Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2023.03.13Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, March 13, 2023 Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Planning Commission Meeting will be held via Zoom in addition to in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting. To Attend the Meeting in Person: Location: 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 To Observe the Meeting via Zoom: To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 883 2397 4781 Passcode: 399935 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 883 2397 4781 Passcode: 399935 To Provide Public Comment in Person: Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to Speak" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. To Provide Public Comment via Zoom: During the meeting, public comment may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the "Raise Hand" feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to "Raise Hand") during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/9/2023 March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda To Provide Public Comment via Email: Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org to be read aloud during the public comment period for an agenda item. 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 Calendar. The length of the comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that 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 March 13, 2023. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot guarantee such emails will be 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 883 2397 4781 Passcode: 399935 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-900-6833 Meeting ID: 883 2397 4781 Passcode: 399935 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft February 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft February 27, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesb. 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. 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. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/9/2023 March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 6. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items for review. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There are no Consent Calendar Items for review. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1204 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Susan and Timothy Fisher, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 317 Occidental Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for a second story balcony addition to an existing two -story 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. (Ella Piecoup, Pho Architects, applicant and designer; Susannah Shimkus, property owner) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit b. 1095 Rollins Road, zoned R-3 - Application for a Fence Variance for height of a new fence/wall along the northern property line of a new multi -unit residential apartment development. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Prometheus Real Estate Group, applicant and property owner) (6 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon c. 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1205 Howard Avenue, zoned HMU - Application for Commercial Design Review for a second story addition and facade improvements to an existing two -story mixed-use building. (Stanford Chiang, CM Construction, applicant and designer; Anna Chan, property owner) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of March 6, 2023 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 13. ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/9/2023 March 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, March 13, 2023 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 March 13, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 23, 2023, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 3/9/2023 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 13, 2023 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 January 17, 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 004-2023 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is 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 004-2023, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the February 13, 2023 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 February 13, 2023. 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 February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 825 4467 3970 Passcode: 111304 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 825 4467 3970 Passcode: 111304 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto 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 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 9b (1420 Cabrillo Avenue) will be continued to a later date. 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 Page 2City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.2704 Hillside Drive, 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) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2704 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2704 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2704 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anna Felver, 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: >Concerned about the hillside drainage, given the complexity of the site. Suggests to figure out how to effectively control the water flow and the movement of all the soil. > Beyond the blank wall, the design is very well done. The applicant listened to our previous comments . It is a significant change from the initial submittal. Appreciate the very detailed planting plan and good choices of landscape materials. >This project has taken longer. The time and effort put into it turned out to be a much better product. I appreciate the effort being put out by the applicant and their team to listen to us and put together a project that will look much better in this location. The hill slope and the drainage is a concern, but it is not something that stops here. It is something that needs to be resolved through the building permit process . I hope that both parties on either side of this project can work together on making sure that the changes made by the grading does not negatively impact the neighbors. The neighbor on the left has his garage on the property line, it may affect their garage when the grade in that area is changed. There is also about 2’ to 2-1/2’ grade difference between this property and the right side neighbor. I do not want to see soil being dumped into their property or that the existing cinder block wall be used as a retaining wall. These things need to be considered thoroughly so it won’t be a disaster downstream during construction. > I wanted to also acknowledge the applicant for listening to our comment thoroughly and how they were addressed. This is a really good example of how the design review process works. This house is going to fit so much better in that neighborhood, as my fellow commissioner has mentioned. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.132 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story Page 3City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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. (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF21A, LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 132 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 132 Occidental Ave - Attachments 132 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anna Felver, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > David Pockett, Bassenian Lagoni Architects: To explain further about the trim, the corbels are coming out from the walls itself. The trim is going from beam to beam which is why it is not continued around the corner. It cleans it up a little because if it did go around the corner, it cuts in to the double fascia. It is cleaner this way and the siding is all controlled in that space. >Public Comment sent via email by Jim Walsh, 128 Occidental Avenue: My wife, Denise, met with you yesterday to discuss the pending application regarding the property at 132 Occidental Avenue. I know that the topic of new fencing was part of the information you shared with her. For the record, I wanted to inform you of the existing conditions on our side of the property adjacent to 132 Occidental Avenue. Prior to moving into our home in 1993, the previous owner has replaced the single pedestrian door exit which leads to a concrete walkway which parallels our house from the street to our backyard. He replaced the single pedestrian door with a double sliding glass doors. At the same time, he also built a wooden deck walkway that you can step out onto when exiting through the new double sliding doors. That deck is approximately 22 feet long and 37 inches wide. It also has four down steps at both ends of the deck walkway. Those steps are both approximately 52 inches in depth. The reason I mentioned this is because the deck he built is anchored to both my house and to the existing fence which will be torn down. When the fence is taken down, it will eliminate the deck which now serves as the only means of exit from our house other than the front door, which is located on the other side of our house. As I ’ve said above, I wanted this information on the record as the permit approval process continues. Thank you for keeping us advised and updated. (Felver: We responded to Jim and Denise about this condition. I would like to hear this earlier but always before fence installation we coordinate with the adjacent neighbors and we want to make sure we're coordinating on if a new fence is going to be installed on the property line, and do they want to keep the remaining fence? Are there conditions that we need to lookout for? This is one that we definitely want to coordinate with them on and make sure we're not impacting their deck by any means. Also, their deck shouldn't be held up by the fence but that's neither here or there. We want to make sure we're not impacting their property by any means. We have reached out and continue to coordinate with them throughout this process and make sure we're not replacing the fence without their approval and without them being on the same page with us.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The horizontal band does not seem to continue the entire width of the elevation. It looks strange. It may look better if it is continued the whole way to the corners. Page 4City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > I think the horizontal bands are fine. But, when you look three dimensionally at those corners, you will have a board with holes in it between the rafters going into the attic, you'll have a wood piece that's going into the piece. If you align the bottom of the band trim with the bottom of that piece, it will be your wraparound. It can probably work out either way but there's a way to finish that to the edge and not have it look like just a piece of wood trim between the knee braces. Other than that, I commend the applicant and the team again. It was another one where the original design didn't fit at all with where they were going . They listened well and made a good transition on this one and I find it very approvable. Good job. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. It's a nice 180 from what we were shown last time around. It will fit the neighborhood very nicely. Craftsman bungalow, I like that as well. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2615 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (1015 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2615 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2615 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2615 Hillside Dr - 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. 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: >The renderings help quite a bit. >Given that we are just looking at the house across the street and having the same issues of downhill slope, side-to-side, these drawings have handled it well. When you look at the elevations, they have clearly delineated the change in grade from side -to-side and show how they are addressing that. This is a good example of a hillside plan set that makes it really easy to see the challenges on the site. >I like how the architecture addresses the area and the way it is working dimensionally on the site. I have no issues with the height variance request. It seems very reasonable given how the site works. >It is a nice looking project and I’d like to see it move forward. >Suggests to look into the roof configuration to the left of Bathroom #4 to get rid of the nested gable. It may help improve the roof plan and the front elevation a little bit. >Look into giving the staircase some exposure to windows facing the street. Page 5City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can understand the request for the height variance. Would really like to see the significant tree at the front as shown on the renderings. It should also be shown on the plans. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.1420 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and detached garage. (Barzin Keyhankhadiv, applicant and designer; Soumyadip Banerjee, property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi This item was continued to a future date. c.1114 Grove Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage, Special Permits for new attached garage, plate height, and declining height envelope, and Variances for lot coverage and floor area ratio . (Hillel Benizri, Level up Home Remodeling, applicant; Ramin Zohoor, Level Up Home Remodeling, designer; Vadim Antonov, property owner) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1114 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1114 Grove Ave - Attachments 1114 Grove 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. Ramin Zohoor, designer and Vadim Antonov, property owner, 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: > On the elevation, your declining height envelope line doesn't intersect the second floor and if I ’m not mistaken, that's where the request for special permit or the variance for the declining height envelope encroachment is. If the plans have changed, the variance requirement might have still stayed on and there needs to be a correction on the application. >I have a lot of problem with all the requests. I go along with the idea that a two -car garage is not necessary. I find it very odd there's no living space on the first floor and there's a long wall between the ADU and the kitchen. Being that the ADU doesn't count towards FAR, to me as a builder it looks like a simple conversion. I’m not saying that's going to happen but it would be very simple for someone to make this house bigger. >I have problems with some of the elevations and with the application of the finished materials on the Page 6City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes outside. The project needs a lot of work. I feel if you have a smaller lot, you get a smaller house. That's the way it works. I've never bought into the argument that it's a substandard lot. There is no standard lot in Burlingame. They are all different sizes and different shapes. We're not a subdivision, so we're going to have different sized lots and different sized houses. That's the beauty in Burlingame. It makes us be creative and be very efficient with a smaller house because it is a smaller lot. I’m not supporting the request for variances and the plate height. This needs a lot of work. >I can understand the attached garage as an attached garage. There's plenty of examples on that street. So, I can support an attached garage. The attached two -car garage makes the elevation look horrible and it's at a sacrifice to the house itself. Given that it's a smaller lot, it's now sacrificing the living space of the house for the garage. Again, I can support the attached garage. I just don't think the elevation works. >I understand the flood plain. We've looked at a few of these houses in these streets recently and the flood plain is an issue. I totally get it, but I don't see the reason to have a 9’-6” plate height on the first floor to make it even higher. It doesn't even help the elevations proportionally at all. So, I don't support that. >I don't support the FAR request either. This house is over the FAR and it's adding an ADU. I agree with my fellow commissioner that looks to be a reason to breakdown the wall. I can't see that being a legitimate use. >Architecturally, there's nothing that I see here that works. I'm worried about the materials being on the front and not trying to wraparound or be integrated. This is a design review candidate for sure. And I hope the owner takes a hard look at this process. Doing these remodels are expensive and if you're starting out this way now, when you get the cost, it's going to be even harder. These are perfect examples of houses where they don't go through as they should, then they get in the middle and all sorts of changes need to happen because there's no money for it. It changes the whole design, which we're not really in support of . I would encourage the team to really understand the cost and implications of what they are asking for and what we're trying to promote with design, so that they can have a really good project and not have something that goes sideways. >(Spansail: Thank you all, commissioners. I know it is something that may be popping out at the floor plan, but we still cannot mention or talk about the ADU in any way, even about the prospective uses that it could be in the future. It's state law. We can't comment on that.) >The two-car garage is my main issue in the front elevation. It's not a good look. I'm usually supportive of 9’-6” plate heights when it's large open areas and that large open area would create the low ceiling feeling. The current layout of the first floor doesn't warrant a 9’-6” plate height and the fact the house is raised makes it worse and not better. I don't like windows; they are way too big in some cases. It's just a bit of a wacky design from my perspective, it needs some work. >I see enough examples of an attached garage in the neighborhood that could be acceptable, but the two-car garage, as was stated earlier, does take up most of that front elevation, so I do have some trouble with that. We know this is a limited lot size and there's a bonus of having added an ADU. You get the credit for that space which is nice, but looking at the floor plan there's a lot of areas where space is not being well utilized; large hallways, really large bedrooms and spaces that for a smaller lot proportionately could have room in relation to the size of this property. There should be a better effort put towards meeting the FAR than asking right off the bat for such a large FAR variance as well. >This is a candidate for a design review consultant for a number of the reasons we have talked about already. There's a number of inconsistencies even with the kind of window sizes, types and shapes. We could also get some assistance on that with the design review consultant. Additionally, the roof design could cohesively be pulled together in better format as well. >I would like to see direction given to the design consultant to work within the perimeters of what is legal and what is standard in this lot. Whatever the equation turns out to be, because they do exist and there are some nice homes that are large which were accomplished within our regulations. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, 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 7City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1204 Mills 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. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Susan and Timothy Fisher, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1204 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1204 Mills Ave - Attachments 1204 Mills Ave - 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. Anne Revizza, designer and Tim and Sue Fisher, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Angela Stirling: Thank you Chair Gaul and Commissioners. We appreciate your time. My husband, Ed, and I are speaking on behalf of Martha Sterling. Unfortunately, she was not able to join us. She's a bit stressed out by this process and had a little anxiety. Martha has several points. Martha is very concerned about listening to the construction. She has no refuge or place to go and will be subject to the banging and construction noises; 11 hours a day, 6 days a week. The noise is one of her primary concerns. He would like to know what the construction time frame is, when do you expect demolition, when do you expect building and for how long? She's also concerned about the construction time frame at 1205 Mills Avenue. This project is directly across the street from the 1204 Mills Avenue project. Parking, dumpsters, noise, dirt, debris, are all concerns. Mills Avenue, when people are parked outside, it's a one -lane street at best. We want to ensure usage of her driveway and the ability to back out without being blindsided, like if a dumpster was in the street. We would like to ensure the parking in front of her house is maintained . When the Fishers told us of their desire to add a second story several months ago, that's all they said . They said it was a second story and didn't elaborate. We did receive a letter four days ago in our mailbox, if we had any questions to address with them, but there was no other contact on that subject. As the house is being demolished and a new home is being built, beyond the noise, and how this will affect Martha's quality of life, she is concerned about the lack of privacy. The level of the existing deck is very high. She sees everything in their backyard and kitchen. She stopped going out on her patio because she doesn't feel comfortable feeling watched. It's not to say they aren't nice; the Fishers are very nice neighbors. They've been very kind to Martha over the years. But there's several reasons that she has for her concerns. The reason that there are no bushes currently, with the exception than the ones posted, because they grew through the garage and had to be removed. Martha has repainted and replaced the siding. During the Fisher's construction of their backyard, they added a video screen on her siding without her permission. We want to ensure that's properly fixed during the construction. I have several other comments from Martha. I don ’t how you would like me to address these. (Chair Gaul: I believe your time is up, but you can always e -mail and we'll get those comments in our packet.) Do you have the video that I sent to the public comment inbox? On the video, most of the construction that recently happened in the backyard was some installation of artificial turf and the drainage didn't seem to be done properly. The Fisher's came to great lengths and did put in a French drain following the flooding of our garage. Martha has lived in her house for 58 years and never had such an issue. We think it is a direct result of the raising of the grade in the backyard during the installation of the artificial turf, although the French drain has minimized it. (Chair Gaul: The video apparently shows the water intrusion from the property line wall . You are representing the neighbor to the right as you are facing the street, is that correct?) Correct. (Chair Gaul: From the plans, that wall is from the neighboring accessory structure at the rear of the property.) Page 8City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > There are a lot of different materials that are being used. On the rendering that was sent, it's not clear how the transition goes between the wood -like material and the stucco. As far as design review, that can make or break a project, so it doesn't look glued on. >I can certainly appreciate the neighbor's concerns. That's always one of the challenges with any of these projects and the disturbance of soil and things that then change the way water moves. So, that's something I would hope that the design team will work with the neighbor on to try and make sure that the changes in the backyard don't negatively impact that accessory structure. >As far as the noise from construction, I'm sorry about that, that's the way it works here in Burlingame . Where I lived for a while, three houses on the same block over a two -year span went under construction and that's just the way our neighborhoods are going right now. We do have rules in place for hours of construction to try and minimize it, but we can't make it go away, that's what we have our rules and regulations for. >I like the design quite a bit. I appreciate the rendering that came through today because that really helped me visualize it better and see the materials. To my fellow commissioner's point about the rendering, I see a couple of spots of transition that I worry about a little bit. Recommend showing in 3D the transition from the vertical wood siding to the stone porch. I had that transition on a house where the corner post was right on the corner and then what are you supporting it on? If that aligns with your material transition which looks like it does for the siding, how does the porch transition happen at that inside corner? Those are some great details to work on because if you wait until construction, it will be an ugly installation. I like the materials and the way this looks. I would also suggest looking into the wood siding as it comes down to the ground behind those bushes. Wood siding doesn't traditionally handle water and sprinkling very well, so that may be an issue to consider if you're going to have a planting strip there. It's a good project and I could see it going forward. > What concerned me is the vertical siding on the left side of the house going all the way to the ground . Consider putting a relief with some sort of stone veneer or a different material at the bottom to break that up. It seems like a long run of vertical siding. If we had a rendering straight on, it would change that. I agree with the design, it looks nice, and will fit the neighborhood. I can certainly find for the 31-foot special permit, especially given our flood zone requirements here. They are not requesting for special plate heights, and it looks very proportional. I don't think it's massive in any way, shape or form. They did well with the porch. I like the porch size; the whole thing flows well. I would be in favor of moving this over to regular action. >Overall, I like the project. It will fit in well. I like the traditional materials that are on there. However, some of the elevations and the perspective drawing look a little plain. I'm wondering if it can be dressed up a little bit with some knee braces at the gable ends or maybe some bigger window trim. I'm looking at the shingles to be more of a traditional craftsman style of the house. It looks a little plain. I'm glad you're mitering the corner and that's a classy touch but maybe do a little bit of passing on some of the trim. >As mentioned, you're going to have gutters and downspouts. That front corner where the columns are is very prominent and you're going to end up with a downspout on it or it's going to be on the other corner . Plan for it now or you'll have downspouts going to places you don't show right now and may not like . Suggests that you get on that sooner than later. I support the height variance request. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - e.1200-1340 Bayshore Highway, zoned BFC - Design Review study meeting and Pre-Application Development Agreement study session for an application for Page 9City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Heights and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits for a new development consisting of three, 11-story life science/office buildings and two, 10-story parking structures. (DivcoWest, Burlingame Venture LLC, applicant and property owner; WRNS Studio, architect) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Kelly Beggs/Catherine Keylon 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - Volume 1 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - Volume 2 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - Volume 3 Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Horan, Schmid & Tse had separate zoom meetings with the developer. Planning Consultant Kelly Beggs provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Virginia Calkins and Bryan Childs, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >John Coleman, CEO of Big Planning Coalition: We did send a letter to the commission on Friday in support of the project. I’ve been working with Virginia and others on this project for some period. I wish many projects that I worked on had the commitment to the community, the environment and planning for the future like it is, especially climate change. This is going to be a gold standard for future development in California, particularly the Bay Area. With what they have proposed for Easton Creek in bringing back literally the native species, the site will flourish. It would be a great education program for people in the area and students. I can't speak more highly of this project than what my letter says. I hope you move it forward so that this project can immediately -- and the projects that will be submitted to other cities and jurisdictions throughout the bay area in the near future. >Kevin Kretsch, General Manager of Hyatt Regency Airport: Good evening, I also submitted a letter to the commission on February 8th but I would like to take the time, in case you didn't get a chance to read that, to share that with you now and read through that. Dear City Planning Commissioners, Hyatt Regency Airport would demonstrate our support for the DivcoWest plan along Old Bayshore Highway and the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport is located directly across the street from this proposed project. This project will result in a substantial redevelopment of a significant parcel of land along the Burlingame shoreline. The proposed redevelopment will provide a much -needed enhancement to the south section of Bayshore highway corridor and will include the following: first, investment in the bayfront is vital to this community. The new bay trail and associated recreational areas will be a critical asset for the city, its people and for generations to come. A substantial investment to address sea level rise, which has been mentioned. This will help protect Burlingame ’s Bayshore business community. Three world class buildings as discussed that will promote both business and local community and they will accomplish a new design standard for the entire Peninsula. This is a gold standard project in our opinion. Next, the new employment base to support our room occupancy and special events, not only in our hotel, but in the surrounding hotels and community. And finally, a project team that engage us, meaning Hyatt, as neighbors and works collaboratively on developing a design with a broader community in mind. We want to continue the efforts to make Burlingame a premiere location for people to live, work and enjoy the amazing natural beauty of our shoreline. DivcoWest’s commitment to the Burlingame community will help us achieve that goal. They have been in constant communication providing updates to the Hyatt. It has been a great partner with us . We love what we see in the development and enhancements that have been needed in this immediate Page 10City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes area for such a long time. So, the benefits that this development would bring, we believe would continue to stretch the Bayshore corridor north and south and enhance the Burlingame community. Thank you so much for your time. >Gita Dev: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the project. I want to first acknowledge that we have worked with Virginia and her team earlier, as she has mentioned . We do appreciate you listening to some of our concerns, making changes to make the waterfront more natural, more adaptation to sea level rise and more welcoming to the wild creatures that live in the wetlands along our waterfront. There are a few items I noticed that I would like to bring to your attention and to Virginia’s team's attention. One is the trees. There are a lot of trees that are to be planted. The section showing the landscape along the waterfront indicates trees along the right edge of the bay. I want to remind everyone that what we need is to make sure that there is no space for predators where they can watch the shore birds and be predatory to them, so make sure the trees on the waterfront are appropriate . The other item is for lighting. I want to commend the lighting designer for the site lighting outside the building. They are well done and protected. They shine downwards and doesn't shine on the water. I do want to mention again, as I have mentioned this to the design team, that there is concern about the lights within the building. This would be true of any building along the waterfront, which we have brought up with other developers too. We do need a way for the lighting to be shaded at night so that creatures that feed at night have a night, that the wetlands do experience night and light at night is a problem. I have spoken before about this. Please do consider some way to require the lights to be shaded at night somehow. I want to mention one last thing, which is a more complicated issue, researching life sciences labs there are three different levels of labs; biosafety one, two and three. When you get to level three, the HVAC systems are quite extensive and noisy. Along the bayfront, noise might be an issue. We should come up with a way to mask them with concrete panels instead of metal doors. Thank you. >Kelly Sloane: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m a Burlingame homeowner and architect for 30 years with professional experience from homes to master plans. I reviewed the three drawings posted to the staff report and I don't know anyone on the developer or architecture team. On both personal and professional levels, I support this project. This area of Burlingame is severely run down. The buildings, the water ’s edge and roads especially when comparing the stretch of waterfront to those north and south of San Mateo. It will improve the water edge. I like what they did there, it's beautiful and wonderful gift back to Burlingame . In terms of the proposed architecture, the design is simple, slick, modern and not big boxes down so I appreciate that. All that said, I think there's too much parking. I wanted to suggest a couple of things . First, I would like the city of Burlingame to consider modernizing our codes to significantly reducing the required parking for this future development. The staff report notes one space for every four hundred square feet of office which results in most of the 2,600 spaces required. Even with the 20% call from the TDM, still results in 2,100 spaces. The project proposes 320 parking spaces which exceeded code by 800 spots and the developer should reduce parking spaces to the minimum required. I also think that the 11 story office buildings may be too tall. If the developer can reduce or eliminate a parking structure or parking, they could redistribute the building and make them shorter. I love the fact this design will daylight the Easton Creek and create green space all around it and along the water ’s edge. The emphasis of views and green space but ignore the building space and corridor parking spaces, another reason to reduce parking. The proposed shuttle from the Millbrae transit hub extends to the project site south of Broadway . I request the developer consider adding a shuttle stop at the downtown Burlingame train station, which might encourage people to stop by the Avenue to have meals before or after work. Finally, I think we need more renderings from the freeway overpass and from the hillside, so residents know what they are going to see daily. There's one I could find from the top of the overpass, but it doesn't show the entire development extending to the left. Multiple renderings over the water really don't help. To recap, I support the project . Burlingame should consider modernizing our code to reduce parking and the project should reduce proposed parking to the minimum required redistributed and lower the office building massing, add a shuttle stop at the Burlingame train station and provide more renderings. >Andy Go: As a resident of Burlingame for almost 30 years, I want to put some input into this 1.5 million square foot project. It is located at the Broadway interchange of 101 and Caltrans, which we know Page 11City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes is a major traffic congestion area. Broadway Caltrans crossing has been the scene of many train crashes and deaths as recently as last year. Building the Caltrans overpass is still not yet funded and years away . This project will further aggravate the traffic congestion for the thousands of workers commuting during this project. During lunch hour, many will head to restaurants using the Broadway interchange adding to the Broadway traffic jam. I'd like to note that there are two biotech projects under construction, totaling nine hundred thousand square feet and a total of 1.4 million square feet on top of this 1.5 million square foot project. I know the EIR is underway. For this project and other nearby biotech projects, I ’m hoping it will address the traffic impact on the Broadway Caltrans crossing. Now, this project being 11-stories and over two hundred feet tall, I feel is way oversized for this 12-acre wood fence parcel. As comparison, the waterfront Facebook project has 660 square feet on 18 acres of land, five to eight stories and about one hundred feet tall. I think better sizing for the project could be like the Facebook project, maybe a million square feet. Also, this project should be timed to be built when the Broadway Caltrans overpass gets built so that when this project comes online, the Caltrans overpass can handle the flow of the additional traffic caused by this project. In fact, this project could contribute to maybe one or $2 million into the funding of the Caltrans Broadway overpass since a lot of the work will be using the Broadway overpass. I’m not against this project. I think this project is a great project. But too massive and too tall for the location . With 12 acres of the waterfront land, the impact on the traffic could be severe and we'll find out more on the EIR. I hope the commission seriously take the concerns raised and citizens’ suggestions. Thank you. >Public comments sent via email by Jane Montgomery, Burlingame resident for 30 years: Dear Planning Commissioners, help the proposed project for 1200 to 1340 Bayshore avenue. This is not in keeping with character of Burlingame. Traffic alone will be horrendous and 1.5 million square feet of office . Scale back this project immediately and don't let the tax revenue influence your decisions. This is a gateway to our city. We do not need more development to (indiscernible ) the view of the bayfront . Resources alone to manage this will be detrimental to the city's infrastructure. Please, please, please do not be persuaded by pretty pictures and think about the impact to the traffic in our community, wildlife, flora, water, sewer and electrical systems. Help, we need to stop this massive development that's engulfing our city. >Public comments sent via email by Suzanne, President of Burlingame SFO Chamber of Commerce : Dear Planning Commission, over the past year, we, the Chamber of Commerce had the pleasure of getting to know the applicant team at DivcoWest and learning about the proposed project Peninsula Crossing which we believe have the potential to transfer the bayfront in a much -needed way. It includes landscaped public open spaces in conjunction with a critical new of bay trail and integrated public access path. All contributing significantly to the community and allowing a dilapidated area today. We believe the project will play an important role in the broader business community generating economic development for Burlingame and the region beyond. While creating a place that Burlingame can be proud to offer its citizens and visitors alike. Further, the project's proposed sea level rise protections will provide long -term critical new resiliency for the Burlingame community. We encourage the Burlingame Planning Commission to please consider advancing this project forward to help bring renewal and transformation to our wonderful bay front. >Public comments sent via email by Lisa Fong, General Manager of the Marriott SFO Airport Waterfront: Dear members of the city planning commission, the SFO Waterfront Marriott submits this letter in support of Peninsula Crossing. I had the pleasure of viewing revised plans and continue to be impressed by the project's commitment to our city and the conservation of the bay trail. I believe peninsula crossing has the potential to further transform the Burlingame bayfront in a much -needed way. It includes more than five acres of valuable open space connected by a critical new quarter mile section of bay trail and integrated public path contributing significant new amenities to Burlingame residents, workers and hotel guests alike. We believe the project will play an important role in the business community generating economic development for Burlingame in the region. The sea level rise protections will provide long-term critical resiliency for the Burlingame community and the project will be a center of -- by creating a best and class design, boosting business for nearby hotels and businesses while generating millions of dollars to the city. In addition to my role of the general manager at the Marriott Page 12City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Waterfront, I also live in Burlingame and raise both my kids here and I ’m thrilled this project will fill in 1,475 feet of missing bay trail creating continuity along the city shoreline. Along with re -imagining the pathway, the project will prioritize pedestrian, bike path and adding green spaces and adding public spaces and utilizing the bayfront for visitors and residents alike. We support the applicant and welcome them to the community. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > It looks like nothing has changed about the site plan. Regarding Phase 3, the north building and the north parking structure, there is close to no space between the sidewalk and the 200 foot building. There are only three trees that I can see on the north parking structure. I don't know how they have any room to grow, they are going to hit that wall. A few people called in about the excessive parking and I tend to agree. First, we're not sure how the Bayshore Highway is going to look because that plan is not done yet . But if these folks are responsible for determining where the sidewalk goes or what is happening to the roadway there, I would highly recommend that they figure out a way on these two buildings to make much more airspace. Maybe pull the building back on the Bayshore Highway side, so that some greenery can go in and shape that roadway that we were hoping would look better. I don't see it looking better at all. It's just too much “in your face”. I asked it before, but I can see there was no change, so that is a design flaw. I find that bothers me a lot. >I noticed that you have a lot of native plants everywhere and a shadow study has not been done which is going to be interesting. A lot of those bushes and native plants are going to need sunlight. You might want to look at how their growth would be affected if they are not getting sun for large portions of the day, which I expect because of the direction of where the sun is coming from. >I don't see a rhyme or reason and cohesion to the office buildings. They don't have harmony and they are very tall. Everything seems quite maxed -out. It's too much. It is acceptable to have some height if they were slender and have some beautiful relationship between the buildings. If they had something connecting them, like the ones at the Meta complex, those have some relationship. You can see they belong together. I’m having trouble seeing that here. >Further on the parking structures, consider giving some thought on using a green face rather than the proposed material, something that makes them blend better. >I haven't seen a view corridor looking towards the hills. I would like to see it in the future renderings . There are a few that look like someone is standing on the ground in the back and there are none from the Bayshore side looking the other direction, except in the green areas at the intersection where you may call them a plaza, but there's going to be a lot of traffic there. I’m not sure how pleasant that would be. I would really like to see some consideration on the ground or close to the ground, like a real pedestrian view, rather than a drone view over the bay looking at these bunch of buildings several hundred or thousand feet off the bay and then towards the west. That's not really what we're going to see unless we're hovering somehow. I would like to see more realistic views rather than a beautiful rendering. You've done a real beautiful job of renderings but being in the art world, I know renderings are for promotion. I would like to see views from the ground and real shadow studies. >(Childs: I'll try to address that succinctly. The massing of the project is relatively simple and intent . The site, as we have gotten to know it, has a lot of aspects we think are very interesting. There’s the bayside which seems natural and elemental. You feel very connected to nature. Certainly, needs to be improved. As Virginia pointed out, Bayshore Highway is somewhere between being urban and suburban, a street that's not exactly well -defined. Then there's the overall goal to grain the buildings from east to west . So, from Bayshore Highway to the bay, those are the primarily view corridors. The primary understanding of the site from the public realm standpoint, is that graining. The last thing we want to do is make any kind of wall that was parallel to Bayshore Highway or to the bay edge. The graining that you see, the long, thin buildings with the view corridors and the main public access from Bayshore Highway to the bay moving east to west or west to east, is the primary idea. This is really all about knitting together the public realm, knitting together this very special place in Burlingame where Broadway kind of hits the bay, hits Easton Creek. How we knit all of this together while keeping as much of a sense of openness from Page 13City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Bayshore Highway, from Broadway to the bay as we can, so the armature of understanding of that public realm is really about city to bay. That's why the buildings are relatively compact in the north -south section and so we can get that over five acres of new public open space really connecting the town of Burlingame and Bayshore Highway to the bay.) >Mr. Childs addressed what my point was. The overwhelming public narrative is the size of the building being too big. Not necessarily my opinion, but I wanted them to speak to that. I think they've did a nice job explaining how the massing came about. That it was very intentional in not just gigantic buildings plopped arbitrarily. >Concern about the pedestrian scale of this development. I'm going to point out just maybe a couple of examples of where things could be maybe improved. If we look at Sheet ENTG 28, one of the renderings showing the aerial view from the bay trail looking south. It's the one showing the picnic lawn area. There are some tables over to the right -hand side sitting out in the sun. I know that there are some umbrellas around in some of the renderings, but this area where the tables are immediately below the podium level roof or deck balcony which is four -stories above, proportionately could be nice to have some built structure, some awning other than umbrellas. Something that can come out, similar to how you have your airport view. There's the rendering of the airplane viewing platform, how their sense of scale there where one is sitting on a bench, and you have the roof overhead. Just having something over your head while you're sitting and resting instead of sitting out in the sun with a four or five story roof up above. This is minor but it will help a lot in terms of having one feel like a sense of place and space. We're talking so much about all the public spaces and how one can enjoy it and use it. Recommends looking at some opportunities where you can think about that pedestrian scale. >The other thing that wasn't talked about very much tonight, something I brought up in my one -on-one zoom discussion with the team, were traffic patterns and crosswalks and how does that all work as one approaches this fairly tall and large development once it's built out. That current road, Bayshore Highway, currently leads to the 101 freeway. It's heavily filled with cars and multiple lanes of people getting on and off the freeway. I currently don't feel safe as a pedestrian to cross on that north side of the Broadway overpass. There's the pedestrian overpass, but to get over to the heart of your development there, I ’m concerned on how one would experience that; making their way over there with kids, with pets, bikes, strollers and such to enjoy this public space. I would like to see more attention to what will happen in terms of access to your development. I don't think we saw too much of it in today's presentation, hopefully, we'll see that in greater detail in a future date. It's a beautiful design. I would love for it all to be built sooner than later. But I'm a little bit concerned about the height of this development, the tightness of the corridors and how one, as a human, uses this space coming through in and around the development >I wanted to piggyback on the comment regarding this structure. Thinking about the umbrellas and some of the public areas where the cafes are going to be, we're going to have outdoor seating and eating areas. As I thought more about it, the umbrella sounds great in a residential scale, in my backyard. As you start to think about how many people you're going to have, seating, trying to shade and make comfortable, I would encourage that those outdoor spaces become opportunities. I'd love a great sunny day, but we don't have them every day, we have a combination of wind instead. Being able to provide an outdoor opportunity and bringing down that human scale, there are opportunities in those little individual pocket areas when you spend more time with it. I realize these are big buildings and I'm asking you to design a little space. But those are going to be opportunities as we go further down the line to refine the program and the outdoor space areas. The umbrellas look great in the renderings but it's a maintenance item downstream and a more permanent style of structure. It may play out as a maintenance piece but also providing more to the pedestrian user in that area. I'm aware that the cafes and those little places I ’ve discussed are not where you're making your money and selling rentable space. But those are going to be key areas that are great jewel benefits to our community which will make us want to go down there and use it and not just feel like it's a campus. That's a critical part of the project. >About those community benefits, like the retail space, I appreciate that you've got a couple of cafe spots in there, but I would encourage you to look at adding more retail space if you could. The people will come if you build something for them. It doesn't have to be a restaurant. You could have a retail space, maybe they are renting bikes, or a newsstand, something else to get people's interest to go there. I'm not one hundred percent convinced that people would go there because it's an open plaza, so just something to look at. Page 14City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I just can't even imagine designing this with half an Easton creek. I don't find developing half a creek beneficial. It's almost like offering half a creek. I find that a partial benefit. It would really be important to clean that up somehow. > I don't think it's half a creek. I think it's just the phasing. I'm uncomfortable with a 20-year phase. Maybe even just ten years contract then have an option for a few more years or something. I would like to see this move forward. That's why I wanted to know how long this is going to take. It's hard to say, but if you gave them two to three years on each phase, that gives you six to nine years. So, ten years is reasonable. I get that it's a big project and phasing are going to make it easier for them to build. So, if they want to phase it, I'm okay with that but 20 years is too long. >That's why I mentioned the possibility of having three different parcels. They don't have to do all three phases. They could sell off a phase or two of the phases and just do one phase. Now, that's up to them in how they want to proceed. It has nothing to do with us, but what we need to do is understand how long it takes to build one of these projects. Let's look at what we have already done and how those projects have moved forward. Obviously, the Facebook campus came out in 2012 which was during one of the economic downfalls that we had. Let's look and strategize something we've already done. We don't have to recreate the wheel. It has been created for us at some other level with other commissioners and other city council members. I would say phase it and give them seven years, then give them an option to add three more years, for a maximum of ten years. I wouldn't go straight to ten years and give them five more years. In my purview, they are always going to ask for more in the end. We must end up coming in the middle somewhere. I would really like to look at how we did the other projects to get some baseline of what it is . Then again, as my fellow commissioner mentioned, get a really good idea of how long these projects take to build. We have some certainty that DivcoWest is a very exceptional development company, they know what they are doing. Suggests that we look at how long the Park Road project has taken. We're all in the community looking at how long that has taken. > I like the project a lot, the design and the public amenities. My concern is about the phasing as well, not so much about the phasing of the buildings themselves, but of the community benefits. I would propose they figure out a way to deliver all the community benefits as part of Phase 1, the full bay trail and Easton Creek rehab. Otherwise, we may never get it. If the economic conditions don't allow the phases to be complete, we will be stuck with a half -finished public amenity. I would be willing to trade -off on the airport viewing amenity. It concerns me from a safety and security standpoint to have that on top of the parking garage. Maybe there could be some negotiation for that. I am also concerned about the traffic. I know we'll have a separate study on the traffic, but the 3,400 cars are a lot. It means 23 cars a minute for two and a half hours each morning and 23 cars a minute for two and a half hours each afternoon. That's a lot of cars going through intersections in addition to what's already there. The overall project is really good . It just feels ten percent too big. If the buildings were ten percent lower, ten percent less square footage and ten percent fewer cars with those amenities, it's a fantastic project. >I like the project a lot too. With the sea level rise, the amenity, the restoration, the bay front, and the path. There's a lot going into this before we even get our first building. I do agree with the phasing. It's just the fact that it's a cut and dry diagram at the moment. The line needs to move further, not on the edge of the creek, but a little further into Phase 3. I don't want to be standing on the Phase 1 side looking at an unfinished other side of the creek for ten years. So, they are going to have to knockdown the existing buildings. They are going to be spending months with trucks going in and out bringing dirt to raise that up 7 to 10 feet. It's going to take time for that 7 to 10 feet of dirt to settle in to then be useable and buildable. There's a good amount of time where those are going to be empty lots. If they can work on both sides of that Easton Creek restoration as part of Phase 1. It's still going to be a fence on the other side while we wait for the building to happen. At least if we can get up over the edge a little bit and get the plantings going, both sides will mature in age in a similar fashion instead of being totally different. The path on either end is going to be a work in progress, regardless. The path to the north is not a nice path, it's just there. They, too, need to do the sea level rise remediation at some point. They are not going to suddenly raise their land 7 to 10 feet so Divco's path can be done 100%. It could take years before that connection point finishes up. Similarly, I don't think we have the connection point on the city's side on the south. Regardless, those two on either side are going to take time and a couple of different iterations before they get finished. But the promise to open it up as early as possible so that we can use the bay trail, even if it's not in its finished state, does bring community benefit. If they do the restoration of the Page 15City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Easton Creek early on, that gets us a good -looking benefit for quite a while too before the buildings go in . So, there's a lot to be said here in these benefits, more than we've really seen in some of the others . When you look down the street by the Marriott, we're not getting near the same community benefits out of that project because it doesn't have touch points with anything. They are providing a little restaurant too and a plaza in the middle of the street. This project is really providing a top -notch project and five acres worth of open space that in a prime spot. It's not in the middle of nowhere. It's going to be a good project . I hope that they can keep the momentum going. I would love to see it done because those properties out there are dilapidated, and they are sitting there waiting to be done. >I'm mostly concerned about the length of time of the project. My gut instinct is that this is going to be a good benefit to our community. I'm concerned this is one parcel but split in three separate ownership groups as you see that on the diagram. I'm concerned of things stopping. To my fellow commissioner's point, the development agreement needs to be capped but maybe it's commissariat for each phase. You get three years for each phase and after you complete one, you get another three years. I'm concerned, you develop the first phase and we're staring at dirt lots for 12 years. Even with the public benefit, I love to go on the bay trail, but walking by that southern section of the bay trail that opened was bad for a long time. I'm concerned it could be similar. The development agreement and capping that at a much more conservative level, maybe having it tied to the actual construction phases is more to our best interest as a community. >The point has been made is that those are just three simple sections and three simple blocks. My fellow commissioner had a good point, maybe the whole bay trail becomes the whole bay trail in Phase 1. That's a good idea. The problem is, usually hardscaping and soft scaping are the last things that happen because you've got so many debris over the whole job, heavy equipment, and everything gets destroyed . So, we'll leave that up to the applicant. I trust they can come up with a good plan, but we're all in agreement that 20 years is too long. It needs to be scaled back somehow whether by phase or overall project. This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes environmental review. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Director Gardiner reported that at the February 6th City Council meeting there was a discussion item to consider a smoking ban pilot program in the Broadway commercial district. It's something that the merchants group had suggested and requested, so the City Council has given direction to develop a pilot ordinance to test it out. a.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1549 Los Montes Dr - Memorandum 1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments 1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans Attachments: This item was pulled by the Planning Commission for further discussion. Concern over the number of changes and the cumulative effect of all of them together. b.1144 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Page 16City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1144 Balboa Ave - Memorandum 1144 Balboa Ave - FYI Attachments 1144 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 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, February 13, 2023 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 February 13, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2023, 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 17City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 27, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no Minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.2735 Burlingview Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, Special Permit for first and second story plate heights, and Minor Modification for covered parking space dimension for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form + One, designer and applicant; Jeffrey and Stephanie Thompson, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 1City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2735 Burlingview Dr - Staff Report 2735 Burlingview Dr - Attachments 2735 Burlingview 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. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Albert Ho: I sent in my objection to the proposed project. One of the two points is the water situation . My concern was not addressed the first time. The recent rain has brought up the issue even more. I have seen rain water run off from the project property and I have shown pictures of the mud condition in my backyard. That needs to be remedied especially if they are putting on more changes. The amount and direction of water flow will be significant going into my property. Number two, I am not quite sure about the setback. Is the extension beyond the garage going towards my side of the property? I don ’t know enough of the requirements from the City in terms of setback from the boundary lines. I would like to make sure that the addition is within the setback requirements, because when I look from my backyard from two different perspectives, one from the lower level and one from the upper tier, it is blocking my view. These are the two things that I am concerned about. I ask that they address the water issue running down my backyard and make sure that the setback is within City limits, so the addition is not impeding my view and privacy. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider adding some landscape for screening to address the neighbor’s privacy concerns. >I like the project. Having gone back the second time to see the story poles, I still like how the project looks and the way it fits into that part of the neighborhood. Yes, it is big on one side, but that is the nature of these hillside lots. Looking at the setback, that piece over the garage is well within the 7-foot setback requirement on the side, so I am not too concerned about that. I didn ’t see where anybody else has hillside view issues. I’d like to see this project go forward. >I appreciate the applicant for anticipating and putting up the story poles. It really helps for all of us to be able to visually see the massing three -dimensionally and the spacing that the addition will take up. It does look large and looming on the hillside, but not much different from a lot of the homes in that neighborhood along the hill. I too can see support for the project and the special conditions that the applicant is asking for. I can see moving the project forward. >To follow up on my comments from the previous meeting about the second floor plate height, which was linked to whether the story poles will create problems for anyone. Since nobody has complained, I am okay with the Special Permit request for the second floor plate height. >Are civil drainage issues within our purview? It seems something that the Building Division will handle . (Hurin: Yes, that is correct. Drainage issues and complying with drainage requirements will be reviewed as part of the building permit, so there is really no need for a special condition of approval regarding that.) Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit, the site plan shall be revised to show additional landscape screening (tall hedge or trees) along the left side property line to screen the second floor addition; the screening shall be planted prior to the final inspection. Page 2City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.1829 Sebastian Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, Form+One, applicant and designer; Gina and Yousef Shamieh, property owners) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1829 Sebastian Dr - Staff Report 1829 Sebastian Dr - Attachments 1829 Sebastian Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid noted that he had a conversation with the property owner. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Tim (last name not provided): I know that the Planning Commission does not get involved over lot lines, but I believe the Planning Division needs to look at the lot lines. We have raised the question since the last meeting that the survey report submitted by the applicant is inconsistent with the County records and the actual physical building. It said 5’-7” from the property line to the building, but it is approximately 8 feet. Everybody is busy, the Planning Commission is busy, but the Planning Division and the County should look at it. Number two, the applicant said the proposed windows are shutters. What if one year later they change the shutters into windows? The Planning Commission needs to enforce and make sure that they use shutters instead of windows. The lot line issue involves everything. If the lot line is wrong, then everything is wrong. The City should look at it and the Commission should not ignore it. >Theresa (last name not provided): The drawings are confusing to me. It is hard for us to be convinced that these are shutters. I’m not good in looking at drawings, but I was wondering where the windows are actually located on the second floor? Are they facing east and south, but not on our end? >Christine Lee: I have the same question as Tim and Theresa. The windows that the architect mentioned as shutters, will that be facing only on my side of the property? Is that an operable window? Also, the property lot line is a concern for his side and my side, I don ’t know how to correct this. I didn ’t hire a surveyor because Tim and Theresa did, but I measured it personally and it is exactly the same, the lot line is 72 feet in front and then it goes straight up. It has to be cleared because that will be a problem later by the time we sell the property. >(Raduenz: Just a quick note to the comments from Tim at 1833 Sebastian Drive. They also hired a very seasoned surveyor. I think both the surveyors and owners can work it out themselves. Brian Taylor was their surveyor and we used Quiet River; they are very seasoned in Burlingame. This is not really a concern of the Planning Commission, it is more of a neighbor review. I think they are creating items to get the application off track, but this is an issue that the neighbors can work out themselves having two very capable surveyors.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 3City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider changing the roof profile to a real shed roof to make it look better. The proposed is a shed roof but does not have enough pitch to it. > I looked very closely on both surveys. There is a cap and rebar set, both surveys show that they are on the property line. The survey provided by the applicant shows the house footprint being 5 feet off the property line. The agreement is that the property line is at the same place. The neighbor ’s survey shows about 7’-6”. I think what happened is that Quiet River used the roof eave as their reference point from the property line. The property line is in the same spot on both surveys and the house is within the setback. I don’t think there is an issue there. The project designer is correct, if they want to get the two surveyors together, they can certainly iron it out. The discrepancy probably was because it was measured at the roof eave and not at the house footprint. >I’m glad that the applicant was willing to work with the neighbors to lower the plate height and the ridge height of the second floor roof. It probably is not the most attractive addition I ’ve seen but it works. I don ’t have any objection to it because the shuttered windows will work. It is a condition of approval, so if those were changed the neighbor could come back to the Planning Commission. I’m glad they were able to work it out, getting a little bit of an additional room, stayed within the height limit and not block any distant views. >Thank you for researching the property line, that was helpful for me. They have come a long way to address the concerns that we ’ve heard originally. They are allowed to have windows on the second floor, so it is quite neighborly to not put windows on that side. I don ’t think that is a requirement. I am happy with where they have landed. If the uphill neighbor does not think their view is blocked, then I am open to approving this project. >I am sympathetic to the applicant and the neighbors all trying to work together, but it looks an awful lot like things we would see before design review. I don ’t think it looks good. I don ’t understand that if they are not going to have windows on one side, then why even bother. Consider a pitched roof the other way, no windows on the other side and raised higher since they are way below the height limit. Then they will have a very nice and pretty modern view of the wall on one side. Honestly, it is really quite far away from the neighbor’s pool. I would love to find another solution. This is very unattractive. >I agree with my fellow commissioners that it is not the most attractive solution, but it is an effective solution. Any changes to the roof mean more height which then impacts the neighbor uphill and /or the right or left neighbors. If we are talking about the best compromise, it seems that the design team and the owner have come to that to try and minimize the impacts of this addition to the neighbors. Whether or not there are some more screening opportunity is fine. That is something that the neighbors can work out together. I agree that we should make the shutters a condition of approval that they are not actual windows. Given the use of that room, they don ’t really want windows on that side anyway. It works. I appreciate that story poles were put up. I couldn ’t even see the story poles from the street when I was out there. I don’t see a huge negative impact here. I’d like to see the project move forward. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the application with the following added condition: >that the second floor addition along the right (north) side property line shall only contain shutters (no windows) as shown on the Proposed Right Elevation, on sheet A3.2, date stamped February 16, 2023; any proposed change to add a window or windows on the second floor along the Right Elevation shall require an application for Amendment. Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Schmid, and Tse6 - Nay:Pfaff1 - c.2812 Rivera Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Page 4City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Robert Medan, applicant and architect; Ben and Laura Wylie, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2812 Rivera Dr - Staff Report 2812 Rivera Dr - Attachments 2812 Rivera Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Lowenthal noted that he was absent from the design review study meeting for this project but was able to watch the video and visit the property . Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with the neighbor at 2829 Rivera Drive to view the story poles from his living space. Commissioner Pfaff also noted that she had communication with the neighbors at 2829 Rivera Drive. Commissioner Tse noted that she communicated with the neighbors, Mark Sherwood and Terry Roberts, and both advised that it is no longer necessary for her to visit their homes. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Robert Medan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comments submitted via email by Bruce Thompson, 1600 Granada Drive: I object to the second story addition at 2812 Rivera Drive. I walk daily and most days walk down Rivera Drive. The story poles alerted me to the plan to add a second story. The Hillside Overlay Zone code states that “development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views” and specific to the homeowners on Rivera Drive. The second story addition impacts those of us who walk down Rivera Drive. It becomes apparent as one walks down Rivera Drive, the view of the airport and the bay above 2812 Rivera Drive begins to disappear. When you pass the home immediately west of the water towers, the airport and bay view is completely blocked. While the code is specific to Rivera Drive homeowners, I ask that consideration be given to those who walk through the neighborhood and from many vantage points, enjoy and appreciate the views which express the character of our neighborhood. There is a code that is specific to downhill views. Mills Estate homeowners are well aware of it. Why should anyone be deprived of it? Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider reaching out to the City Arborist or Parks Division regarding pruning of the City trees within the property and the street. >It is very tricky with the views and impacts. Cumulatively, there is a concern, I completely understand that. It is a very lovely job that the architect has done; it is very attractive. Regarding the existing trees on the street, suggest asking help from the City in pruning them. There is not enough blockage from what I saw from the two views that I have visited. It goes beyond hiding or obstructing the view of part of the hotel. I don’t know how narrowly we should see the definition of view. The bay certainly is there. The issue is more cumulative. The view issue can be greatly mitigated by pruning of some of the neighboring trees that go down the street. >The project looks really good there; it scales well. The challenge with that particular street, like many in the Mills Estate, is either do nothing or do something. Anything that you do is going to block and go up. That is not how we have held standards in other parts of the City. We looked really hard at this, looking at various neighbors’ views trying to get the right perspectives from the windows that they have. I saw very minimal view impact and mostly in the foreground of trees down below, not any distant view blockage. This is why the story poles have proven out to be valuable in this case and it helped the two uphill neighbors that were concerned about the views that they were going to lose. Again, it is an attractive solution and that they have worked hard to making it a good design. I am in support to move this Page 5City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes project forward. >I like the project and agree with my fellow commissioner. >I agree with my fellow commissioners, we should move this project forward. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - d.2615 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (1015 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2615 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2615 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2615 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit 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: >It's a beautiful project. I appreciate the applicant addressing the tree issue and several other comments regarding moving the front door to the center and such. It looks really good. >Likewise, I appreciate the applicant addressing the comments that we had. It's a nice improvement to the already very nice design. Commissioner Tse 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 - e.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved new, two -story single family dwelling with an attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Erik Chan, Bay 9 Architects, applicant and architect; Thomas Lo, property owner) (58 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 6City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1549 Los Montes Dr - Staff Report 1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments 1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Erik Chan, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Jill (last name not provided): Our property is to the rear of the project and I wonder where the new windows are located on the back of the house. There were no windows in the original plan, so I wonder where those new windows are. Can you show the new plans for the rear of the house? Are there any changes? (Hurin: There are no windows proposed on the 2nd floor.) How about the height of the 2nd floor, is it changing? (Hurin: The height was originally approved at 29 feet above average top of curb and that is not changing with this proposal. The proposed changes are to the windows, not to the height of the building.) >Public comments submitted via email by Shan and Craig Hou: Hi, we received the public hearing notice for 1549 Los Montes Drive. We may not be able to attend the meeting due to our existing schedule . Our main concerns regarding the new proposed plans are as follows. Number 1, the newly proposed upper floor layout places a bedroom in front of the house where a bathroom is eliminated and this is the only room that has access to both balconies. This makes the bedroom essentially a living room or a common area that has large sliding doors to the deck. Potentially the side deck would be a gathering or observation area that overlooks our house and our backyard. Number 2, we also question why the side deck does not require a Special Permit, the proposed deck is 195 square feet. Code 25.10.035 - Special Permit requirements in the R -1 Zoning Districts - states that a Special Permit is required for “any second-floor deck or balcony up to a maximum of 75 ft and/or to exceed the maximum required side setback for a second -floor deck or balcony. Second floor deck and balcony shall not be designed as viewing platforms and shall consider surrounding context including window location of adjacent properties ”. The proposed deck will be facing our kitchen window and door. Our understanding is that the second -floor balcony and deck cannot exceed 75 ft. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to consider the above items. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Just for clarification for the last member of the public who spoke, this project was approved more than a year ago, if I'm not mistaken. The code is changed since then regarding second floor balconies /decks, however these decks were approved with that original approval. That is not in our purview tonight. We are only looking at the changes to the window locations that the applicant is asking for. >I don't have any issues with the proposed changes. >I would like to say thank you to the applicant and the architect for submitting these changes and giving us the opportunity to have this discussion before it can be built and nothing can be changed . Thank you for following the process. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 7City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes f.1137 Clovelly Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Exterior Side Setback Variance and Rear Setback Variance for first floor additions 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. (Soe Naing Win, applicant and designer; Bryce Bewley, property owner) (73 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1137 Clovelly Ln - Staff Report 1137 Clovelly Ln - Attachments 1137 Clovelly Ln - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Pfaff noted that she did not visit the project site but did review the plans. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Soe Naing Win, designer and Bruce Bewley, property owner, 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’m really not in support of this project or legitimizing these changes. The accessory structure should be an accessory structure. If it is connected to the house, it's a house addition. The encroachment into the side setback is wrong. It doesn't really go with any of the other houses in the neighborhood along the street in the way that the setback works. I don't agree that the accessory structure really matches the house and it doesn't add any value to it. Since the only thing being done here is the interior work, that wouldn't change because of this approval. The attachment to the accessory structure really makes it part of the house and if it's going to be part of the house then it should be treated as such. It should follow the setback rules and it should actually look like the rest of the house. Similarly, the closet doesn't look good. Again, it's in a setback area that is meant to be there, and you see the rhythm of all the other houses on the street. I don't see that we should legitimize that either. I'm not really in support of legitimizing the unpermitted work and it goes without even knowing if any of that work was ever inspected . If we legitimize and say it's fine as it is, we are also taking the risk of the work that has never been inspected and we are just pushing this down the stream. I don't think that this is a good thing. >I don't know if it's even possible or if staff has looked at this. Is there a way to make that addition or attached room to become a Junior ADU and does it fit the criteria for a Junior ADU? I'm not sure that's what we want to do, but I’m just trying to think outside the box here because a Junior ADU can be attached to the house, right? (Spansail: That's good feedback for the applicant for something to investigate. It's not something that we can really discuss because the discussion is out of our preview, but that's a great topic to bring up for the applicant to consider.) >This is a tough one. I hate to handicap a new owner if they may have been misguided during the sales process. There are obviously legal remedies they can pursue and that's not really our purview. What I ’m more concerned about is what my fellow commissioner alluded to regarding the building inspection. As a contractor myself, I ’m concerned that this is even done to any sort of sustainable way considering what it looks like, it doesn't look that great from the outside. I have a feeling that the foundational support, the framing, the electrical, and the plumbing is probably not to code. I would be more willing to look at a Page 8City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes project if there are some building inspections done to see the validity of this existing structure. If they happened to pour footings and do foundations that match current building codes and it wasn't dangerous, then maybe I’d be a little bit more willing to accept the planning part of it. We feel bad for the owner, but then we put them in a dangerous situation where they are remodeling a structure that really isn't safe. I’m not sure how that actually works. In the building inspection process the inspector would come and say “unfortunately you have insufficient members or foundations .” I'm assuming a structural engineer would also find that out as well. But a structural engineer needs to review this before I’d be willing to approve it. >I agree with what my fellow commissioner said. I understand that the Building Department does not regularly but has carried out such post -construction inspections of projects or parts of the project that were not built with a permit, so I don't know if this could be made. If we were to move the project along, this would be made a condition of approval or might be required anyway by the Building Department. But I was wondering how much of that do you feel would be applicable to this project if you were moving it forward because I’m concerned with well for the life safety issues. (Hurin: All the commissioners have made really good points. Any proposed remodeling or any unpermitted work that has occurred would be inspected by the building inspector. Sometimes they must uncover and take the sheetrock off to expose electrical wiring, plumbing, etc. Sometimes they must x -ray foundations to ensure it was installed correctly or built correctly according to code, if not they have to rebuild it. I just wanted to assure the commissioners that any unpermitted work that happened here definitely must be inspected and approved by the building inspector. They could go in there now and look at what's been done. If anything gets approved moving forward, both the new work and the unpermitted work would have to be inspected by the inspectors.) >The removal of the accessory structure component and turning the interior wall into a new exterior wall looks easy on paper. It looks like just take that wall down and now you've got the exterior wall. But there's potentially significant foundation work related to that and construction of that wall properly as an exterior wall, finishes and everything. Obviously, there's roofing work and it almost seemed like it would be easier just to take that down to meet the setback requirements and build it properly. So, I don't know whether it's acceptable to say we’re just taking those walls down or we're just going to take this interior wall, that's also nonconforming and present that as an approved plan. >I don't disagree with my fellow commissioners. My only concern is that the City kind of dropped the ball on this. This was a complaint a decade ago and it was never followed up on properly. There is some kind of accountability on the City's part that maybe we can help with and how we think about this project. >I would have to agree with most of the comments that have been made already. I'm uncomfortable with blessing this as a part of the house because it was an accessory structure. Looking at it from the outside, I agree with the other contractors that are on the commission that the quality of the work doesn't indicate that this was done properly from the get -go, especially if it was an accessory structure. Usually, you see that as something of a shed type and then to add it into a house; I ’m not comfortable with that. I understand my fellow commissioner ’s comments, I think that the City got a little bit duped the by the illness comments and pretty quickly they decided to sell the house. Maybe there was a little bit of shifty work by the previous owner and not being forthright with a new buyer. There's a legal channel that could be pursued there if they decided to. All that being said, I can't support the variances for most of the reasons that were laid out here already. I don't think it would have been approved if we had seen this as an application from the beginning. Honestly, having worked on some of these types of things, you're better off to just tear it down and start over. Then you can get something that's going to be the quality that you want . That's going to go the way you want and that's going to look like it belongs with the house. So, for this reason, I can't support the application for the variances. Chair Gaul re-opened the public hearing. >(Bewley: Just to fully understand your proposed path forward, the suggestion would be to demolish the entire existing structure or just the unpermitted section and the shed. Just trying to understand what the permission is looking for as we can look to revise plans. I would assume would be back here for approval, so that would be helpful to know.) >In summary, my viewpoint on a personal and professional level is that you should be looking to have this built to code and engineered. Even a one -story house needs to be engineered. You would be wise to Page 9City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes have all that checked and then come back with a plan where your engineer thinks it's solid and it can work then great, but it should be incorporated into addition on the house that would be acceptable and within the site setback and rear setback lines. >The good news for you is that, if you do make all the planning guidelines meet properly with a redesign, you won't have to see as again because this would be just a straightforward permit submission and you will not be coming to the Planning Commission because it's single story. >(Bewley: Understood, thank you very much. I believe we did have a structural engineer review the plan, but I assume the requirement is for a structural engineer to review the existing structure.) >Regarding the comment about the ADU, I would rip everything off the back of the house, go back to the main house and then design an appropriate ADU because that back structure is not doing you any favors. It's square footage that is not well invested and it's not going to improve the value of the house. It's going to deteriorate. If you really step back and look at your investment, put it into a good structure at the back and be able to follow the code, it's going to add value to the house. It's not just going to be in appendage. I agree that it's more expensive and it's a hard thing, but really think about what you're going to invest in and the amount of time and effort that it takes to go through this remodel process. Try to do it the right way so that you'll be happy in the long run. >(Hurin: The solution as Commissioner Tse pointed out may not require the applicant to return to the Planning Commission. Just keep in mind that some single -story additions still trigger design review . However, there are also ways to design the addition so that it complies with all the requirements and does not require design review.) >If they can come back with an appropriate solution that we can help them with, great. I don't want to be difficult for the owner, but I also don't want to set a precedent that we are willing to let nonconforming work be approved like this, especially nonconforming work that is not even close. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - g.765 Airport Boulevard, zoned BFC - Application for Special Permit for hotel parking reduction. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Luis Angelo, LA One Architecture, applicant and architect; Bayside 765, LLC, property owner) (7 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 765 Airport Blvd - Staff Report 765 Airport Blvd - Attachments 765 Airport Blvd - 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. Luis Angulo and Brent Lynch represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Ethan Rebellos: I was reviewing the plans for converting the Hilton Garden Inn to a Courtyard Marriott. I welcome the change and believe that it is suitable for Burlingame. I want to express my hope that the conversation will take full advantage of this location next to the trail and the lagoon. A few weeks ago, I was in Reno for business and stayed at a Courtyard adjacent to the Truckee River. They had a wonderful patio with fire pits. It was a nice place for me to get a breath of fresh air, take calls and later in the day unwind from a busy day. Frankly, someone who works remotely, I would Page 10City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes appreciate a location like this to have in-person meetings. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >If you guys are re -branding, I would hope that gets you at 20 years of not having to come back to this site, but then we’re not really ever going to address sea -level rise and anything about the Bay Trail. I know we may not be requiring it based on this level of remodel, but I would encourage the applicant to make the whole Bay Trail experience and the sea -level rise meditation work. It is good for all the landowners in this area. I would hope that even if it ’s not a requirement, there's a voluntary effort to connect with your neighbors. >In reviewing the parking study and understanding how these kinds of hotels work, I could totally see supporting the reduction. This is not one of the roadside hotels were everybody's driving to it. I go to this kind of hotel all the time using Uber and don't have a car. I don't know that the one -for-one parking rule is necessary for this location. Given its use, I felt that they've done a good job in the report. I could support this request. >The parking study put at rest any issues we may have with the Special Permit request even on their most busiest day. It's less than half of what the demand would be for the volume. On the sea -level rise, of course it's concerning but, do we start singling this out? It should be a City -sponsored requirement along the bayfront if it's going to have any attraction. I’m certainly in favor for this project. I'd like to see it move forward. >That's a really good point. It normally is a requirement of the City. Maybe it's not on the site. It's just that the extent and the scope of this project is not enough to trigger working on that. That's probably what it is because it's minor, but it is a point well taken. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, 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.1213 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -3 - Application for Design Review and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new 4-story, 6-unit multi-unit residential building. (Antonio M. Brandi, applicant and architect; Maria and Jose Montes, property owners ) (116 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1213 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1213 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1213 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Antonio Brandi, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Talian and Ben Tascian, 1205, 1207 and 1209 Capuchino Avenue: We are the adjoining property owners immediately adjacent to the subject property. We have some serious concerns about the structural integrity of excavating two floors down. It looks like from what the architect said it will go under Page 11City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes our property line. It comes immediately to the end of our property, so that's going to compromise the structural integrity of our building. We ask that there is some setback clearance. I'm not sure what type of construction would be required but we certainly don't consent to anyone excavating under our property line and would like for the commission to take into consideration the implications to our building built in the 1930s. There is a secondary concern. Currently, the subject property has a driveway that abuts our building. Our building has a little alley behind it, and we have three tenants in our building. Historically, this alley is where our tenants store their trash bins and on trash days would move it in front for pick up and then move back to the rear. What is being proposed currently will completely remove the access to the rear of our building and that presents health and safety issue for us. We are not opposed to working with them so that they have success with this development. It is important for us that there be some access to that side and rear of the building. We are highly concerned about the excavation below the property line and also the height. >Public comment sent via email by Doug Bojack: I am very pleased to see this small -scale developer providing critical missing middle housing. As I hope you know, missing middle housing refers to small-scale multifamily housing that includes smaller apartment buildings compatible with walkable neighborhoods . These types of development are a key way to increase housing density in a neighborhood-friendly way. Off-street parking requirements have a tremendous impact on this type of small-scale residential infill. On most small lots, missing middle housing works well when parking requirements are reasonable (1 per unit or less). When parking requirements are high, they significantly increase development costs through required garage construction or reduce the usable portion of the property through reserving the amount of space needed for parking. Both of these outcomes restrict housing production and raise rents, exacerbating California's extreme housing problems. Here, there is no call for the dramatic size of the vehicle storage mandate imposed on this development, which is nearly double the number of housing units. This location has a Walk Score of 91 out of 100, what is called a Walker's Paradise score, where daily errands do not require a car. There is a grocery store a block away, several preschools within 1000 feet, the Easton Branch library and Roosevelt Elementary less than half a mile away, and the Millbrae BART/Caltrain station within reach of a short bike ride. And yet, Burlingame zoning requires this developer to construct a car elevator to access underground parking for this small apartment building. Finally, as a result of prioritizing cars, there does not appear to be any secure bicycle storage for the apartment residents, which further hampers Burlingame's vision as a walkable town or as a climate leader. I ask that each of you visit the Strong Towns website, where you'll see that Burlingame lags behind hundreds of jurisdictions across the US that have eliminated parking minimums requirements, and I urge the Commission and staff to work on reducing or eliminating parking minimums that restrict such important neighborhood-level housing production like this. >Public comment sent via email by Davina Drapkin, 1224 Capuchino Avenue: I have lived at 1224 Capuchino since 1997 and support well planned increases to housing density. As you review this project and consider a conditional use permit, please ensure that the project provides adequate on -site parking. The 1200 block of Capuchino is already very crowded with cars parking on the street. In addition to current residents of the 1200 block, patrons and employees of local businesses regularly park on this block. There is no capacity for additional parking demand on the street. >Public comment sent via email by Jake Cosenza: I wanted to share a quick message of support for the 1213 Capuchino Avenue project. This is a great use of lot currently underutilized and adjacent to Broadway. Hoping to see this design gets approved. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >There is a very lovely tree way back, almost at the property line. I hope that you'd be able to at least rescue that one because it's there and it has a presence. >Some of the drawings don't render all the way and it's not very clear. Page 12City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >I'm in favor of the project as a concept but I ’m not in love with the design. I tried to get my subjectivity out of things like this but this building harkens the 1990s to me. I don't even have a big problem with the shape. My fellow commissioner's points about the structure are absolutely valid. I just feel that the structural engineers and the Building Department will take care of that. I don't know how much we need to care but I hear you when you ask why in architecture, they design something that we know can be structurally flawed? I totally understand that. With that being said, I like the idea of density. I like the idea of the improvement. I feel that the design needs a little bit of tinkering. I don't know if the design review consultant is the appropriate avenue here. >There is something glaring here that wouldn't be that difficult to do. I didn't realize that the lower podium is a structural element. It would look so much better in a different style of architecture, if it didn't look like a 90s structure where we see a lot of things exposed. I am really having trouble with a piece in the front that is covering the stairs. If there is a way to remedy it? Perhaps having nothing or having a nice rail that goes up and down that almost disappears, and changing the shape of the arched openings. It is light-colored; maybe we don't get into the color that much, but the light color in this case really make it stand out as the balcony. We are not nitpicking, our goal is to make it a beautiful project. The scale is pretty nice. It is a good use of a very small narrow lot, but it is not just the area. >We need to take this project a little further. I don't see that I could approve it with the current design that is in front of us today. I feel like it's more of 1990s building and there are so many ways to create some pretty buildings. That area of Capuchino Avenue has some really beautiful Spanish -style buildings down the street. I know they are condominiums, but they did a pretty nice job down the street. This needs another round on the design. >As my fellow commissioner just stated, on that street there are several examples of buildings that has a nice class into them. There are some fine traditional details here and there amongst the building. In the area, it's almost historical looking. I know that the applicant mentioned that they are going for more of a contemporary style. I don't see this as a contemporary style design. The curve, a turret at the front, covering the staircase reminds me of the post modernism era. I don't really see it working with the finishes. The shape of the building is nice, and the floor plans look great. The massing of the structure in general is really about the finishing touches. We don't generally approve vinyl windows either. The applicant mentioned that they want the project to look very residential. There are number of other window types that would be a better solution and would probably provide a better detailing to carry out a more finesse look for this building. The finishes on that podium level needs a little attention. If it's a structural element, that is fine. There are many beautiful finishes these days that are structural materials. I would like to request a finish board to be presented to us to see exactly what materials are being presented for review and approval. Overall, I definitely support the project. I like the floor plan, it's shape and it's massing. It's a matter of exterior finishes. >I am in support of the use of this location. The scale is fine. I’m concerned with the uphill slope of the property and how that is going to interact with adjoining neighbors. There needs to be more effort put in upfront to show the impacts to the adjoining neighbors so that it can be a supported project and addresses their concerns. I am not finding any love with the materials that are being presented. I agree with my fellow commissioner that a material board is critical because what is being represented doesn't move me at all. The front entry stair, I understand is intended for an exit, is placed inside in most buildings. That thing is covering the public entry door to get to this building. I realize that the residents are going to go into the garage and use the elevator, but this doesn't really have a public sense of arrival. The proposed design just blocks all of that and distracts from the building itself. I agree with the plan, the size and the scale of work, but nothing on the outside is working for me right now. I am not getting the architectural style and I'm not feeling good with the materials. I would like to see this get developed more . I would hate to push this forward and then be forced into a decision in action meeting and have to deny it . I would really recommend quite a bit more work on this before we can move this forward. >I would agree on that last comment. This project does need a lot of work. I agree that having six units is great. I like the floor plans. All the comments have been really good. The stairway in front absolutely doesn't work with that covering on it. Consider relocating it inside. The applicant wanted to have a residential look, and this doesn't have a residential look because of the architectural style and the materials being proposed. I just want to reiterate that. The vinyl windows will look bad, and you'll be hard-pressed to find a solid wood window right now unless you had them custom made. Most of them are Page 13City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes using a fiber or laminated clad with metal. I've used them in apartment buildings and they work great. I know we don't get into colors, but I don't think a green roof is going to go with just about anything. I don't know what to do with the project that we ’ve got. It has a long way to go. I don't even know if we have design review consultant for a multifamily project; it almost feels like it could use that. If we get more of a traditional look out of it, unless the architect wants to take another stab at it, maybe we can have a discussion on that. Everyone thinks that it could use some help from a design review consultant. >Yes, we have the option to a design review consultant, which some have done multifamily projects that are at least duplexes, and they are all resident architects. I’m sure they are capable of taking direction and helping the applicant implement the direction. >Because it's not layout related, I wouldn't want the comment from the adjacent neighbor to get lost regarding their access. For the record, whatever they come up with, ensure that the folks can still maneuver back there and consider the whole structural issue with the property line. >I did notice the little alley too, there is a little table back in there. It looks like a nice little hideaway. >The adjoining neighbors needs to confirm whether they have an easement to this. There are times when a commercial building will have an easement on an adjacent property for ingress and egress purposes. If that's in place, then we have something to talk about. But if that is not in place, I don't know if we can make the property owner change the way they are going to use their property because the adjacent owner doesn't have an easement. If it is going to a design review consultant, then it comes back as a Study item. I don't want this to come back as an Action item and we have no second chance at this . I want to help them get through this, but at the same time I don't want to be handcuffed if they don't come back with a solution that we feel is good because it is going to be a substantial change, not just a minor change here. >We need this to be helpful to the applicant. Our main reason for this to go to a designer review consultant is to get them the assistance, for this to hopefully comeback to us approvable and not just send them out there to go round after round. We must go forward with this in a manner so that they can get everything necessary to assist them with the design and finishes, that's what the design review consultant will help with. Most of us have said that the floor plans are fine and that the shaping, massing and height are fine. >There were opposing comments on the number of parking spaces. I didn't know if you have any direction for them. The applicant provided 13 parking spaces for six units. Those seem to be counter to what we are trying to do about use of public transportation and minimize cars. It might allow some design freedom if they were able to have some leeway on the number of parking spaces. >There is some new state law that does allow for reduced parking or not having a minimum parking requirement for projects that are within one -half mile of transit, that would certainly help with this. I also would like to note that we must be careful on the number of meetings that we have this project go through based on the Housing Accountability Act. >With regards to the parking, I knew there were a few comments on that. I also want to be mindful that when we listen to the closing down of Broadway for activities and things, all we heard was that side streets are fully parked and that we have a parking shortage off Broadway. We need to be mindful that we ’re not flipping this the other way and say “no parking” that we eventually are making that area worse. Does it need the full 11 parking spaces? Maybe not, but it may not change how they build the building. It is a structure with two levels of parking. >Maybe we do consider reducing a little bit of the parking, although I ’m opposed to that. I know how busy Capuchino Avenue is because I grew up on those streets. Those streets are packed with cars. It is even hard to get down now. If we are going to reduce the parking requirements, maybe that's where we can put some bikes so people can have an area to put some bikes down there. That might be a good option. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, 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 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. Page 14City of Burlingame February 27, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that the next Planning Commission meeting on March 13, 2023 will be in person and via Zoom. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:02 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, February 27, 2023 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 February 27, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 9, 2023, 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 15City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Design Review and Special Permit Address: 1204 Mills Avenue Meeting Date: March 13, 2023 Request: Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Architect: Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure APN: 026-071-050 Property Owner: Susan and Timothy Fisher Lot Area: 6,012 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling with a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish all structures on the site and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and new detached one-car garage. The project proposes a total floor area of 3,190 SF (0.53 FAR) where 3,336 SF (0.56 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes 135 SF front porch exemption). The new dwelling would contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The new detached garage measures 10’-0” x 18’-0” (clear interior dimensions) and provides the required covered parking; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. The applicant is also requesting a Special Permit for building height (31’-0” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed without approval of a Special Permit). Planning staff would note that the subject site is in a flood zone and must have a raised finished floor to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. There are no existing landscape trees on site. With this project, three new 24 -inch box landscape trees are proposed which complies with the reforestation ordinance requirements. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes a detached accessory dwelling unit (373 SF) that is attached to the proposed detached single-car garage and located in the rear yard. 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 applications:  Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)); and  Special Permit for building height (31’-0” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030 and 25.78.020(A)(1)). Item No. 8a Regular Action Item Design Review and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue -2- 1204 Mills Avenue Lot Area: 6,012 SF Plans date stamped: February 28, 2023 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 17’-6” 21’-8” 16’-8” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left ): (right): 11’-6” 5’-6” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 32’-7” 46’-9” 15'-0" 20'-0" Garage Setback : 1'-9" 1'-6" Lot Coverage: 2,381 SF 39.6% 2,405 SF 40% FAR: 3,190 SF 0.53 FAR 3,336 SF 1 0.56 FAR # Of bedrooms: 4 --- Off Street Parking: 1 covered (10' x 18' clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (10' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Building Height: 31’-0” 2 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies C.S. 25.10.55(A)(1) 1 (0.32 x 6,012 SF) + 1,100 SF + 312 SF = 3,336 SF (0.56 FAR). 2 Special Permit for building height (31’-0” proposed, where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood entry and ga rage door • Siding: combination of wood shingle with mitered corners and wood vertical siding • Roof: composition shingle • Other: steel railing, stone cladding at front water table and at chimney Staff Comments: None. Design Review and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue -3- Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on February 13, 202 3, 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 February 13, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans dated F ebruary 28, 202 3, to address the Planning Commission’s comments and suggestions. Please refer to the applic ant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021, are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 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 cons istency 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 style of the house will blend with the fabric of the existing neighborhood based on the proposed traditional mass forms such as the gable roofs and the variety of exterior building materials and architectural details, such as the covered front porch, wood shingle siding, a wood entry door, painted wood trim and corbels, stone clad base at the front and left elevations, and aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites, complement the architectural style of the house and are compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio and declining height envelope requirements. For these re asons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Design Review and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue -4- Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the p roposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential desig n guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements, and that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit (Building Height): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new single -unit dwelling are consistent with two-story structures in the n eighborhood, including the traditional gabled rooflines for the dwelling. 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure are consistent with the nei ghborhood, that the one -foot ridgeline encroachment is necessary to accommodate existing grade slopes on the lot, that the raised finished floor heights required for the structure to meet flood zone requirements, and that the roof ridge encroachment beyond the 30 ’-0” height limit is centered on the property and runs parallel to the side property lines so that the length of the encroachment is not visible from the street. 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 applic ation 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 February 28, 2023, sheets A.1 through A.8, and Topographic and Boundary Survey dated February 2022; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; Design Review and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue -5- 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction, and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SH ALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the buildi ng footprint, and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 12. that prior to scheduling the frami ng 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. Design Review and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue -6- Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant Attachments: February 13, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated February 28, 2023 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Neighbor Letter dated February 14, 2023 Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 3, 2023 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 13, 2023 a.2615 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (1015 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner 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: >The renderings help quite a bit. >Given that we are just looking at the house across the street and having the same issues of downhill slope, side-to-side, these drawings have handled it well. When you look at the elevations, they have clearly delineated the change in grade from side -to-side and show how they are addressing that. This is a good example of a hillside plan set that makes it really easy to see the challenges on the site. >I like how the architecture addresses the area and the way it is working dimensionally on the site. I have no issues with the height variance request. It seems very reasonable given how the site works. >It is a nice looking project and I’d like to see it move forward. >Suggests to look into the roof configuration to the left of Bathroom #4 to get rid of the nested gable. It may help improve the roof plan and the front elevation a little bit. >Look into giving the staircase some exposure to windows facing the street. >I can understand the request for the height variance. I would really like to see the significant tree at the front as shown on the renderings. It should also be shown on the plans. Page 1City of Burlingame Architecture Allure, Inc. 51 Somerset Street San Francisco, CA 94134 (650) 208-1204 (415) 876-8779 www.archallure.com February 28th, 2023 City of Burlingame Study Session Design Review Response Letter Re: Fisher Residence – Study Session Design Review Response Letter 1204 Mills Avenue APN: 026-071-050 Study Session Design Review Comments: The ADU at the rear of the site must have a standard door entry. Currently the only entry is through folding/sliding doors and a standard door entry must be added to meet requirements. Response: A standard entry door has been added to the ADU, see the floor plan on sheet 2/A3. Consider additional exterior detailing - ie. larger window trim, corbels at the gables Response: Trim at the windows and doors has been revised with wider head/jamb casing as well as sills with small apron below. Corbels have been added at the gable ends. Pay attention to the detailing at the material transitions - particularly the porch columns to stone at the porch. Response: The intention is to keep the wood post/beam detailing clean/minimal at the entry porch. To address the connection to the stone porch, base trim has been added to the posts to tie in with the height of the bottom rail of the connecting guardrails, see 1/A5. Concerns with the vertical board siding at the side elevation extending to the planting beds at the ground - consider breaking up the siding or address the way it interacts with the planting/ground. Response: Base stone cladding has been added to connect the elevated front entry porch to the rear elevated terrace. This continuation of stone creates a termination for both the shingle and vertical boarding siding that gives separation from grade/plantings, see 1/A6. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Adam Bittle Architecture Allure, Inc. (650) 208-1204 adam@archallure.com 9/30/2022 RECEIVED City of Burlingame CDD-Planning DIV 10.07.22 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review and Special Permit for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage at 1204 Mills Avenue, Zone R-1, Susan and Timothy Fisher, property owners, APN: 026-071-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 13, 2023, 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 and Special Permit are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review and Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 13th day of March , 2023 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue Effective March 23 , 2023 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 28, 2023, sheets A.1 through A.8, and Topographic and Boundary Surve y dated February 2022 ; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Plannin g 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 remova l 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 rem ain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions o f approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction, and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, and Special Permit 1204 Mills Avenue Effective March 23 , 2023 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint, and certify the first-floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 11. 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 proje ct falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 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. 1204 Mills Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-071-050 2.5011.50 SECOND FLOORSHOWN DASHEDGROUND FLOORSHOWN WITHSOLID LINET26.91 7.0012.0012.081.5010.23UVW SECOND FLOOROVERHANG SHOWN WITHDIAGONAL HATCHAREA OF GROUND FLOORDECK OVER 30" ABOVEEXISTING GRADE SHOWNWITH CROSS HATCHWD5'-0"52.6617.50 9.1714.5017.507.6721.6715.0012.50 15.9813.736.2721.272.9223.445.0012.75 1.50 4.67ABDEGHJICF14.505.642.92K1.272.36L MSRQPON34.4813.5012.5014.00 15.002.5015.009.334.7712.7313.50 15.50 17.00 14.95 DRAWING INDEXAdam BittleARCHITECT:Tel: (650) 208-1204OWNER:PROJECT DIRECTORYadam@archallure.com·A1COVER SHEET, PROJECT DATA, AREA CALCULATIONS·SU-1BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY·A2EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLANS·A3GROUND FLOOR, ADU/GARAGE AND SECOND FLOOR PLANS·A4 ROOF PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT·A5MAIN HOUSE ELEVATIONS·A6MAIN HOUSE ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS·A7ADU/GARAGE ELEVATIONS AND SECTION·A8LANDSCAPE PLAN, MATERIALS & INSPIRATIONArchitecture Allure, Inc.51 Somerset StreetSan Francisco, CA 94134Sue and Tim Fisher1204 Mills AvenueBurlingame, CA 94010SCOPE OF WORKDEMOLISH EXISTING RESIDENCE, CONSTRUCT NEW TWO STORY RESIDENCEWITH DETACHED GARAGE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.FISHER RESIDENCE1204 MILLS AVENUE, BURLINGAMESCALE: AS NOTEDFLOOR AREA CALCS,PROJECT DATA,COVER SHEET,A1PROJECT DATAPROJECT LOCATION:1204 MILLS AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CAA.P.N.: 026-071-050ZONING: R-1STORIES:2LOT AREA:6,012 SFCONSTRUCTION TYPE:VBOCCUPANCY:R-3/UPLANNING DEPARTMENT STATISTICSSIZE OF PROPERTY:6,012 SFPROPOSED CONDITIONS:GROUND FLOOR 1,563.24 SFSECOND FLOOR1,297.23 SFCOVERED FRONT PORCH134.23 SFDETACHED GARAGE313.46 SFACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT372.51 SFTOTAL PROPOSED3,680.65 SF*SEE FAR AND LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS, THIS SHEET.Bryan G. TaylorSURVEYOR:Tel: (650) 212-1030bgtInfo@bgtsurveying.comBGT Land Surveying1206 S. Amphlett Blvd. Suite 3San Mateo, CA 94402VICINITY MAPGENERAL NOTES1.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE 2022 RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2022CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, 2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, 2022 CALIFORNIAPLUMBING CODE, 2022 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE, 2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE,2022 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, AND 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDSALONG WITH ANY OTHER LOCAL AND STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. IN THE EVENTOF CONFLICT THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL APPLY.3.EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BEBUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATED CONSTRUCTION. 2022 CBC, TABLE 705.5.4.BASEMENTS, HABITABLE ATTICS AND EVERY SLEEPING ROOM SHALL HAVE NOT LESSTHAN ONE OPERABLE EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENING. CRC R310.15.GRADING PERMIT, IF REQUIRED, WILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC WORKS.6.FOR ALL SOLID WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE DEVICES, FIREPLACE TO MEET ALLREQUIREMENTS AS A U.S.EPA PHASE II CERTIFIED WOOD-BURNING DEVICE.7.CHIMNEYS SHALL EXTEND NOT LESS THAN 2 FEET HIGHER THAN ANY PORTION OF ABUILDING WITHIN 10 FEET, BUT SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 3 FEET ABOVE THE HIGHESTPOINT WHERE THE CHIMNEY PASSES THROUGH THE ROOF. 2022 CRC 1003.9.8.ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THE CITY, REGARDLESS OF SIZE, SHALL COMPLYWITH THE CITY'S STORM WATER NPDES PERMIT TO PREVENT CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITY STORMWATER POLLUTION. CONTRACTORS SHALL IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATEAND EFFECTIVE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) DURING ALL PHASES OFCONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING DEMOLITION.9.ANY HIDDEN CONDITIONS THAT REQUIRE WORK TO BE PERFORMED BEYOND THESCOPE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR THESE PLANS MAY REQUIRE FURTHERCITY APPROVALS INCLUDING REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.10.GREEN BUILDING MANDATORY MEASURES CHECKLIST WILL BE INCLUDED WITH PLANSFOR BUILDING CODE PLAN CHECK.11.DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE NATURE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THE CERTIFICATEOF OCCUPANCY WILL BE RESCINDED ONCE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS. A NEWCERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL BE ISSUED AFTER THE PROJECT HAS BEENFINALIZED. NO OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING IS TO OCCUR UNTIL A NEW CERTIFICATEOF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN ISSUED.12.A COMPLETED SUPPLEMENTAL DEMOLITION PERMIT APPLICATION WILL BE PROVIDEDWHEN PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR PLAN REVIEW. NOTE: ADEMOLITION PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FORTHE PROJECT.13.THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REACH CODEORDINANCE #1979 WHICH WENT INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 16, 2020.LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO DIAGRAMSLOT COVERAGEMAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE:.40 X 6,012 SF = 2,404.8 SFPROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:GROUND FLOOR (MINUS AREA C) = 1,690.46 SFOVERHANG (AREA T) = 28.75 SFDECK (AREAS U, V, & W) = 348.68GARAGE = 313.46 SFTOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE = 2,381.34 SFCOMPLIESFLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATIONMAXIMUM ALLOWED FAR:(.32 X 6,012 SF) + 1,100 + (UP TO 400 SF IN ADETACHED SINGLE CAR GARAGE):3,023 SF + 313.46 = 3,337.3 SFCOVERED FRONT PORCH UP TO 200 SF, CHIMNEYS,AND ADUS ARE EXEMPT FROM FARGROUND FLOOR (MINUS AREA C & G) = 1,556.23 SFGARAGE313.46 SFSECOND FLOOR = 1,297.23 SFTOTAL PROPOSED FAR = 3,166.92 SFCOMPLIESCONSTRUCTION HOURSNO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTEROR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWINGHOURS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF URGENT NECESSITY IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLICHEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THEN ONLY WITH PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THEBUILDING OFFICIAL, WHICH APPROVAL SHALL BE GRANTED FOR A PERIOD NOT TOEXCEED THREE DAYS. HOLIDAYS ARE THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, THE THIRD MONDAYOF FEBRUARY, THE LAST MONDAY OF MAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, THE FIRSTMONDAY OF SEPTEMBER, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, THE FOURTH THURSDAYIN NOVEMBER AND THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER. IF THE FIRST DAY OFJANUARY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, OR THETWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER FALLS UPON A SUNDAY, THE FOLLOWING MONDAY ISA HOLIDAY.CONSTRUCTION HOURSWEEKDAYS: 8:00 AM TO 7:00 PMSATURDAYS: 9:00 AM TO 6:00 PMSUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS: NO WORK ALLOWED(SEE THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 18.07.110 FOR DETAILS)FISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 CALCULATIONSCONFIRMATION THAT THE FIRST FLOOR HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT THEDESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION WILL BE REQUIRED WITH THE COMPLETION ANDSUBMITTAL OF AN ELEVATION CERTIFICATE WITH ISSUANCE OF A LETTER OFMAP AMENDMENT (LOMA) FROM FEMA SHOWING THE THAT THE STRUCTURESHAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE FLOOD ZONE. A COPY OF THE LOMA ISREQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL.FLOOD HAZARD NEIGHBORING RESIDENCENEIGHBORING ACCESSORYSTRUCTUREMILLS AVENUE (E) WATER METERGAS METERELECTRICAL METERNEIGHBORING RESIDENCEPROPERTY LINE = 120.24'N53° 15' 00"WPROPERTY LINE = 120.23'S53°15' 00"EPROPERTY LINE = 50' N36° 45' 20"E PROPERTY LINE = 50'N36° 44' 24"W15'-0" GROUNDFLOOR SETBACK20'-0" SECONDFLOOR SETBACK17'-6" GROUNDFLOOR SETBACK21'-8" PROPOSED SECONDFLOOR SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK GRADE ELEV.= 13.74'GRADE ELEV.= 13.30'GRADE ELEV.= 11.82'GRADE ELEV.= 11.62'GRADE ELEV. @CURB = 11.17'GRADE ELEV. @CURB = 11.30'(E) SSCOGARAGEF.S. = 13.67'DN.OUTDOORLIVINGDN.BBQDN.ACCESSORYDWELLING UNITF.F. = 15.17'OUTLINE OFSECOND FLOORSHOWN DASHEDGROUND FLOORFOOTPRINT SHOWN WITHA SOLID LINEF.F. = 16.33'(E) GRADE = 13.0'(E) GRADE = 13.21'(E) GRADE = 13.34'(E) GRADE = 13.37'(E) GRADE= 13.24'(E) GRADE= 13.16'(E) GRADE= 13.34'(E) GRADE= 12.97'(E) GRADE= 13.0'(E) GRADE = 13.53'(E) GRADE = 13.38'NEW CURB CUT (E) JOINT POLE(E) OVERHEADLINES TO BEMOVED(E) SANITARYSEWER LINE(E) WOODFENCE(E) WOODFENCENEW WOOD FENCE ATPROPERTY LINE(E) 18" Ø TREEF.G. = 13.5'(E) GRADE= 12.0'(E) GRADE= 13.35'5'-10 1/2" TO WALL 4'-5 1/4" TO CHIMNEY 4'-0"1'-10 3/4"4'-0 1/2"AVERAGE FRONT SETBACKIS BASED ON PLANNINGDIVISION RECORDS5'-0"COVEREDPORCHREAR DECKF.F. = 16.25'9'-6"2'-0"F.F. =15.09'REPLACE ALL CURB,GUTTER, DRIVEWAY ANDSIDEWALK FRONTING THESITE.PLUG ALL EXISTINGSANITARY SEWER LATERALCONNECTIONS ANDINSTALL A NEW 4" LATERALAND WYE TO MAIN.(E) SSCOTHERE SHALL BE NO PERMANENTSTRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS,FENCES, COLUMNS, MAILBOXES, ETC)PROPOSED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINEAND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY1'-9" 4'-1 3/4"4'-2"46'-9 1/2" PROPOSEDSECOND FLOOR SETBACK40'-11" PROPOSEDGROUND FLOOR SETBACKDRAINAGESWALE(E) GRADE= 13.29'(E) GRADE = 13.18'(E) GRADE= 13.32'POST CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS AREA:3,000 SF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE /6,012 SF SITE = 49%BUBBLER BOX OR OTHER STORM RUNOFFMITIGATION WILL BE DESIGNED BY THE CIVILENGINEER.(E) GARAGETO BEREMOVED(E) MAIN RESIDENCENEIGHBORING RESIDENCENEIGHBORING RESIDENCE(E) DECK TO BEREMOVEDMILLS AVENUE(E) ARTIFICIALLAWN TO BEREMOVED(E) LAWN(E) WATER METER(E) GAS METER TOBE MOVED(E) ELECTRICAL METER(E) DRIVEWAYTO BE REMOVEDNEIGHBORING RESIDENCEPROPERTY LINE = 120.24'N53° 15' 00"WPROPERTY LINE = 120.23'S53°15' 00"EPROPERTY LINE = 50' N36° 45' 20"E PROPERTY LINE = 50'N36° 44' 24"W 15'-0"20'-0"(E) CURB CUT TO BE MOVED (E) WOODFENCE(E) WOODFENCE(E) WOODFENCE TO BEREMOVED(E) OVERHEADLINES TO BEMOVED(E) SANITARYSEWER LINE(E) 18" Ø TREE(E) WOOD FENCE TO BEREMOVEDSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SITE PLANSPROPOSEDEXISTING ANDA2PROPOSED SITE PLAN1A2SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"0'2'4'8'16'NOTES:1. ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALKFRONTING THE SITE SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.2. ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERALCONNECTIONS SHALL BE PLUGGED AND A NEW 4"LATERAL AND WYE TO MAIN SHALL BE INSTALLED.3. ALL WATER CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FORSERVICES OR FIRE LINES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PERCITY STANDARD PROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS.4. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FORANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE CITY'SRIGHT-OF-WAY.5. NO EXISTING TREE OVER 48 INCHES INCIRCUMFERENCE MEASURED AT 54 INCHES FORMNATURAL GRADE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT APROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE PARKSDIVISION.6. EXISTING CITY STREET TREES MAY NOT BE CUT,TRIMMED OR REMOVED WITHOUT PERMIT FROM PARKSDIVISION7. IF CONSTRUCTION IS IN DRIP ZONE OF AN EXISTINGPROTECTED SIZE TREE ON THIS SITE OR A NEIGHBORINGSITE, AN ARBORIST REPORT AND TREE PROTECTIONPLAN WILL BE REQUIRED.NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGFISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 EXISTING SITE PLAN2A2SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTHTRUENORTHBLDG GARAGEOFFICE/GUEST SUITEDININGFAMILYENTRYFRONTPORCHDN.MURPHY BED42"REF.UPLAUNDRYBEV.DWADU36"REF.30"OVEN /MW.WINEMUDWDKITCHENMURPHYBEDBATHBATHKITCHENPREPPANTRYDN.DN.DN.DN.REAR DECK5'-0"BBQCOUNTER SPACELOWER CABINETS BELOWRANGE AND HOODSINKUPPER CABINETSBUILT-IN REFRIGERATOR/FREEZERENTRYDN.PRIMARYBEDROOMBEDROOMSUITE 1BEDROOMSUITE 2PRIMARYDRESSINGPRIMARYBATHLINENLINEN0'1'2'4'8'SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLANSAND SECONDGROUND FLOORA3MAIN HOUSE GROUND FLOOR PLAN1A3GENERAL NOTES1. PER OPENING PROTECTION REQUIRED IN 2016 CRC TABLE R302.1(1),THE BUILDING FACE MORE THAN THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTYLINE OR THE GABLE END VENTING AND EAVE VENTS MUST BEELIMINATED AND ATTIC VENTILATION MUST BE ACHIEVED THROUGHOTHER MEANS.2.ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN TWO FEET OF PROPERTYLINE PER 2016 CRC TABLE R301.1(1).3.EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THEPROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE RATEDCONSTRUCTION PER 2016 CRC TABLE R302.1(1).MECHANICAL1. IF PROVIDED, EXTERIOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL NOTEXCEED A MAXIMUM OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL (dBA) OF SIXTY (dBA)DAYTIME (7:00 AM - 10:00 PM) OR FIFTY (50) dBA NIGHTIME (10:00 PM -7:00 AM) AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. BMC 25.58.0502.EXIT TERMINALS OF MECHANICAL DRAFT AND DIRECT-VENTVENTING SYSTEMS - WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS LESS THAN 10'FROM THE EXIT TERMINAL OF ANY NEWLY INSTALLED ORREPLACEMENT HIGH EFFICIENCY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THE PIPESIZE OF THE FINAL 10' OF ANY TERMINAL MUST BE INCREASED TO 3"OR, AS AN ALTERNATIVE, MANUFACTURER-APPROVED BAFFLES MUSTBE INSTALLED.FISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGADU & GARAGE FLOOR PLANS2A3SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"MAIN HOUSE SECOND FLOOR PLAN3A3NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" 6:126:126:126:126:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:126:124:124:124:12 4:12 4:12 4:12 SCALE: AS NOTEDCONTEXTNEIGHBORHOODROOF PLANS &A4FISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 MAIN HOUSE ROOF PLAN1A4NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGADU & GARAGE ROOF PLANS2A4SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"1204 MILLS AVENUE1200 MILLS AVENUE1108 MILLS AVENUESUBJECT PROPERTY1208 MILLS AVENUE1212 MILLS AVENUETWO-STORYCONTEXT MAP 15.0'PER CRC 322.2.114.0'BASE FLOOD ELEV.AVERAGE GRADE @PROPERTY LINE = 12.56'14'-0"0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.14'-0"(E) GRADE @TOP OF CURB= 11.17'30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT (41.24')(E) GRADE @TOP OF CURB= 11.30'AVERAGE GRADE @PROPERTY LINE = 12.68'7'-6" 7'-6"2'-9"A.F.F.126+18'-8"T.O. PLATE+10'-8"T.O. FIN. FLR.+9'-0"T.O. PLATE9'-0"8'-0"AVERAGE GRADE@ TOP OF CURB= 11.24'SETBACKSTONE CLADDINGPAINTED ORSTAINED WOODSHINGLESCOPPER ORPAINTEDGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTSPAINTED WOODTRIMPROPERTY LINEDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPECOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD WINDOWS WITHTRUE SIMULATEDDIVIDED LIGHTSSHINGLE SIDINGMITERED ATCORNERSSETBACK PROPERTY LINEPAINTED ORSTAINED WOODCOLUMNS45°PAINTED STEELRAILINGEGRESSWINDOW11.7 SF2'-9"4'-3"2'-9" A.F.F.EGRESSWINDOW11.7 SF2'-9"4'-3"26'-2 1/2" A.F.F.T.O. RIDGE31'-3 1/2" (42.54')MAX. HEIGHT W/ SPECIAL PERMIT = 36'-0" (47.24')OUTLINE OFGARAGE BEYOND30'-0" HT. LIMIT36'-0" HT. LIMITPAINTED WOODTRIMSTAINED WOOD FRONT DOOR1262'-9"A.F.F.2'-9"4'-3"2'-9" A.F.F.2'-9"4'-3"126AVERAGE GRADE@ TOP OF CURB= 11.24'15.0'PER CRC 322.2.114.0'BFE0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.+18'-8"T.O. PLATE+10'-8"T.O. FIN. FLR.+9'-0"T.O. PLATESETBACK SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINECOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOF2'-9" A.F.F.EGRESSWINDOW11.7 SF4'-3"2'-9"26'-2 1/2" A.F.F.T.O. RIDGEPAINTED ORSTAINED WOODSHINGLESCOPPER ORPAINTED GUTTERSAND DOWNSPOUTSPAINTED STEELCHIMNEY CAPSTONECLADDINGOUTLINE OF ADUAND GARAGEBEYONDPAINTED WOODTRIMAVERAGE GRADE @PROPERTY LINE = 12.56'14'-0" 14'-0"(E) GRADE @TOP OF CURB= 11.17'(E) GRADE @TOP OF CURB= 11.30'AVERAGE GRADE @PROPERTY LINE = 12.68'7'-6" 7'-6"30'-0" HT. LIMIT126126AVERAGE GRADE@ TOP OF CURB= 11.24'PAINTED STEELCHIMNEY CAPLIGHT TO BE PROVIDEDAT ALL EXTERIORLANDINGS, TYP.EXTERIOR SHIELDEDLIGHT FIXTURE, LIGHTMUST BE FOCUSEDDOWNWARD, TYP.PAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITH TRUESIMULATED DIVIDED LITESSETBACK SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINESTONECLADDINGPAINTED OR STAINEDVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGCOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPE45°2'-9" A.F.F.EGRESSWINDOW11.7 SF4'-3"2'-9"30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT (41.24')26'-2 1/2" A.F.F.T.O. RIDGE31'-3 1/2" (42.54') MAX. HEIGHT W/ SPECIAL PERMIT = 36'-0" (47.24')15.0'PER CRC 322.2.114.0'BFE0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.+18'-8"T.O. PLATE+10'-8"T.O. FIN. FLR.+9'-0"T.O. PLATE36'-0" HT. LIMITPAINTEDWOOD TRIM2 1/2 MIN.2 1/2 MIN.PAINTED WOODWINDOW & DOOR TRIMSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"ELEVATIONSMAIN HOUSEA5MAIN HOUSE EAST ELEVATION1A5FISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 MAIN HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION3A5MAIN HOUSE WEST ELEVATION2A50'1'2'4'8'PER CRC R322.2.1: BUILDINGS ANDSTRUCTURES IN FLOOD HAZARD AREASSHALL HAVE THE LOWEST FLOORS ELEVATEDTO OR ABOVE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONPLUS 1'PER CRC R322.1.6: ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS,EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS; HEATING,VENTILATING, AIR-CONDITIONING; PLUMBINGAPPLIANCES AND PLUMBING FIXTURES: DUCTSYSTEMS: AND OTHER SERVICE EQUIPMENTSHALL BE LOCATED AT OR ABOVE THEELEVATION REQUIRED IN SECTION R322.2 15.0'PER CRC 322.2.114.0'BASE FLOOD ELEV.0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.126AVERAGE GRADE@ TOP OF CURB= 11.24'15.0'PER CRC 322.2.114.0'BFE0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.+18'-8"T.O. PLATE+10'-8"T.O. FIN. FLR.+9'-0"T.O. PLATEWINDOWS AT STAIRLANDINGS SHALL BETEMPERED GLAZINGSETBACK SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINEPAINTED ORSTAINED WOODSHINGLESCOPPER OR PAINTEDGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTSPAINTED ALUMINUMCLAD WINDOWS AND DOORSWITH TRUE SIMULATEDDIVIDED LIGHTSPAINTED ORSTAINED VERTICALWOOD SIDINGSTONE CLADDINGCOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED OR STAINEDWOOD COLUMNSPAINTED STEELRAILINGLIGHT TO BE PROVIDEDAT ALL EXTERIORLANDINGS, TYP.8'-0" 9'-0"26'-2 1/2" A.F.F.T.O. RIDGEPAINTED WOODTRIMPAINTED WOODTRIM12612'-0"7'-6 3/4"BATHROOM#1STAIRLANDINGPANTRYALCOVE9'-6"26'-2 1/2" A.F.F.T.O. RIDGE0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.+18'-8"T.O. PLATE+10'-8"T.O. FIN. FLR.+9'-0"T.O. PLATE10'-0"9'-0"8'-0"3'-11 1/2"PRIMARYBATHPRIMARYBEDROOMSTAIRLANDINGBEDROOM #2DESKALCOVEFAMILYKITCHENENTRY0'-0" (16.33')T.O. FIN. FLR.+18'-8"T.O. PLATE+10'-8"T.O. FIN. FLR.+9'-0"T.O. PLATE9'-6" 8'-0" 18'-8" 9'-0" 8'-0"26'-2 1/2" A.F.F.T.O. RIDGESCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"& SECTIONSELEVATIONSMAIN HOUSEA6FISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 MAIN HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION1A6MAIN HOUSE SECTION2A6MAIN HOUSE SECTION3A60'1'2'4'8' 14.0'BFE0'-0" (15.17')T.O. FIN. FLR.SETBACKSETBACK 13'-8"T.O. SLABPROPERTY LINE COMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED ORSTAINED WOODSHINGLESPAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITHTRUE SIMULATED DIVIDEDLITESPAINTED OR STAINEDVERTICAL WOOD SIDING4'-0 1/4"11'-4 3/4" (26.69')T.O. RIDGE8'-0" A.F.F.T.O. PLATE8'-0"MAX. ROOF HEIGHT = 16'-0"11'-4" (25.0')T.O. RIDGE8'-6" A.F.S.T.O. PLATE12414.0'BFE0'-0" (15.17')T.O. FIN. FLR.SETBACK PROPERTY LINE COMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED OR STAINEDVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGPAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITHTRUE SIMULATED DIVIDEDLITESPAINTED WOODGARAGE DOOR11'-4" (25.0')T.O. RIDGE8'-6" A.F.S.T.O. PLATE13'-8"T.O. SLAB12414.0'BFE0'-0" (15.17')T.O. FIN. FLR.SETBACK SETBACK PROPERTY LINE LIGHT TO BE PROVIDEDAT ALL EXTERIORLANDINGS, TYP.COMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED OR STAINEDVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGPAINTED OR STAINEDVERTICAL WOOD SIDINGPAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITHTRUE SIMULATED DIVIDEDLITES11'-4 3/4" (26.69')T.O. RIDGE8'-0" A.F.F.T.O. PLATE8'-0" MAX. ROOF HEIGHT = 16'-0"11'-4" (25.0')T.O. RIDGE8'-6" A.F.S.T.O. PLATE14.0'BFE13'-8"T.O. SLAB124SETBACK14.0'BFE0'-0" (15.17')T.O. FIN. FLR.PROPERTY LINECOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED OR STAINED VERTICALWOOD SIDING11'-4 3/4" (26.4')T.O. RIDGE8'-0" A.F.F.T.O. PLATE8'-0"MAX. ROOF HEIGHT = 16'-0"4'-0"12414.0'BFE0'-0" (15.17')T.O. FIN. FLR.13'-8"T.O. SLAB8'-0" A.F.F.T.O. PLATE8'-6" A.F.S.T.O. PLATE124ACCESSORYDWELLINGUNITADUBATHROOMGARAGE11'-4 3/4" (26.69')T.O. RIDGE11'-4" (25.0')T.O. RIDGE8'-0"SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"AND SECTIONELEVATIONSADU / GARAGEA7ADU/GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATION1A7FISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 ADU/GARAGE EAST ELEVATION2A7ADU/GARAGE NORTH ELEVATION4A7ADU/GARAGE WEST ELEVATION3A70'1'2'4'8'ADU/GARAGE SECTION5A7 NEIGHBORING RESIDENCENEIGHBORING ACCESSORYSTRUCTUREMILLS AVENUE(E) WATER METERGAS METERELECTRICAL METERNEIGHBORING RESIDENCEPROPERTY LINE = 120.24'N53° 15' 00"WPROPERTY LINE = 120.23'S53°15' 00"EPROPERTY LINE = 50' N36° 45' 20"E PROPERTY LINE = 50'N36° 44' 24"W GRADE ELEV.= 13.74'GRADE ELEV.= 13.30'GRADE ELEV.= 11.82'GRADE ELEV.= 11.62'GRADE ELEV. @CURB = 11.17'GRADE ELEV. @CURB = 11.30'GARAGEFIREPITBBQDN.ACCESSORYDWELLING UNITOUTLINE OFSECOND FLOORSHOWN DASHEDGROUND FLOOR FOOTPRINTSHOWN WITH A SOLID LINE(E) WOODFENCE(E) WOODFENCE(E) 18" Ø TREEF.G. = 13.5'(N) CHINESE TALLOWTREE, 24" BOX SIZE MIN.PROPOSED PAVERSFROM SIDEWALK TOFRONT PORCHGROUND COVER AND SMALLPERENNIALS AROUND EDGES OFPROPERTYEXISTING HEDGESEXISTING HEDGESHEDGES AT FENCE/PROPERTY LINE,3-GALLON MINIMUMAT LEAST 3" OF MULCHON EXPOSED SOILSURFACES, TYP.GARBAGE & RECYCLINGENCLOSED STORAGEPRIVACY HEDGES,5-GALLON MINIMUMGROUND COVER AND SMALLPERENNIALS AROUND EDGES OFPROPERTY(N) MAYTEN TREE, 24"BOX SIZE MIN.NEW ACCOLADE ELMTREE, 24" BOX SIZE,MINIMUMCOVEREDPORCHNEW WOOD FENCE ATPROPERTY LINEDRAINAGESWALEDIRECT ROOF RUNOFFONTO VEGETATEDAREASDIRECT ROOF RUNOFFONTO VEGETATEDAREASINSPIRATIONMATERIALS &LANDSCAPE PLAN,A81,865 SF OF TOTAL LANDSCAPED AREA25% CAN BE LAWN/TURF = 466 SFPROPOSED LAWN/TURF = 222 SFFISHER RESIDENCE 1204 MILLS AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 026-071-050IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW02.28.2322-03 LANDSCAPE PLAN2A8SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGDARK ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORSW/ TRUE SIMULATEDDIVIDED LITESINSPIRATION IMAGEDARK PAINTEDVERTICAL BOARD SIDINGSTAINED CEDAR SHINGLE SIDINGCOLOR TBDDIMENSIONAL SHINGLESCERTAINTEED LANDMARK TL"COUNTRY GRAY" OR SIMILARINSPIRATION IMAGEMATERIAL IMAGE BOARD 1A8 City of Burlingame Special Permit Address: 317 Occidental Avenue Meeting Date: March 13, 2023 Request: Application for Special Permit for a second story uncovered balcony. Applicant and Architect: Daniel Pho, Pho Architects APN: 028-312-030 Property Owner: Susannah and Darren Shimkus Lot Area: 7,601 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling with a detached garage built in 2006. In 2005 the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review for a new single-unit dwelling and detached garage on the site. At the beginning of the construction phase, the owner expressed a concern with possible flooding with building the finished floor below existing grade and therefore proposed to raise the finished floor by 1’-4”. As a result, an application for Design Review Amendment and Special Permit for declining height envelope was required. The application was approved by the Planning Commission in March 2006 and construction of the project was completed in late 2006. The current project proposes an interior remodel of an existing second story bathroom and a new 65 SF uncovered balcony at the rear, right side of the house over the existing covered rear porch. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for the 65 SF second story balcony at the rear of the house (Special Permit required for any second story balcony; 75 SF maximum allowed). The balcony is uncovered and the proposed railing is painted wood. The proposed balcony meets the setback requirements for a second story balcony, including declining height envelope and the minimum horizontal setback of twice the distance of the required side setback (8’-6” proposed where 8’-0” is the minimum required). Because the proposed balcony is located over an existing covered porch and because uncovered balconies are not included in floor area, neither the lot coverage nor the floor area ratio for the site are alt ered by the proposed balcony. The applicant provided a letter signe d by the neighbor to the north (321 Occidental Avenue) noting that the neighbor approves of the proposed work (see copy of letter from Aleda and Jonathan Schaffer on Sheet A0.1). There are existing mature evergreen shrubs located on the side property line between the two sites that help to screen the proposed second story balcony from the property at 321 Occidental Avenue. No other part of the existing building envelope is proposed to be altered and there is no change to the number of bedrooms, provided parking, or landscaping on the site. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Special Permit for a second-floor balcony (65 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.10.035(7)). Item No. 8b Regular Action Item Special Permit 317 Occidental Avenue -2- 317 Occidental Avenue Lot Area: 7,601 SF Plans date stamped: February 27, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/ REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 28’-10” 28’-10” no change no change 28’-9” (block average) 28’-9” Side Setbacks (left ): (right): 9’-6” 4’-6” no change no change 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 54’-4” 54’-4” no change no change 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,317 SF 31% no change 3,040 SF 40% FAR: 3,840 SF 0.51 FAR no change 3,932 SF 1 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change --- Off Street Parking: 2 covered (20’ x 20’ clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') no change 2 covered (20' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-1” on 2nd floor 2 no change 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Second Floor Balcony: --- 65 SF (8’-6” right side setback) 3 75 SF (8’-0” side setbacks) Building Height: 30’-0” no change 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: Special Permit approved in 2006 for 39 SF encroachment along right side (1’-2” x 33’-0”) no change C.S. 25.10.035(2) 1 (0.32 x 7,601 SF) + 1,100 SF + 400 SF = 3,932 SF (0.52 FAR). 2 Existing nonconforming plate height. 3 Special Permit for second floor balcony (65 SF proposed, where 75 SF is the maximum allowed). Special Permit 317 Occidental Avenue -3- Staff Comments: The proposed project complies with the required California Building and Uniform Fire Codes. The Planning Division notes that this application was brought directly to the Planning Commission as Regular Action Item since the project is not substantial and only includes a request for a Special Permit for an uncovered balcony at the rear of the house. Should the Planning Division determine that further review of the project is required, the application can be scheduled for an additional action hearing. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Perm it application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following find ings 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-defi ned character of the street and neighborhood; 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements, and that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Suggested Findings for a Special Permit (Second Floor Balcony): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the proposed second story balcony is consistent with the existing dwelling and that the 65 SF second story balcony is within the maximum size allowed (75 SF) and exceeds the minimum required side setback from the side property line (8’-6” 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 dwelling and will be screened by the existing landscaping along the right - side property line. 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 applic ation 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 February 27, 2023, sheets A0.0 through A7.1; 2. 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; Special Permit 317 Occidental Avenue -4- 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction, and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Daniel Pho, Pho Architects, applicant Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 3, 2023 Area Map City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  (650) 558-7250  planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post plans submitted with this application on the City’s website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. _________ (Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Property Owner Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: E-mail:E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #:* Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): 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. The facade material and guardrail style are consistent with the existing structure and style. The new terrace mirrors qualities of the existing second story deck on the Front Elevation of the structure. The new terrace is located on the Rear Elevation of the structure and therefore does not impact the Neighborhood Street. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The new terrace shall not change the character of the neighborhood, all exterior finish materials are to match the existing qualities and the guardrail style is consistent with the rest of the existing features. The elevation does not encroach on the doubled side setback for balconies on the second floor. The new terrace conforms with Section 25.78.020, its position on the Rear Elevation is surrounded by trees that will block any views of the surrounding neighbor's properties. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? The terrace is 58 SF and therefore does not exceed the 75 SF maximum as stated in Section 25.78.020.A.7. The new terrace also conforms with the Special Side Setback Requirements (Section 25.10.045) that any new balconies or decks on the second floor remain within double the first floor setback. 1. The new terrace is compatible and consistent with the existing exterior finishes and style of the home. 2. The new terrace does not impact existing parking or garages. 3. The new terrace preserves the existing architectural style and does not affect the bulk of the building as it is being built into an existing roof condition. 4. Interface of the proposed terrace with adjacent properties is unaffected due to trees along the property line providing a privacy barrier. 5. Landscaping shall remain unchanged and contribute toward maintaining a privacy barrier between properties. 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. The construction of the new terrace shall not require the removal of any trees. 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. From: Edward Stirling < Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2023 6:45 AM To: Public Comment <publiccomment@burlingame.org> Cc: Subject: 1204 Mills Ave Chair Gaul and commissioners, I am sorry I could not convey Martha Stirling’s concerns eloquently or in 3 minutes. Martha is not against the project even tho it is greater in magnitude than she was told. At 95 years old, we think it is understandable one of her main concerns is the remainder of her quality of life. Progress is expected however at her age, she has no where to go to not be affected by the construction noise and to dismiss the stress induced on a 95 year old woman forced to listen to repetitive banging 11 hours a day is insensitive. Here are her concerns, none of which are show stoppers. Construction timeframe and timeline for 1204 and 1205 Mills. Both projects are at the entrance to her driveway. The intersection at Mills and Laguna is a very tight area encroached by telephone pole at the driveway. She wants a clear pathway to use her driveway safely. Placement of the bushes along the garage. Old bushes have already grown thru her siding and the bushes we’re removed. Martha maintains her property, has replaced and painted new siding. She does not want to see this happen again. What types of plants are proposed? How close to the siding will they be? The concern is roots affecting the foundation and growing thru and damaging the siding again. She is very concerned with the placement of the Oak tree adjacent to the garage. They have notoriously shallow roots, they affect foundations and drain lines. She is also concerned about the tree limbs over her garage and the leaves that the tree will drop in her gutters. She is concerned about the drainage in their backyard. The current grade is now above the foundation of the garage following installation of artificial turf in their backyard. It changed drainage and the flow of water. This caused significant water intrusion into her garage that she never had before. She is worried about the damage that may result of this. She hopes the grade be returned to pre addition of the existing turf to minimize the chances that this will happen again and that the drainage is improved with the installation of the new turf. She would like to understand the location of the French drain along the garage. It seems to start at the front of the garage vs the back. The exit of the existing bubbler flows all the silt and water into her driveway. This not only leaves a muddy messes in front of her driveway and on the sidewalk but a slip and trip hazard as it piled up. We would like to see the French drains run to the gutter similar to other neighbors. Although she is concerned with the holes in her newer siding having had a movie screen mounted on it without her knowledge, she understands this is secondary to the new construction. There are no mechanical drawings in the packet, she is concerned about the addition/location of an exterior AC unit. Noise is her concern as her bedroom is in the rear of the house near their deck area. The Fishers have bright string lights strung across their back deck and they often forget to turn them off until midnight or later and they shine directly into Martha’s bedroom keeping her awake even with her blinds closed. She is concerned about accessory lighting like this and hopes better down lighting will be added. As stated the Fishers have been good neighbors; Martha is very easy to live next to, she is quiet, stays inside and only requests her privacy be respected, her property be protected and not impacted by the changes. She hopes the city and the Fishers do what they can to help alleviate stress and the anxiety worrying brings during this construction. As Martha’s family we hope her minimal concerns and wellbeing are taken into consideration. Thank you, Ed and Angela Stirling on behalf of Martha Stirling Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Special Permit for a second story balcony to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling at 317 Occidental Avenue, Zone R-1, Susanna and Shimkus, property owners, APN: 028 -312 -030 ; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 13, 2023, 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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Special Permit is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Special Permit are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of March , 2023 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Special Permit 317 Occidental Avenue Effective March 23 , 2023 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 27, 2023, sheets A0.0 through A7.1; 2. 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; 3. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 4. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that 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; 6. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction, and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 7. 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. 317 Occidental Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 028-312-030 SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, 94010BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A0.0 COVER SHEET 05/2021 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THE 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 VICINITY MAP REGULATORY STANDARDS PART 1 -CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PART 2 -CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE PART 2.5 -CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE PART 3 -CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE PART 4 -CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE PART 5 -CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE PART 6 -CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE PART 8 -CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE PART 9 -CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE PART 10 -CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE PART 11 -CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE PART 12 -CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE LOCAL ORDINANCE ABBREVIATIONS AB ANCHOR BOLT AFF ABOVE FINISH FLOOR AFG ABOVE FINISH GRADE ALUM ALUMINUM BD BOARD BLDG BUILDING BLKG BLOCKING BTW BETWEEN CAB CABINET CB CATCH BASIN CL CENTERLINE CLG CELIING CLO CLOSET CLR CLEAR CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT CO CLEAN OUT CONC CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS D DRYER DBL DOUBLE DF DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIA DIAMETER DN DOWN DS DOWNSPOUT DW DISHWASHER DWG DRAWING EA EACH ETC ETCETERA (E)EXISTING EF EXHAUST FAN FD FLOOR DRAIN FEC FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET FG FINISHED GRADE FLR FLOOR FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOF FACE OF FINISH FOS FACE OF STUD FP FIREPLACE FTG FOOTING GA GAUGE GALV GALVANIZED GFCI GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER GLB GLUED LAMINATED BEAM GYB GYPSUM BOARD HB HOSE BIBB HDR HEADER HDWR HARDWARE HD HOLDDOWN HM HOLLOW METAL HT HEIGHT HVAC HEATING / VENTILATION / AIR CONDITIONING HW HOT WATER IAQ INDOOR AIR QUALITY INT INTERIOR GENERAL NOTES PROJECT TEAM CLIENT: SUSANNAH SHIMKUS CRANDALSHIMKUS@GMAIL.COM 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 650-380-3622 ARCHITECT:DANIEL PHO DANIEL@PHOARCHITECTS.COM PHO ARCHITECTS, INC. 1601 18TH STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 415-816-5885 INTERIOR DESIGNER:CECILY MENDELL CMENDELL@CECYJ.COM CECY J INTERIORS 415-420-7475 STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:DAVID ARDELEAN DAVID@HCSEONLINE.COM HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 117 BERNAL ROAD, SUITE 70-648 SAN JOSE, CA 95119 650-557-4333 1.APPLICABLE REGULATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL GOVERNING CODES AND APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AT LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PROJECT. 2.PERMITS & APPROVALS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSSARY PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED FROM LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES TO PERFORM PROJECT. 3.RESPONSIBILITIES CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. THIS INCLUDE BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO SCHEDULE, MEANS & METHODS, SEQUENCES, SAFETY PROCEDURES AND WEATHER PROTECTION. 4.SUBCONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THE WORK OF SUBCONTRACTORS AND SHOP DRAWINGS APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE WORK. 5.QUALITY OF WORK COMPLETED WORK SHALL BE EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ACCEPTED STANDARDS OF TRADE. 6.EXISTING CONDITIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFYING EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, BUILDING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS BY DETAILED INSPECTION PRIOR TO BID AND COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. NOTIFY ARCHITECT IF EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS DURING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. THIS INCLUDES ADJACENT BUILDINGS, HARDSCAPE, LANDSCAPE, UTILITIES, ETC. 8.CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL UTILITY LOCATIONS WITH APPROPRIATE AGENCIES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. THERE MAY BE EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS. UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE BASED ON INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND APPROXIMATE. 9.DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE DIMENSION SHOWN ON DRAWINGS WITH ACTUAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS. NOTIFY ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES 10.BUILDING DIMENSIONS NEW CONSTRUCTION: DIMENSION ARE FOR FACE OF STUD, FACE OF CONCRETE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED EXISTING CONSTRUCTION / RENOVATION: DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 11.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. PROJECT INFORMATION SCOPE OF WORK DELTA 1 - PLAN CHECK REVISIONS LAV LAVATORY LF LINEAR FOOT MECH MECHANICAL MFR MANUFACTURER MIN MINIMUM MISC MISCELLANEOUS MTL METAL N/A NOT APPLICABLE NOM NOMINAL NTS NOT TO SCALE O/OVER OC ON CENTER OH OVERHEAD PERF PERFORATED PL PROPERTY LINE PLAM PLASTIC LAMINATE PNL PANEL PREP PREPARATION PT PAINT QTY QUANTITY RCP REFLECTED CEILING PLAN RD ROOF DRAIN REF REFRIGERATOR RR RESTROOM REV REVISION RM ROOM RO ROUGH OPENING SD SMOKE DETECTOR SD STORM DRAIN SF SQUARE FEET SHT SHEET SIM SIMILAR SQ SQUARE SS STAINLESS STEEL STD STANDARD STOR STORAGE TEMP TEMPORARY TI TENANT IMPROVEMENT TOC TOP OF CONCRETE TYP TYPICAL VAR VARIES VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE VERT VERTICAL VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W WASHER W/O WITHOUT WC WATER CLOSET WD WOOD WH WATER HEATER WIC WALK IN CLOSET WM WATER METER WP WATERPROOFING WRB WATER RESISTANT BARRIER DRAWING INDEX A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.1 NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVALS A0.2 CODE ANALYSIS A2.1 DEMOLITION & PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A2.2 DEMOLITION & PROPOSED RCP & MEP SCHEMATICS A3.0 DEMOLITION & PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION A3.1 DEMOLITION & PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION A3.2 DEMOLITION & PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION A5.0 SCHEDULES A7.1 DETAILS ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT ADDRESS: APN#: 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 028-312-030 6 SECOND FLOOR MASTER SUITE RENOVATION TO EXISTING TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. NEW MASTER SUITE WILL CONTAIN A NEW BALCONY, RENOVATED BEDROOM, BATHROOM AND CLOSET. MODIFY EXISTING BUILDING SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE NEW SCOPE OF WORK. S0.0 GENERAL NOTES - STRUCTURAL S1.0 PARTIAL FOUNDATION, FLOOR FRAMING & SHEAR WALL PLAN S1.1 PARTIAL ROOF FRAMING & SHEAR WALL PLAN S2.0 DETAILS S2.1 DETAILS STRUCTURAL EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.0 FOR EXACT LOCATION 3 EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.0 FOR EXACT LOCATION 2 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.0 FOR EXACT LOCATION 4 PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.0 FOR EXACT LOCATION 5 I1.0 PRIMARY BATHROOM FLOOR PLAN I2.0 PRIMARY BATHROOM ELEVATIONS INTERIOR DESIGN DEFERRED SUBMITAL EXISTING FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO REMAIN. DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE DEFERRED SUBMISSION AND APPROVAL FOR FIRE SPRINKLER MODIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MASTER SUITE RENOVATION. FEBRUARY 27, 2023 G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH NOOK REAR PORCH FAMILY ROOMKITCHEN DINING ROOM COURT YARD CLO.HALL LIVING ROOM WINE PWD FOYER COVERED PATIO DEN ENTRY PORCH 12'-1" SIDEWALKOCCIDENTAL AVENUE (60' RIGHT OF WAY) 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE (E) RESIDENCE 7,601 SQ. FT. LOT 8 315 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE ADJOINING RESIDENCE (APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT) LOT 9 321 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE ADJOINING RESIDENCE (APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT) LOT 7 LOT 12 LOT 17 DETACHED GARAGE (E) 2-CAR GARAGE (E) 18" SYCAMORE (E) 18" SYCAMORE RIDGE: 79.0' RIDGE: 86.1' RIDGE: 74.7'(E) DRIVEWAY (E) LAWN 151.67'(E) 4' WIRE FENCE LOT 16 (E) 6' WOOD/LATTICE FENCE153.66'(E) 6' FENCE* SEE DECLINING ENVELOPE PROFILE HEIGHTS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SHEET A0.1, A3.0, A3.1 & A3.2 (E) BRICK PATIO 50.00' 50.00' 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*15'-0" 1ST FLOORREAR SETBACK*20'-0" 2ND FLOOR REAR SETBACK*15'-0" 1ST FLOORFRONT SETBACK*20'-0" 2ND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK*8'-0" SIDE SETBACK* PER SECTION 25.10.030 / 25.10.035 316 CHAPIN LN. ADJOINING RESIDENCE 320 CHAPIN LN. ADJOINING RESIDENCE 310 CHAPIN RESIDENCE SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A0.1 NEIGHBORHOOD APPROVALS 05/2021 1 EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE:3/32"=1'-0"N 1/A0.1 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION REF. A0.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION 1 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION 2 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION 3 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION REF.SITE PLAN 1/A0.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION 4 3/A0.1 4A0.1 1 321 OCCIDENTAL AVE. NEIGHBOR APPROVAL LETTER 2 315 OCCIDENTAL AVE. NEIGHBOR APPROVAL LETTER NO DIRECT VIEWS BETWEEN 317 OCCIDENTAL AVE. & 316 CHAPIN LN. EXISTING LANDSCAPING PROVIDES PRIVACY. NO DIRECT VIEWS BETWEEN 317 OCCIDENTAL AVE. & 321 OCCIDENTAL AVE. EXISTING LANDSCAPING PROVIDES PRIVACY. G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH NOOK REAR PORCH FAMILY ROOMKITCHEN DINING ROOM COURT YARD CLO.HALL LIVING ROOM WINE PWD FOYER COVERED PATIO DEN ENTRY PORCH 151.67'(E) 4' WIRE FENCE(E) 6' WOOD/LATTICE FENCEG F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH TOILET (E) MASTER BEDROOM (E)BATH#4 (E)CLOSET (E) BEDROOM #4 (E) LAUNDRY (E) LINEN (E) CLO. (E) BEDROOM #3 (E) HALL (E) BATH#2 (E) BATH#3 (E) BALCONY 52 SF (E) CLO.(E) BEDROOM #2 W/D MAKEUP TABLE TOWEL WARMER MASTER BATH HOOKS BENCH MIRRORG F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH (E) MASTER BEDROOM BATH#4 CLOSET BEDROOM #4 LAUNDRY LINEN (E) WALK-IN CLOSET (E) MASTER BATHROOM CLO. BEDROOM #3 HALL BATH#2 BATH#3 BALCONY 52 SF CLO.BEDROOM #2 G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH NOOK REAR PORCH FAMILY ROOMKITCHEN DINING ROOM COURT YARD CLO.HALL LIVING ROOM WINE PWD FOYER COVERED PATIO DEN ENTRY PORCH 12'-1" SIDEWALKOCCIDENTAL AVENUE (60' RIGHT OF WAY) 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE (E) RESIDENCE 7,601 SQ. FT. LOT 8 315 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE ADJOINING RESIDENCE (APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT) LOT 9 321 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE ADJOINING RESIDENCE (APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT) LOT 7 LOT 12 LOT 17 DETACHED GARAGE (E) 2-CAR GARAGE (E) 18" SYCAMORE (E) 18" SYCAMORE RIDGE: 79.0' RIDGE: 86.1' RIDGE: 74.7'(E) DRIVEWAY (E) LAWN 151.67'(E) 4' WIRE FENCE LOT 16 (E) 6' WOOD/LATTICE FENCE153.66'(E) 6' FENCE* SEE DECLINING ENVELOPE PROFILE HEIGHTS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SHEET A0.1, A3.0, A3.1 & A3.2 (E) BRICK PATIO 50.00' 50.00' 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*15'-0" 1ST FLOORREAR SETBACK*20'-0" 2ND FLOOR REAR SETBACK*15'-0" 1ST FLOORFRONT SETBACK*20'-0" 2ND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK*8'-0" SIDE SETBACK* PER SECTION 25.10.030 / 25.10.035 316 CHAPIN RESIDENCE 320 CHAPIN LN. ADJOINING RESIDENCE 310 CHAPIN LN. ADJOINING RESIDENCE SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A0.2 CODE ANALYSIS 05/2021 ZONING ANALYSIS ZONING DISTRICT: R1, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOT AREA: 7,601 SF ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE: 3,040.40 SF 7,601.00 SF X 0.40 SF = 3,040.40 SF EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 2,137 SF PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE : 2,137 SF (NO CHANGE) ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA: 3,932.32 SF 7,601.00 SF X 0.32 = 2,432.32 SF + 1,100 SF + 400 SF (DETACHED GARAGE) = 3,932.32 SF EXISTING FLOOR AREA: 3,761 SF PROPOSED FLOOR AREA: 3,761 SF (NO CHANGE) FRONT SETBACK: 15'-0" (1ST FLOOR), 20'-0" (2ND FLOOR) SIDE SETBACK: 4'-0"* REAR SETBACK: 15'-0" (1ST FLOOR), 20'-0" (2ND FLOOR) PARKING REQUIRED : 1 ENCLOSED + 1 UNENCLOSED PARKING PROVIDED: 1 ENCLOSED + 1 UNENCLOSED BUILDING ANALYSIS CONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-B OCCUPANCY TYPE R-3/U STORIES: 2 FIRE RESISTANT WALL REQUIREMENT: 0 HR MAXIMUM EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE: 200'-0" PROVIDED EXIT ACCESS TRAVEL DISTANCE: 104'-0" MINIMUM STAIR WIDTH: 36" MINIMUM DOOR WIDTH: 32" 4 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/8"=1'-0" 2 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/8"=1'-0"N3 EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/8"=1'-0" AREA OF WORK AREA OF WORK (E) COVERED PORCH EXEMPT PER BMC 25.30.060.C.2.i <120 SF (E) FRONT PORCH EXEMPT PER BMC 25.30.060.C.2.B. <200 SF EXISTING FLOOR AREA =1710 SF. EXISTING FLOOR AREA =1624 SF. PROPOSED FLOOR AREA =1624 SF. (E) UNCOVERED BALCONY NEW UNCOVERED BALCONY DOES NOT EXCEED 75 SF PER SECTION 25.78.020.A.7. EXISTING GARAGE LOT COVERAGE =427 SF. 1 EXISTING SITE PLAN SCALE:3/32"=1'-0"N (E) UNCOVERED BALCONY (E) MAIN HOUSE LOT COVERAGE= 1710 SF. NEW TERRACE 58 SF 4/A0.0 2/A0.0 3/ A 0 . 0 5/A0.0 AREA OF WORK G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH (E) MASTER BEDROOM (E)BATH#4 (E)CLOSET (E) BEDROOM #4 (E) LAUNDRY (E) LINEN (E) CLO. (E) BEDROOM #3 (E) HALL (E) BATH#2 (E) BATH#3 (E) BALCONY 52 SF (E) CLO.(E) BEDROOM #2 W/D (E) MASTER BATH (E) TOILET (E) MASTER CLOSET G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E D 10 AH TOILET MASTER CLOSET 1 (E) MASTER BEDROOM (E)BATH#4 (E)CLOSET (E) BEDROOM #4 (E) LAUNDRY (E) LINEN (E) CLO. (E) BEDROOM #3 (E) HALL (E) BATH#2 (E) BATH#3 (E) BALCONY 52 SF (E) CLO.(E) BEDROOM #2 W/D 9'-7"6'-3"3'-0"5'-1"6'-1"MAKEUP TABLE TOWEL WARMER MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET 2 HOOKS SHOWER BENCH CL CL CL TERRACE 58 SF EQ.EQ. 3"EQ.EQ.CL DOOR CL DOOR CL DOOR / WINDOW CL DOOR / WINDOWMIRRORCB 1 2 3 D A (E) REAR PORCH C B 1 2 3 D A SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 BURLINGAME, CA 94010BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A2.1 DEMOLITION /PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1 05/2021 SCALE:NDEMOLITION SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" WALL LEGEND (E) WALL TO REMAIN DEMO WALL CONSTRUCTION TAG LEGEND X/A3.0ELEVATION TAG SECTION TAG DEMO FLOOR / ROOF CONSTRUCTION GENERAL NOTES 1.PATCH AND REPAIR ALL (E) PENETRATIONS IN FLOOR, WALLS, CEILINGS AND ROOF IN PREPARATION TO RECEIVE NEW FINISHES. PATCH SHALL BE LEVEL WITH ADJACENT SURFACE. ALL NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION ADJACENT TO EXISTING SHALL BE CONTINUOUS WITH THE EXISTING RESULTING IN ALIGNED FINISHES. 2.PROVIDE PROPER FLASHING FOR ALL BUILDING FENESTRATION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DOORS, WINDOWS, CHIMNEY, VENTS, EXHAUSTS, LIGHTING, ETC. SEE DETAILS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 3.ALL NEW SIDING, WINDOW / DOOR TRIM, MOLDING, BASEBOARDS, GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS, FINISHES, ETC. SHALL MATCH EXISTING U.O.N. 4.REMOVE EXISTING GYPSUM BOARD, BASEBOARD, TRIM, MOLDINGS, FINISHES, ETC. IN PREPARATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE WATER RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD IN MASTER BATHROOM WALLS AND CEILINGS, TYPICAL U.O.N. 5.REMOVE AND REPLACE ALL EXISTING WALL AND CEILING INSULATION WHERE REQUIRED IN AREA OF WORK. 6.PROVIDE SOLID CONTINUOUS BLOCKING FOR ALL ATTACHMENT POINTS OF WALL MOUNTED EQUIPMENT, DEVICES, FIXTURES AND CASEWORK, WHETHER OR NOT SPECIFIED ON DRAWINGS. 7.SEE INTERIOR DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT FINISHES, CASEWORK, LAYOUT, DIMENSIONS, FIXTURE LOCATIONS, EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS, INTERIOR MOLDING, TRIM, VIDEO NICHE, ETC. SHOULD LOCATIONS CONFLICT WITH ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ARCHITECT FOR COORDINATION. KEYNOTES REMOVE AND SALVAGE (E) TOILET FOR RE-USE. REMOVE (E) VANITY IN ITS ENTIRETY REMOVE (E) SHOWER & TUB IN ITS ENTIRETY REMOVE (E) WINDOWS WHERE SHOWN DASHED, TYPICAL REMOVE (E) PORCH CEILING & ROOF CONSTRUCTION IN PREPARATION FOR NEW SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE EXACT EXTENT OF ROOF, CEILING, TRIM, MOLDING, GUTTERS, ETC. DEMOLITION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SCOPE OF WORK. REMOVE (E) CASEWORK IN ITS ENTIRETY SLATE MOSAIC PAVERS SLOPED TO DRAIN SALVAGE AND REUSE DOOR FOR PROPOSED TOILET INSTALL EXISTING SALVAGED DOOR. VANITY. SEE INTERIOR DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION. WATER CLOSET. SEE INTERIOR DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION. TILE SHOWER, CURB, AND BENCH WITH TEMPERED GLASS SHOWER ENCLOSURE. BUILT-IN CLOSET. HEATED TOWEL RACK. NEW FLOOR FINISH FOR MASTER BATH, CLOSETS, SHOWER AND TOILET. SEE INTERIOR DESIGN DRAWINGS FOR MORE INFORMATION. REBUILD PORCH CEILING & ROOF (WOOD SHAKES, GUTTER, TRIM, CEILING, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING, ETC.) TO MATCH EXISTING. (E) BEAM SUPPORTING THE GABLE ROOF SHALL REMAIN S.S.D. (E) DOWNSPOUTS TO REMAIN. RELOCATE AS REQUIRED. FLUSH FLOOR DRAIN. ROUTE PIPING BETWEEN JOISTS AND OVER BEAM TO EXISTING ADJACENT DOWNSPOUT. VERIFY LOCATION OF PIPING IN FIELD. REBUILD AND EXTEND FAUX BOX BEAM TO CONCEAL PIPING. REMOVE (E) FLOORING IN MASTER BATH AND CLOSET IN PREPARATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION REMOVE & REPLACE COLUMN, CLADDING, IN KIND AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SCOPE OF WORK, S.S.D. 1/A3.0 1/A3.11/A3.22/A3.0 2/A3.12/A3.22SCALE: PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION NEW FLOOR CONSTRUCTION A 1 B CD E X X DOOR TAG WINDOW TAG 2 11 12 13 14 15 16 3 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/8"=1'-0" B A C 17 18 19 20 21 G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 E D AH MASTER CLOSET 1 (E) MASTER BEDROOM (E)BATH#4 (E)CLOSET (E) BEDROOM #4 (E) LAUNDRY (E) LINEN (E) CLO. (E) HALL (E) (E) (E) (E)(E)(E)(E)(E) (E) (E) (E)(E)(E) (E) (E) (E)(E)(E) (E) (E) (E) GYP BD CLG +8'-11" (E) GYP BD CLG +7'-11" (E) GYP BD CLG W GYP BD CLG +7'-11" ℄ DOOR MASTER BATH GYP BD CLG +7'-11" TOILET MASTER CLOSET 2 GYP BD CLG +7'-11" ℄ ℄ SINK ℄℄ SINK (E) (E) WINDOW DRAWER WP WP ℄ SHOWER T SHELF SHOWER TERRACE 58 SF ℄ DOOR (E)(E) (E)(E)(E) +7'-11" G F C B 1 2 3 4 5 6 E D AH (E) MASTER BEDROOM (E)BATH#4 (E)CLOSET (E) BEDROOM #4 (E) LAUNDRY (E) LINEN (E) CLO. (E) HALL (E) (E) (E) (E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) (E)(E)(E)(E) (E)(E)(E) (E) (E) (E)(E)(E) (E) (E) (E) GYP BD CLG +8'-11" (E) GYP BD CLG +7'-11" (E) MASTER BATH (E) TOILET (E) MASTER CLOSET (E) (E) (E) (E) GYP BD CLG +7'-11" (E) GYP BD CLG +7'-11" (E)(E) (E)(E)(E) SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,BURLINGAME, CA 94010BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A2.3 DEMOLITION / PROPOSED RCP & MEP SCHEMATICS 1 05/2021 DEMOLITION RCP & MEP SCHEMATICS SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" N 2PROPOSED RCP & MEP SCHEMATICS SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" WALL LEGEND (E) WALL TO REMAIN NEW WALL CONSTRUCTION TAG LEGEND X/A3.0ELEVATION TAG SECTION TAG KEYNOTES MEP GENERAL NOTES DESIGN-BUILD SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, FIRE SPRINKLER AND LOW VOLTAGE SYSTEMS FOR THE HOME. THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING COMPLETE DESIGN DRAWINGS, OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, PROVIDING MATERIALS, LABOR AND EQUIPMENT TO COMPLETE SCOPE OF WORK. SCHEMATIC MEP DRAWINGS PREPARED BY THE ARCHITECT INDICATE BASIC DESIGN CRITERIA AND REQUIREMENTS. IF ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT OR DEVICES ARE REQURIED FOR AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE OR CODE COMPLIANCE, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DESIGN-BUILD SUBCONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE. DESIGN-BUILD SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS INDICATING EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS, LIGHTING SCHEDULES, SIZE AND LOCATION OF PIPES, CONDUITS AND DUCT RUNS, ETC. SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE ARCHITECT TO REVIEW. EXACT EQUIPMENT AND DEVICE LOCATIONS SHALL BE COORDINATED AND VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL UTILITY AND BUILDING SYSTEMS SCOPE OF WORK IN THE FIELD WITH DESIGN-BUILD SUBCONTRACTOR, OWNER AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PATCH & REPAIR ALL FLOORS, WALLS AND CEILINGS WHERE ABANDONED BUILDING SYSTEM COMPONENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. REPAIR IN-KIND TO MATCH ADJACENT. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. PLUMBING MAINTAIN (E) PLUMBING SYSTEM. PROVIDE NEW PLUMBING SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE RENOVATION SCOPE OF WORK. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO INCLUDE SINGLE LINE DIAGRAMS, FIXTURE SCHEDULES, PLUMBING ACCESSORIES, SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT AND PIPING. ALL BUILDING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS WITH QUICK-ACTING VALVES SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH PRESSURE ABSORBING DEVICES. PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL MEET THE CPC AND CALGREEN REQUIREMENTS. - KITCHEN FAUCETS: MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.8 GPM - SHOWER HEADS: MAXIMUM FLOW RATE OF 1.8 GPM. - LAVATORY: MAXIMUM OF 1.2 GALLONS PER FLUSH. - WATER CLOSETS: MAXIMUM OF 1.28 GPM. SHOWER AND TUB COMBINATIONS SHALL HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONTROL VALVES OF THE THERMOSTATIC MIXING OR PRESSURE BALANCE TYPE ALL HOSE BIBBS SHALL HAVE BACKFLOW PREVENTERS. PROVIDE STEAM SHOWER SYSTEM FOR MASTER BATH. COORDINATE AND LOCATE EQUIPMENT & ACCESS IN FIELD WITH ARCHITECT. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ELECTRICAL MAINTAIN (E) ELECTRICAL SERVICE. PROVIDE NEW ELECTRICAL SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE RENOVATION SCOPE OF WORK. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO INCLUDE SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, LOAD CALCULATIONS, PANEL SCHEDULE, SIZE AND LOCATION OF ALL EQUIPMENT, DEVICES AND CONDUIT. EACH FIXED APPLICANCE SHALL BE SUPPLIED BY A SEPARATE BRANCH CIRCUIT RATED FOR THE APPLICANCE OR LOAD SERVED. PROVIDE TWO 20 AMP UTILITY CIRCUITS AT A MINIMUM TO SUPPLY KITCHEN RECEPTACLES. IN BATHROOMS, PROVIDE AT LEAST ONE 20 AMP DEDICATED RECEPTACLE. KITCHEN AND BATHROOM COUNTERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH GFCI PROTECTED RECEPTACLE OUTLETS. KITCHEN RECEPTACLES SHALL BE SPACED NO GREATER THAN 2'-0" FROM EACH OTHER. RECEPTACLES NOT LOCATED IN THE KITCHEN AND BATHROOM SHALL BE MOUNTED RECEPTACLE OUTLETS AT 18" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR, U.O.N. AND AT A DISTANCE OF 6'-0" MAXIMUM FROM EACH OTHER MEASURED HORIZONTALLY ALONG ANY WALL SPACE PER NEC. 210-52. MOUNT SWITCHES AT 42" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR, U.O.N. CONTRACTOR TO LABEL ALL ELECTRICAL PANEL CIRCUITS. ALL 124-VOLT, 15- AND 20-AMPERE RECEPTACLE OUTLETS SHALL BE TAMPER RESISTANT RECEPTACLES. PROVIDE AFCI PROTECTED RECEPTACLES IN FAMILY ROOMS, DINING ROOMS, LIVING ROOMS, PARLORS, LIBRARIES, DENS, BEDROOMS, SUNROOMS, RECREATION ROOMS, CLOSETS, HALLWAYS, OR SIMILAR ROOMS OR AREAS PER CEC 210.12. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. LOW VOLTAGE PROVIDE STRUCTURAL WIRING TO COMBINATION JACKS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. ALL WIRING HOME RUN TO PUNCH DOWN PANEL. EACH COMBINATION JACK TO INCLUDE TWO COAX TERMINALS, ONE VOICE JACK AND ONE CAT-6 JACK. RETROFIT EXISTING SPEAKER SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE NEW SCOPE OF WORK. PROVIDE NEW EXTERIOR WALL MOUNTED SPEAKER. 1. 2. 3. LIGHTING KITCHEN: PROVIDE HIGH EFFICACY LIGHTING FIXTURES. BATHROOMS, GARAGES AND UTILITY ROOMS: PROVIDE HIGH EFFICACY LIGHTING FIXTURES WITH OCCUPANCY SENSOR AND MANUAL-ON MOTION SENSOR. BEDROOMS, HALLWAYS AND OTHER ROOMS: PROVIDE HIGH EFFICACY LIGHTING CONTROLLED BY DIMMER SWITCH. PROVIDE HARD WIRED COMBINATION SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS IN EVERY SLEEPING ROOM AND HALLWAY OUTSIDE OF SLEEPING ROOMS. ALARMS SHALL BE 120V WITH BATTERY BACKUP AND AUDIBLE. ROOMS INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY REQUIRE ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING OF A MINIMUM OF 10 FOOT-CANDLES OVER THE AREA OF TEH ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30" AFF, IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM NET GLAZED AREA FOR NATURAL LIGHT PER CBC 1205.3. STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE AN ILLUMINATION LEVEL OF NOT LESS THAN 1 FOOT-CANDLE PER CBC 1205.4. ALL RECESSED LUMINARES IN CONTACT WITH INSULATION SHALL BE IC-RATED, SHALL BE APPROVED FOR ZERO CLEARANCE AND SHALL INCLUDE A LABEL CERTIFYING AIR TIGHT AND SEALED WITH CASKET OR CAULK BETWEEN THE HOUSING AND THE CEILING. ALL CLOSETS SHALL HAVE LINEAR LED LIGHT STRIP THAT SHALL BE OPERATED OFF A JAMB SWITCH, TYPICAL THROUGHOUT. PROVIDE NEW FIXTURES WHERE SHOWN. (E) FIXTURES IN ROOMS NOT SHOWN AS OF RENOVATION SCOPE OF WORK TO REMAIN. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING UTILITY SERVICE WORK WITH PROPER AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENTS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE TEMPORARY SHUT OFF, DISCONNECT AND INSTALLATION FOR GAS, ELECTRICAL, SANITARY SEWER, WATER, TELEPHONE, PHONE AND DATA. PROTECT ALL EXISTING SERVICES IN AREA OF CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN AND MAINTAIN IT IN SAME GOOD OPERATING CONDITION. REMOVE AND TERMINATE ALL ABANDONED MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, LOW VOLTAGE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES. CAPPED UTILITIES SHALL NOT BE LEFT EXPOSED OR SHALL BE CONCEALED WITHIN WALLS. VERIFY ALL UTILITY P.O.C. TO THE BUILDING NEW DUCTWORK, CONDUITS AND PIPING SHALL BE CONCEALED IN WALLS AND HIDDEN IN FLOORS AND CEILINGS, U.O.N. PROVIDE SEISMIC ANCHORAGE FOR ALL BUILT-IN APPLICANCES. COMBINE AND GANG PLUMBING VENTS, EXHAUST FLUE AND ALL OTHER ROOF PENETRATIONS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE TO MINIMIZE ROOF PENETRATIONS AND REDUCE ROOF CLUTTER. MAINTAIN LIGHTING AND DEVICES IN (E) ROOMS THAT REMAIN. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. D 3 H RECESSED WATERPROOF DOWNLIGHT RECESSED DOWNLIGHT RECESSED ADJUSTABLE LIGHT FIXTURE WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE CEILING MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE SURFACE MOUNTED LINEAR LIGHT FIXTURE EXHAUST FAN SINGLE POLO SWITCH SINGLE POLO SWITCH WITH DIMMER SWITCH, 3 WAY SWITCH, HOT WIRED TO OUTLET SWITCH, SMART. COORDINATE OPERATION WITH OWNER COMBINATION SMOKE / CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR RECESSED SPEAKER WALL MOUNTED SPEAKER MEP LEGEND w SD AFCI GFI WP +42" FLOOR / DATA OUTLET DUPLEX OUTLET QUADPLEX OUTLET ARC FAULT INTERRUPT OUTLET GROUND FAULT INTERRUPT OUTLET WATERPROOF OUTLET WITH GROUND FAULT INTERRUPT DUPLEX OUTLET LOCATED ABOVE FINISH FLOOR DIMENSIONED EV CHARGING STATION RECEPTACLE 12 SWITCHED TV I HB ETHERNET DATA OUTLET DATA / TELEPHONE OUTLET DATA / USB OUTLET CABLE TV OUTLET INTERCOM HOSE BIBB FIRE SPRINKLER HEAD S MECHANICAL MAINTAIN (E) MECHANICAL SYSTEM. PROVIDE NEW MECHANICAL SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE RENOVATION SCOPE OF WORK. PROVIDE ELECTRIC RADIANT HEAT PADS FOR MASTER BATH & CLOSET SPACES. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS TO SPECIFY, SIZE AND LOCATE OF ALL EQUIPMENT, THERMOSTATS, PIPE ROUTES, RADIATORS AND TEMPERATURE ZONES. MECHANICAL VENTILATION SYSTEM SHALL MET ASHRAE 62.2 REQUIREMENTS PER TITLE 24, PART 6 AND ALSO COMPLY WITH LOCAL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. PROVIDE EXHAUST FANS IN THE KITCHEN WITH A MINIMUM AIRFLOW RATE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 100 CFM AND ALL BATHROOMS WITH A MINIMUM AIRFLOW RATE GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 50 CFM AND WITH A FAN SONE NOT TO EXCEED 3.0. A VENTED RANGE HOOD TO THE OUTDOORS WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE KITCHEN IF THE EXHAUST FAN IS LESS THAN 5 ARC. ALL AIR EXHAUST DUCTS (KITCHEN, RANGE HOOD, BATHROOM FAN, DRYER, ETC.) SHALL BE TERMINATED 3'-0" MINIMUM FROM ANY OPENINGS OR PROPERTY LINE. PROVIDE BACK DRAFT DAMPER. 1. 2. 3. THERMOSTAT FOR ELECTRIC RADIANT FLOORS IN BATHROOM CONCEALED AUTOMATIC ROMAN SHADES. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CASEWORK CUTOUTS TO PROVIDE POWER FOR DRAWER DUPLEX OUTLETS DIFFUSER 2/A3.0 2/A3.12/A3.21/A3.0 1/A3.11/A3.2INSTALL SALVAGED SPEAKER SYSTEM. COORDINATE WITH SPEAKER DESIGN-BUILD VENDOR. PAINTED CEILING MOUNTED DIFFUSER. PROVIDE HARD-WIRED POWER FOR HEATED TOWEL RACK. REMOVE AND RELOCATE ALL MECHANICAL DIFFUSER. MECHANICAL SYSTEM SHALL BE PROVIDED BY DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR AND SUBMITTED AS A DEFERRED APPROVAL. REMOVE AND SALVAGE ALL EXISTING SPEAKER SYSTEM FOR RE-USE. EXISTING ATTIC ACCESS HATCH TO REMAIN REMOVE AND RELOCATE SWITCH. COORDINATE NEW SWITCHES IN THE MASTER BATHROOM WITH HOMEOWNER. REMOVE ALL ABANDONED EXISTING BUILDING SYSTEMS IN MASTER BATH, CLOSET AND TOILET IN PREPARATION FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE AND RELOCATE EXISTING FIRE SPRINKLER HEADS. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY DESIGN-BUILD CONTRACTOR AND SUBMITTED AS A DEFERRED APPROVAL. 11 12 REMOVE AND REPLACE GYPSUM BOARD CEILING AND WALLS AS REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE NEW CONSTRUCTION. 13 2 A B D E F HGC 4'-0"SIDE SETBACK* 8'-0"SIDE SETBACK* PER SECTION 25.10.030 / 25.10.035 A B D E F HGC 4'-0"SIDE SETBACK* 8'-0"SIDE SETBACK* PER SECTION 25.10.030 / 25.10.035 SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,BURLINGAME, CA FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A3.0 DEMOLITION / PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION 05/2021 2PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 1DEMOLITION REAR ELEVATION SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" GENERAL NOTES REMOVE ALL ABANDONED MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS FROM THE EXTERIOR BUILDING FACADE. CONCEAL BUILDING SYSTEMS IN WALLS,FLOORS OR CEILING. PROVIDE PATCH OR REPAIR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM REMOVED WALL MOUNTED COMPONENTS. WHERE INDICATED DASHED, DOOR AND WINDOW SYSTEMS SHALL BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS INCLUDES BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WINDOWS, DOORS, WOOD TRIM, FLASHING, CAULKING, HARDWARE, ETC. PATCH, REPAIR, INFILL AND PREPARE EXTERIOR WALLS AND TRIM IN AREA OF WORK TO RECEIVE NEW 3-COAT PAINTING SYSTEM. PAINT AND FINISHES SHALL MATCH (E) ADJACENT 1. 2. 3. KEYNOTES PAINTED GUARDRAIL, PONY WALL AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET A7.2 PATCH, REPAIR & INFILL WALL CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH (E) ADJACENT. REMOVE (E) EXTERIOR FINISHES AND WALL CONSTRUCTION TO ACCOMMODATE NEW SCOPE OF WORK. REMOVE (E) WINDOW SYSTEMS WHERE SHOWN DASHED, TYPICAL REMOVE (E) PORCH CEILING & ROOF CONSTRUCTION IN PREPARATION FOR NEW SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE EXACT EXTENT OF ROOF, CEILING, TRIM, MOLDING, GUTTERS, ETC. DEMOLITION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SCOPE OF WORK. REBUILD PORCH CEILING & ROOF (WOOD SHAKES, GUTTER, TRIM, CEILING, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING, FAUX BOX BEAM, ETC.) TO MATCH EXISTING. CONNECT FROM TERRACE DRAIN TO NEW DOWNSPOUT TO (E) ADJACENT 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,BURLINGAME, CA FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A3.1 DEMOLITION / PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 05/2021 1DEMOLITION SIDE ELEVATION SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 2PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" GENERAL NOTES REMOVE ALL ABANDONED MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS FROM THE EXTERIOR BUILDING FACADE. CONCEAL BUILDING SYSTEMS IN WALLS,FLOORS OR CEILING. PROVIDE PATCH OR REPAIR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM REMOVED WALL MOUNTED COMPONENTS. WHERE INDICATED DASHED, DOOR AND WINDOW SYSTEMS SHALL BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS INCLUDES BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WINDOWS, DOORS, WOOD TRIM, FLASHING, CAULKING, HARDWARE, ETC. PATCH, REPAIR, INFILL AND PREPARE EXTERIOR WALLS AND TRIM IN AREA OF WORK TO RECEIVE NEW 3-COAT PAINTING SYSTEM. PAINT AND FINISHES SHALL MATCH (E) ADJACENT 1. 2. 3. KEYNOTES PAINTED GUARDRAIL, PONY WALL AND ROOF CONSTRUCTION. SEE DETAIL ON SHEET A7.2 PATCH, REPAIR & INFILL WALL CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH (E) ADJACENT. REMOVE (E) EXTERIOR FINISHES AND WALL CONSTRUCTION TO ACCOMMODATE NEW SCOPE OF WORK. REMOVE (E) PORCH CEILING & ROOF CONSTRUCTION IN PREPARATION FOR NEW SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE EXACT EXTENT OF ROOF, CEILING, TRIM, MOLDING, GUTTERS, ETC. DEMOLITION REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE SCOPE OF WORK. REBUILD PORCH CEILING & ROOF (WOOD SHAKES, GUTTER, TRIM, CEILING, FLASHING, WATERPROOFING, FAUX BOX BEAM, ETC.) TO MATCH EXISTING. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,BURLINGAME, CA FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A3.2 DEMOLITION / PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION 05/2021 2PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 1DEMOLITION SIDE ELEVATION SCALE:1/4"=1'-0" GENERAL NOTES REMOVE ALL ABANDONED MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING SYSTEMS FROM THE EXTERIOR BUILDING FACADE. CONCEAL BUILDING SYSTEMS IN WALLS,FLOORS OR CEILING. PROVIDE PATCH OR REPAIR ANY DAMAGES RESULTING FROM REMOVED WALL MOUNTED COMPONENTS. WHERE INDICATED DASHED, DOOR AND WINDOW SYSTEMS SHALL BE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. THIS INCLUDES BUT SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO WINDOWS, DOORS, WOOD TRIM, FLASHING, CAULKING, HARDWARE, ETC. PATCH, REPAIR, INFILL AND PREPARE EXTERIOR WALLS AND TRIM IN AREA OF WORK TO RECEIVE NEW 3-COAT PAINTING SYSTEM. PAINT AND FINISHES SHALL MATCH (E) ADJACENT 1. 2. 3. KEYNOTES REMOVE (E) EXTERIOR FINISHES AND WALL CONSTRUCTION TO ACCOMMODATE NEW SCOPE OF WORK. NEW WINDOW PATCH, REPAIR & INFILL WALL CONSTRUCTION TO MATCH (E) ADJACENT. REMOVE (E) WINDOWS WHERE SHOWN DASHED, TYPICAL DOOR SCHEDULE DOOR FRAME NOTESIZE TYPE MATL GLAZING MATLWIDTHHEIGHTTHK. A 2'-10"6'-8"1-3/4"A WD WD PANEL DOOR TO MATCH (E) STYLE B 2'-8"6'-8"1-3/4"A WD WD PANEL DOOR TO MATCH (E) STYLE C 2'-8"6'-8"1-3/4"A WD WD PANEL DOOR TO MATCH (E) STYLE D 2'-6"6'-8"1-3/4"A WD WD EXISTING, INSTALL SALVAGED. E 5'-0"6'-8"1-3/4"B WD TEMPERED WD A B WINDOW SCHEDULE WINDOW FRAME NOTESIZETYPEMATLGLAZINGMATLWIDTHHEIGHTSILL 1 7'-2"4'-0"3'-8"A WD -WD . A B 2 2'-2"4'-0"3'-8"B WD -WD . SHEET PROJECT NO. DRAWN BY CHECKED BYPROJECT TITLEREVISIONDATE720 YORK S T R E E T, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 5 CONSULTANT 22001 BS DP SHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL CA 94010BUILDING RENOVATION FOR THEPRICING SET07/28/2022PERMIT SET11/15/2022PLAN CHECK REVISIONS02/27/2023A5.0 SCHEDULES 05/2021 DOOR SCHEDULE NOTE 1. DOORS WITH GLAZING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH DUAL GLAZED TEMPERED SAFETY GLASS. 2. VERIFY ROUGH OPENING FOR ALL OPENINGS. 3. INTERIOR DOORS: PROVIDE PAINT GRADE SOUD CORE WOOD DOORS 4. SEE FLOOR PLANS FOR DOOR SWING AND SLIDING DIRECTION. 5. DOOR HARDWARE SHALL BE TBD. PROVIDE $250 / DOOR ALLOWANCE FOR HARDWARE. 1. SEE ELEVATION FOR WINDOW SWING AND SLIDING DIRECTIONS. 2. EMERGENCY EXIT & RESCUE WINDOW SHALL HAVE A NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT OF 24 INCHES MINIMUM AND NET CLEAR OPENING WIDTH OF 20 INCHES MINIMUM. BOTTOM OF OPENING SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 44 INCHES AFF. 3. PROVIDE DUAL INSULATED GLAZING FOR NEW WINDOWS. WINDOW SCHEDULE NOTE WINDOW TYPE DOOR TYPE CONSULTANTPROJECT TITLESHEETBUILDING RENOVATION FOR THESHIMKUS RESIDENCE317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010REVISION DATEPROJECT NO.DRAWN BYCHECKED BY22001DPDPPRICING SET 7/28/2022720 YORK STREET, SUITE 104 SAN FRANCISCO , CA 94110 4 1 5 - 8 1 6 - 5 8 8 55/2023PRICING SET11/15/2022PERMIT SETA7.1DETAILS2X WOOD STUDS. S.S.D.BINTERIORINTERIOR5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARDWALL TYPETHICKNESS FIRE RATING INSULATIONSTC RATINGWOOD FRAMING, S.S.D.R-13 MIN.WALL TYPE A (EXTERIOR)1SCALE: 1-1/2" = 1'-0"WALL TYPE B (INTERIOR)2SCALE: 1-1/2" = 1'-0"2X WOOD STUDS. S.S.D.CINTERIORINTERIORWALL TYPETHICKNESS FIRE RATING INSULATIONSTC RATINGWOOD FRAMING, S.S.D.R-13 MIN.5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD FINISH, TYP.U.O.N.CERAMIC TILE / STONE FINISH. SEE TCNA INSTALLATION DETAILS5/8" CEMENT BACKER BOARD FOR SHOWER & TUB LOCATIONS. 5/8" WATER RESISTENT GYPSUM BOARD FOR GENERAL BATHROOMWATERPROOF MEMBRANEINSULATION FOR SOUND ATTENUATIONINSULATION FOR SOUND ATTENUATION2X WOOD STUDS. S.S.D.AINTERIOREXTERIORPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDING TO MATCH (E)RAINSCREEN / WATER RESISTIVE MEMBRANEPLYWOOD SHEATHING, S.S.D. FOR PLACEMENT LOCATIONWALL TYPETHICKNESS FIRE RATING INSULATIONSTC RATINGWOOD FRAMING, S.S.D.R-13 MIN.5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM BOARD FINISHINSULATION PER TITLE 24 REQUIREMENTSWALL TYPE C (INTERIOR)3SCALE: 1-1/2" = 1'-0" B.O. HEADER 5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD, U.O.N.LAP FLEXIBLE FLASHING O/ GSM FLASHINGWOOD WINDOW SYSTEM. SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR MORE INFORMATION.PAINTED GSM WINDOW FLASHING WITH DRIP EDGEWOOD SHINGLEWOOD TRIM WITH DRIP EDGEPROVIDE FLEXIBLE FLASHING AROUND WINDOW OPENING.WOOD TRIMWEATHER RESISTIVE MEMBRANEWOOD WINDOW SYSTEM. SEE WINDOW SCHEDULE FOR MORE INFORMATION.WOOD TRIMWEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIERWOOD SHEATHING, S.S.D. FOR PLACEMENT LOCATION5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD, U.O.N.PROVIDE FLEXIBLE FLASHING AROUND WINDOW OPENING.WOOD SHINGLEWINDOW MULLIONWOOD APRONHEADER, S.S.D.SHIM BLOCK2X STUD FRAMING, S.S.D.WOOD TRIMSHIM BLOCKWOOD APRON BELOWWOOD SILLWOOD JAMB EXTENSIONSB.O. HEADER HEADER, S.S.D.SHIM BLOCKGYPSUM BOARD OR PLYWOOD FINISH. SEE FINISH SCHEDULELAP FLEXIBLE FLASHING O/ GSM FLASHINGDOOR SYSTEM. SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FOR MORE INFORMATION.PAINTED GSM DOOR FLASHING WITH DRIP EDGEWOOD TRIM WITH DRIP EDGEPROVIDE FLEXIBLE FLASHING AROUND DOOR OPENING.WOOD TRIMWEATHER RESISTIVE MEMBRANEDOOR SYSTEM. SEE DOOR SCHEDULE FOR MORE INFORMATION.WOOD TRIMWEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIERWOOD SHEATHING, S.S.D. FOR PLACEMENT LOCATION2X STUD FRAMING, S.S.D.WOOD TRIM5/8" TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD, U.O.N.PROVIDE FLEXIBLE FLASHING AROUND WINDOW OPENING.SHIM BLOCKLINE OF DOOR FRAMELINE OF DOOR THRESHOLD BELOW2TYPICAL WINDOW HEAD / SILLSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"3TYPICAL WINDOW JAMBSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"5TYPICAL DOOR HEADSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"6TYPICAL DOOR JAMBSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"WOOD SHINGLESWOOD SHINGLEWOOD SHINGLE (E) WOOD FLOOR SYSTEM O/ SHEATHINGSHAPED WOOD THRESHOLDWOOD DOOR SYSTEM(E) WOOD FLOORING FRAMING TO REMAINGSM DECK PAN & DOOR FLASHINGPAVERS SET IN MORTAR BED, SEE INTERIOR DESIGN SPECIFICATION. SLOPE 1/4" MINIMUM TO FLUSH FLOOR DRAINWOOD LEDGER & JOIST, S.S.D.7DOOR THRESHOLDSCALE: 3" = 1'-0"SLOPED SUBBASEWATERPROOF MEMBRANEFLEXIBLE SEALANT TO MATCH FLOORINGPLYWOOD SHEATHING, S.S.D. PAINTED SHAPED WOOD CAP & RAILINGWOOD SHAKE ROOFING SYSTEM TO MATCH (E)PAINTED 1X WOOD TRIM WITH DRIP EDGEPAINTED RAFTERS & 1X BOARD SIDING TO MATCH (E)PAINTED RAFTERS TO MATCH (E)PAINTED GSM FLASHINGPAINTED FASCIA TO MATCH (E)GUARDRAIL RAIL & ROOF4SCALE: 1-1/2" = 1'-0"1 1/4"1/4"3 1/2"3/4"PAINTED 3/4" X 1" WOOD PICKETS. SPACE 4-1/2" O.C., TYPICALPAINTED SHAPED WOOD CAPBACKER ROD AND SEALANT TO MATCH PAINT1/4"1 1/4"1/2"FLEXIBLE FLASHINGWATERPROOF MEMBRANEPAINTED WOOD SHINGLE SIDING TO MATCH (E)PAVER FLOOR SYSTEM, SEE DETAIL 7/-FLEXIBLE FLASHING O/ DECK PAN 6" MIN.ROOFING UNDERLAYMENTPONY WALL & BALCONY CONSTRUCTION, S.S.D.PAINTED 1X WOOD BOARD SIDING TO MATCH (E). PROVIDE ROOF VENT TO MATCH (E)PAINTED 1" WOOD TRIM AROUND (E) BEAMFLEXIBLE FLASHING 1. • • • • • • 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. GENERAL GOVERNING CODES: ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 24: CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE: 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE (CEC), 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC) 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEC) THE NOTES ON THE STRUCTURAL PLANS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THESE NOTES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AT THE JOB SITE BEFORE COMMENCING WORK AND SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. OMISSIONS OR CONFLICTS BETWEEN VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE DRAWINGS, NOTES, AND DETAILS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD AND RESOLVED BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. DETAILS SHOWN SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT AT ALL APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS WHETHER SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT OR NOT. THE CLIENT/CLIENT'S REPRESENTATIVE MUST SUBMIT IN WRITING FOR ANY INQUIRIES OR MODIFICATION REQUESTS FOR THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. SHOP DRAWINGS SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER OF RECORD FOR REVIEW DO NOT CONSTITUTE "IN WRITING" UNLESS IT IS CLEARLY NOTED THAT SPECIFIC CHANGES ARE BEING REQUESTED. UNLESS SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, NO STRUCTURAL MEMBER SHALL BE CUT, DRILLED, OR NOTCHED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. CONSTRUCTION METHOD AND PROJECT SAFETY: THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS REPRESENT THE FINISHED STRUCTURE AND DO NOT INDICATE METHODS, PROCEDURES OR SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION. TAKE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS TO MAINTAIN AND INSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE STRUCTURE DURING CONSTRUCTION. HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING WILL NOT ENFORCE SAFETY MEASURES OR REGULATIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGN, CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING AND BRACING, AND SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAWS AND REGULATONS. 1. 2. 3. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THAT MAY BE ON THE SITE. HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING HAS NOT PERFORMED INVESTIGATIONS TO DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. THE OWNER WILL PROVIDE THE RESULTS OF SUCH INVESTIGATIONS IF THEY HAVE BEEN PERFORMED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT PERSONNEL WITHIN THE WORK AREA ARE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. IF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE DISCOVERED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE WORK UNTIL CONDITIONS CAN BE MAINTAINED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. WOOD NOTES ALL WOOD CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PER CBC, CHAPTER 23. ALL STRUCTURAL LUMBER SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH AND MUST CONFORM TO THE GRADING RULES OF THE WESTERN WOOD PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION. REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL APPEARANCE REQUIREMENTS. ALL PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER TO BE STAMPED BY AN APPROVED GRADING AGENCY. STRUCTURAL LUMBER SHALL BE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED): A.BEAMS & POSTS (2x AND 4x) NO. 2 B.BEAMS & POSTS (6x OR LARGER) NO. 1 C.STUDS NO. 2 (2x4, 3x4, 2x6 AND 3x6) D.JOISTS NO. 2 NEW STUD AND POST SIZES SHALL BE (UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED): A.STUD WALLS2x4 @ 16” ON CENTER FOR INTERIOR WALLS, OR S.A.D. 2x6 @ 16” ON CENTER FOR EXTERIOR WALLS & PLUMBING WALLS & SHEAR WALLS B.POSTS AS MINIMUM SHALL HAVE WIDTH TO MATCH BEAM WIDTH ABOVE AND DEPTH TO MATCH WALL THICKNESS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL STRUCTURAL LUMBER SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT OF 19% AT TIME OF INSTALLATION. ALL NAILS USED IN TIMBER-TO-TIMBER CONNECTIONS SHALL BE COMMON WIRE NAILS AND NAILING SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. WHERE NAILS TEND TO SPLIT THE WOOD, NAIL HOLES SHALL BE PREDRILLED. ALL NAILS CONNECTING PRE-MANUFACTURED METAL ITEMS (CONNECTORS, HANGERS, STRAPS, ETC) TO TIMBER SHALL CONFORM TO THE MANUFACTURER'S CATALOGUE AND APPLICABLE ICC- ES EVALUATION REPORTS. ALL STUD WALLS SHALL HAVE 2x FIRE BLOCKING AT 10'-0" O.C. MAXIMUM. WALL STUDS SHALL ALIGN WITH FLOOR AND ROOF JOISTS FOR FULL HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE. 2x BLOCKING SHALL BE INSTALLED BETWEEN JOISTS AND RAFTERS OVER SUPPORTS. WHERE WOOD IS IN CONTACT WITH EARTH, CONCRETE OR MASONRY, PRESSURE TREATED DOUGLAS FIR-LARCH SHALL BE USED. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ALL SILL PLATES IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE OR MASONRY SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH 5/8"ø ANCHOR BOLTS WITH 7” EMBEDMENT AT 4'-0" O.C. W/ 3"x3"x1/4" PLATE WASHERS. ALL BOLT HEADS AND NUTS WHICH BEAR AGAINST THE FACE OF WOOD MEMBERS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH WASHERS. NO UPSET THREADS ARE ALLOWED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PROVIDE POST OR MULTIPLE STUDS FOR SOLID BEARING AT THE ENDS OF ALL BEAMS OR GIRDER TRUSSES WHERE POSTS ARE NOT SHOWN. PROVIDE SOLID BLOCKING AT BEARING WALLS UNDER PERPENDICULAR PARTITIONS. PROVIDE DOUBLE FLOOR JOISTS UNDER PARALLEL PARTITIONS. MINIMUM SPLICE NAILING OF DOUBLE PLATES TO BE AS FOLLOWS: SIXTEEN (16) 16d EACH SIDE OF SPLICE WITH NO ADJACENT SPLICE WITHIN 4'-0". SEE TYPICAL DETAIL FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. FACE NAIL TWO PIECE BUILT-UP BEAMS WITH 16d AT 12" O.C. STAGGERED AT TOP AND BOTTOM TO ALTERNATE SIDES OF BEAM. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ROW OF NAILING AT ALL BEAMS GREATER THAN 12" DEEP. BOLT HOLES IN WOOD SHALL BE THE DIAMETER OF THE BOLT PLUS 1/16”, MAXIMUM. PRE-DRILL ALL HOLES FOR 20d AND LARGER NAILS, SPIKES AND LAG BOLTS. LEAD HOLES FOR LAGS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: A.SHANK PORTION:SAME DIAMETER AND LENGTH AS SHANK. B.THREADED PORTION: 60% TO 75% OF THE DIAMETER OF THE THREAD AND THE SAME LENGTH AS THREAD. HOLES FOR PIPES EXCEEDING ONE-THIRD OF THE PLATE WIDTH SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN PARTITIONS USED AS SHEAR WALLS AND BEARING WALLS UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED. PIPES SHALL PASS THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE PLATES. NOTCHING IS NOT ALLOWED. PROVIDE 2x SOLID BLOCKING AT A MINIMUM OF 8'-0" O.C. FOR SOLID SAWN JOISTS WHERE SHEATHING OR GYPSUM BOARD IS NOT APPLIED TO TOP AND BOTTOM OF JOISTS FOR ENTIRE LENGTH OF JOIST. ALL PREMANUFACTURED METAL ITEMS (CONNECTORS, HANGERS, STRAPS, ETC.) SHALL BE BY SIMPSON STRONG TIE COMPANY, INC. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. RETIGHTEN ALL BOLTS BEFORE CLOSING IN. USE SIMPSON MASONRY ANCHORS TITEN HD (ESR-1056) FOR WOOD TO MASONRY CONNECTION. ALL BOLTS, SCREWS, NAILS AND CONNECTORS EXPOSED TO THE WEATHER SHALL BE GALVANIZED. ALL BOLTS, SCREWS, NAILS AND CONNECTORS IN CONTACT WITH PRESSURE TREATED LUMBER SHALL BE HOTDIP ZINC COATED GALVANIZED OR STAINLESS STEEL PER SECTION 2304.9.5. DO NOT NOTCH ANY MEMBERS WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER OF RECORD, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THESE DRAWINGS AND DETAILS. 1. 2. DIMENSIONAL CONTROL DO NOT USE SCALED DIMENSIONS. WHERE NO WRITTEN DIMENSION IS PROVIDED, CONSULT WITH THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE FOR CLARIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING. VERIFICATION: VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS, ELEVATIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS BEFORE STARTING WORK. NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD IMMEDIATELY OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 1. 2. A. B. C. D. 3. A. B. C. 4. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. • • H. • • I. • • 5. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 6. A. B. C. DESIGN CRITERIA APPLICABLE CODE: CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS (CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, CBC) 2019 EDITION, PART 2. LIVE LOADS: ROOF (BASIC LIVE LOAD): 20 PSF CEILING (UNINHABITABLE ATTIC W/OUT STORAGE): 10 PSF FLOOR (BASIC LIVE LOAD): 40 PSF FLOOR (DECK): 40PSF x 1.5 = 60 PSF WIND DESIGN PARAMETERS: BASIC WIND SPEED: 102 MPH EXPOSURE: B WIND IMPORTANCE FACTOR: Iw=1.0 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS: OCCUPANCY CATEGORY: 2, STANDARD SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: D SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR: Ie = 1.0 LATITUDE: 37.5742213 NORTH LONGITUDE: 122.3512031 WEST SITE CLASS: D MAPPED MCE ACCELERATIONS Ss = 2.064 S1 = 0.854 SITE COEFFICIENT AT SHORT PERIOD Fa = 1.200 Fv = 1.700 ADJUSTED MCE SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACCELERATION PARAMETERS: SDS = 1.651 SD1 = 0.968 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS: A. BEARING WALL SYSTEM 15. LIGHT FRAME WALLS SHEATHED WITH WOOD STRUCTURAL PANELS RATED FOR SHEAR RESISTANCE R = 6.5 (RESPONSE MODIFICATION COEFFICIENT) Ωo = 2.5 (OVERSTRENGTH FACTOR) Cd = 4 (DEFLECTION AMPLIFICATION FACTOR) V = .178 x W (DESIGN BASE SHEAR) FOUNDATION DESIGN VALUES: BEARING CAPACITY (DL ONLY) 1500 PSF BEARING CAPACITY (DL + LL)1500 PSF BEARING CAPACITY (DL+LL+E/W)2000 PSF 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. CONCRETE REINFORCING STEEL ALL BARS, U.O.N.: ASTM A615, GR 60 OR ASTM A706, DEFORMED. MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER CAST AGAINST & EXPOSED TO EARTH.................3" EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER.......................2" NOT EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR IN CONTACT WITH GROUND: SLABS, WALLS, JOISTS..............................................3/4" CONCRETE MIXES FOR (N) CONCRETE ONLY MIX IDUSE STRENGTH, f'c WEIGHT AFOOTINGS 2,500 PSI NORMAL CHAIRS, SPACERS, AND SAND PLATES: AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONCRETE COVER. VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE DOWELED TO SUPPORTING MEMBERS WITH THE SAME SIZE AND SPACING OF REINFORCEMENT AS SHOWN IN THE DRAWINGS AND GENERAL NOTES. ANCHOR BOLTS, DOWELS, AND HOLD DOWN SECURELY HELD IN PLACE PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND OBSERVATION BY A INSPECTING AGENCY. ADMIXTURES: REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER. CALCIUM CHLORIDE OR ADDED CHLORIDES ARE NOT PERMITTED. VIBRATION: ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED WITH MECHANICAL VIBRATORS. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FOUNDATION NOTES INSTALLATION OF THE FOOTINGS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPTH BELOW FINISHED OR NATURAL GRADE SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM ACCORDING TO THE FOUNDATION DETAILS ON THE DRAWINGS. FIELD DISCOVERED CONDITIONS MAY NECESSITATE DEEPER FOUNDATIONS. ALL WATER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM FOUNDATION EXCAVATIONS PRIOR TO PLACING OF CONCRETE. ALL BACKFILL WITH ENGINEERED FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. FOOTINGS AND GRADE BEAMS SHALL BE CENTERED UNDER BEARING WALLS ABOVE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. VERIFY LOCATIONS FOR OPENINGS OR PENETRATIONS THROUGH CONCRETE, CONCRETE CURBS, FLOOR DEPRESSIONS, FLOOR SLOPES AND DRAINS, INSERTS, ETC. PRIOR TO POURING CONCRETE. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND OTHER DRAWINGS. SECOND FLOOR MASTER SUITE RENOVATION TO EXISTING TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. NEW MASTER SUITE WILL CONTAIN A NEW BALCONY, RENOVATED BATHROOM, AND CLOSET. MODIFY EXISTING BUILDING SYSTEMS TO ACCOMODATE NEW SCOPE OF WORK. SHEET LIST Sheet Name S0.0 GENERAL NOTES - STRUCTURAL S1.0 PARTIAL FOUNDATION, FLOOR FRAMING, AND SHEAR WALL PLAN S1.1 PARTIAL ROOF FRAMING AND SHEAR WALL PLAN S2.0 DETAILS S2.1 DETAILS SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail APPROVAL STAMP THESE PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EXPRESS USE ON THIS PROJECT. ANY REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWINGS OR ANY OF ITS DETAILS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE VIOLATOR MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW. As indicated 12/7/2022 11:06:03 AMS0.0 GENERAL NOTES - STRUCTURAL 2022-041 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 6-9-2022 DA LS SCOPE OF WORK No.Description Date (E) 6x6 POST REINFORCED INTO (E) 2' SQ. FTG. V.I.F.1 CONC. FTG. PER PLANCONC. CURB OR STEM WALL RAFTERS / JOISTS HEADERS / LEDGERS GIRDER / RIDGE / HIP BEAMS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. A. B. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. (N) FLOOR PLYWOOD SHALL BE 19/32 PERFORMANCE CATEGORY APA RATED SHEATHING, 32/16, STRUCTURAL 1, EXPOSURE 1 W/ 10d NAILS AT 6" E.N., 12" F.N., 6" B.N (N) ROOF PLYWOOD SHALL BE 15/32" PERFORMANCE CATEGORY APA RATED SHEATHING, 32/16, STRUCTURAL 1, EXPOSURE 1 W/ 10d NAILS AT 6" E.N., 12" F.N., 6" B.N.. REFER TO TYPICAL STUD WALL FRAMING DETAIL 1/S3.0 PLACE SHEAR PANEL ON SHEAR WALLS PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTING WALLS PER 3/S3.0 ALL NAILS SHALL BE COMMON NAILS U.O.N. NAILS SHALL NOT BE DRIVEN CLOSER TOGETHER THAN 1/2 OF THEIR LENGTH NOR CLOSER TO THE EDGE OF THE MEMBER THAN 1/4 OF THEIR LENGTH. PREDRILL HOLES WHERE WOOD TENDS TO SPLIT. THE PENETRATION OF THE NAIL INTO THE PIECE RECEIVING THE POINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/2 THE NAIL LENGTH. ALL HEADERS AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING U.O.N.: 4x8 D.F. #2 MIN @ 2x4 STUDWALL 6x8 D.F. #1 MIN @ 2x6 STUDWALL EXTERIOR STUD WALLS SHALL HAVE 15/32" PERFORMANCE CATEGORY APA RATED SHEATHING, 32/16, STRUCTURAL 1, EXPOSURE 1 W/ 10d NAILS AT 6" E.N., 12" F.N., 6" B.N., TYP. U.O.N. ON SHEAR WALL PLANS. ALL LUMBER EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR LUMBER IN DIRECT CONTACT W/ CONCRETE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED OR RATED FOR EXTERIOR USE. ALL METAL CONNECTORS EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE Z-MAX GALVANIZED OR RATED FOR EXTERIOR USE. CONCRETE SHALL BE CURED FOR TEN DAYS FROM TIME OF POUR BEFORE ANY LOAD MAYBE APPLIED. CONCRETE SHALL DEVELOP A MINIMUM 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2500 PSI. ALL ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M. F1554 GR. 36 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL SILL PLATES SHALL BE BOLTED TO FOUNDATION WITH 5/8"ø F1554 GR. 36 BOLTS SPACED 4'-0" MAX. U.O.N. EMBED BOLTS A MINIMUM OF 7" INTO CONCRETE. PROVIDE 3"x3"x1/4" WASHERS AT ALL A.B.'S. PROVIDE MINIMUM OF TWO BOLTS PER PLATE AND ONE BOLT 6" FROM THE END OF ALL PLATES. FOOTINGS SHALL BE POURED ON FIRM, UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL. IF OVER-EXCAVATION OCCURS, RECOMPACT SOIL TO 95% OF MAXIMUM DENSITY. ALL EXISTING FOOTINGS NOTED ON PLANS TO BE VERIFIED IN FIELD SHALL MEET THE DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS SHOWN. B.1 A 12 B C FTG. (E) CONT.FTG.(E) CONT.FTG. (E) CONT. 1 B.2 SCOPE OF WORK AT FOUNDATION (E) FLOOR JOISTS (E) FLOOR JOISTS (E) SHEAR WALL(E) SW24x9-RF (E) SW24x9-RF(E) SW24x9-RF (E) SW24x9-RF(E) SW24x9-RF (E) SW24x9-RF(E) SW24x9-RF 2x6 DECK JOISTS @16" O.C., CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE EXACT TOP OF JOIST HEIGHT IN THE FIELD TO ALLOW THE TOP OF JOIST TO BE 5" BELOW THE SECOND STORY FLOOR FINISH. NEW 4x6 FLUSH BEAM W/ LUS46 FACE HANGERS TO (E) BEAM AND NEW LEDGER (E) 6x10 No.2 P.T.D.F. FLUSH BEAM W/ ECQ TO (E) POST, V.I.F. 1 2 3 B.1 A 12 B C B.2 1 3 (E) FLOOR FRAMING 5 S2.1 (E) ROOF RAFTER7 S2.1 TYP. OUTLINE OF FLOOR ABOVE 2x PTDF LEDGER (E) BEAM (E) BEAM SCOPE OF WORK AT FLOOR FRAMING (E) SHEAR WALL(E) SW24x9-RF (E) SW24x9-RF(E) SW24x9-RF (E) SW24x9-RF(E) SW24x9-RF (E) SW24x9-RF(E) SW24x9-RF EDGE OF LOWER ROOF FRAMING 3 2 2x BLKG (E) SHEAR WALL STRONG WALL Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail APPROVAL STAMP THESE PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EXPRESS USE ON THIS PROJECT. ANY REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWINGS OR ANY OF ITS DETAILS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE VIOLATOR MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW. As indicated 12/7/2022 11:06:08 AMS1.0 PARTIAL FOUNDATION, FLOOR FRAMING, AND SHEAR WALL PLAN 2022-041 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 6-9-2022 DA LS FOUNDATION AND FLOOR FRAMING CALLOUTS FOUNDATION AND FRAMING LEGEND FOUNDATION AND FRAMING NOTES 1/4" = 1'-0" PARTIAL FOUNDATION, FLOOR FRAMING AND SHEAR WALL PLAN FLOOR FRAMING CALL OUTS 1/4" = 1'-0" PARTIAL FLOOR FRAMING AND SHEAR WALL PLAN No.Description Date SHEAR WALL LEGEND NOTE: EXISTING FRAMING MEMBERS PER. RECORD DRAWINGS OF RESIDENCE 10'-1"9'-2"10'-7"6'-3"3'-0"5'-1"7'-6"EQ.EQ. 3" 3"EQ.EQ.DN TOILET MASTER CLOSET 1 (E) MASTER BEDROOM (E)BATH#4 (E)CLOSET (E) BEDROOM #4 (E) LAUNDRY (E) LINEN (E) CLO. (E) BEDROOM #3 (E) HALL (E) BATH#2 (E) BATH#3 (E) BALCONY (E) CLO.(E) BEDROOM #2 W/D MAKEUP TABLE TOWEL WARMER MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET 2 HOOKSMIRROR SHOWER BENCH CL CLCL TERRACE 73 SF CL DOOR CL DOOR CL DOOR / WINDOW CL DOOR / WINDOW1/16"12'-1" SIDEWALKDS DSDS DSDSDSDSDSDSDSDS DS DSDN.DN.DN.DN.DN.DN DN0..0..LOT 10LOT 1012.25'N58°11'32"E(IN FEET)1 INCH = 8 FEET12.25'N58°11'32"E(IN FEET)1 INCH = 8 FEET1" = 8 ' 1" = 8 '20858"BRASS WASHER "RCEFOUND PK NAIL ANDPLUG AND TACK "LS 7440"FOUND 3/4" IP WITH PLASTICOCCIDENTAL AVENUE (60' RIGHT OF WAY) LOT12 LOT17DETACHEDGARAGE (E) 18" SYCAMORE(E) 18" SYCAMORE RIDGE: 79.0' RIDGE: 86.1'RIDGE: 74.7'(E) DRIVEWAY(E) LAWN151.67' LOT16(E) 6' WOOD/LATTICE FENCE153.66'(E) 6'FENCE* SEE DECLINING ENVELOPE PROFILE HEIGHTS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SHEET A3.0, A3.1, A3.2 & A3.3 (E) PATIO 50.00' 50.00'4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*15'-0"1ST FLOORFRONT SETBACK*20'-0"2ND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK*20858"BRASS WASHER "RCEFOUND PK NAIL ANDPLUG AND TACK "LS 7440"FOUND 3/4" IP WITH PLASTICOCCIDENTAL AVENUE (60' RIGHT OF WAY) 315 OCCIDENTAL AVENUEADJOINING RESIDENCE(APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT)LOT 9321 OCCIDENTAL AVENUEADJOINING RESIDENCE(APPROXIMATE FOOTPRINT)LOT 7 LOT12 LOT17DETACHEDGARAGE (E) 18" SYCAMORE(E) 18" SYCAMORE RIDGE: 79.0' RIDGE: 86.1'RIDGE: 74.7'(E) DRIVEWAY(E) LAWN(E) 4'WIREFENCE LOT16(E) 6' WOOD/LATTICE FENCE153.66'(E) 6'FENCE* SEE DECLINING ENVELOPE PROFILE HEIGHTS FOR MORE INFORMATION ON SHEET A0.1, A3.0, A3.1 & A3.2 (E) BRICK PATIO 50.00' 50.00'4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*4'-0" SIDE SETBACK*15'-0"1ST FLOOR REAR SETBACK*20'-0"2ND FLOOR REAR SETBACK*15'-0"1ST FLOORFRONT SETBACK*20'-0"2ND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1. 2. 3. 4. 5. A. B. 6. 7. 8. (N) ROOF PLYWOOD SHALL BE 15/32" PERFORMANCE CATEGORY APA RATED SHEATHING, 32/16, STRUCTURAL 1, EXPOSURE 1 W/ 10d NAILS AT 6" E.N., 12" F.N., 6" B.N.. REFER TO TYPICAL STUD WALL FRAMING DETAIL 1/S3.0 PLACE SHEAR PANEL ON SHEAR WALLS PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF INTERSECTING WALLS PER 3/S3.0 ALL NAILS SHALL BE COMMON NAILS U.O.N. NAILS SHALL NOT BE DRIVEN CLOSER TOGETHER THAN 1/2 OF THEIR LENGTH NOR CLOSER TO THE EDGE OF THE MEMBER THAN 1/4 OF THEIR LENGTH. PREDRILL HOLES WHERE WOOD TENDS TO SPLIT. THE PENETRATION OF THE NAIL INTO THE PIECE RECEIVING THE POINT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 1/2 THE NAIL LENGTH. ALL HEADERS AT DOOR AND WINDOW OPENINGS SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING U.O.N.: 4x8 D.F. #2 MIN @ 2x4 STUDWALL 6x8 D.F. #1 MIN @ 2x6 STUDWALL EXTERIOR STUD WALLS SHALL HAVE 15/32" PERFORMANCE CATEGORY APA RATED SHEATHING, 32/16, STRUCTURAL 1, EXPOSURE 1 W/ 10d NAILS AT 6" E.N., 12" F.N., 6" B.N., TYP. U.O.N. ON SHEAR WALL PLANS. ALL LUMBER EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR LUMBER IN DIRECT CONTACT W/ CONCRETE SHALL BE PRESSURE TREATED OR RATED FOR EXTERIOR USE. ALL METAL CONNECTORS EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE Z-MAX GALVANIZED OR RATED FOR EXTERIOR USE. (E) WALL LINE BELOW NEW FULL HEIGHT STUD WALL. SEE DETAIL SCOPE OF WORK AT ROOF FRAMING NEW FULL HEIGHT STUD WALL. SEE DETAIL (E) ROOF FRAMING 1/S2.0 1/S2.0 (E) ROOF RAFTER B.1 A 12 B C B.2 HDR. (E) SW24x8-RW(E) SW24x8-RW (E) SHEAR WALL(E) SHEAR WALLHDR.SHEAR WALL POST, SEE SHEAR WALL PLANS FOR POST SIZE AND CONNECTION CALL OUTSW RAFTERS / JOISTS HEADERS / LEDGERS GIRDER / HIP / VALLEY / RIDGE BEAMS (E) SHEAR WALL STRONG WALL Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail APPROVAL STAMP THESE PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EXPRESS USE ON THIS PROJECT. ANY REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWINGS OR ANY OF ITS DETAILS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE VIOLATOR MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW. 1/4" = 1'-0"12/7/2022 11:06:09 AMS1.1 PARTIAL ROOF FRAMING AND SHEAR WALL PLAN 2022-041 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 6-9-2022 DA LS FRAMING NOTES 1/4" = 1'-0" PARTIAL ROOF FRAMING AND SHEAR WALL PLAN FRAMING LEGEND No.Description Date SHEAR WALL LEGEND NOTE: EXISTING FRAMING MEMBERS PER. RECORD DRAWINGS OF RESIDENCE WIDTH OF OPENING TYP. CONCRETE FLOOR OR CURB CONDITION (BEARING WALL - PLYWOOD SHEATHING) TYP. CONCRETE FLOOR OR CURB CONDITION (NON-BEARING WALL ) SINKER NAILS EA. SIDE LAP PLATES 48" MIN. W/ (16) 16d HEADER 4" MIN. 9" MAX. END OF SILL OR SILL SPLICE OR HOLE EXCEEDING 1/3 SILL WIDTH 5/8"ø GALV. HOOKED A.B.'S @ 48" O.C. MAX. MIN. 2 PER PIECE. SPACING @ SHEAR WALL PER PLAN 2x SILL, (2) 2x SILL @ OPENING LARGER THAN 4'-0" 2-16d END NAILS OR 4-10d TOE NAILS @ EA. STUD 16d @ 16" O.C. TO JOIST OR BLOCKING @ NON-BEARING WALLS 2x SOLID BLKG. @ 6'-0" MAX. WHERE WALL HEIGHT EXCEEDS 10'-0" 2-16d END NAILS OR 2-10d TOE NAILS EA. END MIN. 2x4 / 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. MAX. TYP. AT BEARING & SHEAR WALLS U.O.N. ON PLANS S.A.D. FOR SIZE OF NON- BEARING WALLS SEE NAILING SCHEDULE FOR ATTACHMENT OF JOIST & BLOCKING AT BEARING WALLS SPLICE TOP PLATE ONLY OVER STUD SUPPORTS 4-10d TOE NAILS 2-16d TO EA. MEMBER OF BUILT-UP HEADER (20d @ 3x STUDS). HUC HANGER @ 4x & 6x MEMBERS 2-16d LOWER PLATE TO EA. STUD LAP PLATES & 2-16d FACE NAILS @ CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS 3 STUDS MIN. @ CORNERS & INTERSECTIONS 3-16d FACE NAIL AT EXT. WALLS DBL. STUDS @ OPENINGS LARGER THAN 4'-0" U.O.N. 2" NOM. CRIPPLE TYP. 2-2" NOM. CRIPPLES AT OPENINGS LARGER THAN 6'-0" 3x PTDF SILL 4-10d T.N. 16d @ 24" O.C. @ 2x 20d @ 24" O.C. @ 3x TYP. WOOD FLOOR CONDITION . MIN. 1/2" GROUT BED REQ'D UNDER ALL WALLS WHERE CONC. IS NOT LEVEL FOR FULL BEARING OF SILL PLATE 0.157 HILTI POWER DRIVEN PINS (MIN. 1 1/2" EMBED INTO CONC.) ICC REPORT NO. 2269 @ 16" O.C. MAX. MIN. 3 PINS PER PIECE7" MIN. EMBED 2x SILL PLATE @ WOOD FLOOR CONDITION A34 CLIP EA, SIDE OF POST, U.O.N., T&B OF POST A35 TYP. 3" MIN. 8" MAX. BEAM PER PLAN W/ A34 CLIP, EA. SIDE OF BM., TYP. CRIPPLE POST PER PLAN 2x BLKG. ABOVE BEARING WALLS HDR. PER PLAN TYP. TOP PLATE SPLICE, WHERE OCCURS 12"12" DBL TOP PLATE EN. @ JOINT (STAGGER)HOLDOWN POST, PER PLAN E.N. HOLDOWN PER SCHEDULE E.N. @ SILL PLATE (STAGGER) STUD, PER PLAN JOINT STUD, PER SHEAR WALL SCHED. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. NOTES: FOR ITEMS NOT NOTED, SEE PLAN & SHEAR WALL SCHEDULE MINIMUM PANEL DIMENSION IS 2'-0" USE FULL SIZE PANELS WHERE POSSIBLE FIELD NAILING (FN.) @ 12" U.O.N. [3x] SOLID BLKG. @ HORIZ. JOINTS E.N.DISTANCE, TYP. 1/2" MIN. EDGE ANCHOR OR POST INSTALLED ANCHOR PER PLAN 3x BLKG. @ ALL PLYWOOD JOINTS, PROVIDE E.N. TYP. PER SCHEDULE SILL PLATE NAILS PER SCHEDULE FLOOR TO FLOOR CONNECTION PER PLAN SHEAR CLIP PER SCHEDULE PLYWOOD JOINT HDR. PER PLAN, PROVIDE EDGE NAIL TYP. SILL PLATE PER SCHEDULE EDGE NAIL TYP. CS16 STRAP @ PERFORATED SHEAR WALL, EXTEND 8'-0" PAST OPENING OR TO END OF SHEAR WALL JOIST OR BLKG. PER PLAN F.N. ANCHOR BOLT PER SCHEDULE FASTENING SCHEDULE [2016 CBC TABLE 2304.10.1] - THE FOLLOWING ARE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FASTENING SCHEDULE BASED ON THE 2016 CA BUILDING CODE. a. b. c. Nails spaced at 6 inches at intermediate supports where spans are 48" or more. For nailing of wood structural panel and particleboard diaphragms and shear walls, refer to Section 2305. Nails for wall sheathing are permitted to be common, box or casing. Spacing shall be 6 inches on center on the edges and 12 inches on center at intermediate supports for nonstructural applications. Panel supports at 16 inches (20 inches if strength axis in the long direction of the panel, unless otherwise marked). Where a rafter is fastened to an adjacent parallel ceiling joist in accordance with this schedule and the ceiling joist is fastened to the top plate in accordance with this schedule, the number of toenails in the rafters shall be permitted to be reduced by one nail. **See Table 2304.10.1 for more information ELEMENT / CONNECTIONFASTENERLOCATION ROOF 1.BLOCKING BETWEEN CEILING JOISTS, RAFTERS OR TRUSSES TO TOP PLATE OR OTHER FRAMING BELOW 3 - 8d COMMON (2 1/2" x 0.131") 3 - 10d BOX (3" x 0.128") 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN TOENAIL EACH END BLOCKING BETWEEN RAFTERS OR TRUSS NOT AT THE WALL TOP PLATE, TO RAFTER OR TRUSS 2 - 8d COMMON (2 1/2" x 0.131") 2 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 2 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES TOENAIL EACH END 2 - 16d COMMON (3 1/2" x 0.162") 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES END NAIL FLAT BLOCKING TO TRUSS AND WEB FILLER 16d COMMON (3 1/2" x 0.162") @ 6" O.C. 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS @ 6" O.C. 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES @ 6" O.C. FACE NAIL 2.3 - 8d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN CEILING JOISTS TO TOP PLATE TOENAIL EACH JOIST 3.CEILING JOISTS NOT ATTACHED TO PARALLEL RAFTER, LAPS OVER PARTITIONS (NO THRUST) (TABLE AND SECTION2308.7.3.1) 3 - 16d COMMON 4 - 10d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN FACE NAIL 4.CEILING JOISTS ATTACHED TO PARALLEL RAFTER (HEEL JOINT) (TABLE AND SECTION 2308.7.3.1) TABLE 2308.7.3.1FACE NAIL CEILING JOISTS TO TOP PLATE3 - 10d COMMON 4 - 10d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 5.FACE NAIL 3 - 10d COMMON 3 - 16d BOX 4 - 10d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 6.RAFTER OR ROOF TRUSS TO TOP PLATE ( TABLE AND SECTION 2308.7.5) TOENAIL(c) 2 - 16d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 3 - 10d COMMON 3 - 16d BOX 4 - 10d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN END NAIL TOENAIL 7.ROOF RAFTERS TO RIDGE VALLEY OR HIP RAFTERS; OR ROOR RAFTER TO 2" RIDGE BEAM WALL 16d COMMON 10d BOX 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 8.24" O.C. FACE NAIL 16" O.C. FACE NAIL STUD TO STUD (NOT AT BRACED WALL PANELS) STUD TO STUD AND ABUTTING STUDS AT INTERSECTING WALL CORNERS (AT BRACED WALL PANELS) 16d COMMON 16d BOX 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 16" O.C. FACE NAIL 12" O.C. FACE NAIL 12" O.C. FACE NAIL 9. BUILT-UP HEADER16d COMMON16" O.C. EACH EDGE, FACE NAIL 12" O.C. EACH EDGE, FACE NAIL 10. 16d BOX 11.CONTINUOUS HEADER TO STUD 4 - 8d COMMON 4 - 10d BOX TOENAIL TOP PLATE TO TOP PLATE12.16d COMMON16" O.C. FACE NAIL 10d BOX 3"x0.131" NAILS 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 12" O.C. FACE NAIL 8 - 16d COMMON 12 - 10d BOX 12 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 12 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN EACH SIDE OF END JOINT, FACE NAIL (MIN 24" LAP SPLICE LENGTH EACH SIDE OF END JOINT) 13.TOP PLATE TO TOP PLATE, AT END JOINTS BOTTOM PLATE TO JOIST, RIM JOIST, BAND JOIST OR BLOCKING (NOT AT BRACED WALL PANELS) 14.16d COMMON 16d BOX 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 16" O.C. FACE NAIL 12" O.C. FACE NAIL BOTTOM PLATE TO JOIST, RIM JOIST, BAND JOIST OR BLOCKING AT BRACED WALL PANELS 15.2 - 16d COMMON 3 - 16d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 16" O.C. FACE NAIL FLOOR 3 - 16d COMMON 4 - 10d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 29.JOIST TO BAND JOIST OR RIM JOIST END NAIL 2 - 8d COMMON 2 - 10d BOX 2 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 2 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 30.BRIDGING OR BLOCKING TO JOIST, RAFTER OR TRUSS EACH END, TOENAIL WOOD STRUCTURAL PANELS, SUBFLOOR, ROOF AND INTERIOR WALL SHEATHING TO FRAMING AND PARTICLEBOARD WALL SHEATHING TO FRAMING(a) 6d COMMON OR DEFORMED (2" x 0.113") (SUBFLOOR AND WALL) 8d BOX OR DEFORMED (ROOF) 2 3/8" x 0.113" NAIL (SUBFLOOR AND WALL) 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 3/8" - 1/2"31. 1 3/4" 16 GAGE STAPLE, 7/16" CROWN 2 3/8" x 0.113" NAIL (ROOF) 4" EDGE 8" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 1 3/4" 16 GAGE STAPLE, 7/16" CROWN (ROOF) 3" EDGE 6" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 8d COMMON 6d DEFORMED 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 2 3/8" x 0.113 NAIL 2" 16 GAGE STAPLE, 7/16" CROWN 4" EDGE 8" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 10d COMMON 8d DEFORMED 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 32.19/32" - 3/4" 33.7/8" - 1/4" OTHER EXTERIOR WALL SHEATHING 1 1/2" GALVANIZED ROOF NAIL 1 1/4" 16 GAGE STAPLE WITH 7/16" OR 1" CROWN 3" EDGE 6" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 1/2" FIBERBOARD SHEATHING(b) 34. 1 3/4" GALVANIZED ROOF NAIL 1 1/2" 16 GAGE STAPLE WITH 7/16" OR 1" CROWN 3" EDGE 6" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 25/32" FIBERBOARD SHEATHING(b)35. WOOD STRUCTURAL PANELS, COMBINATION SUBFLOOR UNDERLAYMENT TO FRAMING 36.3/4" AND LESS8d COMMON 6d DEFORMED 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 37.7/8" - 1"8d COMMON 8d DEFORMED 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 38.1 1/8" - 1 1/4"10d COMMON 8d DEFORMED 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS PANEL SIDING TO FRAMING 39. 40. 1/2" OR LESS6d CORROSION - RESISTANT SIDING 6d CORROSION - RESISTANT CASING 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 5/8"8d CORROSION - RESISTANT SIDING 8d CORROSION - RESISTANT CASING 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS INTERIOR PANELING 41.1/4"4d CASING 4d FINISH 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS 42.3/8"6d CASING 6d FINISH 6" EDGE 12" INTERMEDIATE SUPPORTS ELEMENT / CONNECTIONFASTENERLOCATION STUD TO TOP OR BOTTOM PLATE 16.4 - 8d COMMON 4 - 10d BOX 4 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 4 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 2 - 16d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN TOENAIL END NAIL 2 - 16d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 17.TOP OR BOTTOM PLATE TO STUD END NAIL 2 - 16d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 18.TOP PLATES, LAPS AT CORNERS AND INTERSECTIONS FACE NAIL 2 - 8d COMMON 2 - 10d BOX 2 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 2 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 1" BRACE TO EACH STUD AND PLATE 19.FACE NAIL 2 - 8d COMMON 2 - 10d BOX 1" x 6" SHEATHING TO EACH BEARING 20.FACE NAIL 1" x 8" AND WIDER SHEATHING TO EACH BEARING21.3 - 8d COMMON 3 - 10d BOXFACE NAIL JOIST TO SILL, TOP PLATE, OR GIRDER 22.3 - 8d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN TOENAIL RIM JOIST, BAND JOIST, OR BLOCKING TO TOP PLATE, SILL OR OTHER FRAMING BELOW 8d COMMON 10d BOX 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 6" O.C., TOE NAIL23. 2 - 8d COMMON 2 - 10d BOX 24.1" x 6" SUBFLOOR OR LESS TO EACH JOIST FACE NAIL 2" SUBFLOOR TO JOIST OR GIRDER25.2 - 16d COMMONFACE NAIL 2" PLANK26.2 - 16d COMMONEACH BEARING, FACE NAIL 20d COMMON32" O.C. FACE NAIL AT TOP AND BTM. STAGGERED ON OPPOSITE SIDES 24" O.C. FACE NAIL AT TOP AND BOTTOM STAGGERED ON OPPOSITE SIDES 10d BOX 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 27.BUILT UP GIRDERS AND BEAMS, 2" LUMBER LAYERS ENDS AND AT EACH SPLICE, FACE NAIL AND 2 - 20d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN 2 - 20d COMMON 3 - 10d BOX 3 - 3" x 0.131" NAILS 3 - 3" 14 GAGE STAPLES, 7/16" CROWN LEDGER STRIP SUPPORTING JOISTS OR RAFTERS 28.EACH JOIST OR RAFTER, FACE NAIL PLAN SECTION PLAN SECTION PLAN SECTION PLAN SECTION PLAN SECTION 8d @ 10"O.C. 16d @ SPACING TO MATCH SHEAR PANEL EDGE NAILING E.N.SHEAR PLY 2x OR 3x POST 2x OR 3x HOLDOWN AT PLATE E.N. POST E.N. W/ 2x OR 3x STUD WHERE SHEAR PANEL OCCURS @ CROSS WALLINSTALL INTER- SECTING WALL AFTER SHEAR PLY IS INSTALLED HOLDOWN WHERE OCCURS WALL & POST POST HOLDOWN E.N. SHEAR PLY SHEAR PLY E.N. HOLDOWN WALL & POST POST WALL & POST HOLDOWN 2x TRIMMER E.N.SHEAR PLY A EB C E 16d @ SPACING TO MATCH SHEAR PANEL EDGE NAILINGSHEAR PLY Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail APPROVAL STAMP THESE PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EXPRESS USE ON THIS PROJECT. ANY REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWINGS OR ANY OF ITS DETAILS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE VIOLATOR MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW. As indicated 12/7/2022 11:06:12 AMS2.0 DETAILS 2022-041 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 6-9-2022 DA JG 1/2" = 1'-0"1TYPICAL STUD WALL 1" = 1'-0"2TYP. SHEAR WALL DETAIL 12" = 1'-0"4MINIMUM NAILING SCHEDULE 3/4" = 1'-0"3PLAN SECTIONS @ WOOD POSTS No.Description Date 2"L1 L2 (E) CONC. SLAB (N) CONC. SLAB REINF. BAR DOWEL @ 16" O.C. TYP. AT LOCATION OF (N) REBAR, SEE TABLE FOR SIZE & EMBED. BAR SIZE #4 #5 #6 DRILL BIT DIAMETER 5/8" 3/4" 7/8" L1 5" 5" 5" DRILLED DOWEL NOTES: 1. SEE MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS. 2. WHERE THICKNESS OF EXISTING CONCRETE DOES NOT PERMIT SCHEDULED EMBEDMENT, SHORTEN EMBEDMENT TO MAINTAIN 2 IN. MINIMUM CONCRETE OVER AT END OF DOWEL. 3. USE SIMPSON S.E.T. EPOXY, W/ MIN. (3) DOWELS TO TIE (N) FTG. TO (E) FTG. 4. DO NOT CUT EXISTING REINF. WHEN DRILLING. L2 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" SLAB ELEVATION MIN. 2" L1 L2 L2 (E) FTG. FOOTING ELEVATION A A SECTION A-A EQ EQEQ EQEQEQEQ EQ EQ (N) FTG.(E) FTG. BEYOND PROVIDE DOWEL W/ EPOXY TO MATCH LOCATION OF ALL NEW HORIZ. REBARS TYP. (N) FTG. 1 35 .00 °90.00°dDD2 1/2" MIN.6d,4" MIN.6d,STIRRUPS AND TIES 6 1 MAIN REINFORCEMENT0"12d12" MIN.dDDMAX. SLOPE IF REQ'D. 24" MIN. 48d LAP, 4" MIN. 4d, BAR SIZE BEND DIAMETER, D d = BAR DIAMETER #3 TO #8 #9 TO #11 6d 8d BAR SIZE BEND DIAMETER, D d = BAR DIAMETER #3 TO #5 #6 TO #11 4d 8d CLASS A & B BAR LAP SPLICE LENGTHS (IN.) Ld = DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF BAR BAR SIZEf'c = 2500 PSI f'c = 3000 PSI f'c = 4000 PSI Ld Ld LdABAB A B #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 1818 23 16 16 21 14 14 18 2424 31 22 22 28 19 19 25 3030 39 27 27 36 24 24 31 3636 47 33 33 43 28 28 37 5353 68 48 48 62 42 42 54 6060 78 55 55 71 47 47 62 6868 88 62 62 80 54 54 70 7676 99 70 70 77 60 60 78 8585 110 90 90 100 67 67 87 1. 2. 3. NOTES: FOR SLAB BARS, BOTTOM BEAM BARS AND TEMPERATURE BARS IN SLABS, BEAMS OR FOOTINGS WITH SPACING MORE THAN 6" OR MORE, USE 0.8 TIMES THE LENGTH SHOWN, BUT NO LESS THAN 1' - 0". FOR BARS WITH MORE THAN 1' - 0" OF CONCRETE CAST BELOW THE DEVElOPMENT LENGTH OR SPLICE, USE 1.3 TIMES THE LENGTHS SHOWN. IF MORE THAN 50% OF THE BARS ARE SPLICED WITHIN THE SPLICE LENGTH, USE CLASS B LAP, OTHERWISE USE CLASS A LAP.MIN.WW  W/3 MAX. @ ALL WALLS W/2 MAX IF DBL. FULL HT. STUDS (LIMITED TO 2 CONSECUTIVE STUDS) W = WIDTH OF STUD OR PLATE d = DEPTH OF JOIST L = CLEAR SPAN BETWEEN SUPPORTS NO HOLES OR NOTCHES PERMITTED WHERE d IS LESS THAN 5 1/2" DEEP. NOTCHES NOT PERMITTED IN BEARING WALL STUDS. NOTCHES NOT PERMITTED IN MIDDLE L/3 OF SPAN LENGTH CLEAR SPACING BETWEEN HOLES SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 4' - 0" MIN. 3/4" CLR. 4" MAX. @ NON-BEARING WALLS ONLY d/2d/2dMAX.d/44d MIN.L/3 MIN. MAX. d/3 MAX.d/62" MIN.2" MIN.2" MIN.STRAP AND SPLICE TOP PLATE SPLICE PLATE JOINTS TO BE OVER STUDS 8-16d EA. SIDE OF SPLICE ST6224 STRAP ON TOP OR SIDE DBL. TOP PLATE EQ EQ HOLE SIZE STRAPS LESS THAN 1/3 PLATE WIDTH NOT REQ'D LESS THAN 2/3 PLATE WIDTH ST2122 W/ 4 16d EA. END OVER 2/3 PLATE WIDTH ST2125 W/ 6 16d EA. END OF PIPE & STRAP TOP PLATE SPLICE AT PIPE STRAP EA. SIDE PER TABLE DBL. TOP PLATE (E) STUD WALL (N) PTDF DECK JOISTS W/ HANGER, PER PLAN (E) STUD WALL DECK FINISH, S.A.D. CONT. FLASHING, PER CODE DTT1Z AT EA. JOIST PTDF 2x LEDGER W/ (3) 1/4"ø x 3½" SDS WOOD SCREWS @ 16" O.C., TYP. (E) FLOOR PLY. (E) FLOOR JOISTS, MAY RUN EITHER DIR. 2% SLOPE MIN. FLOOR OR ROOF JOIST TYP.3/8" GAP2x4 FLAT @ 24" O.C. FLOOR OR ROOF JOISTS DTC CLIP EA. SIDE EA. JOIST SIMPSON DTC CLIP @ 24" O.C., TYP. U.O.N. 2-16d EA. SIDE 2x STUDS @ 16" O.C., TYP. U.O.N. ALIGN JOIST W/ STUDWALL OR PROVIDE 2x BLKG. @ 16" O.C. FLOOR PLY16d @ 16" O.C. (N) PARTITION STUD WALL PER PLAN .0157 HILTI POWER DRIVEN PINS 1-1/2" EMBED. MIN. INTO CONC. @ 16" O.C. CONC. SLABTYP.3/8" GAPFLOOR PLY16d @ 16" O.C. 2x BLKG. FLOOR JOIST PER PLAN NEW 4x FLUSH BEAM OR BLKG PER PLAN DECK FINISH, S.A.D. 4x4 POSTS @ 4'-0" O.C. MAX., TYP. TA9 STAIR TREAD HANGER (E) 6x FLUSH BEAM (E) RAFTER TO BE CUT AND SCREWED @ EA. NEW STUD W/ (4) SDS-SCREWS DTT1Z AT EA. POST 3/8" DIA. HDG MACHINE BOLTS OR THREADED ROD W/ NUTS AND WASHER 2" TYP.2x BLKG. PER DETAIL 8/S2.1PER ARCH.NEW PONY WALL3'-6" MAX.SIMPSON H2.5A TIE @ EA. RAFTER DECK JOIST OR 2x BLKG @ 16" O.C., FRAMING MAY RUN EITHER DIR., PER PLAN 20d @ 12" O.C. EA. EDGE, STAGGERED (E) 6x10 FLUSH BEAM PER PLAN (N) BLKG. BETWEEN 4x POSTS 1' - 0"1' - 0" 2' - 0" MAX. 6" SECTION VIEWELEVATION VIEW DTT1Z TO JOIST DECK JOISTS, PER PLAN DTT1Z TO BLKG. 2x BLKG. DECKING TYP. 4x4 POST, TYP. RIM JOIST PER PLAN, TYP. Scale Project number Date Drawn by Checked by Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail Consultant Address Address Phone Fax e-mail APPROVAL STAMP THESE PLANS ARE THE PROPERTY OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. FOR THE EXPRESS USE ON THIS PROJECT. ANY REPRODUCTION OR USE OF THIS DRAWINGS OR ANY OF ITS DETAILS WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF HC STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC. IS A VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE VIOLATOR MAY BE SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION IN A COURT OF LAW. 1" = 1'-0"12/7/2022 11:06:14 AMS2.1 DETAILS 2022-041 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 6-9-2022 DA LS 1" = 1'-0"2TYPICAL DOWEL CONNECTION 1" = 1'-0"1TYP. REINF. BAR BENDS AND LAP SPLICE SCHEDULE 1" = 1'-0"3SAWN LUMBER HOLES & NOTCH REQ. 1" = 1'-0"4TOP PLATE SPLICE N.T.S.5PATIO TO (E) STRUCTURE N.T.S.6PARTITION WALL BRACING DETAIL, TYP. 1" = 1'-0"7RAILING ATTACHMENT No.Description Date 1" = 1'-0"8BUILT UP BEAMS 1" = 1'-0"9RAILING POST-TO-DECK FRAMING CECYJ INTERIORS2505 ROLLING HILLS COURTALAMO, CA 94507SHEET TITLE:DATEDRAWN BY: SHSHEET NUMBER:SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 317 OCCIDENTAL AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010PRIMARYBATHROOMFLOOR PLAN10-25-22SCALE: 3/4" = 1'0" CUSTOMMIRRORSCABINET WITHPULLOUT SHELFMAKEUPTABLEDOOR TOCLOSETW.C.HOOKSCUSTOMMIRRORSCABINET WITHPULLOUT SHELFMAKEUPTABLE1'-8"1'-0"2'-10"1'-0"6'-6"3"2'-8"3'-1"4'-8"8"2'-6"14'-1"2'-1 1/2"6'-6"11"1'-8 1/2"3'-0"6'-3"6'-3"DOOR TOBEDROOMSHOWERCUSTOMMIRRORSBACKSPLASH2'-0"FLOATINGDOOR TOCLOSET3'-0"3'-11 1/2"2'-3 1/2"3'-10"2'-7 1/2"11"10 1/2"2'-8"4'-0"10'-1"16" DEEPSTORAGE7'-2"1'-6"11"3'-0"CECYJ INTERIORS2505 ROLLING HILLS COURTALAMO, CA 94507SHEET TITLE:DATEDRAWN BY: SHSHEET NUMBER:SHIMKUS RESIDENCE 317 OCCIDENTAL AVE BURLINGAME, CA 94010PRIMARYBATHROOMELEVATIONS10-25-22SCALE: 38" = 1'0" City of Burlingame Fence Variance Address: 1095 Rollins Road Meeting Date: March 13, 2023 Request: Application for a Fence Variance for height of a new fence/wall along the northern property line of a new multi-unit residential apartment development. Applicant and Property Owner: Prometheus Real Estate Group APN: 028-141-250 Architect: DE Architecture/2.ink Studio (Landscape) Lot Area: 1.075 acres (46,827 SF) General Plan: High Density Residential (51+ dwelling units per acre) Zoning: R-4 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Article 19, Section: 15303 – new construction or conversion of small structures - (e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences. Background: An application for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Density Bonus, and Vesting Tentative and Final Map for a new 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment building was approved by the Planning Commission on January 13, 2020 (see attached January 13, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes). There were two Design Review Amendments on April 26, 2021 and June 28, 2021 that were reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. A building permit for the project was issued on May 21, 2021. All structures on-site have been demolished and construction in underway. Staff would note that the original Planning entitlements were submitted and obtained by The Hanover Company. Since then, the project was sold to a new developer (applicant and property owner), Prometheus Real Estate Group. The original architect, BDE Architecture, has been retained by the new owner. Current Request: The applicant, Prometheus, is requesting a Fence Variance to allow a proposed 10’-0” tall solid wall and a 7’-0” tall solid fence along the northern (right side) property line located between the new 150- unit apartment building currently under construction and the existing gas station located immediately to the north at 1147 Rollins Road. This shared lot line is 90’-0” in length. The maximum allowed fence/wall height in the R-4 District is seven (7) feet, provided the last foot in height is of an open design freely allowing light and air to pass through. The applicant is requesting a Fence Variance for a 10’-0” tall poured in place concrete wall with a board form finish (see Sheet 3 and 4 of the plans). This wall would run a length of 55’-0” from the rear right (northwest) corner of the property toward the front the property line. Both sides of the wall would have the board form finish (the side facing the neighboring gas station at 1147 Rollins Road and interior side facing the open space for the subject property at 1095 Rollins Road). The remaining length would contain a proposed 7’-0” tall solid wooden fence. Staff would note that the code permits a maximum height of 6’-0” for a solid fence, and up to 7’-0” with the last foot being of an open design (e.g., lattice). Staff would note that the 7’-0” tall solid fence was inadvertently approved with the original permit issuance and was an oversight since the height ranges from 6’-0” to 7’-0” depending on where the measurement is taken. Therefore, the 7’-0” tall solid fence height is being included with the Fence Variance request. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Fence Variance for height of a new fence/wall along the northern property line of a new multi-unit residential apartment development (7’-0” tall solid fence and 10’-0” tall poured in place concrete wall proposed where 7’-0" is the maximum height allowed (6’-0” solid and 1’-0” of an open design) (CS 25.31.070 (C)). Item No. 8c Regular Action Item Fence Variance 1095 Rollins Road -2- Staff Comments: None. Required Findings for a Fence Variance: Any decision to approve a Variance application pursuant to Chapter 25.84 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district; B. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; C. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and D. That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Findings for a Fence Exception: A. There are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property, in that the subject property is a residential use immediately adjacent to a commercial use (gas station). B. That granting of the Fence Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the apartment residents in that the enhanced fence treatment will provide a better separation between the two uses with a buffer for sound and visual attenuation from the neighboring use for the residential use on the subject property. C. That granting of the Fence Variance will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the fence/wall is not located within the public right-of-way, the neighboring property will not be materially damaged since the adjacent commercial property owner approves the proposed design and that the request includes a minor increase in the allowed fence height. D. The use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity in that the fence/wall design is in keeping with the material and quality design of the apartment structure. Therefore, for these reasons the project may be found to be compatible with the Fence Variance criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division on February 3, 2023; 2. that if the fence and/or wall is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Fence Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the fence/wall; and Fence Variance 1095 Rollins Road -3- 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Marilyn Ponte c/o Prometheus Real Estate Group, applicant and property owner Attachments: January 13, 2020 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Fence Variance Application Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 3, 2023 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, January 13, 2020 d.1095 Rollins Road, zoned C-1 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for Height, Density Bonus, and Vesting Tentative Map for a lot merger for a new 6-story, 150-unit residential apartment building. (The Hanover Company, Scott Youdall, applicant; SA Properties Company L.P., property owner) (25 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones reported that he had met with the applicant and architect to receive a preview. Commissioner Loftis also met with the applicant, and although he was not in attendance for the study meeting he watched the video. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Do apartments have an open space requirement, as condos do? (Keylon: No, just a landscape requirement.) >What findings would need to be made for changing the setbacks? (Keylon: It is a provision in the R -4 zoning regulations. When a map is being reviewed the Planning Commission and City Council, if circumstances warrant it, a map can be approved that deviates from the standards in order to allow a parcel to be developable.) Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing. Scott Youdall, The Hanover Company, represented the applicant, with John Ennis, BDE Architects. Commission Questions/Comments: >How will the 15 below-market units be distributed? (Youdall: Will provide an affordable housing plan .) Will they be equally distributed? (Youdall: That is our assumption.) >Even with the tandem and ADA spaces not included, will every unit have an independently -accessed space? (Youdall: Yes.) >How does the provision of 96 bicycle parking spaces compare to other Bay Area projects? Do spaces like this get used a lot? (Youdall: Depends on the location. 96 is in excess of most of the other projects Hanover has developed in the Bay Area.) >How are the electric vehicle spaces allocated, and how will the project accommodate increased demand in the future? (Youdall: Citylift provides for chargers within the stackers. Intention is to meet growing demand. System has the capacity to include chargers.) >The rooftop open space facing the freeway has a single door and a wall. Why not more glass? (Youdall: It is a glass storefront wall. The plan makes it look like a solid wall but it is meant to be transparent.) >How usable will the outdoor space be given it's facing an 8-lane highway? (Youdall: The occupied activity area is set back with landscaping, so is shielded.) >Is there guest parking? (Youdall: The standard spaces can be available for guests. There is not a set number of spaces reserved for guests. Unlikely the stacker spaces would be available for guests.) Page 1City of Burlingame January 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Is the water table 7 feet below the site grade? (Youdall: 7 or 8 feet.) Helpful that the parking is modular so if one section goes out, the rest of the parking still works. (Ennis: Garage is like a boat, with water on the outside. Has built projects around the Bay Area at sea level, with one and two levels below grade and into the water table.) Environmental questions: >Has the Anson project been incorporated into the traffic models? (Keylon: Yes it was included in the cumulative estimates.) >Number of trips from the restaurant seems overestimated. (Keylon: The traffic study utilized ITE figures based on potential use of the restaurant as a quality full -service restaurant. The study needs to account for the potential maximum use of the facility in the future.) >Traffic is a mess in the area now, with the Audi dealer service area, and people using Cadillac Way to cut through to the freeway. Public Comments: Mike Amaroli: Owns a property nearby. Concerned that with the narrowing of Carolan Avenue and new buildings going in, parking is becoming more of an issue. There will not be enough parking for this size structure. Will there be permit parking? Drops off car at Audi in the morning, and there is traffic on Cadillac Way which makes it hard for Audi to do its business. Believes the Audi mechanics park on Carolan Avenue. Will the new residents be given permits to park in the neighborhood when they find out there is not enough parking in the building? (Kane: Residents or businesses would need to petition to create a permit parking area.) Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Had been generally supportive of the project previously, and wanted to see how the environmental review comes out. Environmental review has indicated that impacts can be mitigated. >Project has been designed to provide relief at the ground level, as well as usable open spaces distributed through the project at different floors. >Frontage on Rollins Road fronts onto the freeway. The rear setback fronts onto parking lots and carports. It is not looming over adjacent uses. >Creative project to provide housing in an area that needs it, in a location that will provide life to this area. >Needs to consider a day where the Broadway grade separation will be completed, and the traffic issues will be resolved. >The site is likely to be housing one day, but seems like there is too much program fit onto the site. Is a good-looking building and feels like a big city project, but is next to the North Park apartments which are more airy and spread out. Lot coverage standards are intended to provide light and openness. >If there is anywhere where there should be more density, it is next to the freeway. This site can accept this scale better than in other parts of town. >Skeptical over using ITE standards in the the traffic studies. >Concerned with construction traffic. (Kane: Parking management is reviewed as part of the building permit.) >While these residential projects the Planning Commission has reviewed look similar to each other, it is the nature of multifamily buildings. >Project sets up potential future development at a greater scale alongside the freeway. >Likes the design but the size and density does not seem to fit the city. While the previous zoning did not have a density limit, it had development standards that controlled the density. This project varies from those standards. >The North Rollins Road area is providing greater public benefits than this project does. Page 2City of Burlingame January 13, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Project is fronting on a freeway, not a neighborhood. >For the environmental review, needs to consider if there are impacts that rise to the level of significance. If we do not see something in the analysis that warrants that, it is hard to justify having issues with the environmental review. >The Bayswater project will have greater impact on a neighborhood and has a more impactful location than this location. The freeway is not an impactful location. >This is the right density at the right place. >Likes the design and material choices. Wants to support the project but is concerned with the traffic . The area will be congested but will need to follow a path to address the traffic. >Concern with the four-tall parking stackers and how they will function on a day-to-day basis. >Good location for the housing. Easier access to the freeway. But concern with parking for visitors . People will have friends over and they will need to find parking in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to accept findings in the staff report for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and recommend those findings go to the City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis Nay: 2 - Sargent, and Gaul Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to recommend to the City Council approval of the development application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis4 - Nay:Sargent, and Gaul2 - Page 3City of Burlingame City of Burlingame * Community Development Department * 501 Primrose Road * (650) 558-7250 * planningdept@burlingame.orgProject Application - Planning DivisionType of Application: 0 Accessory Dwelling Unit 0 Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit€Design Review0 Hillside Area Construction Permit g Minor Modification€Special Permit[21 Varianceg0therProjectAddress: 199!5R91!j.ns...!cl(re's.o!uti96..l672020) ..... Assessor'sParcel#:026-231-290Zoning: "-"R-4Project Description:Requesting a variance for a portion of perimeter fence to go from 7' to 10' in height.ApplicantName: Prometheus Real Estate GroupAddress: 1900 S. Norfolk st, suite 150San Mateo, CA 94403Property OwnerName: 1095 Rollins Road, LPAddress: 1900 S. Norfolk st, su!te 150San Mateo, CA 94403Phone:650-931-3499E-mail: mponte@prometheusreg.comArchitect/DesignerName: BDE Architecture/2.ink Studio (Iandscape)Address: 934 Howard StSan Francisco, CA 94103Phone:650-931-3400E-mail: dpeterson@prometheusreg.comi Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans:ll hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to postplans submitted with this application on the City"s websitePhone:415-6 7 7-O g 6 4E-mail: jennis@bdearch.comi as part of the Planning approval process and waive anyclaims against the City arising out of or related to suchaction.d-(lnitials of Architect/Designer)iIjli iLiBurlingame Business License #:951025* 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 myknowledge and belief.Applicant's signature/r-?Date: 2 - 1, ?!.3Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this27application to the Planning Division.Property owner's signature:Date Application Received (staff only):Date: 2"7- 7-'3} City of Burlingame * Community Development Department * 501 Primrose Road * P (650) 558-7250 * www.burlingame.orgCity of BurlingameFence Variance ApplicationThe Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City"s Ordinance (Code Section25.84.030). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision asto whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with thesequestions.A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your propertywhich do not apply to other properties in this area.We are currently under construction on a 150 unit apartment development. A portion of ouroutdoor amenity space is located adjacent to a gas station which we feel will benefit from a moreenhanced fence treatment to better separate the two uses (residential amenity and gas station).B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantialproperty right and what unreasonable property Ioss or unnecessary hardship might result from thedenial of the application.An increased fence height will provide the private residents with a great buffer for sound andvisual attenuation from the neighboring use. Providing a greater enhanced outdoor amenity spacefor residents is an effort to provide maximum enjoyment and general satisfaction with choosingthis property as their home.C. Explain why the proposed fence at the proposed Iocation will not be detrimental or injurious toproperty or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare orconvenience.The area for the fence height increase is located at the rear of the property away from the streetfrontage. The fence design is of the highest quality material (poured in place concrete) and willhave no negative impact to the the general public health, safety, welfare or convenience.D. How will the proposed fence be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of theexisting and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity?The fence design is poured in place concrete which is not typical of good neighbor fences. Thefence design is in keeping with the material and quality design of the apartment structure. Theapartment structure is 6 stories and in addition to providing a buffer, the fence will help transitionthe massing from the 6 story apartment structure to the gas station use. (> PROMETHEUSVIA EMAILFebruary 7, 2023Planning Dept.City of Burlingame500 Primrose Rd.Burlingame, CA 94010RE: 1095 Rollins Road - Fence Variance request- Letter of ExplanationDear Planning Staff,The fence variance application is submitted to request an increase in fence height for a portion of fencelocated adjacent to our neighbor that is a gas station.We have an outdoor amenity space located adjacent to the gas station property and we are seeking toprovide an enhanced buffer between the outdoor amenity space and the gas station. We have reviewedthis fence detail with the owner of the gas station, John Greco, and he is also supportive of allowing the10" height at the requested area.We Iook forward to reviewing this request with staff and Planning Commission.Sincerely,Prometheus Real Estate Group, Inc.{?Marilyn PonteDevelopment Director Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND FENCE VARIANCE 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 Fence Variance for height of a new fence/wall along the northern property line of a new multi-unit residential apartment development at 1095 Rollins Road, zoned R-4, 1095 Rollins Road Lp (Prometheus Real Estate Group Inc), property owners, APN: 026-231-290; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 13, 2023, 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 Article 19, Section: 15303 – new construction or conversion of small structures - (e) accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools and fences, is hereby approved. 2. Said Fence Variance is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Fence Variance are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of March, 2023 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Fence Variance 2812 Rivera Drive Effective March 23, 2023 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division on February 3, 2023; 2. that if the fence and/or wall is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Fence Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. that the applicant shall obtain a building permit for the fence/wall; and 4. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at the time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 1095 Rollins Road 300’ noticing APN: 026-231-290 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+3CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+36'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)6'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+3CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+36'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)6'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)R O L L I N S R O A DL1.10SITE PLANLEVEL 01(ON GRADE)Scale:Proj #:934 HoZard StreetSan )ranciscoCA 94103P 415 6770966DRAWN BY:Sheet Size:ClientConsultantDate,ssueALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIALAPPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL,AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THEARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT.Stamp2/24/2021 1:31:26 PM 1095 Rollins Road 1095 RO//,NS ROAD B8R/,N*A0( CASD100 03.05.21AS SHOWN1712 / 200936x48CD7  FOR CONSTR8CTION SET00000SCALE 1"=10'053050FT020010DD7503.26.21DD10004.09.21CD50/CD604.30.217CDCHECKSET07.20.2108-31-2209-17-21CD100/CD708.12.219ASI-209.17.2135RFI-3510.27.2132RFI-3211.03.21ASI-1009.23.2218RFI-33011.04.2219CO+PV10' TALL FENCE CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 CityLift 2500X6530 2000*5200 -1+3 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) 6'-63_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+3CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+36'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)6'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+3CityLift 2550X65302050*5200-1+36'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)6'-83_4"*17'-03_4" (Car)CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 4 0 0 X 6 5 3 0 1900*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-2 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car) CityLift 2 3 5 0 X 6 5 3 0 1850*52 0 0 -1+3 6'-0 3_ 4"*17'-0 3_ 4" (Car)R O L L I N S R O A D1.21.11.11.11.11.11.11.11.11.21.21.21.21.11.11.31.31.31.4A1.4B1.4A1.5A1.5A1.5A1.5A1.5A1.5A1.5A1.5B1.5C1.61.61.61.61.7A1.8B1.7B1.8B1.8A1.9A1.9A1.9A1.9B1.9B1.9B3.13.13.13.14.14.11.14.29.14.23.25.1TYP.5.25.25.25.3TYP.6.16.16.46.26.26.26.26.26.26.310.46.46.56.66.77.1TYP.7.1TYP.7.1TYP.7.27.27.3TYP.7.3TYP.8.110.56.210.310.110.210.210.210.29.5TYP.9.4TYP.9.2TYP.4.29.19.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.1TYP.9.39.3TYP.9.3TYP.9.3TYP.9.3TYP.1.1TYP.1.41.311111111422222223156789101112131213121314151516178.2TYP.8.11KEYNOTES234DETAIL KEYNOTES1.0DETAIL KEYNOTES (CONTINUED)6.0PAVEMENT, RAMPS, CURBS#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET1.1C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING ON GRADE, PEDESTRIAN01/L7.211.2C.I.P. CONCRETE PAVING ON GRADE, VEHICULAR02/L7.211.3CURB AND GUTTER (SEE CIVIL)SEE CIVIL1.4AVEHICULAR PAVERS ON GRADE: SAND/GRAVEL-SET, STEPSTONE NARROW MODULAR VEHICULAR-RATED PAVER, 3"x12"x4" THICK, COLOR: FRENCH GRAY12/L7.211.4BVEHICULAR PAVERS OVER STRUCTURE: MORTAR-SET, STEPSTONE NARROW MODULAR VEHICULAR-RATED PAVER, 3"x12"x4" THICK, COLOR: FRENCH GRAYSEE ARCH1.5APEDESTRIAN PAVERS ON GRADE: SAND/GRAVEL-SET, STEPSTONE CALARC 12"x24"x2", COLOR: GRANADA WHITE12/L7.211.5BPEDESTRIAN PAVERS (TYPE 1.5A) RECESSED INTO 24"x24" WUNDERCOVER MANHOLE PAVING LID, ALIGN JOINTS AS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY (FULL PAVER UNITS)16/L7.211.5CPEDESTRIAN PAVERS (TYPE 1.5A) RECESSED INTO 36"x48" WUNDERCOVER MANHOLE PAVING LID, ALIGN JOINTS AS SHOWN GRAPHICALLY (FULL PAVER UNITS)SIM. 16/L7.211.6C.I.P. CONCRETE STEPPING STONE, ACID ETCH FINISH08/L7.211.7ADECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING, PEDESTRIAN, WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE BINDER/STABILIZER04/L7.211.7BDECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING, VEHICULAR, WITH HIGH PERFORMANCE BINDER/STABILIZER05/L7.211.8ASYNTHETIC TURF, PEDESTRIAN (DOG RUN)06/L7.211.8BSYNTHETIC TURF, VEHICULAR (65,000 POUNDS MIN. LOAD RATING)07/L7.211.9AGRAVEL MAINTENANCE WALKWAY ON GRADE02/L7.241.9BGRAVEL MAINTENANCE WALKWAY ON STRUCTURE02/L7.24JOINTING#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET2.1SAWCUT JOINT01-02/L7.212.2EXPANSION JOINT01-02/L7.21STEPS#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET3.1C.I.P. CONCRETE STAIR03-05/L7.263.2C.I.P. CONCRETE DECOMPOSED GRANITE TERRACE RISERS, ACID ETCH FINISH01/L7.24WALLS#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET4.1WOOD SEATWALL ON GRADE04-06/L7.224.28" THICK C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL WITH "L" RETURN FOOTING, BOARDFORM FINISH (2X6 SPRUCE-PINE-FUR (SPF) LUMBER)02-03/L7.22SITE FURNISHINGS#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET5.1CUSTOM-FABRICATED ALUMINUM PLANTER OVER STRUCTURE06/L7.235.2BOLLARD01/L7.235.3REMOVABLE BOLLARD02/L7.23RAILINGS, BARRIERS, FENCING#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET6.1WOOD FENCE TYPE 101-02/L7.716.2WOOD FENCE TYPE 203-05/L7.716.3GATE TYPE 1: SLIDING06/L7.716.4GATE TYPE 2: MAINTENANCE ACCESS, MATCH FENCE TYPE 2, HEAVY DUTY METAL HARDWARE (NO PLASTIC)01/L7.726.5GATE TYPE 3: GAS METER ENCLOSURE, MATCH FENCE TYPE 2, HEAVY DUTY METAL HARDWARE (NO PLASTIC)03-04/L7.726.6GATE TYPE 4: FIRE/TRASH ACCESS, MATCH FENCE TYPE 2, HEAVY DUTY METAL HARDWARE (NO PLASTIC)03,05/L7.726.7GATE TYPE 5: UTILITY ACCESS, MATCH FENCE TYPE 2, HEAVY DUTY HEAVY DUTY METAL HARDWARE (NO PLASTIC)04/L7.74LANDSCAPE LIGHTING#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET7.1UPLIGHTSEE LIGHTING7.2CATENARY LIGHT01-02/L7.267.3BOLLARD LIGHTSEE LIGHTINGDRAINAGE#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET8.1VEHICULAR-RATED TRENCH DRAIN15/L7.218.2FRENCH DRAIN, 8" WIDE, DECORATIVE ROCK TYPE 2, ALUMINUM EDGER EA. SIDE, PERF. PIPE ROUTED TO MEDIA FILTER PER CIVIL05/L7.24PLANTING, SOILS, LANDSCAPE#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET9.1PLANTING AREAL5.109.2ROCK MULCH TYPE 2: DECORATIVE ROCKSEE SPECS9.3ADJUSTABLE HEIGHT ALUMINUM EDGERSEE SPECS9.4POCKET PLANTING TYPE 1: IN DECOMPOSED GRANITE (PEDESTRIAN)18/L7.919.5POCKET PLANTING TYPE 2: IN GRAVEL MAINTENANCE WALKWAY (ON GRADE)19/L7.91MISCELLANEOUS SITE FEATURES#DESCRIPTIONDETAIL / SHEET10.1WATER FEATURE #1 (ON GRADE)01-05/L7.6110.2DECOR CABLE TRELLIS SYSTEM (GREENWALL)SEE ARCH.10.3MONUMENT SIGNSEE SIGNAGE10.4WATER FEATURE VAULT06/L7.6110.5IRRIGATION CONTROLLER PEDESTAL / CABINET01/L7.822.03.04.05.07.08.09.010.0FURNITURE, FIXTURES, AND EQUIPMENT1.0FURNITURE, FIXTURES, AND EQUIPMENT (BY OWNER)#DESCRIPTION1.1CAFE TABLE - TYPE 11.2CAFE CHAIR - TYPE 11.3COUCH - TYPE 1A1.4COUCH - TYPE 1B567891011121314151617BUILDING OVERHANG (ABOVE), SEE ARCHITECTURALEDGE OF GARAGE / STRUCTURE (BELOW), SEE ARCHITECTURALTRASH BIN STAGING AREAABOVE-GRADE TRANSFORMER, SEE JOINT TRENCHTERMINATION CAN, SEE JOINT TRENCHGAS METERS, SEE JOINT TRENCHSTREET LIGHT, SEE CIVILFIRE PUMP TEST HEADER, SEE CIVILFDC, SEE CIVIL2" WATER METER VAULT, SEE CIVIL4" WATER METER VAULT, SEE CIVIL8" DCDA, SEE CIVIL4" RPPA DEVICES, SEE CIVILFIRE HYDRANT, SEE CIVIL2" RPPA DEVICE (IRRIGATION P.O.C.), SEE CIVILPEDESTRIAN TRIANGLE OF SAFETY, SEE CIVILSTREET LIGHT UTILITY VAULT / CENTER IN LANDSCAPE STRIP AS SHOWNL1.10MATERIALS PLANLEVEL 01(ON GRADE)Scale:Proj #:934 HoZard StreetSan )ranciscoCA 94103P 415 6770966DRAWN BY:Sheet Size:ClientConsultantDate,ssueALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIALAPPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL,AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THEARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT.Stamp2/24/2021 1:31:26 PM 1095 Rollins Road 1095 RO//,NS ROAD B8R/,N*A0( CASD100 03.05.21AS SHOWN1712 / 200936x48CD7 / FOR CONSTRUCTION SET00000SCALE 1"=10'053050FT020010DD7503.26.21DD10004.09.21CD50/CD604.30.217CDCHECKSET07.20.2108-31-2208-11-21CD100/CD708.12.21CO+PV PROPERTY LINE 6'-0" MIN. / 7'-0" MAX. (COMBINED WALL + FENCE HEIGHT) FULL PLANKS (NO RIPPED PIECES)COMPACTED SUBGRADEEXISTING NEIGHBORINGGRADE VARIES, SEE SURVEY1x CEDAR CAPNOTE:CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT FENCE FRAMINGSHOP DRAWINGS (ELEVATIONS) FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SUBMITPROPOSED FASTENER PRODUCT DATA ANDSHOW SPACING.FINISH GRADE, CONDITIONVARIESTOP OF CURB2x2 CEDAR VERTICALS, EACHSIDE, FASTEN TO 2X4 CEDARHORIZONTALS, TYP.MASTER HALCO POSTMASTERFENCE POST (OR APPROVEDEQUAL), SPACING PERMANUF., TYP.02-(3) 2x4 CEDAR HORIZONTALS,EACH SIDE, FASTEN TOPOST/FRAMING SYSTEM PERMANUF., TYP.1" 8"EQ.EQ. VARIES, 2" MIN. 2" MIN.POST EMBED PERMANUFACTURERC.I.P. CONC. FOOTING,SEE STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTINGDESIGNS AND REINFORCEMENTC.I.P. CONC. CURB (BEYOND),SEE STRUCTURAL1'-6"8" Ø6'-0" MIN. 7'-0" MAX.01-FINISHED GRADE/TOP OF WALL1/4" TYP.PROPERTY LINE 6'-0" MIN. / 7'-0" MAX. (COMBINED WALL + FENCE HEIGHT) FULL PLANKS (NO RIPPED PIECES)1x CEDAR CAPNOTE:CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT FENCE FRAMINGSHOP DRAWINGS (ELEVATIONS) FOR REVIEW ANDAPPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SUBMITPROPOSED FASTENER PRODUCT DATA ANDSHOW SPACING.FINISH GRADE, CONDITIONVARIESTOP OF WALL VARIES,SEE CIVIL GRADING1x4 CEDAR VERTICALS, FASTENTO 2X4 CEDAR HORIZONTALS,TYP. (SEE NOTE)MASTER HALCO POSTMASTERFENCE POST (OR APPROVEDEQUAL), SPACING PERMANUF., TYP.04-05-(3) 2x4 CEDAR HORIZONTALS,EACH SIDE, FASTEN TOPOST/FRAMING SYSTEM PERMANUF., TYP.8"EQ.EQ. 1"COMPACTED SUBGRADEPOST EMBED PERMANUFACTURER2" MIN. 2" MIN.8" ØC.I.P. CONC. FOOTING,SEE STRUCTURAL FOR FOOTINGDESIGNS AND REINFORCEMENTC.I.P. CONC. CURB (BEYOND),SEE STRUCTURALEXISTING NEIGHBORINGGRADE VARIES, SEE SURVEY1'-6"NOTE:WHEN FENCE IS INSTALLED AT PROPERTY LINE,NO CEDAR VERTICALS TO BE INSTALLED ONSIDE FACING ADJACENT PROPERTY U.N.O.6'-0" MIN. 7'-0" MAX.03-FINISHEDGRADE/ TOP OFWALL1/2" TYP.6'-0" MIN. 7'-0" MAX.STEP FENCE ATPOSTS ASREQUIRED TOTRACK WITHWALL SLOPE03-FINISHEDGRADE/TOPOF WALL1/2" TYP.FACE OF BUILDING FACE OF BUILDING FACE OF BUILDINGE. SECTION - SIDE VIEW AT HANDLED. SECTION - SIDE VIEWC. BACK ELEVATIONB. FRONT ELEVATIONA. PLAN3"x4"x3/8" GALV. STEEL ANGLEFRAME. PAINT COLOR TO BESELECTED BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.F. FRAME ASSEMBLYENLARGEMENT1'-0"SITE WALL; SEE MATERIALS PLANSLIDING GATE V-GROOVE CHANNELCONCRETE BAND; SEE MATERIALS PLAN9'-0" OPENING6"9'-8" SLIDING GATE1" GAP2x6 CEDAR PLANK;BOLT TO GALV. STEEL FRAME.1x2 VERTICAL CEDAR SLATSCEDAR GATE HANDLE1" GAPB-C-SITE WALL; SEE MATERIALS PLANTW 15.80TW 15.804 1/2"6'-0"E-D-4" DIA. STEEL V-GROOVE CASTER, TYP.SLIDING GATE V-GROOVE CHANNEL6"CEDAR GATE HANDLE2x6 CEDAR PLANK (BEYOND)1x2 VERTICAL CEDAR SLATS3"x4"x3/8" GALV. STEEL ANGLE FRAME.PAINT COLOR TO BE SELECTED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.3"x4"x3/8" GALV. STEEL ANGLE FRAME.PAINT COLOR TO BE SELECTED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.1" GAPSS SCREW @ CEDAR PLANK TO VERTICALCEDAR SLAT CONNECTION, TYP.2x6 CEDAR PLANK, TYP.BOLT TO GALV. STEEL FRAME1x2 VERTICAL WOOD SLATSCEDAR PLANK TO GALV. STEELFRAME CONNECTION, TYP.: SSBOLT, WASHER, AND NUT.FINISH FLUSH WITH PLANK.CEDAR GATE HANDLE TO CEDAR PLANKCONNECTION, TYP.: (4) SS BOLT, WASHER,AND NUT.CEDAR GATE HANDLE (OTHER SIDE)2" DIA. STEEL HELPER CASTER(BEYOND). CONNECT TO TOPOF GALV STEEL FRAME.HELPER CASTER CHANNEL;ATTACH TO SITE WALL.SITE WALL; SEEMATERIALS PLAN4" DIA. STEEL V-GROOVE CASTER, TYP.SLIDING GATE V-GROOVE CHANNELHELPER CASTER CHANNEL;ATTACH TO SITE WALL.2x6 CEDAR PLANK, TYP.BOLT TO GALV. STEEL FRAME1x2 VERTICAL WOOD SLATS3"x4"x3/8" GALV. STEEL ANGLE FRAME.PAINT COLOR TO BE SELECTED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.SITE WALL; SEE MATERIALS PLANFINISH GRADESLIDING GATE V-GROOVE CHANNEL4" DIA. STEEL V-GROOVE CASTER5 1/2"2x6 CEDAR PLANK, TYP.BOLT TO GALV. STEEL FRAME1x2 VERTICAL WOOD SLATS3"x4"x3/8" GALV. STEEL ANGLE FRAME.PAINT COLOR TO BE SELECTED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.FINISH GRADECEDAR GATE HANDLE. CONNECT TOCEDAR PLANK VIA BOLT/WASHER/NUTHIDDEN CONNECTIONCEDAR HANDLE 5'-11 1/4" 4 1/2"2'-5 3/8"3 1/2"2'-5 3/8"4 1/2"1" THK. CEDAR HANDLE1" GAP BETWEEN HANDLE AND VERTICAL SLATS3" THK. CEDAR HANDLE AT CONNECTIONF. FRAME ASSEMBLY ENLARGEMENTSCALE: 3"=1'-0"PLANK TO GALV. STEEL FRAMECONNECTION: SS BOLT, WASHERS,& NUT. FINISH FLUSH WITH PLANK.3"x4"x3/8" GALV. STEEL ANGLEFRAME. PAINT COLOR TO BESELECTED BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT.2x6 CEDAR PLANK;BOLT TO GALV. STEEL FRAME.1x2 VERTICAL CEDAR SLATSL7.71DETAILS:FENCINGPV3/4"=1'-0"01Wood Fence Type 1, Typ.section3/4"=1'-0"02Wood Fence Type 1, Typ.elevation3/4"=1'-0"03Wood Fence Type 2, Typ.section3/4"=1'-0"04Wood Fence Type 2, Typ.elevation3/4"=1'-0"05Wood Fence Type 3, Typ.elevationScale:Proj #:934 HoZard StreetSan )ranciscoCA 94103P 415 6770966DRAWN BY:Sheet Size:ClientConsultantDate,ssueALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIALAPPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL,AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THEARCHITECT AND MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT THEWRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT.Stamp2/24/2021 1:31:26 PM 1095 Rollins Road 1095 RO//,NS ROAD B8R/,N*A0( CASD100 03.05.21AS SHOWN1712 / 200936x48DD7503.26.21DD10004.09.21CD50/CD604.30.217CDCHECKSET07.20.2108-31-2208-11-21CD100/CD708.12.213/4"=1'-0"06Gate Type 1 - Sliding Gateas shown 1095 Rollins Road Poured in Place Concrete wall finish photo examples Same finish on both sides of wall 1095 Rollins Road- rendering of exterior amenity space Item No. 9a Design Review Study City of Burlingame Commercial Design Review Address: 1205 Howard Avenue Meeting Date: March 13, 2023 Request: Application for Commercial Design Review for a second story addition and facade improvements to an existing two-story , mixed-use building. Applicant and Designer: Stanford Chiang – CM Construction APN: 029-224-050 Property Owner: Anna Chan Lot Area: 2,136 SF Gener al Plan: Downtown Specific Plan Zoning: HMU (Howard Mixed Use) Current Use: Vacant (Former Salon) Proposed Use: No change in uses under this application – anticipated salon and residential uses. Allowable Use: Retail, commercial services and food establishment on ground floor/ residential use on second floor. Project Summary: The subjec t property is located within the boundary of the Downtown Specific Plan and is zoned Howard Mixed Use (HMU). The site measures 5,000 SF and contains a two-story , mixed use building. The building is currently vacant, but was formerly occupied by a salon with storage in the basement level (partially above and below grade) and personal service (salon) on the ground floor. The second floor was formerly a residential unit, but most recently was primarily used as storage for the ground floor personal service. Staff notes that City and County historical records show a residential housing unit located on the second floor. The HMU zone allows multi-unit residential and m ixed use developments as permitted uses. While this is a single unit that is proposed for expansion, retention of housing units is supported, as per our Housing Element policies and therefore retaining this mixed use building and expanding the residential use on the second floor is permitted as an allowable use. The proposed project includes renovating and expanding (406 SF addition) the existing residential unit on the second floor and exterior façade improvements on all four sides of the building. The proposed exterior improvements would change the architectural style from craftsman to modern. This includes a complete façade overhaul, including demolishing and reframing the existing cross gable roof to a flat roof. The roof reframing is driven to accommodate the proposed second floor addition at the rear of the building. Proposed exterior materials include dark wood grain aluminum siding along portions of the front and left side of the façade (driveway), stucco siding, and black anodized aluminum trim windows. The front façade would be detailed with a horizontal architectural panel above the second floor windows and two powder coated aluminum awnings above the front entrance door and the bay window the ground floor. Commercial Design Review is required because there are proposed changes to more than 50% of the building facades. Staf f would note that the ground floor space currently is under review for a building permit for interior tenant improvements only. It is assumed it would be a salon use, however the tenant has not yet been determined. There is no work proposed in the basement, which would continue to be used as storage. All uses located on the first floor or below the first floor within the boundaries of the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, as shown on the Parking Sector Boundaries Map (parking sector ), are exem pt from providing off -street parking. The subject property is located within this Downtown parking sector. All uses above the first floor are required to provide off -street parking as required by zoning code. The site currently contains two uncovered off -street parking spaces at the rear of the property that would be retained. The proposed improvements to the residential use on the second floor would increase the bedroom count from two to four bedrooms. There are specific park ing ratios for r esidential uses within the Downtown Specific Plan area. Residential units with three or more bedrooms require two parking spaces per unit. The proposed project complies with the parking requirement with the two existing parking spaces provided at the rear of the property, which w ould be maintained as part of this project. Commercial Design Review 1205 Howard Avenue Page 2 of 4 The following application is required for this project:  Commercial Design Review for a second story addition and exterior façade changes to an existing mixed-use building (Code Section 25.68.020(C)(3)(b) and (e)). 1205 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: March 1, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Use: (1st floor & basement): (2nd flr): personal service (2,027 SF on ground floor + 228 SF storage in basement) residential (1 unit on second floor) personal service (2,027 SF on ground floor + 228 SF storage in basement) residential (1 unit on second floor) personal service use is permitted in HMU m ixed use is permitted in HMU Front Setback (1st floor): (2nd floor): 6’-0” 6’-0” no change none Side Setback (Left): (Right): 13’-1” 4’-3” 13’-1” 4’-3” none Rear Setback (1st floor): (2nd floor): 31’-5” 43’-11” no change 31-‘5” 0'-0” 20’-0”* Lot Coverage: n/a n/a none in this zoning district Building Height: 23’-7” 29-11” 55’-0” ** Rear setback requirement applies when there is an existing residential use on the abutting rear property line (existing residential use abuts the rear property line, therefore 20’-0” rear setback is required for 2nd floor) (C.S. 25.16.030). Commercial Design Review 1205 Howard Avenue Page 3 of 4 1205 Howard Avenue Lot Area: 5,000 SF Plans date stamped: March 1, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Off-Street Parking Basement: (1st flr): (2nd flr): Total Spaces: 228 SF (storage) 2,027 SF (personal ser vice) 2 bedrooms (residential) 1 space required no change no change 4 bedrooms (residential) 2 spaces provided All uses on first floor or below the first floor within the parking sector of the Downtown Specific Plan are exempt from providing off -street parking. Residential units with 3 or more bedrooms requir e 2 par king spaces 2 spaces required Parking space dimensions: 1 @ 9’-0” x 18’-0” 1 @ 12’-6” x 18’-0” no change 8’-6” x 17’-0” Vehicle Exiting Back-Up / Aisle Width: 31’-1” no change 24’-0” Staff Comments: None. Public Facilities Impact Fee and Residential Impact Fee: Since no additional dwelling units are being proposed with this application, the project is exempt from paying the Public Facilities Impact Fees (C.S. 25.46.070(A)(1)). In addition, because there are less than 10 residential units proposed, the project is also exempt from paying the Residential Impact Fees (C.S. 25.45.060). 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. Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles in the area in which the project is located; 2. Respect and promotion of pedestrian activity in commercial and mixed-use zoning districts by placement of buildings to maximize commercial use of the street frontage and by locating off -street parking areas so that they do not dominate street frontages; 3. For commercial and industrial developments on visually prominent and gateway sites, whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development; 4. Compatibility of the architecture with the mass, bulk, scale, and existing materials of surrounding development and appropriate transitions to adjacent lower -intensity development and uses; 5. Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure and restores or retains existing or significant original architectural features; and Commercial Design Review 1205 Howard Avenue Page 4 of 4 6. Provision of site features such as fencing, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation that complement on- site development and enhance the aesthetic character of district in which the development is located. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review C riteria 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. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Stanford Chiang, applicant Anna Chan, property owner Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Commercial Applic ation Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed March 3, 2023 Area Map City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P (650) 558-7250  www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Commercial Application 1. Proposed use of the site: 2. Days and hours of operation: 3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parked at site (by type): 4. Current and projected maximum number of employees (including owner) at this location: At Opening/Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of Operation Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Weekdays Weekends 5. Current and projected maximum number of visitors/customers who may come to the site: At Opening/Existing In 2 Years In 5 Years Hours of Operation Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Before 5:00 pm After 5:00 pm Weekdays Weekends 6. What is the maximum number of people expected on site at any one time (include owner, employees and visitors/customers): 7. Where do/will the owner and employees park? 8. Where do/will the customers/visitors park? 9. Present or most recent use of site: 10. List other tenants on property, their number of employees, hours of operation (attach a list if more room is needed): BUSINESS - PERSONAL SERVICE USE MONDAY - SATURDAY 8AM - 4PM N/A 12 STREET PARKING STREET PARKING N/A 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 1205 Howard Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 029-224-050 1205 HOWARD AVENUE NUMBER OF FLOORS 2 FLOOR CURRENT USE:RESIDENTIAL (R-2) PROPOSED USE:RESIDENTIAL (R-2) SQUARE FOOTAGE: THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BASE BUILDING IS 5,656 GROSS SQ. FT. • 2ND FLOOR 1,621 SQFT (GROSS) • GROUND FLR.2,027 SQFT (GROSS) • BASEMENT 2,008 SQFT (GROSS -INCLUDES CRAWL SPACE) THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS 2,027 SQ. FT. • 2ND FLOOR 1,621 SQFT + 406 SQFT ADDITION (RESIDENTIAL ADD.) FLOOR EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED BASEMENT (STORAGE)2,008 SF NO CHANGE C.S. 25.40.030(C) EXEMPTS USES ON OR BELOW THE GROUND FLR. IN PARKING SECTOR IN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN GROUND FLOOR NO PARKING REQ. PER C.S.25.40.030(C) 2,027 SF SALON (PERSONAL SERVICE) C.S. 25.40.030(C) EXEMPTS USES ON OR BELOW THE GROUND FLR. IN PARKING SECTOR IN DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO PARKING REQ. PER C.S.25.40.030(C) 2,027 SF SALON (PERSONAL SERVICE) 2ND FLOOR 1 - PARKING SPACE PER C.S.25.40.030(A) (E) 1,621 SF 2 - BEDROOMS C.S. 25.40.030(A) REQUIRES 2 SPACES FOR THREE OR MORE BEDROOM UNITS LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN ZONING, TWO-UNIT DWELLINGS 2 - PARKING SPACES PER C.S.25.40.030(A) (E) 1,621 SF + 406 SF TOTAL: 2,027 SF RESIDENTIAL 4 - BEDROOMS GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONC M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:42 AMA0.0 PROJECT INFO 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date SHERYLL F.LIU1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010RESIDENTIAL ADDITION 1205 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 SYMBOLS & ABBREVIATIONS CONSTRUCTION HOURS SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDE(S): ALL DAMAGED SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL BE REPAIRED. AN INSPECTION BY THE CITY PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR WILL DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF THE REPAIRS POST- CONSTRUCTION. DEFFERED SUBMITTAL: • FIRE SPRINKLERS • AN AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BUILDING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR ISSUANCE OF PERMIT. • THE FIRE PROTECTION UNDERGROUND WATER LINE (USFS) SHALL BE SUBMITTED AND APPROVED THROUGH THE BURLINGAME BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF ABOVEGROUND FIRE SPRINKLER PERMIT. • THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL BE ELECTRONICALLY MONITORED BY AN APPROVED CENTRAL RECEIVING STATION. A SEPARATE FIRE ALARM PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED BY CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT. • A KNOX BRAND KEY BOX SHALL BE MOUNTED ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING(S) FOR EMERGENCY FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS. CONTACT FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR ORDERING AND INSTALLATION INFORMATION. 1. NO WORK TO BE PERFORMED IN THE BASEMENT, OR GROUND FLOOR TENANT IMPROVEMENT UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT. 2. SECOND FLOOR IMPROVEMENTS -IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNIT INCLUDE RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING BATHROOM, ADDITION OF ONE (1) NEW BATHROOM, RENOVATION OF EXISTING KITCHEN, NEW LAUNDRY, AND REPURPOSING THE EXISTING STORAGE ROOMS AS FOUR (4) NEW BEDROOMS. 3. ROOF ALTERATION OF CROSS GABLE -DEMO AND REFRAME EXISTING CROSS GABLE ROOF TO FLAT ROOF. OCCUPANT LOAD TABLE ø DIAMETER &AND A.F.F.ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR ACOUST ACOUSTICAL ADD'L ADDITIONAL ADJ ADJACENT ALLOW ALLOWANCE ALT ALTERNATIVE A/C AIR CONDITIONING ALLOW ALLOWANCE ALUM ALUMINUM ANG, <ANGLE ANOD ANODIZED APPL APPLICATION APPROX APPROXIMATE ARCH ARCHITECTURAL AC ASPHALT CONCRETE BLDG.BUILDING BLK BLOCK BLKG BLOCKING BM BEAM BOT BOTTOM BTB BACK TO BACK BET BETWEEN BD BOARD CAB CABINET CANT.CANTILEVER CBC CALIFORNIA BLDG CODE C.H.CEILING HEIGHT CC CENTER TO CENTER CJ CONSTRUCTION JOINT CLR CLEAR COL.COLUMN CONN.CONNECTION CONT.CONTINUED CTR CENTER D.DRYER DBL DOUBLE DIA.DIAMETER DIAG.DIAGONAL DIM DIMENSION DN DOWN DO DITTO DEMO.DEMOLISH DET DETAIL DWG DRAWING DS DOWNSPOUT 1.CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH CODES, LAWS, ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES GOVERNING THE WORK. 2.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AND THE OWNER OF THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND FIELD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 3.ALL WORK PERFORMED SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS INCLUDING THESE GENERAL NOTES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL NOTES WITH ALL TRADES. 4.CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS, VERIFY DIMENSIONS AND FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONFIRM THAT WORK IS BUILDABLE AS SHOWN. REPORT ANY CONFLICTS OF OMISSIONS TO THE ENGINEER FOR CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK IN QUESTION. 5.ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS. 6.NO DEVIATION FROM THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE MADE WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER OR DESIGNER. 7.DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. DIMENSIONS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALES SHOWN ON DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS TO COMMENCING WORK AND REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES. 8.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FINISH FACE TO FINISH FACE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALLOW FOR THICKNESS OF FINISH. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE: • 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE • 2019 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE • LOCAL AND STATE AMENDMENTS, ORDINANCES AND LAW ALL WORK SHALL MEET TITLE 24, CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION IN A SEISMIC ZONE. ANY PORTION OF THE WORK SHALL ALSO CONFORM TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY AND THOSE CODES AND STANDARDS LISTED IN THESE NOTES. ALL CODES HAVING JURISDICTION SHALL BE OBSERVED STRICTLY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT INCLUDING ALL APPLICABLE STATE, CITY AND COUNTY BUILDING, ZONING, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING AND FIRE CODES. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION AND BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN CODE REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DESIGNER/DRAFTER IN WRITING. WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE TO VARIOUS TEST STANDARDS FOR MATERIALS. SUCH STANDARDS SHALL BE THE LATEST EDITION AND / OR ADDENDUM. PROJECT SITE A0.0 PROJECT INFO A0.1 SITE PLAN A0.2 PHOTOGRAPHS A1.0 EXISTING & PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A1.1 EXISTING & PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN A1.2 EXISTING & PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN A1.3 EXISTING & PROPOSED ROOF PLAN A2.0 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A3.0 EXISTING ELEVATIONS A3.1 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS A4.0 DOOR NOTES & DETAILS E1.0 ELECTRICAL PLAN (E)EXISITING EA.EACH E.E.EACH END E.F.EACH FACE EL ELEVATION EQ EQUAL E.S.EACH SIDE E.W.EACH WAY EXT EXTERIOR E.O.D.EDGE OF DECK E.O.S.EDGE OF SLAB FIN FINISH(ED) FDN FOUNDATION FF FINISH FLOOR FLR.FLOOR FOC FACE OF CONCRETE FOS FACE OF STUD F.S.FAR SIDE FTG FOOTING GA GAGE GALV GALVANIZED GB GRADE BEAM GYP BD GYPSUM BOARD GI GALVANIZED IRON HDR HEADER HT HEIGHT HR HOUR ID INSIDE DIAMETER INT INTERIOR JT JOINT LOC LOCATION LT LIGHT MAX MAXIMUM MB MACHINE BOLT MECH MECHANICAL MFR.MANUFACTURE MIN MINIMUM MISC.MISCELLANEOUS MTL METAL (N)NEW NO.NUMBER NTS NOT TO SCALE N.S.NEAR SIDE OC ON CENTER OD OUTSIDE DIAMETER OH OPPOSITE HAND OPNG OPENING OPP OPPOSITE PERP PERPENDICULAR REF REFERENCE REINF REINFORCEMENT REQD REQUIRED REV REVISION R RISER RM ROOM SEC SECTION SCHED SCHEDULE SD STORM DRAIN SHT SHEET SIM SIMILAR SOG SLAB ON GRADE SPEC(S)SPECIFICATION(S) STD STANDARD STL STEEL STOR.STORAGE STRUC STRUCTURAL SYM.SYMMETRICAL THK THICKNESS T.O.TOP OF T.O.C.TOP OF CONCRETE T.O.S.TOP OF STEEL OR SLAB T.O.W.TOP OF WALL TYP.TYPICAL U.N.O.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE VERT VERTICAL V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD VB VAPOR BARRIER W/WITH W/O WITHOUT W.WASHER FIRE NOTES 1. ALL BUILDING SHALL PROVIDE PREMISE IDENTIFICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAN MATEO COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE. 2. PROVIDE KNOX KEY BOX FOR EACH BUILDING/AREA WITH ACCESS KEYS TO ENTRY DOORS, ELECTRICAL / MECHANICAL ROOMS, ELEVATORS, GATE AND OTHER TO BE DETERMINED. 3. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DRAINAGE MUST BE CONNECTED TO THE SANITARY SEWER, WORK SHALL UNDER SEPARATE FIRE SPRINKLER PERMIT. 4. CONNECT BOILER BLOW DOWN DISCHARGE LINE TO THE SANITARY SEWER. WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS 1. PROVIDE MAXIMUM 1.20 GALLONS PER MUNITE FOR LAVATORY FAUCETS 2. PROVIDE MAXIMUM 1.28 GALLONS PER FLUSH FOR NEW TOILETS 3. PROVIDE MAXIMUM 2.20 GALLONS PER MINUTE FOR KITCHEN FAUCETS 4. NEW DISH WASHERS SHALL USE LESS THAN 6.5 GALLONS PER CYCLE, OR BE ENERGY STAR QUALIFIED. GENERAL NOTES VICINITY MAP SHEET INDEX SCOPE OF WORK NO.DESCRIPTIONDATECODE REFERENCES PROJECT INFORMATION OWNER / CONSULTANTS PROJECT ADDRESS 1205 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ASSESSOR NO.:029-224-050 ZONING:HMU -DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN, HOWARD MIXED USE DISTRICT CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB NO. OF STORIES 2 NUMBER OF UNITS 1 OCCUPANCY CLASS - FIRE PROTECTION:NONE YEAR BUILT:1903 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY:D OWNER ANNA CHAN T. 650-620-8888 E. ANNACHAN318@GMAIL.COM DESIGNER/ARCHITECT CM CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 T. 415-816-2122 E. STANFORD@CMCONSTRUCTION.COM STRUCTURAL ENGINEER DOUG LEE T. 415-254-8920 ENERGY CONSULTANT TBD PARKING REQUIREMENTS “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. EXISTING STRIPED PARKING SPACE #1 SUBJECT PROPERTY 1205 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TOTAL SF = 6,062 SF NEIGHBORING PROPERTYNEIGHBORING PROPERTYH O W A R D A V E N U E P.L. 50.00 P.L. 50.00 7' - 0"P.L. 100.00P.L. 100.0012' - 6"9' - 0"RIGHT SETBACK 4' - 3" LEFT SETBACK 13' - 1"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY (N) REAR SETBACK31' - 5"PROPOSED ADDITION 406 SF 18' - 0 21/32" (E) ELEC. METER (E) GAS METER (E) CLEAN- OUT (E) WATER METER EXISTING STRIPED PARKING SPACE #2 31' - 11 11/32" DOWNSPOT CONNECTED TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN 3' - 6"9' - 0" DEDICATED TRASH BIN STORAGE LOCATION 62' - 7"32' - 7" POST-CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION EXISTING LOT SIZE: 5,000 SQFT. EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA: (6'-0" X 6'-0") + (15'-0" X 6'-0") = 126 SQFT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOT PRINT: 2,031 SQFT. IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE: 2,031/5,000 - 40% PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,031 SQFT. (NO CHANGE IN FOOTPRINT)6' - 0"6' - 1"15' - 2 31/32"6' - 0"12' - 11" 100.00 TOP OF CURB 100.06 TOP OF GRADE EXISTING STRIPED PARKING AREA (E) SUBJECT PROPERTY 1205 HOWARD AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 TOTAL SF = 5,656 SF NEIGHBORING PROPERTYNEIGHBORING PROPERTYH O W A R D A V E N U E P.L. 50.00 P.L. 50.00 7' - 0"P.L. 100.00P.L. 100.0012' - 6"9' - 0"RIGHT SETBACK 4' - 3" LEFT SETBACK 13' - 1"DRIVEWAYDRIVEWAY EXISTING REAR SETBACK44' - 3"DECK FRONT SETBACK6' - 0"(E) ELEC. METER (E) GAS METER (E) CLEAN- OUT (E) WATER METER DOWNSPOT CONNECTED TO EXISTING STORM DRAIN 6' - 0"6' - 1"15' - 2 31/32"6' - 0"100.00 TOP OF CURB 100.06 TOP OF GRADE 129.95 TOP OF ROOF NORTH GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONC M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 As indicated 3/1/2023 10:09:42 AMA0.1 SITE PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date SHERYLL F.LIU1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE3/16" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED SITE PLAN 3/16" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING SITE PLAN PARKING AREASUBJECT PROPERTY1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010P.L. 50.00P.L. 50.007' - 3 19/32"P.L. 100.00P.L. 100.00DBCAA - WEST ELEVATIONB - EAST ELEVATIONC - SOUTH ELEVATIONC - NORTH ELEVATION NORTH GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONC M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 As indicated 3/1/2023 10:09:45 AMA0.2 PHOTOGRAPHS 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date F.LIU -1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE EXISTING CRAWL SPACE STORAGE EXISTING CRAWL SPACE STORAGE GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONGENERAL NOTES: C M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:45 AMA1.0 EXISTING & PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE(NO CHANGE)(NO CHANGE) DN DN 14' - 8"7' - 8"11' - 4"9' - 6"7' - 0"11' - 6"15' - 3" 32' - 7"62' - 2 11/16"32' - 7"63' - 11 17/32"FACIAL / EYEBROW TATOO STATIONS FACIAL ROOM 01 ADA RESTROOM FACIAL ROOM 02 RECEPTION 7' - 8"42' - 7 17/32"2' - 0"4' - 0"4' - 0"3' - 0 15/16" FACIAL ROOM 03 EMPLOYEE BREAK ROOM 17' - 10 1/2"GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONGENERAL NOTES: C M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:46 AMA1.1 EXISTING & PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE DN DN 8' - 5"13' - 7"8' - 7"4' - 9"9' - 1"11' - 3"13' - 0 3/4"14' - 3"14' - 9"14' - 3"13' - 8"8' - 5"8' - 7"14' - 3"3' - 8"3' - 5"4' - 8"49' - 9"32' - 7"1' - 8"1' - 11"32' - 7"49' - 9"BATHROOM BEDROOM 02 BEDROOM 01 LIVING ROOM CLOSET CLOSET CLOSETCLOSET MECHANICAL ROOM HALLWAYDECK 11' - 3"14' - 9"1' - 8"9' - 0"17' - 3"13' - 0 1/2"4' - 5 3/4"13' - 0 3/4"10' - 0"16' - 3"5' - 0" MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 01 BEDROOM 02 BEDROOM 03 FAMILY ROOM KITCHEN 16' - 7"5' - 8 1/2"3' - 8"2' - 8"6' - 10" 7' - 6 1/2" 31' - 7" 32' - 7"18' - 9 3/4"4' - 5 3/4" BATH 01 BATH 02 GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONGENERAL NOTES: C M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:47 AMA1.2 EXISTING & PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE 1" / 1'-0"7 1/4" / 1'-0"7 1/4" / 1'-0"7 1/4" / 1'-0"7 1/4" / 1'-0"11" / 1'-0" 11" / 1'-0" (E) ASPHALT SHINGLES - AGED CHESTNUT (FINISH) 11" / 1'-0" 11" / 1'-0"GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY: NOTES:REVISIONGENERAL NOTES: C M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:47 AMA1.3 EXISTING & PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISTING ROOF PLAN 6" 6" 2' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 8 13/32"4' - 8 13/32"4' - 8 13/32"4' - 8 13/32"4' - 8 13/32"4' - 8 13/32"4' - 8 13/32"3' - 2 13/32"GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONGENERAL NOTES: C M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:48 AMA2.0 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"1 GROUND FLOOR 1/4" = 1'-0"2 2ND FLOOR NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE GROUND FLOOR 4' -6" 2ND FLOOR 14' -6" ROOF 24' -6" 11 2 6 3 2 5 4 107 T.O. GRADE 0' -6"APPROXIMATE BUILDING HT. 29' - 11"T.O. CURB 0' -0" GROUND FLOOR 4' -6" 2ND FLOOR 14' -6" ROOF 24' -6" 2 6 7 3 8 11 5 10 2 6 T.O. GRADE 0' -6" T.O. CURB 0' -0" 1 CEDAR STAGGERED BUTT SHINGLE SIDING 2 (E) CEDAR SHINGLE SIDING TO REMAIN 3 (E) WOOD LAP SIDING TO REMAIN 4 (E) BRICK TO REMAIN 5 (E) VINYL DH WINDOW W/ WOOD TRIM TO REMAIN 6 (E) SHINGLE ROOF ACCENT TRIM TO REMAIN MATERIAL INDEX 7 (E) BLACK POWDER COATED STEEL RAILING TO REMAIN 8 (E) WOOD RAILING TO DEMOLISH 9 (E) WOOD STAIR TO REMAIN 10 (E) WOOD SIDING ACCENT STRIP 11 (E) ASPHALT SHINGLE (AGED CHESTNUT FINISH) GABLE ROOF TO DEMOLISH AND REPLACE A NEW ROOF TO MATCH EXISTING 12 (N) VINYL DH WINDOW W/ DIVIDERS AND WOOD TRIM, SEE DETAIL 2/A4.1 GROUND FLOOR 4' -6" 11 3 10 2 8 7 4 2 6 6 T.O. GRADE 0' -6" T.O. CURB 0' -0" GROUND FLOOR 4' -6" 2ND FLOOR 14' -6"10' - 0"ROOF 24' -6" 8 11 6 9 2 10 5 T.O. GRADE 0' -6"EXISTING BUILDING HT.29' - 11"T.O. CURB 0' -0"GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONC M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:50 AMA3.0 EXISTING ELEVATIONS 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"2 EXISITNG WEST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"4 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE1/4" = 1'-0"1 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 1103 Juanita AvenueBurlingame, California94010650 696 1200314 Center Street #220Healdsburg, California65448707 343 1305DTADreiling Terrones Architecture Inc.ArchitectureInfrastructureEnvironments1205 Howard Ave1205 Howard AveBurlingame, CA 940102216Residential Addition Design Consulting atA3.1 Proposed Elevations Exterior Concepts: 12/12/22 Exterior Elevation: Front 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Exterior Elevation: Left 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Exterior Elevation: Rear 1/4" = 1'-0"3 Exterior Elevation: Right 1/4" = 1'-0"4 SANDY GRAINED BEIGE STUCCO BLACK ANNODIZED ALUMINUM TRIM WINDOWS DARK NATIONAL WALNUT WOOD GRAINED ALUMINUM SIDING BLACK POWDERCOATED ALUMINUM AWNING SANDY GRAINED BEIGE STUCCO BLACK ANNODIZED ALUMINUM TRIM WINDOWS DARK NATIONAL WALNUT WOOD GRAINED ALUMINUM SIDING BLACK POWDERCOATED ALUMINUM AWNING SANDY GRAINED BEIGE STUCCO BLACK ANNODIZED ALUMINUM TRIM WINDOWS SANDY GRAINED BEIGE STUCCO BLACK POWDERCOATED ALUMINUM AWNING BLACK POWDERCOATED ALUMINUM AWNING BLACK HARDIE ARCHITECTUAL PANEL BLACK HARDIE ARCHITECTUAL PANEL T.O. GRADE 0' -6" T.O. CURB 0' -0" T.O. GRADE 0' -6" T.O. CURB 0' -0" T.O. GRADE 0' -6" T.O. CURB 0' -0" T.O. GRADE 0' -6" T.O. CURB 0' -0" ROOF 23' -7" ROOF 23' -7" TRANSITION STRIP FINISH PER SCHEDULE DOOR PER SCHEDULE CHANGE FLOORING FINISHES AT CL OF DOOR, TYP 5/8" GYP. BD.; USE TYPE "X" GYP BD. @ 1 HR PARTITION TO UNDERSIDE OF STRUCTURE WHERE REQUIRED. RATED ALUMINUM DOOR FRAME AS SCHEDULED RATED DOOR FRAME AS SCHEDULED 4" WALL IN PERPENDICULAR POSITION SEE PLAN RATED DOOR AS SCHEDULED STD ALUMINUM FRAME DOUBLE STUD @ EACH SIDE OF JAMB 1 1/2"5/8" GYPSUM BOARD PARTITION AS SCHEDULE FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINET 3' - 6" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR TO CENTER OF CABINET TWO (2) 12 GA. SLACK SAFETY WIRES ATTACHED TO FIXTURE AT DIAGONAL CORNERS AND ANCHORED TO STRUCTURE ABOVE - UP TO 56 POUNDS - ALL 4' x 4' FIXTURE MUST HAVE WIRES AT EACH CORNERS NOTE: WITH HEAVY DUTY GRID SYSTEM ONLY FOR FIXTURES WEIGHING 56 POUNDS OR MORE MUST HAVE 4 TAUT 12 GA. WIRES ATTACHED TO FIXTURES AND TO STRUCTURE ABOVE. NOTE: PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS WHEN FIXTURES ARE 8' OR LONGER PROVIDE 6 TWIST MIN. HANGER WIRE SUSPENDED CEILING MAIN RUNNER RECESSED FLOURESCENT LIGHT FIXTURE COVE, TYP. TO MATCH EXIST WALL WALL CLG COVE TO MATCH EXIST 2" x 2" ST. STL. CORNER GUARD WHERE OCCURS GYP. BD. & FINISH AS SCHEDULEALIGNALIGN AS SCHED.COVE, TYP. TO MATCH EXIST FLOORING & BASE AS SCHEDULED RADIUS TO MATCH (E) FLOOR TO REMAIN LINE OF EXISTING PARTITION SCHEDULE CEILING 1-LAYERS OF 5/8" GYP BD EXTENDING TO STRUCTURE ABOVE NEW METAL STUD PROPOSED COUNTER OR CABINET WHERE OCCURS PROVIDE TYPE "B2" BACKING PLATE REFER TO BACKING PLATE SCHEDULE A4.1/44VIFPLAN SECTIONVERTICAL SECTIONPROVIDE 250 LB CAPACITY, MIN BLOCKING TYP. 3/16" x 3" DIA. SS FLANGE W/ 3-3/16" SS FHMB 33" AFFTO TOP OF GRAB BAR1 - 1/2" NOM. DIA. GRAB BAR CL 1 1/2" MAX VCT OR RESILIENT SHEET FLOORING DOOR CL OF DOORLINE OF FLOORINGTRANSITIONBUTT JOINT UNDER DOOR VCT FLOORING VCT OR RESILIENT SHEET FLOORING (FEATHER UP TO SCREED) DOOR CL OF DOORLINE OF FLOORINGTRANSITIONCONT. 1/8" S/S. SCREED ATTACHED TO FLOOR TERRAZO THIN SET TWO (2) 12 GA. SLACK SAFETY WIRES ATTACHED TO FIXTURE AT DIAGONAL CORNERS AND ANCHORED TO STRUCTURE ABOVE NOTE: HEAVY DUTY GRID SYSTEM HANGER WIRE TYPICAL SUSPENDED CEILING RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONC M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 As indicated 3/1/2023 10:09:52 AMA4.0 DOOR NOTES & DETAILS 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940103" = 1'-0"1 A5.0_TRANSITION DETAIL.3 3" = 1'-0"2 ALUM DOOR FRAME & HEAD DETAIL 3" = 1'-0"3 ALUM DOOR FRAME & JAMB 1 1/2" = 1'-0"4 FIRE EXTINGUISHER SECTION 3" = 1'-0"5 FIXTURE DETAIL @ CEILING 1 1/2" = 1'-0"6 FLOOR & WALL CORNER 1 1/2" = 1'-0"7 FURRING PARTITION - 1HR 6" = 1'-0"8 GRAB BAR DETAIL NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE3" = 1'-0"9 TYP. VCT / RESILIENT TRANSITION 3" = 1'-0"10 TYP. TERRAZZO/VCT TRANSITION 6" = 1'-0"11 TYP. RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURES DETAIL 5/8" GYP. BD. SEE -/C3 AIR DUCT, UP TO 3" x 10 " PREFABRICATED 24 GA SHEET MATAL AIR DUCT TYPE FC OR RFC: MIN. 1/2" THICK COMPOUND APPLIED WITHIN OPENING, FLUSH WITH BOTH SURFACE OF THE WALL, TYP. MIN. 2-1/2" THICK MINERAL WOOL INSULATION FIRMLY PACKED INTO THE OPENING AS APERMANENT FORM UL SYSTEM W-L-7001 5/8" GYP. BD. SEE -/C3 METALIC PIPE, 4" Ø OR SMALLER TYPE FC OR RFC: MIN. 1/2" THICK COMPOUND APPLIED WITHIN OPENING, FLUSH WITH BOTH SURFACE OF THE WALL, TYP. MIN. 2-1/2" THICK MINERAL WOOL INSULATION FIRMLY PACKED INTO THE OPENING AS APERMANENT FORM UL SYSTEM W-L-1039 WOOD TRIM VINYL UPPER SASH WOOD SILL (SLOPES) VINYL LOWER SASH WOOD TRIM OR 1- 1/2" X 5-7/8" FEDERAL HEAD TYPICAL EXTERIOR WINDOW FEDERAL HEAD SECTION FEDERAL HEAD ELEV.GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONC M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 As indicated 3/1/2023 10:09:53 AMA4.1 TYPICAL DETAILS 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 94010NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE3" = 1'-0"1 PIPE PENETRATION 1-HR WALL 1/2" = 1'-0"2 TYPICAL WINDOW DETAIL DN ROOM 04 ROOM 01 ROOM 02 ROOM 01 LOUNGE KITCHEN GNA SEA O FIAC I ONR IERSNIOOEFSRDA E IENC I V I LCIVILCIVILCIVILCIVIEG RNo. T F L RE TSP L EC 83626 T LKOKJIN Y EOSCALE: PROJECT NUMBER: DATE: DRAWN BY: CHECKED BY:REVISIONGENERAL NOTES: C M CONSTRUCTION 2727 JENNINGS ST, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124 1/4" = 1'-0"3/1/2023 10:09:53 AME1.0 ELECTRICAL PLAN 2210RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONIssue Date Author Checker1205 HOWARD AVENUEBURLINGAME, CA 940101/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN NO.DESCRIPTIONDATE