.C.LO ECNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLAD2'-0" x 2'-0"AWNING(N) M. BATHLO E (T)TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADTBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO E (T)LNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLAD5'-0" x 4'-0"DBL. HUNGLO EMNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLAD2'-6" x 1'-4"AWNING(N) STAIRSLO E (T)ONOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLAD4'-0" x 3'-6"DBL. HUNGLO E(N) M. BATH(N) M. BATH(N) STUDY(N) M. BEDNOTE # 1NOTE # 1TBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) BED-4 WOODTBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) CLT-4 WOODTBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) BATH-4 TILETBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) OFFICE WOODADU TBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) BED WOODTBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) CLT. WOODTBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) BATH TILETBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) DEN CONC.TBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS(N) BATH-2 WOOD100101102103ANOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDD.F.D.F. / P.T.8'-0" x 6'-8"FRENCH DR.LO E (T)NOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO ETBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO E (T)TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDLO E (T)CNOTE # 12'-0" x 2'-0"AWNINGDNOTE # 1, 26'-0" x 6'-8"ADU B4'-0" x 4'-6"DBL. HUNGFRENCH DR.D.F. D.F. / P.T.200JNOTE # 1, 2TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDDBL. HUNG(E) BED-3LO EPINECLAD3'-0" x 5'-0"LO E2'-0" x 3'-6"DBL. HUNGNC2'-0" x 2'-0"AWNINGC2'-0" x 2'-0"AWNING(N) BATH-3 WOOD TBS TBS PAINT (TBS) TBS104ENOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLADAWNINGLO E (T)(N) BATH-42'-6" x 2'-6"105FNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADFIXEDLO E(E) KITCHEN2'-0" x 1'-6"106FNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADFIXEDLO E(E) KITCHEN2'-0" x 1'-6"201ENOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDAWNING(N) BATH-2LO E (T)PINECLAD2'-6" x 2'-6"(N) DEN @JADU(N) BATH @JADU(N) BED @JADU(N) DEN @JADU107108109110111112202203204205(E) DINING(E) LIVING(E) LIVING(E) LIVING(E) LIVING(E) LIVING4'-0" x 5'-0"DBL. HUNG GNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO E3'-6" x 5'-6"DBL. HUNG HNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO E3'-6" x 5'-6"DBL. HUNGHNOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO E2'-6" x 5'-6"DBL. HUNGINOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLADLO E2'-6" x 5'-6"DBL. HUNGINOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLADLO E2'-6" x 5'-6"DBL. HUNGINOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO ENOTE # 1NOTE # 1, 2NOTE # 1NOTE # 1TBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLADTBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLADTBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINE CLADTBDSTD.SEE DETAILSPRIMEDPINECLADLO ELO ELO ELO E(E) BED-2(E) BED-2(E) BED-3(E) BED-32'-9" x 5'-0"DBL. HUNG K4'-0" x 5'-0"DBL. HUNG GJDBL. HUNG3'-0" x 5'-0"JDBL. HUNG3'-0" x 5'-0" City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 1327 Benito Avenue Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two- story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Joseph Hassoun APN: 027-194-020 Designer: James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc. Lot Area: 6,001 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exception. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage at 1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1, was reviewed as a Design Review Study item on March 8, 2021 and was approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2021 (see attached March 8, 2021 and March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was issued on September 16, 2021. Planning staff responded to a request for a final inspection on November 9, 2022 and noted several as-built changes that were not consistent with the approved plans. The applicant submitted a request for approval of the as-built changes on November 18, 2022. Staff prepared an FYI for review at the November 28, 2022 meeting. The Planning Commission called this FYI up for review and requested that this project be reviewed as a Design Review Amendment at a public hearing (see attached November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The Commission expressed concern with all of the changes. As-built changes to the project include: All Elevations 1. Approved windows were aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lights. The installed windows contain no mullions (JELD-WEN series W550 - wood clad windows). 2. Approved plans show wood siding exterior finish with mitered corners. All exterior building corners have corners boards installed. Front Elevation 3. Front doors installed at the entry and den/bedroom#1 are a different style than what was approved. 4. Front columns on right side were approved as tapered. Columns installed are square. 5. First floor roof on the left side of the house has a different slope than what was approved, resulting in the face of the second floor above having more exposure below the window. The original approval had the first floor roof terminating just below the bottom of the second floor window above. Left Elevation 6. Second floor window in Master bath/dressing area was eliminated. Detached Garage 7. Approved garage door was shown as a wood raised panel garage door. The door installed is metal and has a set of horizontal glass panels on the left side of the door. Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Design Review Amendment 1327 Benito Avenue -2- Please see the applicant’s explanation letter (attached), dated November 21, 2022, for more detailed information about the as-built changes. Description of Previously Approved Project: The subject property is bordered by utility alleys along the right side and rear property lines. The applicant demolished a one-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage and built a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The total approved floor area is 3,243 SF (0.54 FAR), where 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including front covered porch exemptions). A total of three parking spaces are required for the five-bedroom house, two of which must be covered. The detached garage provides two covered parking spaces (20' x 20', clear interior dimensions) and an uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The applicant received approval of a Special Permit for a building height of 31'-5" as measured from the average top of curb elevation point. The lot slopes upward approximately 10’-0” to 12’-0” from the front to the rear of the lot, resulting in the house sitting higher up on the slope with the finished floor at 8’-4” above the average top of curb. All other Zoning Code requirements were met. The following applications were approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2021: Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); and Special Permit for building height (31’-5” proposed where up to 36’-0” is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.26.060(a)(1)). The following development table provides information for the previously approved project; there are no changes to these items with the proposed amendment application. 1327 Benito Avenue Lot Area: 6,001 SF Plans date stamped: March 15, 2021/Amendment plans November 21, 2022 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setback (1st flr): (2nd flr): 20’-8½" 26'-1" 20’-8’’ (block average) 20'-8" (block average) Side Setbacks (left): (right): 12'-6" 5'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 40'-3” 40'-3” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,049 SF 34.1% 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 3,243 SF 0.54 FAR 3,420 SF 1 0.57 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 --- Design Review Amendment 1327 Benito Avenue -3- PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Off Street Parking: 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') 2 covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 31'-5" 2 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 6,001 SF) + 1100 SF + 400 SF = 3,420 SF (0.57 FAR) ² Special Permit required for building height (31’-5” proposed where up to 36’-0” is allowed with a Special Permit). Summary of Approved Exterior Materials: • Windows: Aluminum clad wood casement windows with simulated true divided lite and wood trim. • Doors: W ood front door with opaque door and wood garage door. • Siding: Horizontal wood siding, stucco, and vertical board and batten siding. • Roof: Composition shingle roofing. • Other: W ood brackets, stucco wood columns, wood trellis, and stucco chimney. Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Suggested Findings for Amendment to Design Review: The project proposes a variety of materials including a combination of stucco, vertical board and batten siding, horizontal wood siding, and aluminum clad wood windows; that the articulation provides visual interest on all elevations and the architectural elements of the proposed craftsmen style structure compliment the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscaping is complementary to the mass and bulk of the structure and compatible with the existing neighborhood. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Design Review Amendment 1327 Benito Avenue -4- 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 21, 2022, sheets A2.1 through A.8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and 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; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that 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. 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 Design Review Amendment 1327 Benito Avenue -5- framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c: Joseph Hassoun, applicant and property owner Attachments: March 8, 2021 Planning Commission Design Review Study Minutes March 22, 2021 Planning Commission Design Review Action Minutes November 28, 2022 Planning Commission FYI Minutes Applicant’s Explanation Letter, dated November 21, 2022 (Original) Application to the Planning Commission Height Certification Architectural Certification Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, March 8, 2021 c.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Joseph Hassoun, property owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: > There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Joseph Hassoun. Commission Questions/Comments: > In regards to the neighbor’s concern regarding grading and potential damage to tree roots, it is a moot point as you are removing all the trees, correct? (Chu: Yes, at the rear of the lot.) When you do your grading on the lot all of the trees will be removed. Then you will not be undermining any existing trees as they will be removed in the first place, right? (Chu: If you look at the site plan on sheet A-1, the majority of the trees are at the rear yard. Considering the footprint of the building, we are not removing that many trees. The majority of the grading is to create a patio off the family room at the rear of the house. We definitely can look into reducing the size of the patio. I sort of disagree with the neighbor’s assumption that we are creating so much. If we do, we probably won’t apply for a special permit.) In the area where you are grading, at the rear yard in the patio area, those trees are being removed. There are a couple of trees that are outside of the patio area to remain because you are not grading that area. It sort of quells the neighbor’s concern in terms of undermining existing trees. (Chu: I need to consult our landscape architect and arborist to see why those trees are being removed.) > Are the steps leading up to the house following existing grade? Is there going to be side wall or retaining wall along the sides of the steps? What’s going to happen there? (Chu: It is our intention to follow the grade as much as we can. It may be a drawing error and we will revisit that.) You may have to abstract it a little bit and define what the yard is going to be in the area. (Chu: Yes.) > Is that Cottonwood tree alive? While visiting the site, it appeared dead, although the arborist report said it is in poor condition. (Hassoun: Yes, that Cottonwood tree is dead.) > The chimney at the front on the left hand side looks out of place. I’m not sure what the solution is. (Chu: I probably will have my client answer that. He wants to install an electric fireplace so that doesn’t require a chimney.) That’s fine. It’s just that the bump-out doesn’t look like it has a purpose. (Chu: Maybe we can push that in about a foot so it doesn’t really show from the exterior.) Yes, just so that it is integrated into that elevation a little better. I know you will come up with something. > Did you look at adding a roof to the front porch? It looks like you have an FAR exception that would allow you to do it. (Chu: Sure, we can look into it.) It would make for a nicer space and will suit the design better. (Chu: Ok, sure.) Page 1City of Burlingame March 8, 2021Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >Sent via e-mail from Stuart Bacon, 1320 Benito Avenue: Since the proposed house is a full two story, will the ground level have to be reduced in order to conform to the city's height requirement? I ask this as the house that was built at 1330 Benito Avenue did require the builder to lower the ground level in order to conform. In removing the dirt the major roots of several tress along the property line were severed. I was concerned so asked the City Arborist to see if the trees had been damaged. He said "Yes, as the roots were major supporting ones and without them the trees might blow over onto my house in a severe windstorm." The builder was then instructed to remove the trees, one of which was a beautiful Oak which I hated to see go. >Sent via e-mail from Suzanne Rogers, 1312 Alvarado Avenue: I have owned my home for over 26 years. My home is one house to the southwest of 1327 Benito Avenue. Increasing the height of this home will adversely affect my view or blue sky. I understand that the zoning laws will allow for a two -story dwelling at this location. However, I would object to any special permits to allow for greater than normally allowed height for this project. Thank you for listening. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It is a nice looking project. The upward sloping grade and extenuating circumstances supports the request for the additional 18 inches of height. I find this very approvable. >I like the design. With some of the changes that my fellow commissioner mentioned, especially with the front porch and other changes, this is an approvable project. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when the application has been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Schmid6 - Absent:Loftis1 - Page 2City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, March 22, 2021 b.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Joseph Hassoun, property owner) (108 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Loftis noted that he was not present at the March 8, 2021 meeting, but did visit the site and watched the video of the discussion. Associate Planner Markiewicz provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >There were no questions/comments. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the changes that the applicant made. I could see why they would need a Special Permit for building height. The property does slope up from the lot. This is an approvable project. >Agreed. I can make find the findings for the Special Permit for height as well. >The Special Permit for height is something we typically approve on an upward sloping lot like this. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, Loftis, and Schmid7 - Page 1City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 28, 2022 a.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R-1 - FYI review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1327 Benito Ave - FYI Memorandum 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners expressed concern with the as-built changes noted in the FYI Memorandum. Page 1City of Burlingame 1 To: City of Burlingame Planning Commission CC: Catherine Keylon, S. Planner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates, inc. From: Joseph Hassoun Date: 12/7/2022 Re: 1327 Benito Ave. As-Built Changes Explanation Dear Planning Commission Members, I sincerely apologize for not adhering to the approved plan that was initially agreed upon. I want to be clear that I do recognize that your work and contribution to the commission and the city of Burlingame, in many ways, is a huge investment of your time. I want it to be known that the decisions made stemmed from a sense of urgency brought on by economic and personal factors. While I do recognize my ignorance of the city rules and degree of flexibility provided regarding the city-approved plans, I would hope that the commission could work with me on finding some type of middle ground/compromise as nothing here involved malicious intent - Just a fear of potentially experiencing a deep loss in my economic and personal life. I recognize that this is not a valid excuse. I am only hoping to provide transparency into why things were done the way they were. I also recognize that discrepancies have occurred and I’d like to take the time to go over them line by line in the FYI list. 1. Approved windows were aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lights. The installed windows contain no mullions (JELD-WEN series W5500 - wood clad windows). 1. I mistakenly, and ignorantly, believed that there could be flexibility regarding this. I was under time and money hardship because I have a big loan on this property. With the supply chain issues and parts’ shortage last year, the true divided light windows were going to take an additional six months to get, which would have created a big financial burden for me. I selected the JELD- WEN series W5500, which is one of the top aluminum clad wood windows. At this point, changing the windows to the ones approved in the plan would be a HUGE project. It would be an understatement if I didn’t say that such a decision could be a catastrophe for my family and I. With a deep sense of regret, I humbly ask the planning commission to allow me to keep the current windows with the understanding that I will absolutely put in the effort needed to appease the commission regarding many other portions of the list. 2. Approved plans show wood siding exterior finish with mitered corners. All exterior building corners have corner boards installed. 1. My contractor advised me to change all sidings corners to have corner boards, as his experience with the mittered corners was that they would create an on-going maintenance headache. I have learned that in December 7, 2022 2 these situations, I really should have come to the commission requesting a revision in this instance. 3. Front doors installed at the entry and den/bedroom#1 are a different style than what was approved. 1. I had to change the front door style for security reasons, as the one in the plan did not seem safe enough. The bedroom French door was chosen for the same reason as in item#1. It is also JELD-WEN series W5500. Again, I recognize that in this situation, I really should have come to the commission requesting a revision. These rushed decisions were based on the (incorrect) belief that there could be some flexibility in this situation. James has updated the plans, attached, to reflect the new doors installed. I ask that the planning commission please allow me to keep the current doors. 4. Front columns on the right side were approved as tapered. Columns installed are square. 1. I’m deeply sorry to think the tapering of the columns was optional. I am working on changing the style of the columns to the initially, agreed upon, permitted, tapered style. 5. First floor roof on the left side of the house has a different slope than what was approved, resulting in the face of the second floor above having more exposure below the window. The original approval had the first floor roof terminating just below the bottom of the second floor window above. 1. This was an overlooked and unintentional change. However, when discovered, the roof was already installed. I do regret not catching this while building was taking place. James has kindly updated the plans, attached, to reflect this change. I ask that the commission allow this change to be incorporated into the plan. 6. Second floor window in the Master bath/dressing area was eliminated. 1. We removed this window due to privacy reasons, once we found out that the bathroom window would be looking straight into the neighbors’ bedroom. Again, after realizing this, I should absolutely have brought this to the commission’s attention and requested a revision. Out of ignorance, I believed there could be flexibility here. Especially since privacy would be a benefit to us and the neighbors. Unfortunately, the addition of a window now would be logistically difficult/almost impossible. If the commission has a suggestion here, or would be kind and understanding enough to work with me on a solution to get past this, it would all be greatly appreciated. Currently, the plan has been updated by James. I ask that you please allow for this change/revision to occur. 7. Approved garage door was shown as a wood raised panel garage door. The door installed is metal and has a set of horizontal glass panels on the left side of the door. 2. Again, I'm sorry that I believed there could be flexibility here. I am planning on changing the installed panels to wood raised panels. December 7, 2022 3 Thank you for your consideration, patience and understanding. I can assure you this will not happen again. Sincerely, Joseph Hassoun Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for a Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage at 1327 Benito Avenue, Zoned R-1, Ruby Roze LLC, property owners, APN: 027- 194-020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 2022, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (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 exception, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment 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. Chair 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 12th day of December, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 1327 Benito Avenue Effective December 22, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 21, 2022, sheets A2.1 through A.8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and 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; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 1327 Benito Avenue Effective December 22, 2022 Page 2 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. 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. 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 certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; and 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. 1327 Benito Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 027-194-020 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 839 Crossway Road Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Babak Nematollahi APN: 029-016-020 Property Owner: Southwest Investment Funds LLC Lot Area: 6,802 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Note: This application was submitted prior to January 5, 2022, the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance, and therefore was reviewed under the previous Zoning Code. Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-unit dwelling to build a new two-story single-unit dwelling. The rear portion of the existing detached garage and attached storage area would be converted to a new Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The proposed house would have a total floor area of 3,581 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,677 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and ADU exemptions). The new single-unit dwelling would contain five bedrooms. Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the existing detached garage (22’-5” wide x 19’-3” deep clear interior dimensions); one uncovered parking space (9’ x 20’) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes a new detached ADU (458 SF) that is connected to the existing detached garage located at the rear of the lot. Review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Per C.S. 25.59.110(c)(1) no parking is required for the ADU because it is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit. 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 (C.S. 25.57.010(a)(1)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8d Regular Action Item Design Review 839 Crossway Road 2 839 Crossway Road Lot Area: 6,802 SF Plans date stamped: November 21, 2022 ORIGINAL PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 22’-10” 26’-0” 22’-10” 25’-5” 21’-10” (block average) 21’-10” (block average) Side (left): (right): 5’-0” 11’-7” 5’-0” 12’-5” 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 49’-7” 49’-7” 50’-1” 50’-1” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,245 SF 33% 2,220 SF 32.6% 2,721 SF 40% FAR: 3,581 SF 0.53 FAR 3,539 SF 0.54 FAR 3,677 SF 1 0.54 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (22’-5” wide x 19’-3” deep clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') no change 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing conditions) 1 uncovered (9' x 20') Building Height: 28’-4” 27’-2” 30'-0" DH Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.26.075 ¹ (0.32 x 6,802 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,677 SF (0.54 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites • Doors: aluminum clad wood • Siding: stucco and wood • Roof: composition shingles and standing seam metal • Other: stone veneer water table Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on August 8, 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 August 8, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted revised plans, date stamped November 21, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments. The revisions to the original design are summarized in the Design Review Consultant’s Analysis, dated November 10, 2022 (see attachments). Design Review 839 Crossway Road 3 Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer: The design review consultant met with the project designer and property owner to discuss the Planning Commission's concerns with the project and reviewed revised plans. Based on the design review analysis of the project, the design reviewer recommends approval of the project as revised. Please refer to the attached design reviewer’s analysis and recommendation, dated November 10, 2022, for a detailed review of the project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 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 second story massing is integrated to make the whole house a cohesive design; the architectural style, mass and bulk of the proposed structure (featuring hip and gable roofs, proportional plate heights, composition shingle roofing and metal lower roof, aluminum wood clad windows with simulated divided lites, stucco siding, and aluminum clad wood doors) is compatible with the character of this mixed neighborhood that includes traditional bungalows as well as newer two-story homes, and that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 21, 2022, sheets A-0 through A-11; 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; Design Review 839 Crossway Road 4 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Babak Nematollahi, applicant and designer Attachments: August 8, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Design Reviewer’s Analysis, dated November 10, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, August 8, 2022 c.839 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling. (Babak Nematollahi, applicant and designer; Southwest Investment Funds LLC, property owner) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Babak Nematollahi, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: > Public comment sent via email by Bill Schlotter, 843 Crossway Road: Our house is next door to (the northwest of) 839 Crossway so we share a fence line. The presented plans maintain the driveway directly adjacent to our property. This layout is important to us because it represents the only means for equipment to access our backyard should such access be needed in the future. We also appreciate the planned landscaping along the northwest wall of the house that would replace the existing concrete pad between the house and the driveway. We would like the following points clarified if possible: 1) The driveway gate position moves toward the rear of the property with respect to the existing position by roughly 12 feet. However the drawings do not show the current fence. Is the intent to remove or change the current fence that exists between the new gate and the street? 2) The existing garage has a jerkinhead roof profile with gable vents. However in the plans the gable vents have been deleted and the apex of the roof has been flattened. Will the existing garage roof be modified as shown in the plans? 3) There is an existing tree shown in the plans on the front property line. If this is one of the fig trees, please clarify the location as the existing fig trees are setback a few feet from the property line. 4) Will the existing exterior walls that are will remain be supported by the existing foundation? Finally, we would like the development of this property to proceed as quickly as possible. Our children are at a perfect age to watch the construction from our roof deck. If there is anything we can do to clarify our questions please feel free to reach out to us. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > I am having a really hard time understanding any predominant style. I don't know what it wants to be and this happens sometimes with some projects we've had in the last few months. I don't understand where it's going. It has the bungalow roof on the left with the shed and it has an element in front that is very tall, about 15 feet, which is pretty aggressive and tall. The windows are all different and it has the elements in the back that I don't understand. Although we have a 3D rendering, it's not holding together for me. In addition, there are no street trees and I cannot find any in the plan. As far as setting, it certainly needs work. The house next to it on the corner is very special and this just needs quite a bit of work in my view. > I agree with my fellow commissioner’s comments. The architectural elements are all over the board. You have clerestory windows on some gables and you have gable end vents on others. The roof pitches Page 1City of Burlingame August 8, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are 3½:12 and 8:12 which really doesn't work well together. That's half of the roof pitch. It's a little bit tall with a 9’-0” plate height on the second floor. That could be reduced down to 8’-0”, which is what we normally see which would help a lot. The proportions of the windows and the styles of the windows are all over the board. This would be a good candidate for design review consultant but I’ll defer to my fellow commissioners. > I generally agree. On the one hand it's a good looking house but on the other hand, it has all the issues you have described and it comes across as just heavy. It looks like a lot of house for that property. If they have articulated it differently, it would look lighter. If you're going to have a front porch, it should be useable. A five foot wide front porch is not a great width for something that's truly usable, so I would like to see a front porch that really invites people to hang out on and furniture. I’m not getting the use of a second floor balcony at the front, it's very narrow. It's looking over parked cars on the street. I don't know how a bedroom is going to take advantage of a second floor balcony the way that's currently indicated. > I’m finding the fact that the first floor and the second floor are essentially the same square footage . It's making a very tall, large box and everything is very blocked. None of the elevations are really holding together much. The corner elements are not helping since they are tall and just blocked. It looks like a retail store with a house on top. We need to come back with something quite a bit softer to fit into that area especially given a lot of those homes are still on the smaller side. So, I’m not really seeing a good design right now. > I agree with my fellow commissioners. I would like to see some details on the east and west elevations. I feel that those walls are pretty blank. The windows are of concern, we have different kinds of windows. This is a great candidate for a design review consultant. > Some of the comments made this evening are about the architectural style of this house. That is really the burning question, what does this house want to be? If that direction isn't communicated to the design review consultant, they're not going to be able to truly help. The architect and the applicant need to really think through that a little bit more, so they can at least have the better communication with the design review consultant and we can get a better product back to make it approvable, because I would like to make it a better experience and not harder. > Similarly in order to give direction, the back area with the garage and ADU has a distinct kind of Dutch style. Maybe that's something that could be worked off of because that seems to be staying put and being added on to. Maybe to go off of a style that's already there would be better than trying five others on the bulk of the building. The architect can manage something beautiful, it's just they need to pick something and go with it that holds together. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Page 1 DESIGN REVIEW ANALYSIS CITY OF BURLINGAME November 10, 2022 City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Project Address: 839 Crossway Road Applicant and Designer: Babak Nematollahi Property Owner: Southwest Investment Funds LLC Planner: Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Dear Planning Commissioners, I have received and reviewed the original plans submitted by Babak Nematollahi to the Planning Commission for 839 Crossway Road. I listened to the Planning Commission’s comments in the meeting video from the August 8, 2022, Study Session. I met with the Planner, Designer and Owner over zoom to discuss the Planning Commission’s comments in addition to providing feedback on subsequent iterations. The design submitted reflects the following changes in response to Planning Commission feedback: REVISIONS TO ORIGINAL DESIGN •The proposed transitional design style and supporting elements have been applied consistently to both house and ADU to create a cohesive project. •Second floor plate height brought down from 9’-0” to 8’-0”. •Replaced tall parapet roofs with shed roofs to reduce the previously heavy mass and create a scale more consistent with the residential neighborhood. •Porch depth maximized and wall with guardrailing barrier removed after clarifying the porch floor height above existing adjacent grade to be 30 inches or less. These changes improve the pedestrian scale. •Added cohesive window grids, detailing and consistent window head heights to tie the elevations together. •Added stained wood brackets, sills, clad posts/beams and belly band to break up the massing and add warmth to the simpler material palette. •Added stone veneer wainscotting and a chimney element to break up the side elevations and add texture and scale. •Roof pitch made consistent at 4:12. Page 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood This project is in the Burlingame Terrace neighborhood, which has a mix of traditional bungalows and newer two story homes. The majority of homes are stucco with asphalt composition shingle pitched roofs, as is the proposed residence. 2.Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood This neighborhood has primarily detached garages, as does the current and proposed residence. No change is proposed to the existing driveway and curb cut location. 3.Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure The proposed second story massing is integrated to make the whole house a cohesive design. The second floor plate height is a foot lower than the first floor to reduce the overall bulk. Gable elements and windows are aligned where possible. There is modulation along each elevation to break up the building mass and create scale appropriate to the residential neighborhood. The mix of materials further adds texture and warmth. While the detailing tends towards modern, the massing and forms fit with the various traditional styles present. 4.Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties This residence is located on Crossway Road between Edgehill and Palm Drives. No significant impact on the neighbors is anticipated. 5.Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Vines and shrubs are proposed as screening along the side yard fences. In addition to the existing trees to remain, the applicant is proposing four (4) new trees to soften the proposed residence. SUMMARY It is my opinion that the revised design meets the requirements of the design guidelines. Hopefully any design input from the Commission is minor at this point and can be addressed in a straightforward manner moving forward. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or clarifications. Sincerely, Jeanne Davis Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been proposed and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling at 839 Crossway Rd, zoned R-1; Southwest Investment Funds LLC, property owner, APN: 029-016-020; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review 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 12th day of December, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 839 Crossway Road Effective December 22, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped November 21, 2022, sheets A-0 through A-11; 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; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 839 Crossway Road Effective December 22, 2022 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. 839 Crossway Road 300’ noticing APN #: 029-016-020 AREA CALCULATION LOT SIZE EXISTING DETACHED STORAGE AREA EXISTING FIRST FLOOR LIVING AREA EXISTING DETACHED GAGAE AREA SF SF SF SF SF SF 6,802 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE F.A.R 0.32 X 6,802 +1,100 SQ.FT + 400 3676 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE 40%2720 1834 716 305 EXISTING COVERD PORCH AREA SF211 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR LIVING AREA PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA 1565 SF 1440 SF PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE AREA 536 SF SF EXISTING F.A.R SF2855 SFPROPOSED F.A.R 3541 PROPOSED LIVING AREA 3005 EXISTING STORAGE TO BE CONVERTED TO NEW ADU 305 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 1565 PROPOSED ENTRY COVERED PORCH DETACHED GARAGE DEATCHED ADU 536 458 115 2719 LOT COVERAGEEXISTINGPROPOSED DEATCHED ADU SF458 SF SF SF SF SF SFREAR SIDE COVERED PORCH 41 PROJECT DATA PROJECT ADDRESS 839 CROSSWAY RD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 APN 029-016-020 OWNER PROJECT TYPE ADDITION ZONING R-1 NUMBER OF FLOORS 1 STORY OCCUPANCY GROUP R-3 FIRE PROTECTION SPRINKLERED EXISTING PROPOSED 2 STORY MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI CONSTRUCTION TYPE V - B SFFIRE PLACE CHIMNEY 4 VICINITY MAP PARCEL MAP SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1/2" = 1'-0" A-0COVER SHEET - PROJECT INFORMATIONADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODISHEET INDEX 1 BOUNDRAY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 2 BOUNDRAY & TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A-0 COVER SHEET - PROJECT INFORMATION A-1 EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLAN A-2 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN A-2.1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A-3 PROPOSED ELEVATION - FRONT/ REAR A-4 PROPOSED ELEVATION - SIDE A-5 SECTION A-6 GARAGE & ADU - PLAN & ELEVATION A-7 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN A-8 DEMOLITION PLAN A-9 AREA CALCULATION A-10 LANDSCAPE PLAN A-11 DRAINAGE PLAN & DETAILS 839 CROSS WAY ROAD, BURLINGAME, CA. REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 PROJECT WILL COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (WHERE APPLICABLE), 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, AND 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS AS ADOPTED IN ORDINANCE 1889. “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 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. THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONSIDERED A NEW BUILDING AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE FOR NEW STRUCTURES. BMC 18.07.020. AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN INCLUDING REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF SIDEWALK, CURB, GUTTER, SEWER LATERAL, AND WATER LINE TO THE PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL. DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NATURE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL BE RESCINDED ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL BE ISSUED AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEEN FINAL. NO OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING IS TO OCCUR UNTIL A NEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE DEMOLITION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR THE PROJECT A SEPERATE ADDRESS APPLICATION SHALL BE SUBMIT AND ISSUE FROM PUBLIC WORKS. RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED FOR MAIN HOUSE AND ADU UNIT. FIRE SPRINKLER SHALL BE DEFFRED SUBMITTAL. RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION NOV 21 2022 REVISED N40°15'30"W 54.47'S39°14'30"E 53.75'S39°14'30"E 50.50'S55°27'49"W 130.61'S53°45'00"W 129.38'EX-TC 42.10EX-FL 41.64EX-TC 41.69EX-FL 41.21EX-TC 41.25EX-FL 40.78EX-TC 40.82GEM41.041.341.841.442.141.641.942.042.942.342.542.742.6DN SW SWSWSWSW WA WAWAWAWA DN N40°15'30"W 54.47'S39°14'30"E 53.75'S39°14'30"E 50.50'S55°27'49"W 130.61'S53°45'00"W 129.38'EX-TC 42.10EX-FL 41.64EX-TC 41.69EX-FL 41.21EX-TC 41.25EX-FL 40.78EX-TC 40.8299.20'237.32'163.09'527.51'EX. SIDEWALKEX. DRIVEWAYEX. CONCRETEEX. DRIVEWAYEX. CONCRETE WALKWAYEX. CONCRETE WALKWAYEX. WOOD DECKEX. TILED BRICK5" TREEEX. ELECTRIC METER8" TREEEX. RUSTED SQUAREEX. 5X5 SQUAREDRAINAGEEX. 6" MIDDLE OF CNC RETWALLEX. 6" BACK OF CNC RETWALLEX. SEWER VALVEEX. GAS METERGEM41.041.341.841.442.142.342.941.641.942.842.042.942.342.542.742.6EL. 42.0 EL. 41.4 EL. 42.4 EL. 40.8 EL. EX-TC 42.0 EL. EX-TC 41.27 AVERAGE CURB HEIGHT D.H.E : 41.85 (42 + 41.27) /2 EXISTING GAS METER TO REMAIN (E) ELECTRICAL METER TO BE RELOCATED MAINHOUSE FINISH FLOOR FIRST FLOOR : 45.5 FINISH FLOOR SECOND FLOOR : 55.0 HIGH RIDGE: 71.4 EXISTING GRADE @ENTRY STAIR 42.50 FINISH FLOOR EXISTING GARAGE 41.4 (N) MOTOR GATE CLEAR OPENING 9'-6" REFACE THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WITH NEW PAVER LAWN AREA LAWN AREA RAISED PLANTER 3' HEIGHT EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN PATIO EXISTING SIDE WALK NEW CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS - PERVIOUS SAND/ROCK BASE STAIR -MAX. HEIGHT 7 3/4" TRUE PROJECT NORTH EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN SECOND FLOOR LINE FIRST FLOOR LINE PROPOSED FI RST AN D SEC OND FLOOR SETBACK50' - 1" EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN NEW TREE NEW STREET TREE NEW TREE ENTRY COVERD PORCH 9' - 6"PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR SETBACK25' - 5" EXISTING SEWER VALVE AND CLEANOUT TO REMAIN. PLUG EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERA CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4" LATERAL SEWER LINE WATER LINE • WATER, SANITARY SEWER, ELECTRIC AND GAS SERVICES SHOWN FOR REFERENCE ONLY. SEPARATE UTILITY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THESE FACILITIES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. • REMOVE AND REPLACE SIDEWALK PANEL(S) THAT ARE UPLIFTED AND/OR BROKEN. • REMOVE & REPLACE DERIVEWAY PER CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD DETAILS • NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS,MAILBOX, ETC) SHALL BE INSTALL BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.(E) WALL TO PL.1' - 1"(E) WALL TO PL. 2' - 0"(E) WALL TO PL1' - 1"(E) WALL TO PL 2' - 1" (N) WALL TO PL 4' - 0" (N) WALL TO PL 4' - 8" (E) WALL TO PL 1' - 1" LAWN AREA PROPOSED FIRST FL OOR SETBACK22' - 10 " 9'-3" SECOND FLOOR SETBACK 5'-0" FIRST FLOOR SETBACK 11'-7" FIRST & SECOND FLOOR SETBACK 24' - 0" LAWN AREA RAILING ADDRESS NUMBER ON RAISED PLANTER (E) FENCE TO REMAIN 30" HEIGHT RAISED PLANTER OUTDOOR CENDENSER UNIT FOR ADU AND MAIN HOUSE NEW TREE CROSSWAY RD.EXISTING ELECTRICAL METER EXISTING GASS METER 12' - 4"EXISTING FRONT SETBACK18' - 7" EXISTING REAR SETBAC K - MAI N HO USE44' - 6" E X ISTIN G REAR SET BACK - GARA G E1' - 3 "EXISTING SIDE SETBACK8' - 6"FRONT 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR SDIE SIDE REAR 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR RIGHT LEFT PROPOSED ALLOWED /REQUIRED 21'-10" 26'-0" 11'-7" 11'-7" 5'-0" 9'-3" 51'-0" 51'-0" 7'-6" 15'-0" 20'-0" 4'-0" 7'-6" 4'-0" 22'-4" 22'-4" SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-1EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLANADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING SITE PLAN REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 BLOCK AVERAGE SETBACK CALCULATION : 843 CROSSWAY ROAD CORNER LOT 839 CROSSWAY ROAD 18'-7" 835 CROSSWAY ROAD 19' 831 CROSSWAY ROAD 29' MAX. 827 CROSSWAY ROAD 28' 823 CROSSWAY ROAD 20' 819 CROSSWAY ROAD 18' MIN. 815 CROSSWAY ROAD 22' 811 CROSSWAY ROAD 25' 807 CROSSWAY ROAD 20' 801 CROSSWAY ROAD CORNER LOT (19'+28'+20'+22'+25'+20')/6 = 22' -10" ELECTRONIC GATE SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A KNOX KEY SWITCH FOR EMEGENCY ACCESS BY THE FIRE DEPT. UP DN DN A-5 A A-5 A LIVING AREA CLOSET BATHROOM KITCHEN TEMPERED GLASS A-5 B A-5 B OFFICE CLOSET STAIR 6' - 1"6' - 2"6' - 1" 7' - 5"41' - 10"11' - 2"17' - 1"3' - 10"SECOND FLOOR LINE RAILING RAISED PLANTER 1' - 10"11' - 9"20' - 3"2' - 9"DINING AREA FAMILY AREA ELECTRIC FIRE PLACE 10' - 9" 2' - 5" 1' - 4" 2' - 0" 9' - 10"23' - 5"10' - 3" 3' - 10" 1' - 6" RAISED PLANTER ENTRY STAIR ROOF LINE ABOVE POST 5' - 2"4' - 0"16' - 3" OUTDOOR PATIO 5' - 5" 2' - 0" A-5 A A-5 A TEMPERED GLASS TEMPERED GLASS TEMPERED GLASS 3' - 6"A-5 B A-5 B 3' - 0"1' - 10"12' - 8"13' - 4"1' - 10"15' - 6"15' - 10"19' - 7"1' - 6"16' - 8"11' - 2"2' - 9"3' - 6" 2' - 0" 9' - 10" 6' - 1"11' - 7"5' - 9" 10' - 3" 2' - 0" 1' - 6" TEMPERED GLASS TEMPERED GLASS TEMPERED GLASS 0' - 6"METAL ROOF ROOF LINE ABOVE SKYLIGHT BEDROOM #1 BEDROOM #2 BATHROOM BEDROOM #3 WALK IN CLOSET LAUNDRY BATHROOM MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATHROOM FIRST FLOOR LINE COVERED PATIO 2' - 0" NEW EXTERIOR WALL NEW INTERIOR WALL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING INTERIOR WALL WALLLEGEND : DEMO WALLS 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-2PROPOSED FLOOR PLANADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED FIRTS FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN TRUE PROJECT NORTH REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 ROOF EAVES WILL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE 2019 CRC § TABLE R302.1 (1) OR 2019 CBC TABLE 705.2 TRUE PROJECT NORTH4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12" 4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"4" / 12"2" / 12"4" / 12"TYPICL OVERHANG1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"1' - 0"SEE ELEVATION SEE ELEVATION0' - 6"SEE ELEVATION 3 A-2.1 EXTERIOR WALL WINDOW UNIT EXTERIOR STUCCO SMOOTH TEXTURE 0' - 6"WINDOW SILL TRIM THICKNESS 0' - 2" WINDOW SILL TRIM PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6"2' - 6"9' - 0"RAISED PLANTER DOUBLE POST 3 1/2" X 3 1/2" STAINED WOOD DRIFTWOOD COLOR BLACK COLOR LIGHTING FIXTURE 1 1/2" X 9 1/2" BEAM STAINED WOOD DRIFTWOOD COLOR METAL ROOF TRUE PROJECT NORTH SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-2.1PROPOSED ROOF PLANADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODIREVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1" = 1'-0" TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0" WINDOW DETAIL - SECTION 3/4" = 1'-0" ENTRY PORCH DETAIL 1/4" = 1'-0" ADU ROOF PLAN PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' -6" PROPOSED RIDGE 25' -10"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 4'-0" FIRST FLOOR SIDE SETBACKEL. 45.5 EL. 68.8 EL. 55.5 D.H.E = (42.0+41.4) /2 = 41.7 D.H.E = (42.4+40.8) /2 = 41.6 (42.0+41.27) /2 = 41.64 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB ELEVATION SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE HEIGHT8' - 0"FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE HEIGHT9' - 0"BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO RIDGE27' - 2"12' - 0"12' - 0"45°45°PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6"7' - 6"7' - 6"30' - 0"9' - 3" 9' - 8" 4' - 0" 1 2 3 4 15 6 7 10 PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' -6" PROPOSED RIDGE 25' -10"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 4'-0" FIRST FLOOR SIDE SETBACKD.H.E = (42.0+41.4) /2 = 41.79'-3"SECOND FLOOR SIDE SETBACKD.H.E = (42.4+40.8) /2 = 41.6 12' - 0"45°12' - 0"45° (42.0+41.27) /2 = 41.64 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO RIDGE27' - 2"PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6"7' - 6"30' - 0"7' - 6"4' - 0" 9' - 3" 12 3 4 8 7 7 97 7 7 SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1/4" = 1'-0" A-3PROPOSED ELEVATION - FRONT/ REARADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED FRONT (NORTH) ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED REAR (SOUTH) ELEVATION REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 MATERIAL KEY NOTE 1 SMOOTH STUCCO, PAINTED PEARLY WHITE KELLY MORE KMW44 2 COMPOSITION ROOF SHINGLE, ESTATE GRAY LAMINATED 3 CHARCOAL GRAY STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF 4 STAINED WOOD, DRIFTWOOD COLOR 5 ELDORDO STONE VENEER 6 DUAL GLAZING 7 BLACK ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDER LITES, SINGLE CASEMENT WINDOW - DUAL GLAZING . 8 BLACK ALUMINUM CLAD GLASS BI FOLD DOOR- DUAL GLAZING 9 BLACK ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDER LITES, FIXED WINDOW- DUAL GLAZING 10 NEW LIGHT FIXTURE 40W MAX. PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' -6" PROPOSED RIDGE 25' -10"PROPERTY LINE 20 ' SECOND FLOOR FRONT SETBACKD.H.E = (42.0+42.4) /2 = 42.2 TOP OF CURB ELEVATION PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6"FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE HEIGHT 9' - 0"SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE HEIGHT 8' - 0"12' - 0"7' - 6"45°1 2 3 4 556 5 5 5 5 5666 5 FIRST FLOOR SETBACK 22' - 10" SECOND FLOOR SETBACK 25' - 5" 9 9 PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' -6" PROPOSED RIDGE 25' -10"PROPERTY LINE 45° (42.0+41.27) /2 = 41.64 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB ELEVATION BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE TOP OF CURB TO RIDGE27' - 2"D.H.E = (42.4+40.8) /2 = 41.6 12' - 0"SECOND FLOOR TOP PLATE HEIGHT 8' - 0"PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6"FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE HEIGHT9' - 0"7' - 6"9' - 0"1 3 6 566 5 5 7 89 SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1/4" = 1'-0" A-4PROPOSED ELEVATION - SIDEADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED LEFT (EAST) ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED RIGHT ( WEST ) ELEVATION REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 MATERIAL KEY NOTE 1 COMPOSITION ROOF SHINGLE, ESTATE GRAY LAMINATED 2 SMOOTH STUCCO, PAINTED PEARLY WHITE KELLY MORE KMW44 3 GUTTER, PAINTED DARK CHARCOAL COLOR, KELLY MORE YIN MIST KM4897 4 DUAL GLAZING 5 BLACK ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDER LITES, SINGLE CASEMENT WINDOW - DUAL GLAZING . 6 BLACK ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD WITH SIMULATED TRUE DIVIDER LITES, FIXED WINDOW- DUAL GLAZING 7 2 X 6 CEDAR WOOD TRIM STAINED WITH DRIFTWOOD COLOR 8 ELDORADO STONE, 20" X 3" X 2"(FACE) COASTAL SAND SPLIT-EDGE WAINSCOT SILL 9 ELDORDO STONE VENEER PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' -6" PROPOSED RIDGE 25' -10" PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6" MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM #2 FAMILY AREA OUTDOOR PATIO PROPOSED FINISH FLOOR 2' -6" GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 12' -6" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR TOP PLATE 20' -6" PROPOSED RIDGE 25' -10" PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR TOP PLATE 11' -6"2' - 6"8' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 4"D.H.E = (42.0+41.4) /2 = 41.7 D.H.E = (42.4+40.8) /2 = 41.6 (42.0+41.27) /2 = 41.64 AVERAGE TOP OF CURB ELEVATION 27' - 2"9' - 5"12' - 0"7' - 6"12' - 0"7' - 6"45°45°10' - 9"MASTER BEDROOM MASTER BATHROOM KITCHEN FAMILY AREA SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1/4" = 1'-0" A-5SECTION ADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION A - A REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 1/4" = 1'-0" SECTION B - B TRUE PROJECT NORTH GARAGE STORAGE BATHROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN SINK REFREGERATOR & FREZZER COOKTOP ISLAND & CABINET CABINET MIN. 4' FROM ADU NEW WALL TO PROPERTY LINE 4' - 0" TANKLESS WATER HEATER PROVIDING THE HOT WATER FOR ADU EGRESS WINDOW GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" NEW WINDOW TO BE ADDED NEW SLIDING DOOR TO BE ADDED NEW WINDOW TO BE ADDED NEW GRAY COLOR STEEL GARAGE DOOR TO BE ADDED - SAME OPENNING AND HEADER AS EXISTING EL. 41.4 OVERAL GARAGE HEIGHT FROM GARDE 15' -6" ADU BEDROOM EGRESS WINDOW 1 2 3 4 GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" OVERAL GARAGE HEIGHT FROM GARDE 15' -6" 2 GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" NEW WINDOW TO BE ADDED, SAME SIZE AND SAME HEADER AS EXISTING 1 2 OVERAL GARAGE HEIGHT FROM GARDE 15' -6"15' - 6"2 4 GRADE LEVEL 0' -0" OVERAL GARAGE HEIGHT FROM GARDE 15' -6" 2 1 NEW EXTERIOR WALL NEW INTERIOR WALL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING INTERIOR WALL WALLLEGEND : DEMO WALLS 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-6GARAGE & ADU - PLAN & ELEVATIONADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" DETACHED GARAGE - ADU FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE & ADU ELEVATION - FRONT ( NORTH) 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE & ADU ELEVATION - REAR (SOUTH) 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE & ADU ELEVATION - SIDE ( EAST) 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE & ADU ELEVATION - SIDE 2 MATERIAL KEY NOTE 1 ELDORDO STONE VENEER 2 <varies> 3 DUAL GLAZING 4 NEW LIGHT FIXTURE 40W MAX. REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 DN UP UP NEW EXTERIOR WALL NEW INTERIOR WALL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING INTERIOR WALL WALLLEGEND : DEMO WALLS 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL TRUE PROJECT NORTH FAMILY AREA KITCHEN NOOK BEDROOM #1 CLOSET/OFFICE BATHROOM BEDROOM #2 BEDROOM #3 BATHROOM STORAGE GARAGE SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-7EXISTING FLOOR PLANADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date DN S39°14'30"E 180.00'N40°15'30"W 54.47'S39°14'30"E 53.75'S39°14'30"E 50.50'S55°27'49"W 130.61'S53°45'00"W 129.38'EX-TC 42.10EX-FL 41.64EX-TC 41.69EX-FL 41.21EX-TC 41.25EX-FL 40.7899.20'237.32'163.09'527.51'EX. SIDEWALKCROSSWAY RDEX. DRIVEWAYEX. CONCRETEEX. DRIVEWAYEX. CONCRETE WALKWAYEX. CONCRETE WALKWAYEX. WOOD DECKEX. HOUSEEX. GARAGEFF 45.5APN NO.: 029-016-020LOT GROSS AREA: 6,802± SFEX. TILED BRICKGFF 41.4GFF 41.3EX. SHED5" TREEEX. ELECTRIC METER8" TREEEX. RUSTED SQUAREEX. 5X5 SQUAREDRAINAGEEX. 6" MIDDLE OF CNC RETWALLEX. 6" BACK OF CNC RETWALLEX. SEWER VALVEEX. SEWER VALVEEX. GAS METERGEM41.041.341.841.442.142.341.442.941.641.942.842.042.942.342.542.742.6DN UP UP NEW EXTERIOR WALL NEW INTERIOR WALL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING INTERIOR WALL WALLLEGEND : DEMO WALLS 1 HR FIRE RATED WALL 5' - 4"3' - 4"23' - 5"1' - 10"14' - 1"12' - 11"8' - 7" 1' - 6"30' - 1"16' - 1" 9' - 1"28' - 11"EXISTING WINDOW TO BE REMOVED WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED TYP. (E) WALL TO REMIAN TYP. DEMOLISH EXISTING CONCRETE DEMOLISH EXISTING 6" CONCRETE RETAINING WALL DEMOLISH EXISTING ENTRY STAIR SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-8DEMOLITION PLANADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/4" = 1'-0" FIRST FLOOR - DEMOLITION PLAN REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 REV.2 2ND PLANING COMENTS 7/2/2022 1/8" = 1'-0" SITE DEMOLITION PLAN 1834 SF HOUSE 716 SF GARAGE 305 SF STORAGE 175 SF PORCH 36 SF ENTRY PORCH 1565 SF PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 536 SF PROPOSED GARAGE 458 SF PROPOSED ADU 115 SF COVERED PORCH 41 SF REAR COVERED PORCH 4 SF FIRE PLACE 1440 SF PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1/8" = 1'-0" A-9AREA CALCULATIONADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODI1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - AREA EXISTING AREA CALCULATION 1 HOUSE 1834 SF 2 GARAGE 716 SF 3 STORAGE 305 SF 4 PORCH 175 SF 5 ENTRY PORCH 36 SF 6 SECOND FLOOR 1209 SF 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR - AREA 1/8" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR - AREA PROPOSED PLAN AREA CALC. PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR 1565 SF PROPOSED GARAGE 536 SF PROPOSED ADU 458 SF PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR 1440 SF COVERED PORCH 115 SF REAR COVERED PORCH 41 SF FIRE PLACE 4 SF REVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 N40°15'30"W 54.47'S39°14'30"E 53.75'S39°14'30"E 50.50'S55°27'49"W 130.61'S53°45'00"W 129.38'EX-TC 42.10EX-FL 41.64EX-TC 41.69EX-FL 41.21EX-TC 41.25EX-FL 40.78EX-TC 40.82GEM41.041.341.241.841.442.141.641.942.042.942.342.542.742.6DN EL. 42.0EL. 41.4 EL. 42.4 EL. 40.8 EL. EX-TC 42.0 EL. EX-TC 41.27 MAINHOUSE FINISH FLOOR FIRST FLOOR : 45.5 FINISH FLOOR SECOND FLOOR : 55.0 HIGH RIDGE: 71.4 EXISTING GRADE @ENTRY STAIR 42.50 FINISH FLOOR EXISTING GARAGE 41.4 PERMEABLE PAVER CONCRETE BLOCK PAVING (N) LAWN AREA LAWN AREA RAISED PLANTER EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN PATIO EXISTING SIDE WALK NEW CONCRETE UNIT PAVERS - PERVIOUS SAND/ROCK BASE STAIR -MAX. HEIGHT 7 3/4" TRUE PROJECT NORTH EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN SECOND FLOOR LINE FIRST FLOOR LINE DOWNSPOTDOWNSPOT DOWNSPOT DOWNSPOT DOWNSPOT A-11 4 TYP. A-11 3 TYP. 5 A-11 TYP. 2 A-11 TYP. 2 A-11 TYP. - --- TYP. 3" PVC SD35 PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE TYP. CATCH BASIN CATCH BASIN AREA DRAIN A-11 6 TYP. DOWNSPOT DOWNSPOT SCALE DATESHEET NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PROJECT TYPE BAVAND DESIGN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: SANAZ FARIDNIA BABAK NEMATOLLAHI EMAIL: PHONE: (650) 690 - 6639 ADDRESS : 512 RAILWAY AVENUE, CAMPBELL, CA. 95008 PROJECT NO.PROJECT OWNERRESTRICTIONS: THESE PLANS & INCORPORATED DESIGNS EMBODIED THEREON ARE THE PROPERTY OF BAVAND DESIGN THE USE OF THESE PLANS ARE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE AND OWNER FOR WHICH THEY WERE PREPARED. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO SUCH USE. PUBLICATION AND REPRODUCTION BY ANY METHOD, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND DESIGNS REMAIN WITH BAVAND DESIGN VISUAL CONTACT WITH THEM CONSTITUTE APPROVAL WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. As indicated A-11DRAINAGE PLAN & DETAILSADDITION AND REMODELING839 CROSSWAY, BURLINAGE, CA11/3/2021 21-1205MR. KAMBIZ ZOMORODIREVISION Revision Number Revision Description Revision Date REV.1 PLANING COMMENTS 8/11/2019 1/8" = 1'-0" DRAINAGE PLAN 1 1/2" = 1'-0"2PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT DRIVEWAY WITH CONSRETE CURB 1 1/2" = 1'-0"3TYPICAL CATCH BASIN DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"4SPLASH BLOCK - DOWNSPOT DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1'-0"5BUILDING WALL PROTECTION FROM PERMEABLE INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1 1/2" = 1'-0"6AREA DRAIN DETAIL City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 912 Linden Avenue Meeting Date: December 12, 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 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Project Description: The 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 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 Planning 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)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 8e Regular Action Item Design Review 912 Linden Avenue -2- 912 Linden Avenue Lot Area: 5,660 SF Plans date stamped: December 2, 2022 ORIGINAL PLANS 10/12/22 REVISED PLANS 12/2/22 ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-4” 29’-11” 16’-4” 29’-11” 16’-4” (block average) 20’-0” Attached garage: 28’-1” 28’-7” 25’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 5’-0” 7’-0” 5’-6” 5’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 23’-7” 23’-7” 23’-7” 23’-7” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,717 SF 30.3% 1,717 SF 30.3% 2,264 SF 40% FAR: 2,907 SF 0.51 FAR 2,907 SF 0.51 FAR 2,911 SF 1 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 3 --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (12’-6” x 21’-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 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 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Building Height: 27’-4” 27’-4” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies 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 912 Linden Avenue -3- Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on October 24, 2022, the Commission had several comments and suggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated November 15, 2022, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project (see attachments). 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 single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed dwelling is consistent with the design guidelines in that the mass and bulk of the proposed structure is in scale with the lot and in relation to neighboring properties, and that architectural details, such as the fiberglass windows and doors, stucco exterior finish, gable and hip roofs with composition shingles, and metal garage door are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio, 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. Design Review 912 Linden Avenue -4- 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 December 2, 2022, sheets T1.0, D1.0, A1.0 through A5.0, L1.1 through L3.4, 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; 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; Design Review 912 Linden Avenue -5- 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant KTGY Architecture and Planning, architect SF21G, LLC (Thomas James Homes), property owner Attachments: October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated November 15, 2022 Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated June 13, 2022 Arborist Report, prepared by HMH and dated June 2, 2022 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, October 24, 2022 b.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 All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Hannah Chiu and Cynthia Thiebaut, designers, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > Karlene Harvey, 920 Linden Avenue: I know that there are some other residents who are listening in the meeting. We are concerned about the size of the project with a one -car garage. We have parking problems on the 900 block of Linden Avenue. The project is very large. It’s got a bathroom attached to each bedroom and then you have the ADU with a kitchen, a bathroom and a bedroom. It’s almost like it can be used as an AirBnB or some kind of a multi -family residence, which would mean that they could possibly have anywhere from six to eight cars and yet they only have a one -car garage. It’s a very large project. Some of the examples of two -story houses they showed are not on this 900 block of Linden Avenue. On Toyon Drive, one of the houses they showed, there are several second stories there. We only have a two-story house on each corner of Linden Avenue. The size and scale of this project is just way too big for our neighborhood. I don ’t understand what they meant by removing a maple tree, I don ’t believe there is a maple tree at that house. There is a large tree in front of the house at 916 Linden Avenue that is not being built right now. We also sent an email to the Commission raising our concerns. The developer came in, brought this property and now is developing it to the hilt. These are our concerns, thank you very much for listening. >Joshua Dunetz, 917 Linden Avenue: We live across the street. We have been living in Burlingame for five years and we love it. We met with the group back in September to go over initial designs. I’m pretty sure during that time Karlene and another neighbor sent an email to the City. I share Karlene ’s concerns, this home seems very big. In our block of Linden Avenue, Azalea Avenue and Larkspur Drive are all one-story homes except one of the corner homes that may have an addition on top of the garage. The one shown by the design group in the bottom middle from Toyon Drive is not really representative of our block . It's kind of a standout house where you notice that it is a big home in this relatively small neighborhood. A lot of our neighbors have developed their homes a bit and usually they go back a little from the front property line. I know that this property certainly has a lot of room to go back. One of the other things I ’ve noticed is that the setback is not as quite as deep as the homes around it. It is a pretty big house to be too close to the sidewalk. It just seems that this house will change the look of the neighborhood of the 900 blocks of Linden Avenue, Azalea Avenue and Larkspur Drive. I know in the past, the Commission has appreciated when people try to redo homes and stay with the look of the neighborhood. This one seems a little bit big and out of place. I also share concerns about parking. I don ’t think a two-car garage will make this home out of place, but rather the massiveness of the current plan makes it out of place. I Page 1City of Burlingame October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes would ask the design team to consider if there is any way to go back instead of up. If there is any way to increase parking on site because street parking is rather tight around here. Thank you for being here. I appreciate the time. >Sangeeta Mishra, 913 Linden Avenue: I live immediately across the street from the proposed development. We share the views that all of our neighbors have voiced today. The primary one is that it is a very large home for the size of the other existing homes in the neighborhood. Everything is a one -story house, there is only one on the corner that is two stories. This one seems like it is going to completely change the culture and look of our neighborhood. It definitely is not fitting in with the traditional look of what the existing homes are. We, ourselves, just recently remodeled our home. We did a one -story and fits in with the neighborhood, so I don ’t see why another house couldn ’t do something that is similar while at the same time modernizing the house. The other concern that we have that our neighbors have also voiced out is that every bedroom has an attached bathroom to it, including the ADU. We are really worried that this will become a multi-rental place and not a family home. There is not a single house on the 900 block that is a rental home, whether it is for a family or multiple families, so this really scares all of us . Parking is a very big issue in our neighborhood. Not only do most homes have two cars, but we also have to put up with the overflow from Rollins Road. People who live on Rollins Road park their cars on our street and leave it there overnight which sometimes make us having to park our own cars a block or two away . We also have people who come and go to the airport and park their cars on our neighborhood streets for a day or two or three until they come back from holiday or business trip. So we are very tight with parking. If this home is not going to be a home for one family but a multi -family, you are pretty much pushing the neighbors out from what they call their own home. I strongly urge that you take consideration of that . Thank you. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >(Spansail: I just want to bring something up in case it is helpful for the neighbors to look at. The Commission knows that we can ’t discuss ADUs at these meetings. I want to make sure that the public understands that it is a ministerial process. Our Planning Division can take a look at that but it is not something that our Planning Commission can actually consider. I did want to refer them to Chapter 25.48.030, that is the ADU chapter of our Zoning Code. It provides details about what can and can ’t be done. There are no parking requirements for JADUs. On top of that, I did want to at least allay the concern about short term rentals. Our ADU code does say that you cannot have a rental for under 30 days in an ADU. So AirBnB concerns are something that would not be necessarily applicable to this project. I just want to put that information out there before the Commission begins to consider the project. Thank you.) >I appreciate the neighbors’ comments. I view it from a planning perspective, it is complying with the zoning requirements, and it ’s not an unusual residential design for Burlingame. Parking is an issue, so I feel for them. This house is not unusual from the different houses we've reviewed in the past. The design looks okay; all the elevations have some interest to them. The windows might look a little bit tight to the eaves and maybe that is a 2D issue, it might look better in a 3D rendering. Overall, I can ’t find enough to fault the house. >I echo my fellow commissioner’s sentiments. As a previous owner on this block, I actually lived next door to this house for six years, I can certainly empathize with the parking issues on this street. However, that being said, there is not a whole lot that we can do about it. As everyone said, this has become an overflow parking for Rollins Road and airport parking. I don ’t think altering the design here is really going to move the needle much if we get a two -car garage, there is not much that will happen to alleviate the parking issues. >I did want to speak a little bit about the design. Overall, I like the design concept, however I do have issues with the windows. For some reason, the front windows are not registering to me. You have the very large ADU windows at the front that are too imposing. You then have these windows on the second floor which are six inches from the plate height. I understand the argument, but it does not resonate with me because the windows can be redesigned to meet egress and not have them slammed so high to the plate Page 2City of Burlingame October 24, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes height so they don ’t mess with the roofs below. Then you have the two windows on the left side of the house for the bedroom. I understand why it was located up there so the bedroom can have a bed in it, but they just look very small and out of place compared to the very large downstairs and upstairs windows . The metal roof, for some reason, doesn ’t do it for me. I understand why you do that, but I wouldn ’t quite classify it as an inviting front entry way with a metal roof. You have a lot of great dimensional details on this house. It is really nice, however, adding the metal roof is not doing anything for us. To me, it takes away from what you are doing. It throws in a very modern feel to a very traditional neighborhood. It’s not going to kill the project for me but I am not a big fan of it. >I completely understand parking issues and the concerns about privacy when two -story houses are built. I am familiar with this neighborhood and it has not gotten so many two -story homes yet, but it happens. You just need to control the ones that come in and make them the best that you can. It is true that the house is not that unusual for Burlingame, but I find that it has room for improvement. The windows on the front seem very large. The hipped roof and some of the other faces that go around the house, they just need to come down at least another six inches. I don ’t think they look right. Even if you have to shorten the window, you feel it is too close to the floor. It can be done and make it look more cohesive. I also don’t understand what the metal roof does. I have to agree with my fellow commissioner on that. The design can use some more refining to improve it a lot. >I would agree with the comments that were made. During the presentation, the building section showed there is six inches above the window, but structurally it will not work. You need to have a bigger header over your window because you have a double top plate as well. Especially on the rear elevation where you have those long windows. I don ’t think you will make it by shoving those windows underneath the eave. There needs to be a little more work to be done structurally to make it work, which of course will change the architecture. I agree with the large window comment on the front. The windows can be reconfigured a little bit and brought to scale that works for the house that will be helpful. As a side note, I know in some neighborhood in Burlingame that have had parking problems, it is possible to get neighborhood parking permits; this is something that the neighborhood can look into. I had the same problem when I lived on Laguna Avenue and we had people parking in front of the house for days as they went to the airport. I sympathize with the neighbors. I think that if you have parking permits, you might solve a little bit of outside people coming and parking overnight or for days on end. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, 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, and Pfaff4 - Absent:Comaroto, Schmid, and Tse3 - Page 3City of Burlingame THOMAS JAMES HOMES 255 Shoreline Dr Suite 428, Redwood City, CA 94065 November 15, 2022 TO: Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Planning Division CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558- 7250 CC: Project: 912 Linden Ave (APN: 026-251-270) Dear City of Burlingame, Thomas James Homes has addressed the comments and concerns from the planning commission meeting on October 24th, 2022. Please see our list of changes noted below and resubmittal for planning commission action on November 28th. Summary of Comments/Main Concerns: 1. Front Elevation 1st floor windows are too large. • Transom windows removed and three windows reduced in width. 2. Front Elevation 2nd floor windows are small in comparison. • Windows increased in size from 2020 to 2046. 3. Windows shoved up against eaves, need a bigger header over the window, shorten length of windows if necessary, rescale windows. • Window head heights dropped to 7’-0” and sizes updated as needed to still meet egress conditions. 4. Metal roof not inviting front entryway and takes away from traditional feel of the rest of the design. • Front entry roof revised to be a hip to match the rest of the home and removed metal roof. The following have been resubmitted. If there is anything specific missing, please contact: Anna Felver afelver@tjhusa.com 650-402-3024. THOMAS JAMES HOMES 255 Shoreline Dr Suite 428, Redwood City, CA 94065 ▪ Full Plan Set ▪ Letter of Response to Planning Commission Sincerely, Anna Felver Planning Manager | Thomas James Homes 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 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage at 912 Linden Avenue, zoned R-1, SF21G, LLC, property owner, APN: 025-251-270; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on December 12, 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 is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of December, 2022 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 912 Linden Avenue Effective December 22, 2022 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped December 2, 2022, sheets T1.0, D1.0, A1.0 through A5.0, L1.1 through L3.4, 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 and Design Review 912 Linden Avenue Effective December 22, 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. 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 December 1st, 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 Exterior Color Board AS-BUILT DRAWINGS 1of3 Floor Plan 2of3 Roof Plan 3of3 Elevations LANDSCAPE L1.1 Layout Plan L1.2 Construction Notes L1.3 Construction Details L1.4 Construction Details L2.1 Irrigation Plan & Schedules L2.2 Irrigation Notes & Water Use Calcs L2.3 Irrigation Details L2.4 Irrigation Details L2.5 Irrigation Details L2.6 Irrigation Specs & Details L3.1 Planting Plan & Schedule L3.2 Planting Notes L3.3 Planting Details L3.4 Tree Protection Plan & Notes 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:1316.41 s.f. Garage: 288.99 s.f. Total Area:2818.61 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: VAN DORN ABED 81 14th Street San Francisco, CA. 94103 Phone: 415.864.1921 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 REVISED DEC 2 2022 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 FENCE LEGEND: EXISTING WOOD FENCE - DEMO NEW 6' HIGH WOOD FENCE NEW 19" HIGH WOOD FENCE 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"23'-7"28'-7" Gar. / 1st Flr. S.B.(16'-4" Min.)39'-6"3'-10"39'-5" 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 ac pad w/ low screen wall 17'-10"28'-1"9'x18' PARKING SPACE 10'x18' PARKING SPACE OHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWOHWADU ac pad 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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. FENCE LEGEND: EXISTING WOOD FENCE - DEMO NEW 6' HIGH WOOD FENCE NEW 19" HIGH WOOD FENCE 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 19 14'-212"1'-6" 10 11 12 13 14 5'-4"2'-0"512"2'-3"8'-111 2"2'-0"4'-512"11'-101 2" 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 + 98.62 = 1,600.82 SQ. FT. (28%) PORCH 86.00 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 2'-10"= 33.06 SQ. FT. 11. 11'-10.5" x 4'-5.5"= 52.94 SQ. FT. 12. 2'-0" x 0'-5.5"= 0.92 SQ. FT. 13. 2'-3" x 0'-5.5"= 1.03 SQ. FT. 14. 2'-0" x 5'-4"= 10.67 SQ. FT. TOTAL = 98.62 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. ADU FLOOR AREA = 418.83 SQ. FT. 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 18 14'-212"1'-6" K-6369SUNSTRUCKBATHACRYLIC 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"1'-8"11'-11" 157'-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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 + 1,316.41 + 288.99 = 2,818.61 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR 1,316.41 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'-8" = 19.86 SQ. FT. 2ND FLOOR TOTAL = 1316.41 SQ. FT. ADU 418.83 S.F. ADU FLOOR AREA = 418.83 SQ. FT. 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: 1600.82 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.28'-7" GAR / 1ST FLR. SB(16'-4" MIN.)39'-6"13'-8"39'-5" Rear S.B.16'-4" ADU SB29'-9"7'-11"14'-1"13'-8"23'-7" Rear S.B.4'-0" Min. Side S.B.1'-0"13'-31 2"11'-91 2"14'-5" 4'-0" Min Side S.B.1'-6" 39'-6"65'-5"39'-6" 1'-6"1'-0"13'-8"19'-4"4'-0" 5'-0" Side S.B. 5'-6" Side S.B.3'-11"7'-1012"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) 2660 CSMT2050 CSMT3050 SH3050 SH2050 CSMT2050 SH2030 CSMT Pdr15'-0" M in.Rear SB2020 FG2050 SH3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH 3050 SH3050 SH3050 SH3'-5"6'-0"8'-0"4'-0"6'-0"2/A4.22/A4.3 12'-6"21'-012"media wall / fireplace 4'-1"5'-4"ac pad w/ low screen wall3050 SH3050 SH 5050 FG 2'-0" ADU ac pad EGRESSBedroom 11'-4" x 9'-9 1/2" ADU Living 13'-6" x 12'-11 1/2" Kitchen* Bath 32x66 media wall 3080 30805080 BI-PASS3080 30801/A4.21/A4.3CCOPYRIGHT 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 2030 CSMT (TEMP) 2046 CSMT (2) 2646 CSMT2040 SH (TEMP)2040 SH2050 SH2050 SH3050 SH3050 SH 5050 FG (2) 2046 SH (TEMP)3050 FG2040 SH266826682868286824682468 24682468 2468 5068 BI-PASS 2/A4.3 2/A4.2 2646 CSMT2040 CSMTEGRESS K-6369SUNSTRUCKBATHACRYLIC EGRESSEGRESS 2050 SH2046 CSMT 2646 CSMT 1/A4.31/A4.2CCOPYRIGHT 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 H I P HIPRH I P HIPHIPVALLEY5:12 HIPHIP HIPVALLEY5:12CCOPYRIGHT 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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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"2'-6"2'-6"4'-0"2'-6"5'-0"1 29456 7 810 11 1414 A.T.O.C. 100.8 = 101.5 + 100.2 2 1'-7"16 3 EGRESS 7'-0" Hdr. Typ.NG +101.04'NG +101.08'NG +100.84'9'-034"MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40'8'-034"PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 6'-9"1'-3"LINE OF LANDING 1245814 1514 EGRESS 3 12'-0"2'-0"3'-0"3'-0"6'-0"3'-0"3'-0"6'-0"3'-0"3'-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 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 (WEST)1/4"21'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.0 SCALE : =FRONT ELEVATION (SOUTH)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 Downspout Typ. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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"2'-6"2'-0"3'-0"1245 14 3'-0"8 EGRESS 3 3'-0"1245 810121315 3 EGRESS NG +100.70' (Low Point) NG +100.91'NG +100.97' MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40' PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 9'-034"8'-034"6'-9"1'-3"2'-6"3'-0"3'-0"2'-0"2'-0"3'-0"3'-0"6'-0"3'-0" 3'-0" 10'-0" 34'-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 07-05-22 DESIGN SUBMITTAL 08-07-22 PLANNING COMMENTS CLIENT REVISIONS 09-29-22 CLIENT REVISIONS 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 (EAST)1/4"21'-0" EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.1 SCALE : =REAR ELEVATION (NORTH)1/4"11'-0" NOTES KEYNOTES Material List: Composition Shingle Roofing Stucco Finish Downspout Typ. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 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). PRIMARY BEDROOM ATTIC +27'-4"9'-034"RIGHT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINE 45 0 45 0 12'-0"12'-0"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 6'-11" SIDE SB 21'-7" 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"TOP OF RIDGE 127.53 7'-6"GREAT ROOM 7'-6"7'-0" Hdr. Typ.HALL GARAGE BATH 2HALL ATTIC COATS / STORAGE WH +27'-4"9'-034"RIGHT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINE 45 0 45 0 7'-6"12'-0"12'-0"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 7'-6"7'-0" Hdr. Typ.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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 (SOUTH)1/4"21'-0" BUILDING SECTIONS A4.2 SCALE : =SECTION (SOUTH)1/4"11'-0" ENTRY GARAGE BEDROOM 3 ATTIC +27'-4"9'-034"RIGHT PROPERTY LINE LEFT PROPERTY LINE 45 0 45 0 7'-6"12'-0"12'-0"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"TOP OF RIDGE 127.53 7'-6"7'-0" Hdr. Typ.PDR.ADU BEDROOM BATH 3 BEDROOM 2 KITCHEN HALL ENTRY PORCHGREAT ROOM CLOSET BATH 3 PRIMARY BEDROOM ATTIC FRONT PROPERTY LINE REAR PROPERTY LINE NG +101.04'NG +100.84'9'-034"MAIN FLOOR FFE +102.40'8'-034"PLATE LEVEL UPPER FLOOR TOP PLATE TOP OF RIDGE 6'-9"1'-3"A.T.O.C. 100.8 = 101.5 + 100.2 21'-7"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 10-31-22 PLANNING HEARING 11-28-22 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 (WEST)1/4"21'-0" BUILDING SECTIONS A4.3 SCALE : =SECTION (SOUTH)1/4"11'-0" 912 LINDEN AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401011.30.22 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 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 GLASS: FROSTED 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 ADU DOOR o GARAGE DOOR o GARAGE SIDE DOOR o PORCH TRIM AND COLUMNS o FASCIA, EAVES, AND GUTTERS FENCE STAIN SEMI-TRANSPARENT NAVAJO WHITE ADU DOOR MASONITE VISTA GRANDE 3/4 LITE 4 SDL PANEL DOOR 2 SDL PANEL SIDELITES GLASS: FROSTED A5.0 COPYRIGHT © 2006 VAN DORN ABEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT & SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED, OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTENCONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.1. CENTER BOX OVER VALVE TO FACILITATE SERVICING VALVE. 3. SET BOXES 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR MULCH COVER IN GROUND COVER/SHRUB AREA AND FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREA. 4. SET VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY IN GROUND COVER/SHRUB AREA WHERE POSSIBLE. INSTALL IN LAWN AREA ONLY IF GROUND COVER/SHRUB AREA DOES NOT EXIST ADJACENT TO LAWN. 5. SET BOXES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER AND PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE. 6. AVOID HEAVILY COMPACTING SOIL AROUND VALVE BOX EDGES TO PREVENT COLLAPSE AND DEFORMATION OF VALVE BOX SIDES. 7. VALVE BOXES SHALL HAVE BOLT DOWN LIDS WITH BOLTS INSTALLED. 8. VALVE BOXES SHALL BE BY CARSON, OR EQUIVALENT. 9.VALVE BOXES COLORS SHALL BE: GREEN. MAINLINE, LATERAL, AND WIRING IN THE SAME TRENCH MAINLINE PIPE LATERAL PIPE PIPE AND WIRE SLEEVING WIRE W/O CONDUIT PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 2" BETWEEN PIPES RUN WIRE BENEATH AND BESIDE MAINLINE. TAPE AND BUNDLE AT 10-FOOT INTERVALS. ALL SOLVENT WELD PLASTIC PIPING TO BE SNAKED IN TRENCH AS SHOWN TIE A 24" LOOP IN ALL WIRING AT CHANGES IN DIRECTION OF 30° OR GREATER. UNTIE AFTER ALL CONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. 4" 4"4" 4" 4" 4" 4" AT PEDESTRIAN PAVING & 6" AT VEHICULAR PAVING CLEAN BACKFILL MATERIAL-90% COMPACTION REQUIRED NOTES: 1.PIPE BEDDING & BACKFILL: A.A STABLE AND UNIFORM LIGHTLY COMPACTED BEDDING OF AT LEAST 4" SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE PIPE AND ANY PROTRUDING FEATURES OF ITS JOINTS AND/OR FITTINGS. COVER PIPE WITH AT LEAST 4" LOOSELY PLACED LIGHTLY C0MPACTED BEDDING. THE REMAINDER OF THE TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 90 PERCENT STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY. B.TRENCH BACKFILL MATERIAL SHALL BE: CLEAN, JOB EXCAVATED MATERIAL. C.PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL BE: CLEAN, FINELY DIVIDED, CAREFULLY PLACED, JOB EXCAVATED MATERIAL THAT IS FREE FROM DEBRIS, ORGANIC MATERIAL, ROCKS, AND STONES GREATER THAN 1/2-INCH IN ANY DIMENSION. 2.SLEEVE BELOW ALL HARDSCAPE ELEMENTS WITH SPECIFIED PVC PIPE AT LEAST TWICE THE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE OR WIRE BUNDLE WITHIN. FOR GASKETED (RING-TITE) MAIN LINES, SLEEVES SHALL BE 2.5 TIMES DIAMETER OF PIPE WITHIN. 3.FOR PIPE AND WIRE BURIAL DEPTHS REFER TO IRRIGATION LEGEND AND SPECIFICATIONS. 4.CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO CONTACT DIGALERT (CALL 811 OR VIA WEB: WWW.DIGALERT.ORG) 2 DAYS MINIMUM PRIOR TO TRENCHING OPERATIONS. CLEAN BEDDING MATERIAL-LIGHTLY COMPACTED 4" PLAN VIEW SECTION VIEW NOTES 10" ROUND VALVE BOX 14"x19" RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX 12"MIN.12"MIN.12"MIN. 12"MIN. 12"MIN.12"MIN. LARGER VALVE BOX EDGE OF LAWN, WALK, FENCE, CURB, ETC. TOP VIEW NOTE: MAXIMUM WIRE SIZES PER CONNECTOR ARE THREE # 14'S OR TWO #12'S. STRIP WIRES 1/2" FROM ENDS. APPLY SCOTCHLOK Y SPRING CONNECTOR IN A CLOCKWISE DIRECTION. INSERT SPLICE TO BOTTOM OF GEL-FILLED TUBE. CHECK TO MAKE SURE CONNECTOR HAS BEEN PUSHED PAST LOCKING FINGERS AND IS SEATED AT BOTTOM OF TUBE. POSITION WIRES IN WIRE CHANNELS AND CLOSE INSULATOR TUBE COVER. STEP 4: STEP 3: STEP 2: STEP 1: 0" IN LAWN 1" IN SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER AREA 10" ROUND VALVE BOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID FINISH GRADE GATE VALVE 6" PVC PIPE BRICK (2 TOTAL) PEA GRAVEL 4" DEEP (NO SOIL IN BOX) SEE IRRIG. LEGEND SCH. 80 PVC MALE ADAPTERPVC MAINLINE 3" 150 MESH 'Y' FILTER W/MANUAL FLUSH VALVE AGARIFIM OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT 30 PSI PRESSURE REGULATOR, LINE SIZE. NOTES: 1. APPLY TEFLON TAPE TO ALL THREADED CONNECTIONS. 2.SEE "ATMOSPHERIC VACUUM BREAKER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE NOTES" ON IRRIGATION PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. SCH.80 PVC BALL VALVE ATMOSPHERIC VACUUM BREAKER VALVE SCH. 80 PVC TxT COUPLING SCH. 80 PVC NIPPLE. LENGTH AS REQUIRED (2) PVC LATERAL LINE PVC MAINLINE FINISH GRADE 12" 18" SCHEDULE 80 PVC SxT ELL (2) 1 2 3 4 5 6 10 11 13 5 77 3 12 6 3 1 13 12 4 5 77 2 269 1 8 13 4 7 8 11 10 9 12 13 HUNTER HC FLOW METER WITH UNION CONNECTIONS. SEE IRRIG. LEGEND FOR MODEL NO. SCH 80 PVC FEMALE ADAPTER (S X T) RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX PER SPECIFICATIONS SCH 80 PVC 45 DEGREE ELBOW (S X S) TO LOWER MAIN LINE TO PROPER DEPTH (SIZE FOR LARGER MAIN LINE AS NEEDED) SCH 80 PVC 45 DEGREE ELBOW (S X S) TO LOWER MAIN LINE TO PROPER DEPTH 1.5" DIA. (40 mm) MAIN LINE AT INLET & OUTLET DETAIL LEGEND: TOP VIEW SIDE VIEW FLOW NOTES: 1.INLET PIPE ENTERING METER: LENGTH MUST BE A MIN. OF 10 X PIPE DIA. OUTLET PIPE LEAVING METER: LENGTH MUST BE MIN. OF 5 X PIPE DIA. INLET AND OUTLET PIPE MUST BE STRAIGHT PIPE WITH NO FITTINGS OR TURNS UNTIL AFTER THESE SPECIFIED LENGTHS. PIPE AND FITTINGS MAY BE SCH 80 PVC SOLVENT WELD, THREADED SCH 80 PVC OR BRASS, AS REQUIRED FOR PROJECT. 2.FOR WIRELESS FLOW METER MODELS: INSTALL WIRELESS MODULE PER MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS. 10 x PIPE DIA.5 x PIPE DIA. MAIN LINE TO SYSTEM (SEE LEGEND AND PLANS FOR TYPE AND SIZE) TWO WIRES TO FLOW SENSOR TERMINALS AT CONTROLLER. MIN. 18 AWG-UF (2.08 mm2) SHIELDED WIRE WITH DIFFERENT COLOR FROM CONTROL/COMMON WIRE. WEATHERPROOF WIRE CONNECTOR FINISH GRADE SPECIFIED SOIL COVER (SEE LEGEND) COMMON BRICK GRAVEL BASE, 6" (15 cm) DEEP NOTES: 1.LOCATE CONTROLLER AS DIRECTED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. CONTROLLER SHOWN AT APPROXIMATE LOCATION ONLY. COORDINATE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR 120V POWER TO CONTROLLER, AND FOR INTERIOR MOUNTED CONTROLLERS ALL REQUIRED PENETRATIONS THROUGH BLDG. FOR CONTROL WIRE CONDUIT. SEAL PENETRATIONS AS DIRECTED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 2.ALL ELECTRICAL WORK MUST CONFORM TO LOCAL CODES. REFER TO PRODUCT LITERATURE FOR ADDITIONAL INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. IRRIGATION CONTROLLER IN LOCKABLE CABINET PLUG-IN TRANSFORMER, CONNECT TO NEARBY 120 VOLT AC GROUNDED OUTLET SCH. 40 PVC SWEEP ELL CONDUIT THROUGH SIDE OF BLDG. TO PLANTING AREA 18" BELOW GRADE. 24 VOLT WIRES IN PVC CONDUIT INTERIOR GARAGE WALL 50" MAX. GARAGE FLOOR SCH. 80 UNION (FIPTxFIPT) MASTER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE FINISH GRADE SCH. 80 UNION (SLIPxFIPT) PVC MAINLINE TO FLOW SENSOR BRICK SUPPORTS (4 TOTAL) SCH. 80 REDUCER BUSHING8" PEA GRAVEL BELOW VALVE SCH. 80 PVC ELL (2 TOTAL) PVC MAINLINE FROM P.O.C. SEE IRRIG. LGEND WIRE CONNECTOR 14" x 19" VALVE BOX 0" IN LAWN 1" IN SHRUB/ GROUNDCOVER AREA 4" MIN. SCH. 80 PVC NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED; 4 TOTAL) COPYRIGHT © 2006 VAN DORN ABEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT & SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED, OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTENCONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.AV FV 11 10 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOW CONNECTION (TYP). TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). TORO DL2000 AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (EHD1645-XXX) AT EACH HIGH POINT. AIR/VACUUM RELIEF LATERAL, TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX) CENTERED ON MOUND OR BERM. PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD. PERIMETER LATERALS 4" FROM EDGE. AREA PERIMETER. TORO DL2000 OPERATION INDICATOR (T-DL-MP9), OPTIONAL. TORO DL2000 AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE (T-FCH-H-FIPT) PLUMBED TO FLUSH MANIFOLD AT LOW POINT. PLAN NOT TO SCALE 10 9 8 5 6 7 2 3 4 1 11 LEGEND: NOTES: 1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH. SEE TORO SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION DESIGN GUIDE (FORM #ALT111). 2.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". AV FV FV 4 3 2 1 7 6 5 8 9 10 11 1212 TORO DL2000 AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE (FCH-H-FIPT) PLUMBED TO FLUSH MANIFOLD AT LOW POINT. PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOW CONNECTION (TYP). PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-TEE CONNECTION. TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). AIR/VACUUM RELIEF LATERAL, TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX) CENTERED ON MOUND OR BERM. TORO DL2000 AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX) AT EACH HIGH POINT. PERIMETER LATERALS 4" FROM EDGE. AREA PERIMETER. TORO DL2000 OPERATION INDICATOR (T-DL-MP9), OPTIONAL. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 10 11 12 NOT TO SCALE PLAN LEGEND: NOTES: 1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH. SEE TORO SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION DESIGN GUIDE (FORM #ALT111). 2.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". AV FV 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8 9 10 4 7 11 TORO AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE (T-FCH-H-FIPT) PLUMBED TO FLUSH MANIFOLD AT LOW POINT. PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 OPERATION INDICATOR (T-DL-MP9), OPTIONAL. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOW CONNECTION (TYP). TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). AREA PERIMETER. PERIMETER LATERALS 4" FROM EDGE. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T). PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. TORO AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (T-YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO SUPPLY MANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 10 11 NOT TO SCALE PLAN LEGEND: NOTES: 1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH. SEE TORO SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION DESIGN GUIDE (FORM #ALT111). 2.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". 2 3 9 4 5 6 1 7 10 11 12 8 AV FV TORO AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE (T-FCH-H-FIPT) PLUMBED TO FLUSH MANIFOLD AT LOW POINT. TORO DL2000 OPERATION INDICATOR (T-DL-MP9), OPTIONAL. PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOW CONNECTION (TYP). TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T). PERIMETER LATERALS 4" FROM EDGE. TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). AREA PERIMETER. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-ELL CONNECTION. TORO AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (T-YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO SUPPLY MANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 10 11 12 NOT TO SCALE PLAN LEGEND: NOTES: 1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH. SEE TORO SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION DESIGN GUIDE (FORM #ALT111). 2.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". AV FV AV AV 12 11 10 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). TORO AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (T-YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT. PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD. INLINE SPRING CHECK VALVE TO HELP CONTROL LOW-HEAD DRAINAGE. TORO AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (T-YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO PVC FLUSH MANIFOLD JUST BELOW EACH CHECK VALVE (TYP). TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. TORO DL2000 MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOW CONNECTION (TYP). PERIMETER LATERALS 4" FROM EDGE. AREA PERIMETER. TORO DL2000 OPERATION INDICATOR (T-DL-MP9), OPTIONAL. TORO AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE (T-FCH-H-FIPT) PLUMBED TO FLUSH MANIFOLD AT LOW POINT. PLAN NOT TO SCALE USE WHEN SLOPE EXCEEDS 3% IN DIRECTION OF FLOW HIGH POINT ON SLOPE 12 11 10 9 8 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 LEGEND: NOTES: 1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH. SEE TORO SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION DESIGN GUIDE (FORM #ALT111). 2.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". 6.SEE IRRIGATION PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL DRIPLINE TUBING SPACING REQUIREMENTS ON SLOPED AREAS. FV AV 14 13 12 11 10 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). TORO AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (T-YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO SUPPLY MANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. PVC TEE (SxSxS). PVC ELL (SxS). TORO TRI-LOC ELBOW (TL-E). TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T). TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX) AT SUPPLY AND FLUSH END OF EACH ISLAND. TORO TRI-LOC TEE X 1/2" SLIP ADAPTER (TL-T-S50). PVC LATERAL LINE FROM DRIP ZONE KIT. PLAN NOT TO SCALE TORO AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (T-YD-500-34) PLUMBED TO SUPPLY MANIFOLD AT HIGH POINT. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD. PVC TEE (SxSxS). PVC ELBOW (SxS). TORO DL2000 OPERATION INDICATOR (T-DL-MPT) OPTIONAL. ISLAND PERIMETER. TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX) AT SUPPLY AND FLUSH END OF EACH ISLAND. INLINE SPRING CHECK VALVE. 15 17 18 16 3 1 2 4 18 17 15 16 14 13 9 11 LEGEND: 58 8 10 6 7 12 9 NOTES: 1.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH. SEE TORO SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION DESIGN GUIDE (FORM #ALT111). 2.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 3.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 5.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". NOTE: FOR IRRIGATION CONTROLLER "D" & "F" RECYCLED WATER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, INSTALL REQUIRED RECYCLED WARNING TAGS/LABELS ON THE IRRIGATION COMPONENTS, SEE EBMUD DETAIL SHEETS L5.20-L5.21. COPYRIGHT © 2006 VAN DORN ABEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT & SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED, OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTENCONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6" ROUND VALVE BOX TORO DL2000 AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE (YD-500-34) TORO TRI-LOK X 1/2" FPT TEE (TL-T-F50) TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE OR BLANK TUBING BRICK SUPPORTS (3) PEA GRAVEL SUMP (6'' DEEP) NOTE: AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE CANNOT BE CONNECTED LOWER THAN DRIPLINE LATERALS. FINISHED GRADE PVC PIPE BRICK SUPPORTS (3) PVC ELBOW OR TEE (SxT) 3 4" SCH 80 PVC NIPPLE (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) TORO DL2000 AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE (FCH-H-FIPT) FINISHED GRADE 6" ROUND VALVE BOX PEA GRAVEL SUMP (18" DEEP) TUBING TYPE: TORO RGP-212(12); 5/8" DIA. TUBING WITH 0.53 GPH EMITTERS AT 12" O.C. TUBING LAYOUT CHART NOTES: 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD LAYOUT DRIP TUBING ZONE AREAS AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS, AND FIELD VERIFY/CALCULATE EACH ZONES TOTAL GPM DOES NOT EXCEED THE DRIP ZONE VALVE CIRCUIT GPM'S SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IF DRIP ZONE(S) GPM'S EXCEED GPM'S SHOWN ON PLANS, CONTRACTOR SHALL SPLIT DRIP ZONE(S) INTO TWO OR MORE DRIP ZONE VALVE CIRCUITS AREAS TO REDUCE GPM FLOW RATES AS NECESSARY. 2.PSI AVAILABLE AT EACH DRIP CIRCUIT'S TUBING WILL VARY AND DEPEND UPON PSI AT WATER METER/P.O.C AND PSI LOSSES FROM P.O.C TO DRIP TUBING REMOTE CONTROL VALVE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY PSI AVAILABLE AT EACH DRIP CIRCUIT'S VALVE, AND SELECT THE APPROPRIATE MAXIMUM TUBING LENGTH RUN FROM CHART BELOW. DO NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM TUBING RUN LENGTHS. 3.WHERE NECESSARY, INSTALL ADDITIONAL PVC LATERAL SUPPLY MANIFOLDS IN DRIP ZONE AREAS TO KEEP TUBING RUN LENGTHS FROM EXCEEDING MAXIMUM RUN LENGTHS. 4.SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES" FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. TORO DRIP TUBING MAXIMUM LENGHT OF RUN CHART: DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES: 1.DRIPLINE TUBING LAYOUT ON PLANS IS SCHEMATIC. REVIEW PLANTING PLANS PRIOR TO DRIPLINE INSTALLATION. VERIFY PLANTING IN AREAS WHERE DRIPLINE IS INDICATED. IN AREAS WHERE THERE ARE NO PLANTS, UTILITIES PREVENTING PLANTING, AND/OR IN AREAS WHERE THERE IS MULCH ONLY, OMIT DRIPLINE TUBING. THE DRIPLINE TUBING SHOULD ONLY BE INSTALLED WHERE PLANTS ARE SHOWN. FIELD ADJUST AS NECESSARY. 2.INSTALL DRIPLINE AND COMPONENTS PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS AND INSTALLATION DETAILS. 3.DRIPLINE SPACING SHALL BE AS INDICATED IN IRRIGATION LEGEND. INSTALL DRIPLINE 4” FROM PERIMETER OF PLANTED AREA. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWO DRIPLINE LATERALS IN EACH PLANTED AREA. DRIPLINE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A CONSISTENT DEPTH THROUGHOUT THE CIRCUIT. SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND AND DRIP CIRCUIT DETAILS FOR DRIPLINE TUBING DEPTH. 4.PLACE AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVES AT THE HIGHEST POINTS OF EACH ZONE AND JUST BELOW CHECK VALVES ON SLOPES. INSTALL ONE AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE FOR 7 GPM PER ZONE (OR FOR EVERY 800' OF 0.53 GPH/12" EMITTER SPACING DRIPLINE). SEE DRIP CIRCUIT AIR RELIEF VALVE DETAIL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 5.PLACE FLUSH VALVES AT THE HYDRAULIC CENTER OF THE EXHAUST HEADER OR AT LOW POINT ON SLOPES. INSTALL ONE AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE FOR EVERY 7 GPM PER ZONE (OR FOR EVERY 800' OF 0.53 GPH/12" EMITTER SPACING DRIPLINE). SEE DRIP CIRCUIT FLUSH VALVE DETAIL FOR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. 6.INSTALL IN-LINE CHECK VALVES ON SLOPES GREATER THAN 3% AND WHERE LOW-LINE DRAINAGE COULD CAUSE WET AREAS IN THE LOWEST AREAS OF AN IRRIGATION ZONE. CHECK VALVES SHALL BE PLACED EVERY 4-5 FEET BETWEEN DRIPLINE LATERALS AND BEFORE THE FLUSH VALVE. 7.ON ALL SLOPES AND MOUNDS, PLACE THE DRIPLINE LATERALS PARALLEL TO THE SLOPE CONTOUR WHERE POSSIBLE. INCREASE THE LATERAL SPACING BY 25% ON THE LOWER ONE-THIRD OF THE SLOPE TO AVOID EXCESS DRAINAGE. 8.THE DRIP CIRCUIT PVC SUPPLY LINES AND PVC FLUSH MANIFOLDS LINES SHALL BE THE SAME SIZE AS THE PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING THE ZONE. ALL PVC SUPPLY LATERAL LINE AND DRIP CIRCUIT PVC MANIFOLD LINES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT SAME DEPTH AS LATERAL LINE BURY DEPTH INDICATED IN THE IRRIGATION LEGEND. 9.SEE "DRIP CIRCUIT MAXIMUM TUBING LENGTH CHART" FOR MAXIMUM DRIPLINE TUBING LENGTHS AND DRIP CIRCUIT PSI AND GPM FIELD VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. 10.FITTINGS SHALL BE OF THE SAME MANUFACTURER AS DRIPLINE. SEE DRIP CIRCUIT DETAILS FOR FITTING TYPE. 11.THOROUGHLY FLUSH EACH INSTALLATION SEGMENT TO ENSURE NO DEBRIS CONTAMINATION OCCURS. 12.RUN THE DRIPLINE SYSTEM EVERY DAY OR EVERY OTHER DAY TO ESTABLISH PLANT MATERIAL. MAINTAIN A CONSISTENT MOISTURE BALANCE IN THE SOIL. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE SOIL MOIST WITHOUT SATURATION. 13.CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT CHRIS STEELE, TORO IRRIGATION SPECIFICATION SALES MANAGER, 559-779-8676, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF DRIP TUBING TO REVIEW INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. DL2000 DRIPLINE, SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR SPECIFICATIONS. NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL PER SPECS. FINISH GRADE 3" BARK MULCH LAYER BURY TUBING JUST BELOW FINISH GRADE SO TOP OF TUBING IS FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE STAKE DRIPLINE TUBING EVERY 3' O.C. WITH TORO SS6-50 TUBING STAKES. 8 9 6 7 4 5 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 FINISH GRADE. DEPTH OF TUBING PER IRRIGATION LEGEND. FOR TUBING INSTALLED ON GRADE, SEE " TORO DL2000 TUBING ON GRADE DETAIL". PVC SUPPLY LINE SHALL BE SAME DEPTH AS PVC LATERAL LINES, SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND. TORO TRI-LOC ELBOW (TL-E). TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX), LENGTH AS NECESSARY. TORO TRI-LOC X 1/2" MPT ADAPTER (TL-M50). PVC TEE (SxSxT) WITH 1/2" FPT OUTLET. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). ISOMETRIC NOT TO SCALE LEGEND: NOTES: 1.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 3.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 4.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". FINISH GRADE. DEPTH OF TUBING PER IRRIGATION LEGEND. FOR TUBING INSTALLED ON GRADE, SEE " TORO DL2000 TUBING ON GRADE DETAIL". PVC SUPPLY LINE SHALL BE SAME DEPTH AS PVC LATERAL LINES, SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND. TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T). TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX), LENGTH AS NECESSARY. TORO TRI-LOC X 1/2" MPT ADAPTER (TL-M50). PVC TEE (SxSxT) WITH 1/2" FPT OUTLET. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). NOT TO SCALE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ISOMETRIC 9 8 7 6 54 3 1 2 LEGEND: ISOMETRIC NOTES: 1.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 3.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 4.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NOT TO SCALE FINISH GRADE. TORO DL2000 DRIPLINE LATERAL (RGP-XXX-XX). TORO TRI-LOC TEE (TL-T) OR ELBOW (TL-E). TORO BLUE STRIPE POLY TUBING (T-EHD1645-XXX). TORO TRI-LOC X 1/2" MPT ADAPTER (TL-M50). PVC TEE (SxSxT) WITH 1/2" FPT OUTLET. NATIVE SOIL BACKFILL PER SPECIFICATIONS. DEPTH OF TUBING PER IRRIGATION LEGEND. FOR TUBING INSTALLED ON GRADE, SEE " TORO DL2000 TUBING ON GRADE DETAIL". PVC SUPPLY LINE SHALL BE SAME DEPTH AS PVC LATERAL LINES, SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND. PVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD (FROM PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE). 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 SECTION/ELEVATION LEGEND: NOTES: 1.INSTALLATION TO BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. 2.DO NOT SCALE DRAWING. 3.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR DRIPLINE TUBING SPECIFICATIONS. 4.PVC SUPPLY AND FLUSH MANIFOLDS SHALL BE SAME SIZE AS PVC LATERAL LINE FEEDING ZONE. SEE "DRIPLINE TUBING NOTES". 10 10 PVC LATERAL LINE ROUTED AROUND ROOTBALL (DO NOT GO THROUGH ROOTBALL) SCH. 4O PVC FITTINGS (TYPICAL) PVC LATERAL LINE FINISH GRADE 1/2" SCH. 80 MALE ADAPTER (GRAY) 9 GAGE TUBING STAKE 1/2" UV RESISTANT PVC FLEXIBLE HOSE ROOTBALL BUBBLER TREE SEE IRRIG. LEGEND COPYRIGHT © 2006 VAN DORN ABEDLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, INC.ALL DRAWINGS & WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARINGHEREIN CONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL &UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT & SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED, OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THE WRITTENCONSENT OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.IRRIGATION NOTES: 1.Irrigation system shall be installed in conformance with all applicable local codes and ordinances by experienced workmen and a licensed Landscape Contractor who shall obtain all necessary permits and pay all required fees. 2.Prior to the start of construction, the Contractor shall verify with the City, Water District, and/or other governing agency(s) if a reclaimed water source will be available in the future for connection to the irrigation system. If local regulations so stipulate, then the Contractor shall follow all requirements, specifications, construction details, codes, etc., for the installation of irrigation systems utilizing reclaimed water sources for irrigation of landscaping. 3.The Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to existing facilities caused by or during the performance of his work. All repairs shall be made at no cost to the Owner. 4.This design is diagrammatic: install parallel lines in a common trench with minimum horizontal distance of 4” and lines not one above the other. Snake pipe in trenches. All piping, valves, etc., shown within paved areas is for design clarification only and shall be installed in planting areas where possible. Avoid any conflicts between the irrigation system, planting and architectural features. 5.Do not willfully install the irrigation 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 or 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. 6.It is the responsibility of the Contractor to familiarize himself with all grade differences, location of walls, retaining walls etc. Contractor shall coordinate his work with the General Contractor and other Subcontractors for the location and the installation of pipe sleeves through walls, under roadways, paving, structures, etc. 7.Due to the scale of the drawings, it is not possible to indicate all offsets, fittings, sleeves, etc., which may be required. The Contractor shall carefully investigate the structural and finished conditions affecting all of his work and plan his work accordingly, furnishing such fittings, etc., as may be required to meet such conditions. Drawings are generally diagrammatic and indicative of the work to be installed. The work shall be installed in such a manner as to avoid conflicts between irrigation system, planting, and architectural features. 8.Notify Landscape Architect of any other aspects of layout which will provide incomplete or insufficient water coverage of plant material and do not proceed until his instructions are obtained. 9.Sprinklers/bubblers/multi-out drip emitters located where low head drainage will cause erosion and excess water run-off, use pop-up bodies with an integral check valve, and shrub risers with King Bros. CV series check valve in lieu of Schedule 80 coupling. For drip or bubbler circuits install King Bros. CV series check valve in lateral lines for every 10' of elevation change. 10.Electrical Contractor to supply 120 volt A.C. (2.5 AMP) service to controller location. Contractor to make final connection from electrical stub-out to controller. Paint conduit to controller with 2 coats Rustoleum brown paint if installed outdoors; color to be approved by Owner's representative. 120 volt A.C. J-Box to controller by others. All 120 volt A.C. and 24 volt connections to be made by Contractor. 11.Each controller shall have its own independent ground wire. 12.Program irrigation controller(s) to operate between the hours specified in the local City/Town/County landscape ordinance. 13.Valve locations shown are diagrammatic. Install in ground cover/shrub areas where possible (not in lawn area). 14.Install valve boxes 12” from and perpendicular to walk, curb, lawn, building or landscape feature. At multiple valve box groups, each box shall be an equal distance from the walk, curb, lawn, etc., and each box shall be 12” apart. Short side of valve box shall be parallel to walk, curb, lawn, etc. 15.For Standard Wire Irrigation Controllers: Install U.L. approved direct-burial wire #14 minimum and #12 common ground at 16” depth minimum. Splicing of 24 volt wires will not be permitted except in valve boxes. Leave a 36” coil of excess wire at each valve box, or group of valve boxes, splices and 100 feet on center along wire run. Tape wire in bundles 10 feet on center. No taping permitted inside sleeves. Install one (1) spare control wire for every 6 (six) stations on the controller along the entire main line. Spare wires shall be different colors than control wires. 16.For 2-Wire Irrigation Controllers: Install 2-wire cabling per manufacturer's specifications and notes on the drawings. 17.Flow sensor cable shall be per manufacturer's specifications. Install cable in 1" Sch.40 PCV conduit from controller to flow sensor. For 2-Wires controllers, install flow sensor wiring per controller manufacturer's specifications. 18.Prior to trenching, call Underground Service Alert, 1-800-642-2444 to locate all cables, conduits, and other utilities and take proper precautions not to damage or disturb existing utilities. 19.All Main lines and Lateral lines under paving shall be in PVC sleeves which extend 12” into planting areas. All backfill shall be free of rocks greater than 1” diameter. For ring-tite PVC main line piping inside sleeves use 1120-315 PSI PVC plastic pipe with schedule 40 PVC couplings. 20.All main lines shall be flushed prior to the installation of irrigation heads/drip emitters. At 30 days after installation each system shall be flushed to eliminate glue and dirt particles from the lines. 21.When applicable, Schedule 80, ASTM D2466 male adapters to be used where mainline connects to copper pipe service lines installed by others. 22.Copper pipe shall be joined to steel or cast iron pipe with a dielectric union. 23.In addition to the sleeves and conduits shown on the plans the Contractor shall be responsible for the installation of sleeves and conduits of sufficient size under all paved areas. 24.Locate bubblers on uphill side of trees. Tree bubblers are for establishment and drought conditions. They are to be turned off after trees are established and turned on during drought conditions. 25.Locate quick coupling valve 12” from hardscape area. 26.The irrigation system design is based on the minimum operating Pressure (PSI) and Flow (GPM) shown on the drawings (see Irrigation Demand at P.O.C. notes). The Contractor shall verify the following: A.Verify water pressure on-site at the irrigation system point of connection (P.O.C.). B.Verify size(s) of irrigation system point of connection. See irrigation plans for P.O.C. type (eg., water meter, service line stubout, etc.) Submit to Owner's Representative and Landscape Architect results of pressure test, and size(s) of irrigation system point of connection. Note any discrepancies of 5 PSI or more and irrigation system point of connection size(s) smaller than size(s) indicated on the drawings to Owner's Representative and Landscape Architect. If there are discrepancies of 5 PSI or more or irrigation system point of connection size(s) smaller than size(s) indicated on the drawings, irrigation system may not perform correctly - do not proceed with irrigation system installation until corrective measures are determined. Note, Contractor shall be responsible for any corrective measures required to the irrigation system, at no additional cost to the Owner, if irrigation system is installed without required verification of on-site water pressure and irrigation system point of connection size(s), and discrepancies in pressure and/or irrigation system point of connection size(s), are discovered that prevent the irrigation system from functioning correctly. 27.Meter(s) indicated on the Drawing(s) is supplied and installed by others, unless otherwise indicated. The Contractor is responsible for furnishing all proper fittings. 28.All irrigation piping shall be subjected to hydrostatic pressure tests as follows before backfilling trenches: Valves, pumps, and accurately calibrated recording gauges shall be installed in at least two places. Supply lines shall be tested at 125 psi for at least 4 hours with an allowable loss of 5 psi. Laterals lines shall be tested at 100 psi for at least 1 hour with an allowable loss of 5 psi. Any leaks shall be corrected and piping re-tested until the system meet the requirements. The Contractor shall notify the Owner's Representative at least 3 days in advance of the time that the irrigation system piping is to be tested. Submit written test results to Owner's Representative and Landscape Architect. 29.Contractor to notify all local jurisdictions for inspection and testing of installed backflow prevention device. 30.Irrigation demand: See Irrigation Plans. 31.The entire irrigation system shall be operating properly before any lawn or ground cover is planted. 32.The Contractor shall provide Owner with a clean set of marked prints of "RECORD DRAWINGS" drawings. Reference all trenches, valves, controllers, splice boxes, quick couplers, backflow preventers, water meters, with dimensions to nearest building or paving. 33.See notes on irrigation plans for additional requirements. 34.Sod turf and sod no-mow grass areas with buried dripline irrigation tubing shall be hand watered by Contractor until plant material is established. 35.Contractor shall guarantee all materials, equipment and workmanship furnished by him to be free of all defects of workmanship and materials, with the exception of repairs and labor cost made necessary by vandalism, and shall agree to replace at his expense, at any time within one year after installation is accepted, any and all defective parts that may be found. Warranty shall also cover repair of damage to any part of the premises resulting from defects, leaks or settling of trenches. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to fill and repair all depressions and replace all necessary lawn and planting due to the settlement of irrigation trenches for one year following completion and acceptance of the job. Defects and damage shall be promptly repaired at Contractor's expense to the satisfaction of the Owner's Representative, including the restoration of planting, paving or other improvements. NOTES: 1.PRESSURE REDUCER SHALL BE LINE SIZE WILKINS LEAD FREE 500XL-YSBR (INCLUDES LEAD FREE PRESSURE REDUCER & FILTER), SET TO PSI INDICATED ON IRRIG. PLANS. 2.IF P.O.C IS AT HOSE BIB, INSTALL PRESSURE REDUCER ASSEMBLY DOWNSTREM DIRECTLY AFTER THE GATE/BALL VALVE. SEE IRRIG. LEGEND SCHEDULE 80 ADAPTERS, AS NECESSARY MAIN LINE FROM BACKFLOW PREVENTER 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 Design Review Address: 1915 Carmelita Avenue Meeting Date: December 12, 2022 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc. APN: 026-185-100 Property Owners: Anthony and Gail Mosse Lot Area: 9,732 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is a corner lot with an existing two-story, single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The project proposes a first and second story addition to the main dwelling which would increase the floor area from 3,160 SF (0.32 FAR) to 3,603 SF (0.37 FAR) where 4,014 SF (0.41 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). With this application, the number of bedrooms would increase from five to six (office on first floor qualifies as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two covered parking spaces are provided in the existing attached garage (20’-6” wide x 19’-6” deep clear interior dimensions). The site is nonconforming in uncovered parking because there is not enough length provided in the driveway (15’- 1” to the inner edge of the sidewalk provided/existing where 18’-0” is the minimum required). However, because there is no change in the parking requirement based on the number of bedrooms (from five to six), a Parking Variance is not required in this case. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(b)). This space intentionally left blank. 1915 Carmelita Avenue Lot Area: 9,732 SF Plans date stamped: November 22, 2022 Item No. 9a Design Review Study Design Review 1915 Carmelita Avenue -2- EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 21’-7” 42’-11” no change 21’-7” 15’-0” 20’-0” Side Setbacks (exterior, 1st flr): (2nd flr): (interior, 1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-7” 8’-7” 35’-79” 35’-9” no change no change 32’-0” 35’-9” 7'-6” 12’-0” average 4’-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37’-8” 37’-8” no change no change 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,973 SF 20% 2,084 SF 21% 3,893 SF 40% FAR: 3,160 SF 0.32 FAR 3,603 SF 0.37 FAR 4,014 SF 1 0.41 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 6 --- Off Street Parking: 2 covered (20’-6”W x 19’-6”D) 0 uncovered ² no change 2 covered (18’ x 18’) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 34’- 5½” 30’-0” (to addition) 30’-0” Plate Height: 9’-1” 8’-0” no change 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ (0.32 x 9,732) + 900 SF = 4,014 SF (0.41 FAR) ² Existing nonconforming off-street parking (no uncovered parking space provided). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood front entry door and garage door • Siding: cement plaster finish • Roof: light weight tile roof and standing seam metal • Other: wood porch posts with wood corbel braces, wood fascia, decorative wood knee braces, decorative gable vents Staff Comments: None. Design Review 1915 Carmelita Avenue -3- 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. Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Audrey Tse, applicant and architect Anthony and Gail Mosse, property owners Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed December 2, 2022 Area Map RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION 8.30.22 1915 Carmelita Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-185-100 RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION11.22.22 RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION11.22.22 CITY OF BURLINGAME Community Development Department M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 12, 2022 Director's Report TO: Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 8, 2022 FROM: Erika Lewit, Senior Planner SUBJECT: FYI – REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 21-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 556 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3. Summary: An application for Design Review, Condominium Permit, Conditional Use Permit for building height, and Tentative Parcel Map for construction of a new 21-unit residential condominium development at 556 El Camino Real was approved by the Planning Commission on May 11, 2020. The deadline for the project approvals was extended by the pandemic-related tolling ordinance adopted by City Council. In addition, the project qualified for and was granted a One Year Extension by the Community Development Director in May 2022. There are no additional extensions available for the original project, so the deadline to have the building permit issued is May 21, 2023. The applicant intends to apply for the building permit in December 2022. During the initial review of the project, the Commission asked the applicant to return with an FYI to clarify the type of pavers to be installed in the front yard and to provide additional balcony materials details that provide more privacy. Please reference the attached May 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. The project was approved with turf block pavers in the front setback and the approved paving area qualified as landscaping to be applied to the minimum 50% landscaping requirement for the front setback. The Commission asked that the applicant return with an FYI providing specifications for these pavers to show that the product could accommodate the high level of traffic. The Commission also requested that the applicant return with an FYI to show balcony materials or screening that provided increased privacy, in particular at the right and left elevations that have closer property line setbacks. The approved plans showed metal/cable railing balconies at the front and rear elevations and a combination of cement plaster wall topped with metal cable railings for the balconies at the right and left elevations. The Commission directed the applicant to provide a more cohesive single design for the balcony materials for increased privacy, but also to allow the horizontal siding elements on the rest of the building to have more prominence. The applicant submitted a Letter of Explanation, dated December 6, 2022, specification sheets for the pavers and for the balcony materials, and revised plan elevations date stamped December 7, 2022. Community Development Department Memorandum December 8, 2022 Page 2 The applicant is proposing clear glass panels at the front and rear elevations and a combination cement plaster wall topped with frosted glass for the balconies at the right and left side elevations. Planning Staff notes that this is detailed in the explanation letter, however the plan elevations incorrectly label the front and rear balconies as having frosted glass like the side elevation balconies. Planning Staff also notes that the color rendering shown on the first sheet of the plans shows the originally approved front elevation (there is no rendering for the proposed front elevation). If the Commission feels there is a need for more study or discussion, this item may be placed on an action calendar for a second review and/or public hearing with direction to the applicant. c. Abby Barrata, RSS Architecture, Inc., project manager and applicant Attachments: May 11, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Project Application Form Explanation Letter from Applicant, dated December 6, 2022 Specification Sheets for Pavers and Balcony Privacy Glass Proposed Plans date stamped December 7, 2022 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, May 11, 2020 e.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Condominium Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new five -story, 21-unit residential condominium with below-grade parking. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (Infill Exemption). (Omar Hernandez, RSS Architecture, Architect; Roman Knop, property owner) (472 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones had some discussions with the architect regarding some of the details. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, Andy Raymundo and Omar Hernandez, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >On page L1 of the landscape plan, were the concrete grass pavers at grade level shown on the previous application at the entrance? Aware that's been approved by the city for secondary parking uses, but that seems like it is going to cause a pretty significant amount of traffic. Is that kind of use appropriate for that project? (Raymundo: We have seen it used in a lot of applications and we don ’t have any reason to believe that this will be unconventional in terms of how it is used and whether or not it will uphold under the traffic load. We have specified it in the past where we had situations similar to this, where it takes quite heavy traffic load and frequency of traffic. We’ll make sure that when we do the specifications, we design it for construction that it is a usable, durable and appropriate product for this type of application.) >Did you look at other ways to meet the front landscape requirement that didn ’t require the pavers? (Raymundo: We have thought of different ways to do it, but we felt this is the best approach given our experience of this product and how we have seen it used.) (Hernandez: We are providing about 62% of landscape and the requirement is 50% of landscape.) >Appreciate addressing the below grade design, it was an important topic from the previous meeting . Understand now that you have lifted up the excavation about ten feet and the finished floor or the bottom of the excavation is about 18 feet below grade? (Raymundo: Obviously there is some slope to it but at its lowest projection below grade from street level is at 18 feet.) (Hernandez: The majority of the garage is exactly 10 feet below grade. Because of the parking, we need to have a pit and the lowest grade of the pit is at 18 feet.) >Where does that place you in relation to the water table? What do you know about the water table there? (Hernandez: There is a report by the geotechnical engineer that made some recommendations on how to go about the foundation. He suggested building the walls and the slab for hydrostatic pressure and to put a water proofing membrane on it.) Page 1City of Burlingame May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Noticed that Public Works comment noted that you have to get a permit from Caltrans if you want to pump water out to El Camino Real. Do you anticipate pumping water out to El Camino Real? (Hernandez: That won't be necessary. The idea is to solve it with a waterproofing membrane and fill it such that they don't have to do that. The drainage on the site has been improved and the footprint of the proposed building is less than what they currently have. The civil engineer has proposed some bioretention tents that are going to help considerably to what they have right now.) (Raymundo: In order to get the parking to support this proposed project, we have to go to the stacking system, and the owner fully understands that there are expenses in site development specifically regarding the concern about the water table. As the architects, we are very concerned about it because it's a liability issue for us. That's something that we'll be involved very intimately with designing a system that we can stand behind and we're secure in presenting as part of the design package. It is a concerning issue but it is something that we believe is achievable.) >So you build a boat essentially and design it for hydrostatic pressure and the water table will flow around that boat. The other place where the water can come from is down the ramp, presuming that there's going to be a trench drain across that. Is that part of El Camino Real prone to flooding? (Hudak: I'm up and down El Camino Real all of the time. It's usually on the west side of El Camino Real that you have significant ponding and it's a little bit closer to Howard Avenue than Floribunda from my experience .) That’s good. If it's not flooding on El Camino Real then you probably don't have significant water going down the ramp. So I’m comforted by that at least. >Do you think there's a way to work the architecture to where the lap siding has a little prominence, because you have the horizontal nature of the cable guardrails and the glass rails to make them more solid and obscure the glass to make it still be that piece of the architecture? It is something that can possibly go forward and if necessary, be an FYI. Is that something that can be revisited or have you talked about it with the owners? (Raymundo: We’ve talked about that a lot and they are comfortable with doing some kind of modification. I don't know what kind of process we would go through, but we would work with staff to come up with something that you can sign off on. So it remains a fluid piece in terms of the design. Certainly we will look at that as you were suggesting and consider it in a way that is compatible with the style of architecture of the building.) >On your drawings it shows you have a filtration system that will pump water out of El Camino Real, assuming that you had some discussion with Caltrans regarding this matter, do you know if Caltrans has a limit of how much water you can pump out? (Hernandez: There was an application going on with Caltrans and they had a chance to review previous plans and didn ’t have any objections on it. Are we talking about water that goes into the garage from the rain?) No, it's ground water. (Hernandez: It probably wouldn ’t be the case for our building and it ’s not recommended that we remove water from the building because it can cause settlements with the neighboring buildings.) So your intention is for the ground water to remain and you're basically going to build the boat in the water? (Hernandez: We are going to build a boat.) >Is the area with the grass pavers and the electric charging station for the two cars considered part of the front landscaping? (Hernandez: Yes.) Would you still have the required parking if you were to eliminate those two electric charging stations? (Hernandez: Those are additional parking being provided which are not part of the parking count that were required. It was proposed so that we can have parking for guests or service vehicles. If someone needs to have a delivery for some reason, they can do so in those two spaces, but it's not intended to be assigned to any of the residents .)(Raymundo: We do meet parking requirements without those additional parking spaces.) >Struggling with having a parking lot counted as part of the landscaping. If you were to eliminate those parking spaces and have some plants as opposed to having pavers there, will that satisfy the landscape requirement? (Raymundo: We are using those pavers to get to the landscaping requirements. It sits back a little bit to get some additional depth as you come in from the driveway. If the parking spaces were not there we may be able to extend the landscape areas a little farther, not a lot, but we can probably pick up a little bit.) >When entering the garage, do you have to go to a specific bay to park your car or is the instruction to go the farthest in, to bay one, for example? If someone comes in at the same time, do you go to bay two? (Hernandez: You go to the specific bay that you were assigned to your parking stall. When you leave your house, the way to request for your car is by the app. By the time that you go downstairs, your car is in front and the spaces have been shifted.) Likewise, when you come in? (Hernandez: You make the Page 2City of Burlingame May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes request as well.) >Regarding the railings outside at the balconies, can't help but think that when people are settled into their condos there is the possibility that they will use the balcony as a storage space. It would be nice if it was less visible to the street, and keep a neater streetscape by providing more privacy panels at the balcony railings. (Raymundo: We have done so many of these types of projects where you get arguments on the other side, where people say we want them to be more transparent. And as you described, we had people saying they should be solid because people are using them as storage areas and we ’d rather not see people's stuff. In my personal opinion, having them solid would reinforce this modern look, not that the railings proposed are not modern. For the privacy purposes and the purposes of using the railing as a screening device, I think that this would work very well, and it would be preferable.) Public Comments: >Nick Popovic, 1515 Floribunda Avenue: Thank you for the opportunity to express the public comments, I’ve sent an e-mail comment, as well. Being on the neighboring property we will be directly impacted by this project. We don't see much has changed in this proposal compared to the previous proposals. The underground and automated parking system will cause risks to the neighboring properties . With the height of 55’ or 56’, it negatively impacts our view and the peaceful enjoyment that we expect to have in the neighborhood. The number of units is the same but the number of parking spots were reduced, we don ’t think it is sufficient. We expect to see a lot more traffic at El Camino Real and Floribunda Avenue. There is already insufficient parking there. There have been a lot of accidents in that intersection and the city has to enact to stop the last signal from El Camino Real. In terms of water, we do see excess water every year, and so bringing another building that is potentially pumping water to El Camino Real will be a serious concern to the safety of the big trees that we all cherish and need. I also wanted to express the concern in terms of potentially having the low -income housing being replaced. I wanted to ask the commission what is the plan of Burlingame to replace the below income housing available there in the current location. Finally, I wanted to request that some changes be made and we like to see reductions in terms of the height and size of building footprint so that it fits better in the neighborhood. >Gardiner: We have three e-mails, with the three minute rule I ’m going to read them as quickly as I can but still be intelligible and will also forward them to the Planning Commissioners so that if I ’m not able to read it within three minutes, you do have the text of the e-mail. >Bobby Benson sent via e-mail, 550 El Camino Real: This building is too big for the lot, too high for the neighborhood of three -story buildings and for traffic being the first driveway south of Floribunda. They will be digging 33 feet down for two parking levels right on the property line, there may be structural damage to our building. They need to install solid balcony patio and deck walls on all five stories to provide privacy and peace. Oversized patios on the south side come within three feet of the property line . They need to be scaled back so that no part of those patios come within the mandated ten foot setbacks between condo buildings. Prevailing winds will bring any smoke from these patios and may then spread right into our windows. I have asthma, it has happened before. The environmental studies show that the dangerous amount of toxic dust will affect all nine of our condos that face the building. 556 El Camino Real should be wrapped on each side with air filters provided with each unit and our building shall be repeatedly power washed for our health. We would appreciate if they replace the eight -foot high solid fence on the front corner of the building to the very back. Do not allow the work to begin until the pandemic is over. Evicting affordable housing residents there now before the end of the pandemic would be heartless. >Don Weiner, sent via e -mail: Dear commissioners, the project at 556 El Camino Real has been brought up repeatedly to the Planning Commission. Overall the project is simply too big and too ambitious. The only way that the project is continued forward is that it is brought down to realistic expectations. Compared to prior plans you can see that the overall size of the project hasn't changed in any insignificant way. Only minor details have been adjusted and nothing that mitigates current or past concerns. Reviewing the plans I can see that the parking situations are not a practical proposal. Most Page 3City of Burlingame May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes objections are in regards to the automated car shuffling system into the space needed for it. The underground area has been reduced from prior proposals. Unfortunately, they just didn ’t work. There’s no reason for the multiple people waiting for their cars at the same time and if the car shuffling mechanism breaks down nobody gets their cars until it's fixed. There is also no provision for plugged -in electric vehicles in the underground parking. As far as I can tell, every vehicle that is there is assumed either to be gas powered or possibly a hybrid. Everyone with a plug -in electrical car needs to be plugged outside with only two available spaces serving the entire building, that's absurd. I don't see any special accommodations for people delivering without impeding ingress /egress of the building. All it takes is a couple of families trying to drop off groceries simultaneously and cars will be backed up in El Camino Real or people need to circle the block until the space becomes available. The shadow study shows the proposed building will cast a large shadow in the neighboring properties, one of them being the property that I live at. The worst is the December 21st projections. The only way to address this is to lower the overall height of the project and that would mean reducing the story count. The bottom line is that the building is simply too big. This is a classic case of trying to fit too much into a small of a package. The building I currently live in is three stories tall and when seen in person, it is a very large building. The proposed building at 556 El Camino Real is two stories taller than mine, and that is flat out absurd. I recognize and appreciate that Burlingame is a growing town but we ’re not quite at a point where building of this size fits in. To summarize, the only solution is by doing one simple thing and that is reducing the overall size of the project. Reducing the building height by two stories will eliminate the shadow issue and requiring less parking area alleviating the need for the automated car shuffling system and for the separate outdoor EV parking, giving more room for delivery and grocery drop off. >Anonymous sent via e-mail: The intersection of El Camino Real and Floribunda has had many traffic accidents. Please address concerns regarding this large of a building that will increase traffic and decrease visibility even further. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >We have to remind ourselves that one of the more important criteria we have to consider is the Housing Accountability Act, consider and apply standards that are objective for the application. We have to look closely at what was previously presented versus what is before us now. What we previously had that can potentially affect neighboring properties is the parking system and what we have now is a much better design. It’s much different than the option we had before. >The major issues were addressed with the revised plans except the details of the architecture in terms of the guardrails. Appreciate that the architect is willing to go back and revisit and that's something that can be reconsidered as an FYI or an amendment. >Per the applicant, they are not going to be pumping ground water out to El Camino Real. They are going to build a system that can sit and allow the ground water to do what it’s doing. >Understand my fellow commissioner ’s concerns in terms of the front landscaping, but prefer the turf block to be considered if it means bringing about additional visitor and /or service vehicle parking spaces in front of the building particularly because of this location, not something that's required, but something that's important for this location. >Fully recognize the fact that there's a substantive change in this location. With the analysis that's been put before us, in terms of the environmental review and the revisions that have been presented, the project should be moved forward. >The staff report makes it clear that it meets the objective standards. Neighbors’ concern is that it will have an environmental impact on the neighbors, and that's the nature of living in a semi -urban living environment. There are no rights to views and there's no right to light beyond what's provided by the setbacks, that's what the regulations are for, the setback regulations are to allow light and air between buildings, and this meets the objective. >Much more comfortable with the below grade solution, it seems to be better addressed in the application and agree with application to be moved forward. Page 4City of Burlingame May 11, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Agree with most of the comments that have been made. But still have a little bit of trouble because we're going to be adding quite a bit to our system. On a separate discussion we can get into the impact fees. With the increase of toilets and the dishwashers in the kitchen, am concerned about the increase in how much water we're going to be using and the impact on the city's infrastructure. That has a lot to do with the size of the units. The units they currently have there now would have one person because they are small. This proposed building will allow each unit to have a lot more people and so they will have more use. >On the landscape plan, we have the system that looks like a lawn so it is counting as part of the landscape space but can also be used as parking space. Don't think that's a reasonable way to come up with the landscape plan, because if we do that, we're going to have this all along El Camino Real where we’re not going to have the vegetation that we want. We all drive through El Camino Real along San Mateo and Millbrae and we know how stark the difference is. Everybody comments on how lush Burlingame is because of all of our trees. We do have requirements for 50 percent of the coverage of the landscape, but don't see where you can count this as a parking area or a driveway and as a landscape space as well . Agree that you need a place to have deliveries and guest parking, those are necessities for this size of a project. But what it boils down is that it feels like they're working too hard to come up with loopholes to fit a lot of building onto a site that doesn't quite handle it. >The project has been before the Planning Commission for quite some time. It’s come an incredible distance since the project was proposed. The environmental impact statement addressed a couple of the concerns that the neighbors and the members of the community brought up, which is the traffic and the parking and found that they wouldn't have significant impacts on either of those things. That's important in our consideration of this project. >Agree with fellow commissioners on the parking, having the additional parking spots are not required upfront and that's a nice addition to the project. Sharing my fellow commissioner's concern about whether the blocks can be used, but would be comfortable if the applicant can come back with an FYI to the suitability of those blocks for high traffic areas, like the entrance ramp would be. Able to support the project primarily because they have addressed the one real concern from the last meeting about the underground parking. >On the railing designs, don't know if it needs to be totally opaque or built -in, but some degree of obstacle needs to be there to help provide some privacy, particularly on the sides that are closer to the neighbors. >Have seen this project come before me three times at least. They have made good progress. One of our biggest concerns is the water table issue below for the parking. Some of that privacy concerns with the balconies that was brought up at the last meeting is still there. We really need to create some privacy for the other neighbors nearby. >If they can work with the other neighbors regarding the fence, would appreciate keeping it clean and controlled debris going into the neighbors during construction. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the Action Item with the following condition: >Prior to the submittal of a Building permit, the applicant shall apply for an FYI to the Planning Commission to show new privacy materials or designs for the balconies shown on the project and to provide technical specifications for the proposed turf block pavers in the front setback of the project. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid6 - Nay:Gaul1 - Page 5City of Burlingame PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS RESPONSE: Date:12/6/2022 Project Description:21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame CA RSS Architecture Job#:1818 Response Prepared By:RSS Architecture COMMENT RESPONSE Proposed pavers in the front setback Selected pavers by Basaite, model Turfstone. Per their specifications, this product is suitable for driveways and parking stalls. Privacy materials/designs for the balconies - Front and rear elevations The front and rear elevations, for an upgraded appearance, clear glass railing system will be used. This type of material will also be in keeping with the modern aesthetic of the design. The rear of the property faces the bay so the clear glass will allow for unobstructed views. There will be language in the CC&Rs that will prohibit storage of items on the decks at these locations to avoid unsightly clutter. Privacy materials/designs for the balconies - right and left side elevations For the two side elevations, the infill will be frosted glass in the same railing system as the front and rear elevations. This will provide privacy/screening from the adjacent neighbors while keeping the same aesthetic and style. RSS ARCHITECTURE, Inc. Andrew Raymundo, Architect 1300 Elmer Street, Suite A Belmont, CA 94002 650.802.6865 phone www.rssarchitecture.com RSS Architecture, Inc Page of 1 1 FYI Submittal turfstoneTM Permeable Grid Pavement FINISHES & PATTERNS Customize products to suit your project. To see patterns, specialty aggregates Stay-TrueTM Technology and finishes Click Here REQUEST SAMPLES Need product samples? Contact us at basalite.com or call 1-800-776-6690. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS To see case studies, specifications and paver cross sections Click Here Grey PEDESTRIAN Indicates product is suitable for projects with pedestrian use. COMMERCIAL VEHICULAR Indicates product is suitable for commercial vehicular projects like parking lots and roadways. LIGHT-DUTY VEHICULAR Indicates product is suitable for light-duty vehicular projects like driveways and parking stalls. have questions? Call 1-800-776-6690 or contact us at basalite.com turfstoneTM Permeable Grid Pavement FOLLOW US605 Industrial Way Dixon, CA 95620 800-776-6690 ©2020 Basalite® Concrete Products, LLC. All trademarks ® are registered trademarks. BA-CA 5/18/2020 1201 Golden State Blvd. Selma, CA 93662 559-896-0753 11888 West Linne Rd. Tracy, CA 95376 800-776-6690 LW H Turfstone 396mm W x 597mm 80mm15.6” W x 23.5” L x x STANDARD x GROUND FACE SHOT BLAST SHOT BLAST GROUND FACE SQ.FT./ PALLET ARCHITECTURAL FINISHESAPPLICATIONSNAMEMETRIC SIZE U.S. SIZE HEIGHT 122 CHAMFER WIDTHTUMBLED Conforms to ASTM C1319 - See Tech Spec 8 at ICPI.ORG for applications and design considerations. Designation: C936/C936M -13 Standard Specification for Solid Concrete Interlocking Paving Units 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation C936/C936M; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. 1. Scope* 1.1 This specification covers the requirements for interlock- ing concrete pavers manufactured for the construction of paved surfaces. 1.2 When particular features are desired, such as weight classification, higher compressive strength, surface textures, finish, color, or other special features, such properties should be specified by the purchaser. Local sellers, however, should be consulted as to availability of units having the desired features. 1.3 The values stated in either SI units or inch-pound units are to be regarded separately as standard. The values stated in each system may not be exact equivalents; therefore, each system shall be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in non-conformance with the standard. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM Standards: 2 C33 Specification for Concrete Aggregates C140 Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units C150 Specification for Portland Cement C207 Specification for Hydrated Lime for Masonry Pur- poses C260 Specification for Air-Entraining Admixtures for Con- crete C331 Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Concrete Masonry Units C418 Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete by Sandblasting C494/C494M Specification for Chemical Admixtures for Concrete C595 Specification for Blended Hydraulic Cements C618 Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete C979 Specification for Pigments for Integrally Colored Con- crete C989 Specification for Slag Cement for Use in Concrete and Mortars C1157 Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement C1240 Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures C1645 Test Method for Freeze-thaw and De-icing Salt Durability of Solid Concrete Interlocking Paving Units 3. Terminology 3.1 Definitions: 3.1.1 architectural finishes—surface modified by mechani- cal means such as blasting, hammering, polishing, tumbling, washing, or other methods. 4. Materials 4.1 Cementitious Materials shall conform to the following applicable ASTM specifications: 4.1.1 Portland Cements—Specification C150. 4.1.2 Blended Cements—Specification C595, Types IS or IP. 4.1.3 Hydraulic Cement—Specification C1157. 4.1.4 Hydrated Lime, Type S—Specification C207. 4.1.5 Fly Ash—Specification C618. 4.1.6 Ground Slag—Specification C989. 4.1.7 Silica Fume—Specification C1240. 4.2 Aggregates shall conform to the following ASTM specifications, except that grading requirements shall not necessarily apply: 4.2.1 Normal Weight—Specification C33. 4.2.2 Lightweight—Specification C331. 4.3 Chemical Admixtures shall conform to the following applicable ASTM specifications: 4.3.1 Air-entraining Admixtures—Specification C260. 4.3.2 Water-reducing, Retarding, and Accelerating Admixtures—Specification C494/C494M. 4.3.3 Pigments for Integrally Colored Concrete— Specification C979. 1 This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C15 on Manufactured Masonry Units and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C15.03 on Concrete Masonry Units and Related Units. Current edition approved June 1, 2013. Published June 2013. Originally approved in 1982. Last previous edition approved in 2012 as C936/C936M – 12. DOI: 10.1520/C0936_C0936M-13. 2 For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website. *A Summary of Changes section appears at the end of this standard Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States 1 4.4 Other Constituents—Integral water repellents, and other materials for which no ASTM standards exist, shall be previ- ously established as suitable for use in concrete or shall be shown by test or experience not to be detrimental to the concrete. 5. Physical Requirements 5.1 Units shall have an exposed face area ≤101 in. 2 [0.065 m2], and their overall length divided by thickness shall be ≤4. The minimum specified thickness shall be 2.36 in. [60 mm]. See Fig. 1. 5.2 Concrete units covered by this specification may be made from lightweight or normal weight aggregates or mixed lightweight and normal weight aggregates. 5.3 Compressive Strength—At the time of delivery to the work site, the average compressive strength of the test samples shall be not less than 8000 psi [55 MPa] with no individual unit less than 7200 psi [50 MPa] as required in 6.2. 5.4 Absorption—The average absorption of the test samples shall not be greater than 5 % with no individual unit greater than 7 % as required in 6.2. 5.5 Resistance to Freezing and Thawing—If the units are exposed to freezing and deicing materials during service, the manufacturer shall satisfy the purchaser either by proven field performance or a laboratory freezing-and-thawing test that the paving units have adequate resistance to freezing and thawing. If a laboratory test is used, test in accordance with Test Method C1645. Specimens sampled from units that will not be exposed to deicing salts in service shall be tested in tap water. Specimens sampled from units that will be exposed to deicing materials in service shall be tested in 3 % saline solution. The average mass loss of all the specimens tested shall not be greater than: (a) 225 g/m 2 when subject to 28 freeze-thaw cycles, or (b) 500 g/m 2 when subject to 49 freeze-thaw cycles. This test method shall be conducted not more than 12 months prior to delivery of units. 5.6 Abrasion Resistance—When requested by the specifier or purchaser, units shall be tested in accordance with Test Method C418 or the manufacturer shall provide adequate record of field performance from a similar application. Speci- mens shall not have an average volume loss greater than 0.92 in.3/7.75 in. 2 [15 cm 3/50 cm 2]. The average thickness loss shall not exceed 0.118 in. [3 mm]. NOTE 1—Applications that may require testing include areas with severe abrasion, such as exposure to point loads from the repeated turning of hard rubber non-pneumatic wheels or heavy channelized foot traffic. Vehicular traffic usually does not constitute a severe abrasion condition. 5.7 Dimensional Tolerance—Measured length or width of test specimens shall not differ by more than 60.063 in. [61.6 mm] from specified dimensions. Measured height of test specimens shall not differ by more than 60.125 in. [63.2 mm] from the specified dimension. All tests shall be performed as required in 6.2. Units shall meet dimensional tolerances prior to the application of architectural finishes. 6. Sampling and Testing 6.1 The purchaser or his authorized representative shall be accorded proper facilities to inspect and sample the units at the place of manufacture from the lots ready for delivery. Prior to delivery of units, the supplier and purchaser shall decide on the lot size from which to sample test specimens for resistance to freezing and thawing, abrasion resistance, absorption, com- pressive strength, and dimensional tolerances. 6.2 For compressive strength, absorption, and dimensional tolerances, test units in accordance with Test Methods C140. Sample a minimum of three (3) test specimens each for compressive strength and absorption. Determine dimensional tolerances from either the compressive strength or absorption specimens prior to testing. Sample a minimum of three (3) specimens and test for resistance to freezing and thawing in accordance with Test Method C1645. Sample a minimum of two (2) specimens for abrasion resistance and test in accor- dance with Test Method C418. Separate specimens shall be used for compressive strength, absorption, freeze-thaw, and abrasion resistance tests. 7. Visual Inspection 7.1 All units shall be sound and free of defects that would interfere with the proper placing of the units or impair the strength or performance of the construction. Minor cracks incidental to the usual methods of manufacture or minor chipping resulting from customary methods of handling in shipment and delivery shall not be deemed grounds for rejection. 8. Rejection 8.1 In case the shipment fails to conform to the specified requirements, the manufacturer may sort it, and new specimens shall be selected by the purchaser from the retained lot and tested at the expense of the manufacturer. In case the second set of specimens fails to conform to the test requirements, the entire lot shall be rejected.FIG. 1 Length, Width, and Thickness of Concrete Paving Units C936/C936M - 13 2 SUMMARY OF CHANGES Committee C15 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last issue (C936/C936M – 12) that may impact the use of this standard. (Approved June 1, 2013) (1)Subsection 5.6 revised for clarification and Note 1 added. Committee C15 has identified the location of selected changes to this standard since the last issue (C936/C936M – 11) that may impact the use of this standard. (Approved June 1, 2012) (1)Section 6.2 was revised to provide clarity on separate test specimens for each required test. ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). Permission rights to photocopy the standard may also be secured from the ASTM website (www.astm.org/ COPYRIGHT/). C936/C936M - 13 3 3form Glass oers the timeless nature of glass with our signature design aesthetic. The design choices of 3form Glass panels are as diverse as your imagination. By allowing you to custom select color, pattern, interlayer, and type of glass, 3form Glass transforms into the perfect medium for your architectural application. Features and Beneits • Monolithic and laminated options • Produced on an individual order basis, allowing for creative design and product selection • Made-to-order sizes arrive ready to install • Timeless properties of glass – durable long-lasting product that is easy to maintain • Non-combustible surfaces • Rigid – allows for long unsupported spans • Optically clear – showcases crisp aesthetic interlayers • Certiied for use in safety glazing applications • Laminated Glass interlayer screens 99% of UV light • Easily customized when combined with 3form Digital Printing • Micro-sandblast Etching Options Glass Types, Conditions and Surface Treatments 3form Glass is available in two types of glass - Clear Float (green-edge) and Low Iron (colorless) - and two conditions - Annealed and Fully Tempered. As a customization option, dierent types, conditions and surface treatments can be speciied for the front and the back lites of 3form Laminated Glass. Available Interlayers 3form Laminated Glass is available with 3form Color, Digital Printing and Graphic Patterns Color. Variations in material dye lots will result in slight color dierences between samples provided and inished product. Tempering Glass in the Fully Tempered condition is about four (4) times more resistant to breakage than Annealed glass. However, the heating and cooling process used to produce Fully Tempered glass can cause the glass to have a slightly “wavy” appearance that can create subtle optical distortions at certain angles of view. Because of this, all mirror glass must be speciied as annealed. 3form Monolithic Glass is fully tempered glass by default. Panel Sizes and Tolerances 3form Monolithic Glass is oered as a standard product in made-to order sizes up to 5'10' (1.5m3.0m). 3form Laminated Glass is oered as a standard product in made-to-order sizes up to 4'10' (1.2m3.0m). Minimum size available is 8"12" (20.3cm30.5cm). The available nominal thicknesses are listed below with the associated minimum and maximum thickness tolerances. Nominal Thickness Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum /" mm " mm " mm not available /" mm " mm " mm not available /" mm " mm " mm " mm " mm /" mm " mm " mm not available /" mm not available " mm " mm /" mm " mm " mm not available /" mm not available " mm " mm /" mm not available " mm " mm -/" mm not available " mm " mm Thickness Tolerances Specialty Glass Finishes Satin is an etched inish that provides diusion and privacy. Mirror available as one side, annealed only. Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass Satin Tempered Satin Mirror Available Gauges /" /" /" /" /" 13/16" 1-1/16" /" /" -/" For Markerboard specs please refer to the Glass Markerboard Technical Document. 1 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Length and Width Tolerances Tolerances for length, width and squareness are based on ASTM C104804 ASTM Standard Speciication for Heat Treated Flat Glass and C117203 Standard Speciication for Laminated Architectural Flat Glass. Nominal Thickness Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass All Conditions Annealed Fully Tempered /" or less mm or less /- /" mm n/a n/a /" – /" – mm /- /" mm /", -/" , -mm /", -/" , -mm /" mm n/a /", -/" , -mm /", -/" , -mm For example, if you were to order a " (9.5mm) thick tempered Laminated Glass product, the inished length and width dimensions would have tolerances of +¼" (6.3mm) and -" (3.2mm). Minimum dimension for Tempered glass is 18" diagonal with a minimum of 4 inches on one dimension. Squareness Tolerances Nominal Thickness Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass All Conditions Annealed Fully Tempered /" mm /" mm n/a n/a /" – /" – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm n/a /" mm /" mm Surface Pattern and Decorative Insert Tolerances All surface patterns and decorative inserts with visible directionality will have a squareness tolerance of ¾" (19.1 mm). The maximum allowable skew of surface patterns and fabric inserts is ¼" (6.3 mm) over 48" (1200 mm). Flatness Tolerances Maximum allowable bow and warp will vary with edge length, glass thickness, glass condition, and construct (e.g. monolithic versus laminated). Monolithic Glass 3form Monolithic Glass is typically sold with micro-sandblast etching and by default will be fully tempered glass. Since it is shipped out as tempered glass no fabrication should be done on-site due to risk of breakage. For tempered monolithic glass, reference the following chart for the maximum allowable overall bow and warp. Maximum Overall Bow and Warp For Tempered form Monolithic Glass Edge Dimension Nominal Thickness /"/"/"/" " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm " – " – mm " mm " mm " mm " mm Feature Alignment Tolerances Feature alignment between front and back lites may vary when 3form Laminated Glass is speciied in a fully tempered condition. The table below indicates the allowable amount of mismatch for edges, holes, notches and cutouts. mismatch mismatch Nominal Thickness Allowable Mismatch /"/" mm /"/" mm Note: Corner slippage tolerance could be up to .088" and .176" respectively. 2 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Bow and Warp Measurement Overall bow and warp is to be measured with the panel oriented vertically with the long edge resting on blocks placed at the quarter points. Use a string or other straightedge across the concave surface and measure the maximum deviation with a feeler gauge or dial indicator. Panel Weight Nominal Thickness Weight Flux /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m /" mm lb/ft kg/m -/" mm lb/ft kg/m Fabrication 3form Glass can be speciied to include holes, notches, cutouts and pattern cuts. Any glass that is tempered will need to be fabricated prior to shipping. Trying to fabricate tempered glass on-site will result in breakage. For tempered Laminated Glass please reference the ”Feature Alignment Tolerances” section of this document. When placing holes, notches, or cutouts in 3form Glass, it’s recommended that the following guidelines be followed: • Specify 3form Laminated Glass that is ⁄" or thicker • If Fully Tempered lites are speciied, holes, notches or cut-outs must be oversized by at least ⁄" (4mm) to account for dimensional and mismatch tolerances • Diameter of circular holes must be at least " (15.8mm) • Corners (e.g., non-circular holes, notches or cutouts) must have illets with radii at least ⁄" (7.9mm) • Edge-to-edge distance between adjacent holes, notches or cutouts must be at least 1" (25mm) W L 0.75W minimum Ø5/8" minimum 11/4" minimum 3" minimum 1" min. 0.25W maximum 0.25L maximum R total glass thickness • Edge-to-edge distance between a hole and an adjacent panel edge must be at least 1¼" (31.7mm) • Edge-to-edge distance between holes and an adjacent panel corner must be at least 3" (76mm) • The lay-up must be symmetric (e.g. ABCBA vs. ABCDE) Note that all standard 3form Laminated Glass meets this criterion • Minimum Fillet Radius total thickness of glass Laminated Glass For annealed Laminated Glass the overall bow will not exceed ⁄" (1.5mm) per 12" (300mm) of length. For tempered Laminated Glass, reference the following chart for the maximum allowable overall bow and warp. Maximum Overall Bow and Warp For Tempered form Laminated Glass Edge Dimension Nominal Thickness of Individual Glass Lite /"/"/"/"/" " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm / mm / mm / mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm / mm " – " – mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm " – " – mm " mm /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm 3 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Edge Sealing and Edge Deletion When incorporating 3form Laminated Glass into wet or exterior applications, fully glazed (framed and sealed) designs are highly recommended. Interlayers with a propensity for wicking - such as fabrics, organics, and woven colors - should, if possible, incorporate edge deletion, i.e. inset from the edge of the glass at least ½" (12.7mm). When edge deletion is not possible, these interlayers require edge sealing. Note that all woven color used in 3form Laminated Glass must be framed and sealed. For edge sealing, 3form recommends the following silicones, manufactured by Momentive Performance Materials, for application in the ield during installation. The SilGlaze II SCS2801 should be used when a clear Silicone is required for aesthetic purposes. • For glazing/sealing (translucent): Momentive SilGlaze II SCS2801 (3form part # 3050069) • For structural glazing (translucent): Momentive Construction SCS1201 (3form part # 3050070) Delection 3form Glass will exhibit dierent amounts of delection given a variety of factors: fastening techniques, loads, gauges, panel dimensions, etc. The 3form Technical Support Team can assist you with general delection guidelines for your application. If your application has speciic engineering requirements, please contact the 3form Product Technology team for additional direction. Heat Forming/Cold Bending 3form Glass cannot be heat formed or cold bent and is only sold as lat sheets. Support Conditions When specifying point supports for 3form Laminated Glass, the following guidelines must be followed. • Point-supported 3form Laminated Glass must meet the following thickness criteria: Nominal Thickness Allowable Condition /"fully tempered /"all conditions • Polymeric or elastomeric spacers are required to prevent glassmetal contact. It is recommended that at least one spacer be of a soft (50 shore A), compressible material (e.g. silicone, EPDM, neoprene) with a thickness of at least ⁄" • Hole dimensions and positions must follow 3form Fabrication guidelines for Laminated Glass (see Edge Finishing 3form Glass can be speciied with a variety of edge inishes. Note that not all edge proiles are available with 3form Laminated Glass that uses tempered lites. Edge Finish Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass Seamed Snapped edge sanded free of shards and splinters. Flat Polished or Ground Ground to shape and available with a polished or ground matte inish. Pencil Polished or Ground Ground to shape and available with a polished or ground matte inish. Bullnose Polished or Ground Ground to shape and available with a polished or ground matte inish. Mitered Polished Only Ground to shape and available with a polished inish. Beveled Polished or Ground Ground to shape and available with a polished or ground matte inish. This option is available on individual glass lites thicker than /". Waterjet Waterjet-cut edge sanded free of shards and splinters. Only available when annealed lites are speciied. not available (Annealed Only) (Annealed Only) 4 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Selected Mechanical and Physical Properties for 3form Glass 3form Glass is available in two types of glass - Clear Float (green-edge) and Low Iron (colorless) - and two conditions - Annealed and Fully Tempered. As a customization option, dierent types, conditions and surface treatments can be speciied for the front and the back lites of 3form Laminated Glass. " mm Property*Conditions ASTM Method SI U.S. General Density °C °F D kg/m lb/ft Mechanical Youngs Modulus mm/min "/min D GPa psi Shear Modulus mm/min "/min D GPa psi Flexural Strength mm/min "/min D MPa psi Hardness Moh’s Scale –––- Knoop Hardness –C kg/mm lb/in Safety Glazing °F °C ANSI Z Passes Thermal Continuous Max Use Temperature Laminated Glass ––ºC ºF *Unless noted otherwise, all tests are run @ 23°C (73°F) and 50% relative humidity, using specimens with a thickness as indicated. Sound Transmission Class (STC) Values STC values for 3form Glass are presented below. 1Measurement protocol: ASTM E 90 - Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements. Thickness STC Values Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass /" mm /" mm Thermal Insulation and Optical Values Thermal and optical values for 3form Monolithic Glass were measured using clear loat glass with no etched surface patterns. Thermal and optical values for 3form Laminated Glass were measured using laminated clear loat glass with no decorative interlayers. For details on how the pattern or interlayer may aect performance, consult the 3form Technical Support Team. PROPERTY Monolithic Glass Laminated Glass /" mm /" mm /" mm /" mm Visible Light Transmittance Visible Light Relectance Solar Energy Transmittance Solar Energy Relectance UValue Summer UValue Winter Shading Coeicient Solar Heat Gain Coeicient UV Screening The polymeric interlayer used in 3form Laminated Glass is UV stable and resistant to the degradation and associated yellowing caused by sunlight. Additionally, these UV stabilizers screen 99% of light in the UV range (200400 nm wave length). Note that organic interlayers may change in appearance over time due to the natural drying-out of the interlayer material. Flammability 3form Glass has non-combustible surfaces and can be used in all glazing, interior inish, and light transmitting applications requiring class A performance for lame spread. Note: Glass is not produced with ire-rated glass and should not be utilized in time-rated ire stop applications (e.g.., 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour, etc.). Safety Glazing 3form Glass meets the requirements of ANSI Z97.1 Class A and CPSC 16 CFR 1201 Cat II. A permanent etched marking is placed on all Laminated Glass product, identifying it as safety glass, unless otherwise speciied by the customer. 5 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Reagent Result Reagent Result Acetic Acid, LR Acetone N Ammonium Hydroxide, N Benzene N Brake Fluid N Butane R Carbon Tetrachloride N Chlorox, R Cyclohexanone N Dimethyl Formamide N Dimethyl Sulfoxide N Dioxane N Dioctyl Phthalate LR Ethanol N Ethylene Glycol R Ethyl Ether LR Formic Acid N Gasoline LR Hexane LR Hydrochloric Acid, LR Hydrogen Disulide, R Isopropanol, N Kerosene R Methanol N Methylene Chloride N Methyl Ethyl Ketone N NMethyl--Pyrrolidne N Oil, Detergent W R Oil, Non-Detergent W R Oil, Transmission R Oleic Acid LR Perchloroethylene N Pyridine N Sodium Chloride R Sodium Hydroxide, LR Synthetic Perspiration R Sulfuric Acid, LR Tetrahydrofuran N Tide Detergent, R Toluene N Trichloroethylene N Turpentine R Water R Chemical Resistance of 3form Glass Glass has very good surface resistance to most chemicals. However, the polymeric tie-layer used to laminate 3form Laminated Glass may come in contact with chemicals in frameless applications. Polymer materials are aected by chemicals in dierent ways. Changes in performance or appearance are due to a variety of factors, including: fabrication methods, exposure conditions, concentration of chemical substances or exposure duration of certain substances. Such factors can even inluence the inal eect of substances that the 3form polymeric layer is considered “Resistant” to under standard conditions. Further details are explained below: 6 Day Full Immersion Testing @ 73ºF (23ºC) Fabrication Stresses generated from sanding, grinding, drilling, polishing and/or mashing. Exposure Exposure duration; stresses imparted during the application life-cycle due to loads, temperature changes, heat, environments, etc. Application of Chemicals Application from contact, rubbing, wiping, spraying, soaking, etc. Also having an eect is the relative concentration of the chemical in question. The following table provides indicative performance of the chemical resistance characteristics of this polymeric layer material. Samples remained immersed and were stored at 73ºF (23ºC). The following codes are used to describe the chemical resistance characteristics: R = Resistant Excellent resistance with little or no change in mechanical properties. LR = Low Resistance Resistant when in contact with this compound for short periods at room temperature. It is advised that the eect of the substance be further tested in your particular application. N = Not Resistant Not resistant, material may swell, craze, haze or dissolve when exposed to this substance. For speciic questions relating to the chemical resistance of etched surface patterns, please contact the 3form Technical Help desk. Receiving These instructions should be made available to your receiving department personnel, your ield captain, and any other individual, which may be required to receive delivered goods. The following steps should be taken to avoid damage to 3form Glass after it has been received on the job site: • Plan the shipping schedule to minimize job site storage time, and to avoid o-job storage and handling • Minimize handling by scheduling shipments by loors and by locating crated products as close to their installation point as possible • Never store or transport 3form Glass in a horizontal orientation • Carefully inspect each shipment immediately upon delivery. Pay particular attention to the crating and 6 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Installation 3form recommends that Glass be installed and handled by an experienced glazier. All labels should be removed promptly. If labels are left on for an extended period in elevated temperatures, they will leave a permanent mark. Cleaning Instructions 3form Glass, like all glass materials, should be cleaned periodically. Since glass products can be permanently damaged if improperly cleaned, 3form recommends strict compliance with the following procedures. Micro-sandblast etched glass should follow these same guidelines, although it should also be resealed periodically. With standard maintenance the sealant on the glass will need to be reapplied to prevent oils and debris soaking into the micro-sandblast etch. To reseal we recommend something like CRL TPC16 TPC Surface Protector. All dirt and residues that appear on interior or exterior glass surfaces should be cleaned thoroughly. Cleaning should begin with soaking the glass surfaces with clean water and soap to loosen dirt and debris. Using a mild, non-abrasive commercial window washing solution, uniformly apply the solution to the glass surfaces with a brush, strip washer or other non-abrasive applicator. Immediately following the application of the cleaning solution, a squeegee should be used to remove all cleaning solution from the glass surface. Care should be taken to ensure that no metal parts of the cleaning equipment come in contact with the glass surface. All water and cleaning solutions should be dried from the window gaskets and seals to avoid degradation of these materials. Do not: • Use scrapers of any size or type for cleaning glass • Allow dirt and residue to remain on glass for an extended period of time • Begin cleaning glass without knowing if a coated surface is exposed • Allow water or residue to remain on the glass or adjacent materials • Begin cleaning without rinsing excessive dirt and debris • Use abrasive cleaning solutions or materials • Allow metal parts of cleaning equipment to contact the glass • Trap abrasive particles between the cleaning materials and the glass surface • Allow splashed materials to dry on the glass surface Do: • Clean glass when dirt and residue appear • Exercise special care when cleaning coated glass surfaces • Avoid cleaning tinted and coated glass surfaces in direct sunlight • Start cleaning at the top of the building and continue to lower levels • Soak the glass surface with clean water and soap solution to loosen dirt and debris • Use a squeegee to remove all of the cleaning solution • Dry all cleaning solution from window gaskets, sealants and frames • Clean one small area and check to ensure procedures have not caused any damage Storage Follow these guidelines to avoid damage to 3form Glass while stored on-site: • Store in crates in a cool, dry, well-ventilated area sheltered from rain and direct sun. If storage is expected to be prolonged, or in areas where temperature dierentials can be extreme, it is highly recommended that temperature and humidity controlled storage facilities be utilized to prevent damage to laminated products • If not opened immediately, cover crates with plastic or canvas. Suicient air circulation (under, over, around, and between crates) is encouraged to minimize potential condensation within the crates. Building a tent may be necessary to achieve the necessary circulation • Secure crates to building columns if possible. Otherwise stand several crates together and fasten them to each other with scrap lumber, to prevent the crates from tipping onto their sides and possibly damaging the glass inside • 3form Glass must never be stored in standing water other packaging. Note on the freight bill or delivery receipt any evidence of shortage, abuse, damage, or wet packaging and have the delivering driver sign the receipt or freight bill. If damage or abuse is evident from the inspection of the exterior crate, immediately open any crate or packaged shipment, ideally in the presence of the driver. It is recommended to have a camera available to take photos of any damaged material. Be suspect of any materials “laying down” on the loor of the carrier’s vehicle. Often if a crate does not originally look damaged, the goods inside the crate may be damaged. 7 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 Pressure Washing Pressure washing can also be an eective way to remove miscellaneous debris from surfaces of 3form Glass installations that are in exterior or hard-to-reach places. Pre-soak panels with a light water spray to loosen and remove incidental surface debris. It is recommended that the water pressure for cleaning Glass panels be 1,500 psi or less. 3form Glass can be damaged if high pressure is concentrated in a single position too long. Use a gradual sweeping motion over the application. Never concentrate water spray in a single position. The pressure nozzle should never be positioned less than 8" (203 mm) from the panel surface. Always test a portion of the sheet irst before spraying. If test piece shows any sign of material fatigue, abrasion or delamination – discontinue pressure washing and proceed with manual cleaning instructions as described above. (If using detergent, use mild detergents only. Rinse sheet with light water spray after washing.) Coated or painted parts are not suitable for pressure washing as inish may be stripped o. Pressure washing is not suitable for Laminated Glass panels that have been edge sealed. Do Not: • Concentrate spray in single position • Use more than 1,500 psi pressure • Pressure wash Glass panels that have been painted or coated to maintain coating integrity • Pressure wash Laminated Glass panels with sealed edges to ensure edge seals remain intact Important If a cleaning material is found to be incompatible in a short-term test, it will usually be found to be incompatible in the ield. The converse, however, is not always true. Favorable performance is not guarantee that actual end-use conditions have been duplicated. Therefore, these results should be used as a guide only and it is recommended that the user test the products under actual end-use conditions. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 8776492670. 8 Technical Speciications3form GlassTM APRIL 2022 | 3form Glass | REV 010 © 2022 3form, Inc. All rights reserved. For more information, please visit 3-form.com or call 877.649.2670 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT - 556 El Camino Real . Burlingame . CA . 94010 JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12-06-22CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FYI - Proposed Turf Block Pavers and Balcony Privacy Materials Presentation RSSARCHITECTURE.COM 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT - 556 El Camino Real . Burlingame . CA . 94010 JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12–06-22PROPOSED TURF BLOCK PAVERS KEY PLAN RSSARCHITECTURE.COM 556 El Camino Real . Burlingame . CA . 94010 JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12–06-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - CLEAR GLASS (AT FRONT ELEVATION) RSSARCHITECTURE.COM 556 El Camino Real . Burlingame . CA . 94010 JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12–06-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - CLEAR GLASS (AT FRONT ELEVATION) FRONT ELEVATION - CLEAR GLASS Front Elevation JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 11-22-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - Frosted Glass KEY PLANINITIAL SUBMITTAL - FRONT ELEVATION RSSARCHITECTURE.COM LEFT ELEVATION SHOWN SKEWEDREAR ELEVATION - CLEAR GLASS Rear Elevation Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12-06-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - Frosted Glass KEY PLAN INITIAL SUBMITTAL - REAR ELEVATION RSSARCHITECTURE.COM 21 UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT - 556 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA 94010 JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 11-22-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - FROSTED GLASS (FOR LEFT AND RIGHT ELEVATIONS) RSSARCHITECTURE.COM REAR ELEVATION SHOWN SKEWED LEFT ELEVATION - FROSTED GLASS JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12-06-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - FROSTED GLASS KEY PLAN Left Elevation Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0" RIGHT ELEVATION - INITIAL SUBMITTAL RSSARCHITECTURE.COM RIGHT ELEVATION - FROSTED GLASS Right Elevation Scale: 1/8"-1'-0"JOB NO: 1818 DATE: 12-06-22PROPOSED BALCONY PRIVACY MATERIAL - FROSTED GLASS KEY PLAN INITIAL SUBMITTAL - RIGHT ELEVATION RSSARCHITECTURE.COM