The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2023.09.25Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, September 25, 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: Council Chambers, 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: 859 9377 1997 Passcode: 748369 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 859 9377 1997 Passcode: 748369 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 9/22/2023 September 25, 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 September 25, 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 2. ROLL CALL 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION Announcements/consideration and approval of requests by Planning Commissioners to participate remotely pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)). 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft September 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft September 11, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 6. 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. 7. STUDY ITEMS There are no Study Items. Page 2 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/22/2023 September 25, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and /or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Consideration of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Application Processing Procedures Which Expand City Cost Recovery Efforts. Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. (newspaper notice) Staff Contact: Scott Spansail a. Staff Report Draft Ordinance Resolution Public Notice Attachments: 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5 Rio Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali a. 5 Rio Ct - Staff Report 5 Rio Ct - Attachments 5 Rio Ct - Plans Attachments: 442 Chatham Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Michal and Jeff Braker, property owners) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 442 Chatham Rd - Staff Report 442 Chatham Rd - Attachments 442 Chatham Rd - Plans Attachments: 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY There are no Design Review Study Items. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/22/2023 September 25, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of September 18, 2023 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, September 25, 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 September 25, 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 October 5, 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 $784.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 4 City of Burlingame Printed on 9/22/2023 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, September 11, 2023 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. A moment of silence was held in memory of the nearly 3,000 lives lost in the tragic events that occurred on September 11, 2001. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Shores, and TsePresent5 - Pfaff, and SchmidAbsent2 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft August 28, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft August 28, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Tse noted that she was not present at the August 28, 2023 meeting, but has read the meeting minutes and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Shores, and Tse5 - Absent:Pfaff, and Schmid2 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Planning Manager Hurin noted that Item 9a - 5 Rio Court has been continued at the request of the applicant. Public hearing notices will be sent once the item is placed on a future agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. Page 1City of Burlingame September 11, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.5 Rio Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 5 Rio Court - Staff Report 5 Rio Court - Plans Attachments: This item was continued at the request of the applicant. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1137 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Hannah Chiu, Thomas James Homes, applicant and designer; Brenden Kelly and Jessica Wijtman -Kelly, property owners) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1137 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1137 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1137 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Acting-Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Hannah Chiu and David Pockett, designers, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Acting-Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > Provide a revised site plan and landscape plan showing intended location to tuck the garage further into the rear corner of the lot; it is a good idea to do that. Looking at the landscape plan, it seems like an unusable space in the back corner as its proposed now. > Unfortunately, I like the existing house. It looks like an East Coast shingle -style house by the architect H.H. Richardson. I thought it’s pretty cool to have that here in Burlingame. I do appreciate that the new house is not maxing out the floor area ratio that they have available with the extra wide lot. The Page 2City of Burlingame September 11, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes detached garage is a good thing because there are so many attached garages in the street. The trend towards a one-car garage is frustrating for me. A two -car garage for that home size is better, but I understand that it is the requirement. We are losing a lot of trees, but the arborist report said they are in poor condition. I really like the proposed extensive landscaping. The left elevation is a bit plain. The roof line on that side of the house just goes front to back without much interest. The porch roof pitch is 3:12 which looks a bit like a shed compared to the pitch of the rest of the roof. It has a nice generous front porch. The roof line makes it a little odd to me. I do like the glass front door better than the solid front door. In the rendering, it looks like a very solid wall. >Looking at the floor plan of the house, aside from the ADU, there are a number of bedrooms but I don’t see a lot of closet space. These days, people use garages for two things: either for parking or for storage. With as many bedrooms as there will be in the home, the ADU, and the one -car garage it seems that storage space is also limited; suggest applicant consider storage space a bit further. There is a lot of space in the floor plan and there are opportunities for some additional closet spaces to be created. Am a little troubled by the description of the house being Arts and Crafts style; it doesn ’t look like an Arts and Crafts house to me. In the rendering, it looks more like a modern farmhouse than anything. Arts and Crafts and Craftsman style homes are defined by real materials like wood, stone, brick, etc. We don ’t even have a wood entry door for this house, it is a fiberglass door assembly. Often at the front porch, even though it can have a low roof pitch, the posts are generally clunky. They have a heavy base usually wrapped in brick or stone, either tapered or bulky columns. Especially with the nine -foot plate height, this one has a skinny and slender post at the front and does not give off the feel of an Arts and Crafts home . An Arts and Crafts or Craftsman house will be a nice improvement if you want to apply some of those details to the design of the house. Suggests considering a proper fireplace chimney. We see it jutting out on the left elevation and it quickly dies into the face of the house. There could be some added charm to the house if there was in fact a true chimney possibly wrapped in stone or something. A bit of the character of the house is missing. It is stripped down and looks more like a development type of home . Some of the fine details you would find in a Craftsman style house are missing. Lastly, I am not quite sure what the window grids are trying to be. Most often, we see this three -part breakdown and then there are some areas where there are some taller single -hung windows where it was broken down into four panels. Consider a simple cross two -by-two grid for the window; it might be an improvement to the design of the house. It is not in our purview to comment about colors, but since you specified specific colors that you plan to use on the house, the rendering is pretty much a black and white house. Often Arts and Crafts homes resonate more with nature, so we see a little bit of brown, auburn, green, or even red colors . Suggests going with the style intent of the house and the style can look a little bit more befitting of a Craftsman style home. The front door can work with that color scheme but the black and white does not work for me all together. >I also do like the existing home. Listening to my fellow commissioners and looking at the house again, this house looks similar to a lot of the many houses that we have approved. It is a fine design. It is unfortunate that such an unusual and a different design is being replaced with something that does not stand out that much. To piggyback off the Arts and Crafts comments, there are a couple of small things to change that. Generally, anything that makes it look like it was handmade or rustic is appropriate as opposed to completely machine -made materials. I concur about the front door. The house does feel like it came from an assembly line, which is fine, but there are a lot of improvement opportunities especially if they want to lean into the Arts and Crafts style. >I concur with my fellow commissioners. It does come off as a development look. To take away from a house with so much character and replace it with a sterile design is unfortunate. It can use a few details and a different color palette can make a huge change. The overall design is pleasing; it is not an ugly house and it proportions well. The upper windows look squatty with the horizontal mullions. Adding a vertical mullion across may fix that and can be the same for the smaller windows. Unfortunately, per the rules, we cannot have a nine -foot upper floor plate height. Because of the long slenderness of the bottom, it is not proportional in my opinion. Acting-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 3City of Burlingame September 11, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Shores, and Tse4 - Absent:Pfaff, and Schmid2 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Planning Manager Hurin noted that at their meeting of September 5, 2023, the City Council adopted the North Rollins Specific Plan and Addendum to the Burlingame 2040 General Plan EIR. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Page 4City of Burlingame Community Development Department PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ACTION ITEM (Public Hearing): Public Hearing to Consider Recommendation of a Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code Regarding Application Processing Procedures Which Expand City Cost Recovery Efforts MEETING DATE: September 25, 2023 AGENDA ITEM NO: 8a ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: The proposed amendment to the Zoning Code is Statutory Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider a proposed Ordinance amending the City’s Zoning Code. The proposed Ordinance would expand the City’s Application Processing Procedure to explicitly include the collection of deposits to add to the City’s cost recovery mechanisms, thereby improving the City’s revenues. Charging staff, consultant, material and other costs against an applicant deposit better aligns the City’s efforts towards 100 percent cost recovery when compared to a fixed-fee. In order to move forward with the potential revenue measure, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Ordinance. BACKGROUND Cities commonly utilize fees and deposits to recover costs for services they provide to specific parties, including regulatory activities. The Planning Division is responsible for administering land use and housing priorities identified by the City Council in the General Plan, zoning ordinances, specific plans, and annual budget. The Planning division also regulates land use through entitlement review and permit processing of development projects. To fund these planning services, the City mainly uses fixed-fees, but collects deposits in limited circumstances, either for attorney costs or environmental review. Staff recommends amending the City’s codified Application Processing Procedures and Definitions under the Zoning Title to specify that deposits may also be collected. These changes would help improve cost-recovery and clarifies that the City is authorized to collect deposits. In presenting the proposed 2023-2024 Budget to City Council on May 10, 2023, staff had indicated Planning services experienced higher-than-anticipated ongoing applications and permit activity, but that this activity would slow during the next fiscal year resulting in nearly a 7.8 percent decrease from March 2023’s original five-year forecast. Implementing deposit-based fees will assist in minimizing decreased revenues. Deposit-based fees improve revenue by more accurately capturing actual costs for service since fixed-fees are based on estimates and costs for Planning services can vary. Planning services costs vary based on different factors from applicant preparedness to site conditions to addressing neighbor complaints. September 25, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8a Ordinance – Cost Recovery 2 DISCUSSION Deposit-based fees, also known as deposits, are sums of money provided to the City by applicants for the City to charge project specific work against. Deposits ensure that an applicant pays for direct and indirect costs incurred to provide the service. The applicant who paid the deposit will generally receive a refund if a balance remains after all actual costs are deducted. If a deposit is exhausted before a service is complete, City work on the project will cease until the applicant replenishes the deposit. Table 1 samples cities in San Mateo County that collect fixed-fees, deposit-based fees, or both. The following cities are either close neighbors or are similar in size. Table 1 San Mateo County Jurisdiction Fixed-Fee, Deposit or Both Foster City Both Menlo Park Both Millbrae Fixed-Fee Redwood City Both San Carlos Both San Mateo Both South San Francisco Both Deposits are used for complex projects that can take a substantive amount of staff time, require significant California Environmental Quality Act analysis, or require a number of different permits or entitlements such as a conditional use permit, re-zoning or General Plan Amendment, and sign permit. The administrative costs for a deposit for these planning services would generally be less than the direct costs of providing the service. The proposed amendment would add language to Burlingame Municipal Code (BMC) Section 25.62.040 Application Processing Procedures to: • Ensure the City is reimbursed for its costs of providing services to applicants; • State that fees include fees and deposits; • Identify that the fee amount and type of service subject to a fee would be determined through resolution of the City Council; and • Specify what costs are included for reimbursement. Additionally, BMC Section 25.108.070 Definitions is amended to add a definition for Fee which would be “A fee, charge, deposit, or exaction collected by the City.” September 25, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting – Agenda Item 8a Ordinance – Cost Recovery 3 FISCAL IMPACT The purpose of this Ordinance is to recover City costs during review of development projects, with a refund given for any remaining deposit. However, as the City currently does not capture a larger portion of costs with our current fees, this Ordinance should cause revenues from planning services to increase. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66017, new development fees may be effective no sooner than 60 days following the final action on the adoption of the fee. Exhibits: • DRAFT Ordinance • Planning Commission Resolution • Notice of Public Hearing – Published September 15, 2023 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.62 AND CHAPTER 25.108 OF TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES WHEREAS, the California Constitution grants cities the authority to make and enforce ordinances and regulations, the City of Burlingame is authorized to impose regulatory fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council declares it is the general policy of the City to recover the costs of providing services to applicants for development projects; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services is borne by the users in a fair and equitable manner, the application processing procedures are revised to better account for the City’s costs in reviewing applications; preparing reports, maps or environmental analyses; providing legal review; and producing, posting and mailing notices or legal publications; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to clarify the definition of fees related to the administration of the Zoning Code to include deposits in order to provide a flexible cost recovery approach; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds that the proposed Ordinance is in the public interest. Section 3. Chapter 25.62 and Chapter 25.108 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code are amended as follows. Additions are reflected by underlined text and deletions with strike out text. Chapter 25.62 Section 25.62.040 Application Fees and Cost Recovery. A. Filing Fees Required. 1. The Council shall, by resolution, establish a schedule of fees for amendments, entitlements, and other matters pertaining to this Zoning Code to ensure that the City is reimbursed for its costs of providing services to applicants for development projects and to the extent advisable, provide uniformity with respect to such provisions. The schedule of fees may be changed or modified only by resolution of the Council. 2. The City’s processing fees shall be cumulative. For example, if an application for design review also involves a variance, both fees shall be charged. 3. Processing shall not commence on an application until required fees have been paid. Without the application fee, the application shall not be deemed complete. 4. Fees shall include fees and deposits collected by the City to administer provisions of this Zoning Code. The City shall determine through Council adoption of a fee schedule the instances in which a fee covering all costs or a deposit from which City costs are deducted shall be collected. 5. Each applicant for or operator of a development project, as well as the owner of the subject property, if different, shall be liable for payment of all fees associated with the development project. 6. Costs shall include, but not be limited to, field investigations, preparation of necessary reports; preparation of site maps; preparation of environmental reviews; producing, posting and mailing notices or legal publications; legal review; review of applications; defense of administrative and/or judicial challenges to the project approval(s). B. Refunds and Withdrawals. 1. Recognizing that filing fees are utilized to cover City costs of public hearings, mailing, posting, transcripts, and staff time involved in processing applications, refunds due to a disapproval are not allowed. 2. In the case of a withdrawal, the Director may authorize a partial refund based upon the pro-rated costs to date and determination of the status of the application at the time of withdrawal. The Council may establish a refund schedule in the City’s fee resolution. Chapter 25.108 General Definitions Section 25.108.070 “F” Definitions Façade. Façade means: 1. The exterior walls of a building or structure exposed to public view; or 2. The walls viewed by a person not inside the building; or 3. For a tenant space within a larger building, the portion of the exterior walls that corresponds to the interior space occupied by the tenant or business establishment; or 4. Any awnings on or attached to the exterior walls that meet the definition of façade. Fee. A fee, charge, deposit or exaction collected by the City. Fence. A structure of wood, masonry, metal, or other solid material built on or close to a property line for the purpose of physically separating properties. First Approval. With regard to a commercial linkage fee, means the first discretionary approval to occur with respect to commercial development projects or, for commercial development projects not requiring a discretionary approval, the issuance of a building permit. Floor Area, Gross. The total area enclosed within a building, including closets, stairways, and utility and mechanical rooms, measured from the outside face of the walls. Floor Area, Net. The gross floor area less areas stipulated by Section 25.30.060 (FAR Measurement and Exceptions). Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The floor area of the building or buildings on a site or lot divided by the area of the site or lot. Foot-Candle. A unit of measure of the intensity of light falling on a surface, equal to one lumen per square foot or the intensity of light from a standardized candle burning at one foot from a given surface. Footprint. The gross floor area to the outside of the exterior walls plus roof overhangs, eaves, balconies, and decks and trellises over outdoor areas. Footprint applies to first floor area and floor areas of the floors above the first which extend beyond first floors. Frontage. All property fronting on one side of the street between intersecting or intercepting streets, or between a street and right-of-way, waterway, end of dead-end street, or City boundary measured along the street line. (Ord. 2000 § 2, (2021)) Section 4. The City Council finds and determines this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA, in that this Ordinance is not a "Project" as provided in state CEQA Guidelines section 15389. Furthermore the City Council finds and determines this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Section 5. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 6. This Ordinance shall go into effect 30 days following its adoption. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance in a manner required by law. Section 7. Section 3 of this Ordinance shall be codified in the Burlingame Municipal Code. Sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall not be so codified. Michael Brownrigg, Mayor I, Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a public hearing at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ___________, 2023, and adopted thereafter on the ____ day of _______, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Meaghan Hassel-Shearer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. __________ 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25.62 AND CHAPTER 25.108 OF TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME HEREBY FINDS: WHEREAS, the California Constitution grants cities the authority to make and enforce ordinances and regulations, the City of Burlingame is authorized to impose regulatory fees; and WHEREAS, the City Council declares it is the general policy of the City to recover the costs of providing services to applicants for development projects; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services is borne by the users in a fair and equitable manner, the application processing procedures are revised to better account for the City’s costs in reviewing applications; preparing reports, maps or environmental analyses; providing legal review; and producing, posting and mailing notices or legal publications; and WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 25, 2023, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter 25.62 and Chapter 25.108 of Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding application processing procedures to explicitly include the collection of deposits to add to the City’s cost recovery mechanisms. Chairperson I, , Secretary of the Burlingame Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of September, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: _________________________ Secretary CITY OF BURLINGAME PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES WHICH EXPAND CITY COST RECOVERY EFFORTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame will hold a Public Hearing on September 25, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. to consider a proposed ordinance which would amend Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code by expanding cost recovery procedures. The meeting will take place at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. Members of the public may also attend online on Zoom by logging in through the link published within the meeting agenda on the City’s website. That information can be found at: www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda. The Planning Commission will receive testimony on the proposed ordinance from all interested persons who appear at the Commission meeting. Information on how to attend the meeting whether in person or virtually will be included in the September 25, 2023, agenda. The agenda will be published at least 72 hours prior to the meeting and can be found at: www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda. Members of the public may submit public comment for this item by emailing publiccomment@burlingame.org. The City will also receive public comment live during the meeting. To receive additional information about the ordinance and a complete copy of the ordinance, interested persons may contact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, phone (650) 558-7203. A copy of the ordinance is also available online at www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda 72 hours prior to the meeting. Date Published: September 15, 2023 City of Burlingame Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit Address: 5 Rio Court Meeting Date: September 25, 2023 Request: Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Designer: Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc. APN: 025-051-190 Property Owners: Angela and Sandy Yee Lot Area: 8,313 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2), which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 SF in areas where all public services and facilities are available and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant is proposing a first floor addition at the rear of the house and a new 1,178 SF second story. The proposed house would increase in floor area from 2,587 SF (0.31 FAR) to 3,695 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,760 SF (0.45 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and ADU exemptions). The subject property is located within the Hillside Overlay Zone. Code Section 25.20.040 states that hillside development shall be designed to preserve existing distant views. View preservation shall be limited to obstruction of distant views to San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas (living rooms and family rooms) (Code Section 25.20.040(B)). With this project, the number of bedrooms would increase from three to five (the office/media room on the first floor qualifies as a bedroom). Three parking spaces, two of which must be covered, are required on-site. Two existing covered parking spaces are provided in the attached garage (19’-2” x 19’-2” clear interior dimensions); one existing uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) This project includes a new 850 SF attached accessory dwelling unit at the left, rear corner of the house created by converting a portion of the existing house and an addition. Review of the ADU application is administrative and not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following applications:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)); and  Hillside Area Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.70.020(A)). Item No. 9a Regular Action Item Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 5 Rio Court 2 5 Rio Court Lot Area: 8,313 SF Plans date stamped: August 30, 2023 EXISTING ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (2/16/23 plans) PROPOSED (8/30/23 plans) ALLOWED/ REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 14’-9” - 24’-2” (to addition) 32’-3” no change 15’-0” 20’-0” Side (left): (right): 5’-0” 4’-0” 4’-0” (to ADU) no change no change 4'-0" 4'-0" Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 25’-10” - 29’-4” (to addition) 8’-11” (to ADU) 30’-3” no change 15'-0" 4’-0” (to ADU) 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2,613 SF 31% 2,586 SF 31% no change 3,325 SF 40% FAR: 2,587 SF 0.31 FAR 3,746 SF 0.45 FAR 3,695 SF 0.44 FAR 3,760 SF 1 0.45 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 5 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered (19’-2” x 19'-2” clear interior) 1 uncovered (9' x 18’) no change no change 2 covered (18' x 18' for existing conditions) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 15’-0” 23’-1” 21’-11” 30'-0" Plate Height (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-0” - 8’-0” 8’-0” no change 9’-0” 8’-0” DH Envelope: not applicable complies complies C.S.25.10.055(A)(1) ¹ (0.32 x 8,313 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,760 SF (0.45 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: fiberglass wood clad windows • Doors: stained wood for main entry door and garage door • Siding: cement plaster and stacked stone veneer • Roof: composition shingles • Other: pained wood fascia, painted wool column Staff Comments: None. Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 5 Rio Court 3 Second Design Review Study Meeting (August 14, 2023): At the second Design Review Study meeting on August 14, 2023, the Commission had several suggestions and comments regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached August 14, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated August 28, 2023, and revised plans, date stamped August 30, 2023 to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s comments. First Design Review Study Meeting (May 8, 2023): At the first Design Review Study meeting on May 8, 2023, the Commission had several suggestions and comments regarding this project (see attached May 8, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes). The Commission suggested that the application be brought back for review as a Design Review Study item after story poles have been installed so that the proposed project can be properly evaluated. Story poles were installed after the May 8, 2023 design review study meeting. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated June 22, 2023, and revised plans, date stamped July 27, 2023 to address the Planning Commission’s comments. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project in response to the Commission’s comments. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The first and second story addition to the existing single-unit dwelling is consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; The proposed materials, including a wood entry door, cement plaster and stone veneer siding, fiberglass wood clad windows, and composition shingle roofing compliment this architectural style and is consistent with the design and materials found in the surrounding neighborhood. Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 5 Rio Court 4 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development 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, declining height envelope, building height, and off-street parking requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria. Required Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: Any decision to approve a Hillside Area Construction Permit application pursuant to Code Section 25.20.040 and Chapter 25.70 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone. 2. The project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040(B) through (I). 3. The placement of the proposed construction does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood. Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: 1. That the project is consistent with the purpose of the Hillside Overlay Zone and does not have a substantial impact on adjacent properties or on the character of the immediate neighborhood in that 1) the buildable areas on the subject property and other properties on this cu-de-sac are relatively flat and 2) that the first and second story addition has been designed to reduce impacts on adjacent properties and/or on the character of the immediate neighborhood with a reduced building height (8’- 1” below the maximum allowed), modest roof slopes, standard plate heights, and considerate placement to respect the overall design and potential view impacts. 2. That the project complies with the development standards found in Section 25.20.040(B) through (I) as shown on the proposed plans and installed story poles. 3. That based on the story poles installed, which were certified by a licensed land surveyor, the addition does not have a substantial impact on the distant views to San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Airport, and Mills Canyon from primary indoor living areas (living rooms and family rooms) from adjacent properties. For these reasons, the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with Hillside Area Construction Permit criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped August 30, 2023, sheets A.1 through A.4.3, BMP sheet, site survey and Topographic Survey; Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 5 Rio Court 5 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit 5 Rio Court 6 Fazia Ali Assistant Planner c. Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners Attachments August 14, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated August 28, 2023 May 8, 2023, Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated June 22, 2023 Story Pole Certification and Letter, dated July 25, 2023, and July 19, 2023 Neighbor Letters of Concern, dated May 5, 2023 Neighbors Letter of Support, dated August 14, 2023 Project Application Hillside Area Construction Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 15, 2023 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes - Draft Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 14, 2023 b.5 Rio Court, 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. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners ) (38 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item for business reasons. Commissioners Horan, Pfaff and Schmid met with the neighbors at 1821 Loyola Drive. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Angela Yee, property owner and Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Larry Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive: Good evening, Commissioners. My wife, Joanne, and I are here again to oppose the second story addition to 5 Rio Court. With the story poles now in place, we can clearly see that the addition is not in keeping with the neighborhood. When entering Rio Court, the addition will be overwhelming. The story poles at 5 Rio Court demonstrate how the actual structure will impact this cul-de-sac and the neighborhood. The story poles did also reinforce the concerns that were expressed by the commissioners at the May 8th meeting. Some quotes from that meeting made by the commissioners were encouraging to us. The first commissioner said, “On the other hand, I do agree that a second story on this street is out of character and out of scale for this area. I find it hard to support that given how much higher it is going to be than others .” and “That neighbors downhill will be impacted as well from a much taller structure .” The second commissioner said, “I tend to agree with my fellow commissioner .” Third commissioner said, “To echo what my fellow commissioner said about neighborhood, this cul -de-sac has no other second stories. It doesn ’t quite fit. The design of it is lovely. I like the design, but unfortunately doesn’t quite coincide with what we are seeing on the same cul -de-sac.” A fourth commissioner said, “I concur with my fellow commissioners .” The fifth commissioner said, “I concur with what has been said .” If you’ll notice, none of those refer to any view blockage or anything like that. Those are just your opinions on how a second story will affect this block. A previous Planning Commission had the same concerns when 3 Rio Court wanted to add a second story. They set a precedent that a second story is not appropriate for this neighborhood. An appeal to the City Council was also denied. We have seen dramatic housing changes in Burlingame. As Planning Commissioners, you have accepted the responsibility to use your knowledge, experience, and foresight to determine the future of areas like Rio Court, Loyola Drive and Castenada Drive. This addition would undoubtedly set a new precedent and will allow anyone to add a second story and change the architectural balance now and forever. In closing, with all the concerns previously expressed, along with the view obstructions and parking issues, we feel that the commission should deny this project. Thank you for your time. >Public comments sent via email by Atif Qasim, 2 Rio Court: Hello, I would like to submit a new public comment for the re-discussion about the building plan for 5 Rio Court to add a second story. Our family lives at 2 Rio Court. My prior comments were read at the prior session. We have had a chance to look at the simulated height of the proposed new construction and do not feel our opinions about the plan have changed. We remain concerned about the second story having an effect on our privacy - being able to look into our back yard. The house would be much higher than neighboring houses and will change the Page 1City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft ambience of our cul-de-sac. I have spoken to our other neighbors directly across on Loyola Drive and it is even more clear that this addition will obstruct their view of the bay. We also remain concerned about the plan and the construction's effect on neighboring houses as much of the area behind that property includes landfill and can lead to sinking of neighboring properties. We received a letter from the owners this past week suggesting our concerns in this regard would be addressed but have not seen any clear documentation or studies to address that by the architects. We also understand and are sympathetic to the needs of the new owners of that property but feel that much of the investigation of the proposed new plans should have been considered around the time of purchase. There was at no point any discussion about the plans with us in detail prior to receiving a postcard in the mail. The immediate next -door neighbors at 4 Rio Court are renting that property and will be moving out this coming week. They also were not aware of the construction plans prior to the last meeting. >Public comments sent via email by Jasmine: We are owners of 1817 Loyola Drive. We oppose the second story plan for 5 Rio Court as it will completely block our view. 5 Rio Court is the main home directly across from our home. Based on the proposed roof line, our home will see only the building itself . The homes on our street are mainly single story. This maintains a characteristic of the Mills Estates neighborhood that is very unique to us compared to other areas of Burlingame. Our kids play on the cul-de-sac and would like to discourage additional traffic to this intersection if adding second level means additional traffic/cars. >Public comments sent via email by Saeher Muzaffar, 2 Rio Court: Good evening, I am writing to express my ongoing concern regarding the proposed construction at 5 Rio Court. My family and I reside at 2 Rio Ct, and I would like to add the comments below to those submitted by my spouse Atif Qasim. We appreciate the owner's response to our comments and attempt to address them. However, the following concerns remain. We request that the potential environmental impact be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, given the safety issues associated with the ability of the foundation to support a second story, potentially affecting neighboring homes also. The renovation of the ground floor along with construction of a second floor will require a prolonged period of significant noise and dust pollution along with construction vehicles in the cul -de-sac, especially impacting young children's safety and health. Our other concerns include the impact of a second story home on the aesthetics and quality /character of the neighborhood, on natural lighting from the looming structure, and on property and resale value of neighboring one-story homes. Thank you for considering these concerns. >Public comment sent via email by Justin and Bonnie Li, 1832 Castenada Drive: A friend told us that the house at 5 Rio Court is planning on building a second floor. We have a second floor and appreciate having it because it gives us more room and privacy upstairs. With the extra space upstairs, we have room at the first floor for a large family room and kitchen. This allows us plenty of space for family and friends. Living in Burlingame, we sometimes hear some people do not allow other people to build a bigger house. We do not believe this is right. We think that people should be able to build a home to suit them if the city approves the plans. We support 5 Rio Court to add to their home. >Public comment sent via email: I heard from a friend that 5 Rio Court wants to add a second story. I heard some people do not agree. I think people should be able to build their home as long as they follow the city’s laws. I heard that Burlingame is very serious about the view, as long as the addition does not block any views, it should be good. Homes are very expensive here, so homeowners need to be able to build a house for their family’s needs. I support their request to add a new floor to their home. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This is a tough one. On one hand, it is a beautiful design, but that is not the issue at all. It has a very moderate height increase. My evaluation of the area is although distant views would be affected because you’d see it, I don’t think it will affect them in a negative way. With that being said, I can ’t get over the fact that it will have substantial impact on the adjacent neighborhood. We have a court here that has no second stories and we have quite a few folks that would be very upset about this. So, there is a great impact on the adjacent neighborhood. I also value precedent. It was 17 years ago, Burlingame has changed, but not much in my opinion. The previous Planning Commission made very valid points on why Page 2City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft that first house wasn’t approved. I feel that I still need to value those today. The third most important thing in my mind as a contractor, I know there are other options. Going up is not the only option. I understand that it is more costly to go out and to excavate, but it is possible. Unless I see a geotechnical report or a structural report that says otherwise, I unfortunately think that going along with buying this property was the idea that you will be limited in height. That is true with any hillside overlay zone. I’d feel differently if there were no other options, but there are. That’s where I am struggling with moving this along. > Consider using some of that garage space. I’m not sure if that is the answer, but I just wanted to see if there is an opportunity there for the applicant to get some of the room that they need. Also try to consider reducing the size of the ADU to try to gain some of the space back. >I can appreciate what has happened before and the single level designs that are there now. However, things have changed in our neighborhoods. In my own block, 20 years ago, was just three single level bungalows. Now, it is three two story homes. In a single block, it might look out of place and that was my concern the first time. But as the neighborhoods are evolving, as I look at other homes in the area, there are two story homes and people have been allowed to take advantage of the square footage. So, I think we also need to be considering how to make it work for some of these people that are in tight spots. 6’-11” is not a big height increase. The architect has done a good job of mitigating that and putting all the massing into the middle and not on the end. I don ’t feel that it negatively impacts the two side neighbors on Rio Court that much either. It is a good -looking design; they have been sensitive as they can. I don ’t think that any of the distant views are being impacted. Today, the reason we have the updated ordinance is to be clearer and more specific for us commissioners to be able to evaluate these hillside overlay projects. We’ve seen several where the project definitely impacts the immediate neighbors and we have denied those applications. The neighbor at 1817 Loyola Drive, they will be looking at the front of this house. They are looking at the front of this house now. I was standing in front of their house and all I saw was the sky. Their distant views are not really changing due to this house. With the other neighbors up the street, they are significantly higher, and it is changing their view of the trees, it is not really impacting distant views. Is it bigger? Yes. Are all the homes we are approving next to single story homes bigger? Yes. I don’t know if that alone is good enough reason to not consider allowing them to use what the code leverages. In my opinion, I don ’t think that the hillside construction overlay applies to this being denied based on view. In one respect, being able to allow the neighborhood to do additions, it might allow some of these homes, that have been around for 50 plus years, to get remodeled. It makes sense form a return of investment point, because if we can ’t add any square footage, which most of these homes have already leveraged their ground floor, then these homes are going to sit. I am more supportive of this given the work that has been put into it and the attempt to be sensitive in all those ways. It is not grossly tall. They have made an effort to minimize the impact with low roofs and nestling this in as much as possible. I can support this project. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I appreciate the neighbors inviting the commissioners looking at the views from inside their house. For me, the precedent from 17 years ago is relevant, but what is important to me is the change in the code. It is very specific now. It does not say “such as living rooms and family rooms. It says (living rooms and family rooms). To me, when I read it, those are the only two views that we can consider. The distant views of the airport and the bay are not affected by this. I do agree that the design is sensitive, 6’-11” high and set pretty far back from all sides of the house is not going to appear overwhelming in my view. If this neighborhood of single level homes where in the flats and somebody came with this project, it would be approved. The only unique aspect of it is the views and I don’t think this affects the views. >Part of the difficulty is the concern that these pie -shaped parcels do constrain in a number of ways how a building happens. The end effect will be a block, if it is not this home, then it will be other homes over time because they would be more from the side view, sort of a geometry issue. The neighbor ’s home that I have visited, a very cool home, has a lot of livable space and yes, they are going to notice the change. But the roof line is well below the ocean area. I am much more sensitive to greenery; I feel that there may be others that do not appreciate some of the greenery that are large and need to be cut back . The greenery is helping everything blend in and I did not find it that jarring. True, it may change with time when other projects in this cul -de-sac develop. It is difficult. Maybe there can be comments made that care needs to be taken, that there ’s always some kind of a corridor in there, so you don ’t get these big blobs of home on a cul -de-sac. Their additions can be set in ways that people above them can still enjoy Page 3City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft these view corridors and they don ’t have this big thing on their faces being so solid and bulky. That really is the issue. The project has been greatly improved. It is a different time, but the ordinance also did change, it is very specific. I’m wondering how the hospital can be built under the last ordinance, because those are big clunky structures, and all the other stuff happening below. It does obscure the whole shoreline, technically. It is a little fuzzy for me. They have pushed the addition as much as they can, but I am also leaning towards agreeing except that I don’t know how to fix it for later, that is the problem. >Relative to precedent, it does not mean the other four homes on that court can just suddenly build a second story addition. It still requires a Planning Commission review and to be sensitive to the design and to each other. We are not approving a blob at the moment because they have done a good job of trying to limit the mass of this design. In hopes that if anybody in the future does something similar, that they too can manage their mass and not fill it in and just make it a second story. That is part of having this approval process in considering this each and every time. If every one of them is going to get the same rigor, it is not just that we are going to open a flood gate and approve everything. We need to consider each individual proposal and its impacts to its neighbors, which I feel like we are trying to do for this one. >I have a slightly different take on this. Based off the changes to the ordinance, because it is a lot more explicit, I am comfortable with how the views are right now. Even though I do value the views, being someone who did not grow up in this kind of environment all around me all the time, the impact is acceptable. I do have an issue, not conceptually, with the project but somehow with the execution. It comes down to the way it relates to the neighborhood. There is a difference between relating to the neighbors, to the cul -de-sac, and to the wider area. A defining feature of those ranch style homes is typically described as being single story. However, if you drive along this road or Trousdale, you see lots of second stories. And a lot of those are not technically second stories but split levels or basements that are exposed on the grade. What it comes down to is, does this read from the public right -of-way as something that is part of this neighborhood, that is fundamentally based off that idea? I don ’t think it does at the moment. There are a couple of things; it is not because there is a second story, but right now, the southern walls of the second story come out too far forward from the front fa çade. It does look like a whole second story on top of the house which is the design intent. There are other features that make the effect worse. A lot of the aesthetic of a ranch house comes from the horizontal nature of the way the different features are arranged; like the roof line and all the windows being in a row. There are windows here that are big, prominent, and vertical. That does a lot to distance it from the original design idea and it also tends to make the building a little bit more imposing. I wouldn ’t say that it is imposing, but there are features that are prominent because of that. In a perfect world, we just drag a box over the second story and push it back about four to six feet behind the ridge of the roof, that would make a massive difference . You would be able to leave the windows that are horizontally arranged peeking out over the ridge of the roof. It would be difficult to tell if that is a second story, a light well coming out of a double height living room or a split story. Theoretically, that is a very compatible design for this neighborhood. I am in favor of the project conceptually. I do think there are some measures that can be taken to negate how prominent the second story is and the fact that from the street there is absolutely, unmistakably a big second story . That is how the renderings are coming off to me, but design review may be able to improve that. >If you push the front towards the back to take advantage of the distant view, the square footage goes on the back which will effectively become a single wall. What they have done here is they have put the square footage in the middle to minimize the impact on the side. >That is a good point. I think there are other measures that can be taken to mitigate that. Personally, if I had to pick one side, I will pick the street facing side and not the downhill facing side because everyone is talking about the views from their houses out towards the bay and not up on the hill. Like what my fellow commissioner said, there are other ways to get the square footage in the addition like digging down. They are expensive, but there are other options. If this was getting pushed back, it will be difficult if it was wider. Depending on how the site works, there can be an overhang over the porch. There’s a lot of different options out there. >Consider making the second story feel less imposing, de -emphasize the vertical elements and put more emphasis on the horizontal elements. 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: Page 4City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Draft Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores5 - Nay:Lowenthal1 - Recused:Tse1 - Page 5City of Burlingame August 28, 2023 City of Burlingame Community Development Departments Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Regarding: 5 Rio Court – Response to Planning Commission Comments from August 14th Meeting Thank you to the Planning Commissioners for your thoughtful comments at the Design Review Study meeting on 8/14/23 regarding our project for a proposed second story addition. We have listened carefully to the commissioners comments and have made the following revisions to the proposed plans in an effort to enhance the horizontal aspect of the ranch style home: - Revised the size of the windows in the upper floor hallway on the front elevation. - Reduced the height of the stairwell windows on the front elevation to match that of windows on the main floor. - Modified and reduced the size of the stairwell setting it back from the front face of the main floor resulting in the addition of a roof element in the middle of the stairwell. This modification fully splits the two floors and enhances the horizontal orientation of the house. - Added a demarcation line for reference of existing roof line on proposed rear elevation to demonstrate the relatively low-slung roof profile of the upper floor. - Increased slope of proposed entry portico on main floor to 5:12 slope to further define the entry element to the home. We hope these revisions will aid you in visualizing the low-slung and compact design of the 2nd story addition, which is designed to minimize impacts to adjoining neighbors in terms of massing and privacy. As the commissioners have witnessed no adverse effects of distant Bay views to neighbors and understand the expansion challenges as a result of the shape and topography of the property, it is our hope that the commission finds it acceptable for us to proceed with the project as proposed. Thank you for your time and support. Respectfully submitted, Lauren Lee Principal, Insite Design Inc. BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, May 8, 2023 c.5 Rio Court, 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. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc., applicant and architect; Angela and Sandy Yee, property owners ) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because her firm prepared the plans. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >Lawrence and Joanne Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive: We've lived here since 1988, so it's been 35 years. We've been here a long time. We would like to oppose a second story to the 5 Rio Court addition. Our neighborhood has already experienced an attempt to build a second floor at 3 Rio Court, which is probably why the owner at 3 Rio Court is supporting this project. If anything, this project is even more intrusive than 3 Rio Court. To quote the comments from the Commission at that time, Planning Commissioner Terrones said that “if this were a precedent, there would be a number of houses that could then pop up into view .” Another quote from Commissioner Deal, “It's the view blockage that's driving this one. There's a definite view blockage.” And in closing, Chairman Brownrigg suggested that 3 Rio Court, “is out of keeping with the neighborhood. I would be very pleased if the applicant could come back with a one -story addition to give themselves the additional space. I think that would be an improvement for the neighborhood .” That's just a few, but I have tapes. This went on for weeks with 3 Rio Court. The second story addition at 3 Rio Court was declined by the previous Commission and they appealed to the City Council. The City Council voted 6-0 to concur with the Planning Commission. So, 3 Rio Court is one story now and everybody was happy with that. If you've all been down Rio Court, you will find that the area is just not set up for a second story. There are questions of soils, which the person that lived at 5 Rio Court submitted in his protest for 3 Rio Court. He has some engineering and soils report which said it's all landfill. That whole Rio Court is landfill. There are issues that need to be addressed. There are parking issues. I heard it stated that you can park in the driveway. I'm not even sure a car can park in the driveway without blocking the sidewalk . It's limited. That's not in keeping with the neighborhood. That's one of the main reasons along with my views that the previous Commission voted it down because it just didn't belong with the neighborhood . Then there was an obstruction of views. So personally, the view blockage to our home would be devastating. Our home was custom built. We bought it when it was about eight years old. The whole house is built lengthwise, so every room has windows to a view. Over the years, we've lost about half of our views. The only view we have now is literally over those houses on the court. If you could see the pictures, and the pictures don't show the actual devastation this would cause us. Everyone has their right to improve their property, but it shouldn't be at the expense of others. I know this Commission is going to make their own determinations, but I hope you'll concur with the precedence that was set by a previous Commission that there should be no second stories in that neighborhood and not set a new precedent that second story homes are welcome. To which I think Rio Court might really enjoy because then he could put his second story on. Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate you listening to me. I would like to see some story poles go up. I would encourage all the Planning Commissioners to go down there and see Page 1City of Burlingame May 8, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes what the impact it would have on the neighborhood. And I invite you to our home to see how it would really affect our views, that had a big impact on the other Commissioners who needed that. Thank you very much. >Public comments sent via email by Jasmine and Armen Berjikly, 1813 Loyola Drive: I received a postcard regarding 5 Rio Court’s first and second story additions scheduled for May 8th. We are the owners across the street facing the cul -de-sac. We are a family of five kids under nine years old, purchased this home in 2022 and have enjoyed the home so far. All the homes on this side of the street are single level and is a unique attribute of the homes in Mills Estates. We oppose the plan as it changes the neighborhood's characteristics on Loyola Drive and will completely block our view from our dining room window, our only front facing window besides private bedroom windows. 5 Rio Court is the main home directly across from our home because our home has no other view at a similar elevation from across the street. We think this impedes our view immensely as well. We will not see much else other than the building itself. >Public comments sent via email by Atif Qasim and Saeher Muzaffar, 2 Rio Court: We are a family of four with school aged children who have lived here since 2015. We have reviewed the new plans but have several concerns to be addressed. The proposed structure is significantly larger in square footage than the existing structure with several additional bedrooms, adding a second floor and having an ADU, but having only the same size garage. This will mean additional traffic in the cul -de-sac and limited parking in an area impacting where many of our kids play. This property would be the only property in the cul -de-sac which will be two stories, changing the aesthetics and ambience of the area significantly. It would also set a precedent for other homes in the area for adding a second story. We and our neighbors value our privacy and having our backyards, pools, patios, places that can't easily be seen by neighboring properties. The second floor of this proposed structure will have a view onto the yards of the neighboring properties, including part of our backyard. Moreover, it will obstruct the view of the bay for some of the houses on the Loyola Drive side. In reviewing the history of the neighborhood, similar concerns were raised with 3 Rio Court and the owners of that property were not allowed to add a second floor, but instead expanded their first floor plan. Additional questions at the time were raised about the foundation being able to withstand a two-story building without sinking, which could also impact the neighboring properties foundations as well . That discussion should be reviewed, and this question also investigated by the current architects. There are many families with young kids living in this neighborhood, which we value as a safe and quiet place . We would want the City to be mindful of the concerns raised here as everyone decides what is best. >Public comments sent via email by Saeher Muzaffar, 2 Rio Court: I am writing to express concern regarding the proposed construction at 5 Rio Court. I would like to add to the comments submitted by my spouse, Atif Qasim. Given the potential safety issues associated with the ability of the foundation to support a second story, potentially affecting neighboring homes, I would like the potential environmental impact to be reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act. In addition, I am concerned about potential release of asbestos during renovation, which may cause long -term health consequences, particularly for young children who play in the cul -de-sac. Any major construction would entail appropriate abatement of asbestos-containing material, which is likely present given the age of the home. This project will entail an extended period of significant noise and dust pollution, again, especially impacting young children. Construction of a second -story home amidst single-story homes will alter the quality and character of the neighborhood. Natural light, which many long- standing homeowners cherish will be diminished in the setting of the looming structure nearby. The presence of a neighboring two- story home may also adversely affect the property and resale value of existing one -story homes. Thank you for considering these concerns. >George Kao, 1817 Castenada Drive: I'm a resident since 2000. We actually were the victims of 3 Rio Court encroaching on the hillside, illegally building down their backyard to expand the property. Our concern with 5 Rio Court is that when you build two -stories, they basically can look down at our property 24/7, and our room are all facing towards the backyard. So that's a major concern. We oppose this two-story expansion of the property for what the lot was originally designed to do. Thank you. Page 2City of Burlingame May 8, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Victoria Terry, 1809 Loyola Drive: I live across from the cul -de-sac and I also have a daughter that enjoys playing. The reason I ’m calling and concerned about this project is I am worried about the infrastructure, the soil, and the environmental impact this will have. I'm not sure if any testing has been done or if any other measures have been taken to see what could happen. I do have a severe concern that there might be an impact that we're not looking at. The second issue is views. Bay views will be impacted here on Loyola Drive as a result of a second story. My front window that looks out to the cul -de-sac would be impacted in views, thereby potentially impacting my property value in the future. Another concern is parking. When we expand homes, we make bigger homes, we put ADUs, which means more people . Where are these people going to park their vehicles? I'm not thoroughly convinced that the parking has completely been thought through and been addressed. Because if you physically go out there and look, it's going to be tight, and it is tight as it is with some of our other neighbors and their vehicles. Those are my three major concerns. Another major concern we have coming down the pipeline, when I look at it now, does this really fit in with our neighborhood that we've become accustomed to? Most of our homes are one story, not two story here. We do enjoy the privacy that some of our other neighbors have mentioned. So that's another concern that I hope you'll take into consideration. At this point, safety is also an issue. I know that other neighbors had mentioned that. When we have parking issues with more people involved, that creates safety and traffic issues, but more so regarding traffic, that might be a bigger issue in that quiet little cul-de-sac. I hope we can still see a wonderful remodel with that house, but perhaps with some adjustments and more thought on how that will look like and how that will impact the neighbors, the environment, and the future of the soil and all the greenery and trees around us. Thank you very much. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I appreciate the public coming out, speaking upon this, and sharing their views. One of the things that the applicant would need to do if they're going to move forward with this at all, is to install story poles. They are going to be a necessary part of being able to communicate with the public. The photos were helpful, and I appreciate receiving them. However, most of them don't qualify as a distant view the way that we read in the Hillside Overlay. From that standpoint, I understand it will impact people, it always does. Every second story impacts somebody, but it's not going to impact everybody. We would need the story poles to see the actual views impacted. Your home is actually situated much higher. Most of your view would be the actual short term of the neighbors down the hill. On the other hand, I do agree that a second story on this street is out of character and out of scale for this area. I find it hard to want to support that given how much higher it's going to be than the others. I didn't mind the design itself, but it's the location. Not being in the backyards of the neighbors downhill, they're going to be impacted as well from a much taller structure. I find it hard to support this project without some significant changes, in my understanding, of what the story poles are going to tell me for this particular location. I can appreciate the fact that we actually had this discussion 10 years ago on the other project. I don't know that much has changed since then. >I tend to agree with my fellow commissioner. I do want to break it down a little bit just to reassure some folks. I know there's been talk about soils. That's certainly not in the purview of the Planning Commission, but as a contractor we are held to the standard to build something that ’s not going to fall . Engineers put their licenses and their insurance on the line for that reason. So, no matter what gets approved or not, if you build a structural building, you must get a structural engineer who also must rely on a soils engineer. So, you can rest your head on the fact that it will not be constructed if it's going to be unsafe. I would also say the same thing to people who are curious about construction abatement, asbestos, and lead. We are also held to a very high legal standard by the EPA that we must deal with those materials in a very succinct and specific way. If we don't, we can be sued, thrown in jail, or lose our license. It's very serious. So just remember that those things are in place to protect you. >I concur with our previous Commissions that the views are pretty much the important part here, so Page 3City of Burlingame May 8, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes story poles must be installed. To echo what my fellow commissioner said about neighborhood, this cul-de-sac has no other second stories. It doesn't quite fit. The design of it is lovely. I like the design, but it unfortunately doesn't quite coincide with what we're seeing on the same cul -de-sac. The move forward plan would certainly be to install story poles and then re-evaluate. >I concur with my fellow commissioners. The story poles are necessary for something like this. The photos provided by the public were helpful. It's not impossible to add a second story in a neighborhood that is predominantly one story. It just needs to be done with a lot of care and with some creativity in some places. A more contextually sensitive design might alleviate some of the concerns about the neighborhood character. >I concur with what's been said. I look forward to accepting the neighbor ’s invitation to come over and see the story poles firsthand because photographs sometimes are difficult to really see. >Without the story poles being in place, we're not going to get much to evaluate, and I don't know if we will have a solution that's going to be positive. It behooves the applicant to come back for another study session once that's in place. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to bring this item back as a Design Review Study Item when story poles have been installed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Shores5 - Absent:Comaroto1 - Recused:Tse1 - Page 4City of Burlingame June 22, 2023 City of Burlingame Community Development Departments Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Regarding: 5 Rio Court – Response to Planning Commission Comments from May 8th Meeting Thank you to the Planning Commissioners for your thoughtful comments at the Design Review Study meeting on 5/8/23 regarding our project for a proposed second story addition. We appreciate the request for story poles to be erected to demonstrate whether th ere are any distant Bay Views being obstructed by the proposed 2nd story addition to this home. In fact, we had wanted to erect them prior to the May 8th hearing so the Planning Commission and the neighbors could study this issue in advance of the hearing. We were instructed to wait until we were asked to install story poles. At this time, we have erected story poles for the proposed revised second story addition for your review. The revisions we have made to our proposed plans include the following: - Reduced slope of proposed 2nd story roof from the neighborhood standard of 4:12 to 3:12 - Reduced the depth and width of the 2nd story floor plan - Added a demarcation line for reference of existing roof line on proposed front elevation to demonstrate the relatively low-slung roof profile of the upper floor We hope these revisions and the story poles will aid you in visualizing the relative small stature of the size of the 2nd story addition. Thank you for your time and support. Respectfully submitted, Lauren Lee Principal, Insite Design Inc. 11501 Dublin Blvd., Suite 200 Dublin, CA. 94568 Phone: (925) 734-6788 July 19, 2023 Angela & Sandy Yee with - Audrey Tse, Architect 5 Rio Court, Insite Design Inc. Burlingame, CA 94010-5741 Tel: 650-235-9566 Email: ajy@renoirpmi.com Email: audrey@insite2design.com Cc: ssy@renoirpmi.com RE: Story Poles/Foundation Certification Letter – for Existing Story Poles located at 5 Rio Court, Burlingame, CA., being the Lands of Yee, Lot 19, Blk 35, Mills Estate No. 9 (Bk 46, Page 33), for Parcel having the Address 5 Rio Court, Burlingame, CA., and the San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Number 025-051-190. Dear Angela, Sandy and Audrey, As requested, our company has completed a field survey and analysis of the existing Story Poles/Forms at 5 Rio Court as identified above. The results of the survey are listed below. Survey: On Tuesday, July 18, 2023, a monumented field survey was performed to measure/verify the heights and locations of the existing Story Poles found in-place on the roof Subject Property/Residence. Based on the measurements and locations from that survey in a comparison with the information as contained on the Approved set of building plan Sheet A2.4A Story Poles Plan by Insite Design dated: 6/19/23, and we have determined the following: Survey Results/Conclusion: The heights and placements of Story Poles for the new Addition are placed in accordance with the Approved Plan and are an accurate representation of the proposed house/roofing frame. I hope I have covered all the features you require. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Respectfully, Quiet River Land Services, Inc. Kevin M. McGuire, President California Registered Professional Land Surveyor #6437 5 Rio Court 300’ noticing APN: 025-051-190 A1.0TITLE SHEETGENERAL SYMBOLSPROJECT DIRECTORYCODE DATAPROJECT DATALEGEND[ inSite ]CONTACT: AUDREY TSE OR LAUREN LEEPHONE: (650) 235-9566, FAX: (650) 235-9596DESIGNER:1534 PLAZA LN. #318BURLINGAME, CA 94010BURLINGAME, CA5 RIO CT.SANDY AND ANGELA YEEinSiteCLIENT/OWNER:ZONING DISTRICT: R1ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #: 025-051-1905 RIO COURTLOCATION:BURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiorsDRAWING INDEX PROJECT DESCRIPTIONBURLINGAME, CA5 RIO COURTYEE RESIDENCESTORAGE. ATTACHED 2 BEDROOM/2 BATHROOM ADUFIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION - KITCHEN, FAMILY ROOM, DINING AREA, LIVING ROOM, OFFICE, LAUNDRY,CONSTRUCTION HOURSLOCATION MAPMONDAY - FRIDAY: 8:00AM - 7:00PMSATURDAYS: 9:00AM - 6:00PMNO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH,ALTER OR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE FOLLOWING HOURS EXCEPT IN THE CASE OR URGENT NECESSITY IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND THEN ONLY WITH PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHICH APPROVAL SHALL BE GRANTEDFOR A PERIOD OF 3 DAYS. NO WORK ON SUNDAYS OR HOLIDAYS. HOLIDAYS ARETHE 1ST DAY OF JANUARY, 3RD MONDAY OF FEBRUARY, LAST MONDAY OF MAY,4TH DAY OF JULY, 1ST MONDAY OF SEPTEMBER, 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 4THTHURSDAY OF NOVEMBER, OR 25TH DAY OF DECEMBER. IF 1ST DAY OF JANUARY4TH DAY OF JULY, 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER OR 25TH DAY OF DECEMBER FALLS UPON A SUNDAY THE FOLLOWING MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY.CONSTRUCTION HOURS -ORDINANCES, RULES AND REGULATIONS:THESE PLANS ARE TO COMPLY TO THE FOLLOWING CODES,2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODEALL OTHER STATE, MUNICIPAL & LOCAL ORDINANCES, CODES,RULES & REGULATIONS, AS APPLICABLE2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE2019 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE2019 IBC, UMC, UPC AND 2017 NEC, AS AMENDED 2019 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODEBY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIATITLE 24 AND GREEN BUILDING:JIM BLOMQUIST, CERTIFIED ENERGYCONTACT: JIM BLOMQUISTPHONE: 408-310-008141C HANGAR WAYWATSONVILLE, CA 95076STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:SUNG ENGINEERING, INC.CONTACT: PETER SUNGPHONE/FAX: 510-475-7900/510-475-791329300 KOHOUTEK WAY, SUITE #190UNION CITY, CA 94587ANALYST CEPE CEASECOND FLOOR ADDITION - PRIMARY SUITE, 2 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHROOMSCONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-BOCCUPANCY TYPE: R3UADDITION OF INTERIOR STAIR TO 2ND FLOOR ADDITIONFIRE SPRINKLER NOTES1. PROVIDE A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM THROUGHOUT MAIN HOUSE AND2. SEE SITE PLAN FOR SCHEMATIC LINE DIAGRAM3. PROVIDE A BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE; USC APPROVED DOUBLE CHECK VAVLE ASSEMBLY. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THE4. MINIMUM WATER METER SIZE SHALL ACCOMODATE BOTH DOMESTIC ANDFIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DEMAND TOTALS.ADU. FIRE SPRINKLER PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED THROUGH FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.DOUBLE CHECK VALVE FOR FIRE PROTECTION SHALL BE TESTED ANDAPPROVED BY A SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVED CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SCHEDULING WATER DEPARTMENTFINAL INSPECTION.5. FIRE FLOW SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF CALIFORNIA FIRE CODEAPPENDIX B. FIRE FLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS LESS THAN3600 SQFT SHALL BE PROVIDED AT 1000 GPM UNLESS PROTECTED BY ANAUTOMATIC RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM, THEN IT MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%. CONTACT BURLINGAME ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAYEERESIDENCEFIRE SPRINKLERS - EXISTING - NOGENERAL NOTESRECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION8.30.23REVISED PW.1PUBLIC WORKSarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]STANDARD DETAILS5 RIO CT.BURLINGAME, CARESIDENCEYEE A1.1SITE/LANDSCAPE PLAN[ inSite ]architecture design interiors5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAYEERESIDENCERIO COURTLOT AREA = 8,313 SQFT40% = 3,325 SQFT(E) HOUSE FOOTPRINT - 2,080 SQFT(E) GARAGE FOOTPRINT - 506 SQFT1ST FLOOR ADDITION - 777 SQFT(E) HARDSCAPE TO REMAIN - 500 SQFTCOVERED PORCH - 69 SQFTBACKYARD PATIO - 412 SQFTTOTAL - 4,344 SQFT = 52%SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR STORM WATER RUN-OFF PLAN A2.0EXISTING AND5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]YEERESIDENCEDEMOLITION PLAN A2.1ACONSTRUCTION PLAN5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]YEERESIDENCE1ST FLOOR A2.1BCONSTRUCTION PLAN5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]YEERESIDENCE2ND FLOOR A2.1CCONSTRUCTION PLAN5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]YEERESIDENCE1ST FLOORPROJECT DATA A2.1DCONSTRUCTION PLAN5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]YEERESIDENCE2ND FLOORPROJECT DATA A2.3EXISTING ROOF PLAN5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]RESIDENCEYEE A2.4PROPOSED ROOF PLAN5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]RESIDENCEYEE A4.0EXISTING AND 5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAPROPOSED FRONTarchitecture design interiors[ inSite ]RESIDENCEYEEELEVATION124123exterior cement plaster: smooth finishClass A composition shinglePainted wood fasciaGSM gutterStacked stone veneerPainted wood columnsStained wood front doorStained wood garage doorDual-pane-Fiberglass wood clad windowsFramed opening in roof30"w x 44'hnet. clr. opening5AADU address - see note #10 on A1.1124Line of existing roofLine of existing roof125 A4.1TITLE SHEET5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAEXISTING PLAN architecture design interiors[ inSite ]RESIDENCEYEEexterior cement plaster: smooth finishClass A composition shinglePainted wood fasciaGSM gutterDual-pane-Fiberglass wood clad windowsStacked stone veneerStained wood garage door34"w x 46'hnet. clr. opening123 A4.2TITLE SHEET5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAEXISTING PLAN architecture design interiors[ inSite ]RESIDENCEYEE124Class A composition shinglePainted wood fasciaGSM gutterDual-pane-Fiberglass wood clad windowsexterior cement plaster: smooth finish34"w x 46'hnet. clr. opening30"w x 78'hnet. clr. opening34"w x 46'hnet. clr. opening34"w x 46'hnet. clr. opening34"w x 46'hnet. clr. opening123Line of existing roof TITLE SHEET5 RIO CTBURLINGAME, CAEXISTING PLAN architecture design interiors[ inSite ]RESIDENCEYEEClass A composition shingleDual-pane-Fiberglass wood clad windowsexterior cement plaster: smooth finish123124 5,2&2857(;+286( (; *$5$*( 1(:$'8 $'',7,21 *(1(5$/127(6 *5$',1*127(6 /(*(1' 38%/,&:25.6127(6 ($57+:25.92/80(6125)2/.6768,7(6$10$7(2&$6&$/( 9(57,&$/ $66+2:1 +25,=217$/ $66+2:1 6+((7 2)6+((76,1)2#*5((1&(&205(9,(:(' '5$:1 '(6,*1(' '$7( -2%12 +/ %/ +/ <((5(6,'(1&(5,2&2857%85/,1*$0(&$& *5$',1*$1''5$,1$*(3/$1 5,2&2857(;+286( (; *$5$*( 1(:$'8 $'',7,21 (526,21$1'6(',0(17&21752/127(6 0($685(6 /(*(1'6125)2/.6768,7(6$10$7(2&$6&$/( 9(57,&$/ $66+2:1 +25,=217$/ $66+2:1 6+((7 2)6+((76,1)2#*5((1&(&205(9,(:(' '5$:1 '(6,*1(' '$7( -2%12 +/ %/ +/ <((5(6,'(1&(5,2&2857%85/,1*$0(&$& (526,21&21752/3/$1 &21&5(7(63/$6+3$'$7<3,&$/9(*(7$7('6:$/($;/$1'6&$3($5($'5$,1$ ,1),/75$7,21'(9,&(:,7+25,),&(& < <6125)2/.6768,7(6$10$7(2&$6&$/( 9(57,&$/ $66+2:1 +25,=217$/ $66+2:1 6+((7 2)6+((76,1)2#*5((1&(&205(9,(:(' '5$:1 '(6,*1(' '$7( -2%12 +/ %/ +/ <((5(6,'(1&(5,2&2857%85/,1*$0(&$& '(7$,/6+((7 675$:52//75((3527(&7,21)(1&,1*6125)2/.6768,7(6$10$7(2&$6&$/( 9(57,&$/ $66+2:1 +25,=217$/ $66+2:1 6+((7 2)6+((76,1)2#*5((1&(&205(9,(:(' '5$:1 '(6,*1(' '$7( -2%12 +/ %/ +/ <((5(6,'(1&(5,2&2857%85/,1*$0(&$& '(7$,/6+((7 6125)2/.6768,7(6$10$7(2&$6&$/( 9(57,&$/ $66+2:1 +25,=217$/ $66+2:1 6+((7 2)6+((76,1)2#*5((1&(&205(9,(:(' '5$:1 '(6,*1(' '$7( -2%12 +/ %/ +/ <((5(6,'(1&(5,2&2857%85/,1*$0(&$& &216758&7,21%03V City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 442 Chatham Road Meeting Date: September 25, 2023 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure APN: 029-162-170 Property Owners: Michal and Jeff Braker Lot Area: 5,750 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not res ult 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 and contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage totaling 1,770 SF (0.31 FAR). The applicant is proposing a first floor remodel/addition and a new second story . The project would have a total floor area of 2,931 SF (0.51 FAR) where 2,940 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes a 67 SF covered porch exemption). The existing house contains three bedrooms. With this application, the number of bedrooms would increase to four (storage room on the second floor does not qualify as a bedroom because it is less than 7’-0’ in width). Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four -bedroom house. The existing attached garage provides one covered parking space (9 ’-10” x 18’-0” clear interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18”) is provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The site contains two existing landscape trees in the rear yard which will remain (one 8-inch diameter Liquidamber and one 6-inch diameter Privet). The proposed landscape plan shows one new 24-inch box Red Maple tree to be planted in the rear yard. Based on the proposed floor area, three land scape trees are required on-site. Therefore, the p roject complies with the tree reforestation ordinance requirements. The applicant is requesting the following appl ication: ▪ Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)). 442 Chatham Road Lot Area: 5,750 SF Plans date stamped: September 14, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 17’-10” n/a 17’-10” (to porch) 37’-2” 17’-10” (block average) 20’-0” Side (left): (right): 4’-11” 2’-10”1 4’-7” (to addition) 5’-3” (to addition) 4'-0” 4'-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 33’-2” n/a 38’-5” 44’-11” 15'-0” 20'-0” 1 Existing nonconforming right side setback. Item No. 9b Regular Action Item Design Review 442 Chatham Road -2- 442 Chatham Road Lot Area: 5,750 SF Plans date stamped: September 14, 2023 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Lot Coverage: 1,809 SF 31.5% 2,299 SF 40% 2,300 SF 40% FAR: 1,770 SF 0.31 FAR 2,931 SF 0.51 FAR 2,940 SF 2 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (9’-10" x 20’-4”) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (9’-10" x 18’-0”) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') 1 covered (9' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-4” n/a 8’-4” 8’-0” 9’-0” maximum 8’-0” maximum Building Height: 19’-1” 25’-1” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055(A) 2 (0.32 x 5,750 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,940 SF (0.51 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood with true simulated divided lites • Doors: aluminum clad wood with true simulated divided lites • Siding: cement plaster • Roof: composite shingle • Other: wood porch columns, wood trim, natural stone veneer base, painted steel railing, painted metal gutters and downspouts Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on August 14, 2023, the Commission had several comments and s uggestions regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached August 14, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter, dated August 29, 2023, and revised plans, date stamped September 14, 2023, to address the Planning Commission’s comme nts and suggestions. Please refer to the applicant’s letter for a detailed list of the changes made to the project (see attachments). Design Review 442 Chatham Road -3- Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as estab lished in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guide lines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the n eighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent proper ties; 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 findi ngs 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 Ge neral 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 . Suggested Findings for Design Review : 1. The proposed first and second floor additions to the existing single-unit dwelling are consistent with the General Plan designation of Low Density Residential and are in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25; the proposed additions to the dwelling are consistent with the design guidelines; that the mass and bulk of the proposed structure is in scale with the lot and in relation to neighboring properties, and that architectural details , such as the aluminum clad wood doors and windows, cement plaster siding with natural stone veneer base, hip and gable roofs, and front porch are compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to p rovide adequate consideration to ensure the public heal th, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neigh boring property because the project complies with setback, lot coverage, floor area ratio , building height, and declining height envelope requirements. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's desi gn review criteria. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application and consider public testimony and the analysis contained wit hin the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision and should be affir med by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the publi c hearing the following conditions should be considered: Design Review 442 Chatham Road -4- 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 14, 2023, sheets A1, SU-1, A2 through A8; 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 dorme r(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris b oxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as dete rmined 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 ad opted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved p lans 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 t he street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Buil ding permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construct ion and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance wh ich requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to sub mit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requireme nts; 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 Fi re Codes, in effect at time of building permit submitta l, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another archi tect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area rat io for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or anothe r 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 approv ed plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Divi sion before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roo f deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and Design Review 442 Chatham Road -5- 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the arc hitectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building p lans. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure , applicant and architect Attachments: August 14, 2023 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated August 29, 2023 Neighborhood Outreach Letter, dated July 21, 2023 Application to the Planning Commission Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed September 15, 2023 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, August 14, 2023 a.442 Chatham Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Michal and Jeff Braker, property owners) (52 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 442 Chatham Rd - Staff Report 442 Chatham Rd - Attachments 442 Chatham Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Assistant Planner Xiao provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Ginger Feretto, designer, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > It is a nice-looking project. I’ve always encouraged remodeling. In Burlingame, we have enough tear downs, so it is nice to see someone trying to work with their existing footprint. The only thing that bothers me is that the front façade seems heavy. There are two ways to handle that, and the designer answered it very reasonably that you can ’t mess with the windows because they will go over the threshold of 50% demolition which includes fire sprinklers and sorts of other things. I recommend lowering the windows and give a little bit of relief between the window and the veneer. You can still keep it as high as it is on the post, that could be a nice -looking detail. Around the front left and right windows to where it hits the garage it can be lowered a little bit. Otherwise, I am happy with the project. > I actually like the stone where it is. It provides a nice foundation to this project. If it were me, I would layer the stone out a little bit to make it more dynamic. Given what the applicant is trying to achieve, it does the job well. It is a nice -looking remodel project. Particularly in that neighborhood and area, I appreciate the charm there. It works with that and fits in nicely. I am in full support of this project. > I like the window to the left of the garage. That whole corner assembly looks really nice with the taller stone wainscoting. But I also agree that it seems a little heavy. I can see it go either way. If I were to reduce the height of the wainscoting, I would bring it in line with the front porch and keep the wrap around the column. Otherwise, it is a very nice job. > I like the stone all the way up. I would like to see the detail on the steps when this comes back. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I like the grounding of the stone all the way up to the window at the front. It’s unique, we haven’t seen that a lot. I do think that they will have shrubs on the left side under that one window to the left and it might just get covered. Page 1City of Burlingame August 14, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >This is something that will probably be handled during construction, on the drawings both on the rear and the right-side elevation, it looks like the ridge of the gable over the family room doors ends up being higher than the ridge line of the roof that is running horizontally behind it. I know you are trying to follow the same slope on all the roof planes, but, when it is under construction, you would want to have that ridge line up with the top of that roof, so everything is flushed out and there is no strange drainage detail. One would not even know the change of the slope there. >I am mainly looking at the one on the left. To me, it is divided into thirds. I know the rails have a certain legal height, looking at the rails running in between the pillars and the left side of the stone wainscot, consider making it less closed -off and more neighborly by lowering the top rail a little bit for visual interest. >I understand if there is an issue with it being close to the lot line, but I would like to see the knee braces added, if practicable based on the size of the eave on the south side of the garage. Regarding the stone, I like it how it is, but I can see it working well both ways. Consider continuing the stone across the front of the garage to the south wall. That whole garage is very visible from the corner lot. It is very much in front of that property. The braces will especially be noticeable if they are lacking. The horizontal wood on the gable end of the primary fa çade looks like one big triangular piece of wood that is stuck up in there. I’d like to see a little bit of depth there. It could be better integrated into the surface. I do like the house overall. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - Page 2City of Burlingame Architecture Allure, Inc. 51 Somerset Street San Francisco, CA 94134 (650) 208-1204 (415) 876-8779 www.archallure.com August 29th, 2023 Planning Commission Response Letter Re: Braker Residence – Planning Commission Response Letter Address: 442 Chatham Road, APN: 029-162-170 *Emailed comment summary below provided by ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi on Aug. 15th 1. Majority of Commissioners like the stone veneer; would like to clarify height of stone veneer from grade. Response: The height of the stone veneer has been dimensioned on sheet 2/A6. The height will typically be ~5’-6” to ~6-0” from grade to bottom of sill which is the datum line along the front elevation. Plantings along the front of the house will layer and break down the perceived height of the stone. 2. Add detail about back of steps for porch steps – is it stone veneer? Add note. Perhaps too much stone there. Response: All vertical surfaces of stairs and risers will be stone as seen in the rendering. This will keep the material palette continuous and consistent. The risers and side of steps are minor and small in scale, so no it is not too much stone. They may not even be visible from the public realm when layered with plantings. Only the horizontal surfaces/treads will change material. 3. Railing on front elevation between stone veneer, would like to be more open - maybe lower railing. Response: The existing porch height to grade is just under 30” above grade. While we might be technically just below the building code threshold for a 42” guardrail requirement, there is still a safety aspect that is needed and wanted. The railing was already below the 42” height. We lowered the railing height a few inches more to sit just below the stone cap and sit ~36” in height. However, we will be retaining a code compliant spacing of vertical spindles for the safety of small children per code pass through parameters. See 2/A6 for reference. 4. Ridge of gable over family room doors higher than ridge line running horizontally behind it; consider matching up. Response: Although not visible, the rear porch has been slightly adjusted so that the gable over the family room lowered a couple inches to align with the ridgelines to either side, see 2/A7. 5. Would like to see roof braces added to south wall of garage to be consistent with other braces. Response: Corbels have been added to the south wall of the garage, see 4/A6. However, following review if Planning or Building objects per the existing non-conformity of the side setback at the garage, then they will need to be removed as previously shown for code/fire purposes. 6. Gable end on front elevation, would like to see more depth – maybe set in more or more pronunciation of ridges to be better integrated; looks stuck on. Response: The gable end on the front elevation has been enlarged and dimensioned to show the detail and depths and layers of the materials, see 1/A8. Depth/shadows can be seen on the front elevation. The existing home/roof has minimal eave and rake overhangs which is being retained for consistency. Sincerely, Adam Bittle Architecture Allure, Inc. (650) 208-1204 adam@archallure.com RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION 05.10.23 Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling at 442 Chatham Road, zoned R-1, Michal and Jeff Braker, property owners, APN: 029-162-170; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 25, 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 Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review is set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 25th day of September, 2023 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 442 Chatham Road Effective October 5, 2023 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped September 14, 2023, sheets A1, SU-1, A2 through A8; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review 442 Chatham Road Effective October 5, 2023 Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 12. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 13. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 442 Chatham Road 300’ noticing APN: 029-162-170 DRAWING INDEXAdam BittleARCHITECT:Tel: (650) 208-1204OWNER:PROJECT DIRECTORYadam@archallure.com·A1COVER SHEET, PROJECT DATA, AND NEIGHBORHOODCONTEXT IMAGES·SU-1BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY·A2FAR AND LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS, EXISTING WALLDIAGRAM·A3EXISTING AND PROPOSED SITE PLANS·A4EXISTING AND PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLANS·A5 SECOND FLOOR AND ROOF PLANS·A6EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS·A7EXISTING AND PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS ANDBUILDING SECTION·A8 LANDSCAPE PLANArchitecture Allure, Inc.51 Somerset StreetSan Francisco, CA 94134Michal and Jeff Braker442 Chatham RoadBurlingame, CA 94010SCOPE OF WORKREMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE STORY RESIDENCE WITH ANEXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN.SCALE: AS NOTEDRENDERINGPROJECT DATA.COVER SHEET.A1PROJECT DATAPROJECT LOCATION:442 CHATHAM ROAD, BURLINGAME, CAA.P.N.: 029-162-170ZONING: R-1STORIES:1LOT AREA:5,750 SFCONSTRUCTION TYPE:VBOCCUPANCY:R-3/UPLANNING DEPARTMENT STATISTICSFLOOR AREA RATIOMAX ALLOWED: 32% OF LOT + 1,100 = 2,940 SFPROPOSED:2,931.40 SFSEE CALCULATIONS SHEET A2LOT COVERAGEMAX ALLOWED: 40% OF LOT = 2,300 SFPROPOSED:2,299.39 SFSEE CALCULATIONS SHEET A2BUILDING DEPARTMENT STATISTICSSIZE OF PROPERTY:5,750 SFEXISTING CONDITIONS:GROUND FLOOR1,588.60 SFATTACHED GARAGE219.08 SFPROPOSED CONDITIONS:GROUND FLOOR 1,733.89 SF(E) ATTACHED GARAGE219.08 SFCOVERED OUTDOOR132.19 SFCOVERED FRONT PORCH66.33 SFSECOND FLOOR698.65 SFTOTAL PROPOSED CONDITIONED2,432.54 SFTOTAL PROPOSED UNCONDITIONED417.60 SF*SEE FAR AND LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS, SHEET A2.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, 2020.14.BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF RENOVATION EXCEEDS 750 SF., A SPRINKLER SYSTEM ISREQUIRED TO BE INSTALLED.CONSTRUCTION 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)BRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXTSUBJECT PROPERTY442 CHATHAM ROAD756 PLYMOUTH WAY446 CHATHAM ROAD450 CHATHAM ROADDEFERRED SUBMITTALFIRE SPRINKLERS WILL BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL TO PLANS FOR THEBUILDING PERMITBRAKER RESIDENCE442 CHATHAM ROAD, BURLINGAMERECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISIONSEP 14 2023REVISED WD29.239.0213.009.6713.677.478.92 11.1721.276.8410.22 18.91 1.8436.6339.83 30.147.73 29.16JACDEBFIGH6.164.27 LINEN14.6610.25 13.83 6.3614.6632.91KLM(E) DINING(E) KITCHEN(E) LAUNDRY(E) FAMILY(E) ENTRY(E) BEDROOM 1(E) BEDROOM 2(E) PRIMARYBEDROOM(E) BATH(E) P. BATH(E) GARAGEWDWALL A 11.17 WALL B 7.55WALL C 1.84 WALL D 29.23WALL E 1.73 WALL F 9.02WALL G 5.81 WALL H 18.23WALL I 17.56WALL J 27.19WALL K 6.77WALL L4.05WALL M 10.22WALL N 21.27WALL O 10.22 WALL P3.98WALL Q 11.30 WALL R4.98WALL S 7.70 WALL T2.568.331.887.094.663.81SECOND FLOORSHOWN DASHEDGROUND FLOORSHOWN WITHSOLID LINESCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"DIAGRAMSFAR, AND WALLLOT COVERAGE,A20'2'4'8'16' FLOOR AREA RATIO DIAGRAMSLOT COVERAGEMAXIMUM ALLOWED LOT COVERAGE:.40 X 5,750 SF = 2,300 SFGROUND FLOOR =2,232.75 SFFRONT PORCH = 66.63, SFTOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE = 2,299.39 SFCOMPLIESFLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) CALCULATIONMAXIMUM ALLOWED FAR:(.32 X 5,750 SF) + 1,100 = 2,940 SFCOVERED FRONT PORCH UP TO 200 SF, CHIMNEYS, ANDADUS ARE EXEMPT FROM FARGROUND FLOOR = 2,232.75 SFSECOND FLOOR = 698.65 SFTOTAL PROPOSED FAR = 2,931.40 SFCOMPLIESBRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAMEXISTING WALL DAIGRAMCALCULATIONS 15'-0"GROUND FLOOR SETBACK20'-0"SECOND FLOOR SETBACK15'-0"GROUND FLOOR SETBACK20'-0"SECOND FLOOR SETBACK25'-0" GARAGE SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK (E) ELEC. METER(E) WATER METER(E) SSCO(E) GAS METER(E) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY(E) SSCOCHATHAM ROAD NEIGHBORINGGARAGENEIGHBORINGRESIDENCE(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.57'(E) GRADE ELEV. =24.46'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.07'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.26'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.00'(E) GRADE ELEV. =20.89'(E) 6"Ø GLOSSY PRIVETTO REMAIN(E) 8"Ø LIQUIDAMBERTO REMAINEXISTINGRESIDENCE(E) AREA TO BE REMOVEDSHOWN WITH CROSSHATCH(E) AREA TO BEREMOVED SHOWN WITHCROSS HATCH(E) WOOD FENCE(E) 24"Ø TREE(E) CURB ANDGUTTER(E) SIDEWALK(E) HEDGE(E) HEDGE(E) CONCRETEPATIO TO BEREMOVED(E) BRICK WALKWAY TO BEREMOVED(E) LAWN(E) LAWN(E) BRICK WALKWAYTO BE REMOVED(E) BRICK WALKWAY TO BEREMOVED2'-10" 2'-10"(E) DIMENSION TO GARAGE4'-11" 6'-7 3/4"17'-10 1/4"(E) GROUND FLOOR SETBACK33'-2 1/4"(E) REAR SETBACK15'-0"GROUND FLOOR SETBACK20'-0"SECOND FLOOR SETBACK15'-0"GROUND FLOOR SETBACK20'-0"SECOND FLOOR SETBACK25'-0" GARAGE SETBACK4'-0" SIDE SETBACK 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK(E) WATER METER(E) SSCO(E) GAS METER(E) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY(E) SSCOCHATHAM ROAD NEIGHBORINGGARAGENEIGHBORINGRESIDENCE(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.57'(E) GRADE ELEV. =24.46'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.07'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.26'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.00'(E) GRADE ELEV. =20.89'SECOND FLOORSHOWN WITH DOTHATCH(E) AREA TO BE REMAINSHOWN WITH SOLID HATCHAREA TO BE ADDED SHOWNWITH DIAGONAL HATCHAREA TO BE ADDED SHOWNWITH DIAGONAL HATCHCOVEREDOUTDOORCOVEREDPORCH(E) WOOD FENCE(E) 24"Ø TREE(E) CURB ANDGUTTER(E) SIDEWALK(E) HEDGE(E) GRADE ELEV. =22.30'(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.32'(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.23'(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.68'(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.05'(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.16'EXISTINGRESIDENCEF.F. = 25.20'ELEC. METER TO BE MOVED2'-10" 2'-10"(E) DIMENSION TO GARAGE4'-11" 6'-7 3/4" 4'-6 3/4"38'-5" SETBACK TO GROUND FLOOR17'-10 1/4" SETBACKTO GROUND FLOOR37'-2 1/2" SETBACKTO SECOND FLOOR44'-11 1/2" SETBACK TO SECOND FLOOR(E) WOOD FENCE(E) HEDGE(E) HEDGE TO BE PRUNED/MAINTAINEDDIRECT ROOF RUNOFFONTO VEGETATEDAREAS(E) FENCE(E) 8"Ø LIQUIDAMBERTO REMAINNEW RED MAPLEPUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYNO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES,COLUMNS, MAILBOX, ETC) PROPOSED BEYOND THEPROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.(E) 6"Ø GLOSSY PRIVETTO REMAINSITE AREA = 5,750 SFIMPERVIOUS AREA = 2,873.81 SFPOST CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUSAREA = 49.98%IF POST CONSTRUCTION IMPERVIOUSAREA EXCEEDS 40% OF THE PARCELSIZE, MITIGATION OF STORMWATERRUNOFF IS REQUIRED.0'1'2'4'8'SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"SITE PLANSAND PROPOSEDEXISTING/DEMOA3SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"EXISTING/DEMO SITE PLAN1A3NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGBRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"PROPOSED SITE PLAN2A3NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGNOTES:1.ALL SIDEWALK, CURB, AND GUTTER DAMAGED DURINGCONSTRUCTION WILL BE REPAIRED. AN INSPECTION BY THE CITYPUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR WILL DETERMINE THE LIMITS OF THEREPAIRS POST-CONSTRUCTION.2. ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS SHALLBE PLUGGED AND A NEW 4" LATERAL SHALL BE INSTALLED IFNECESSARY.3. ALL WATER CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICESOR FIRE LINES ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDPROCEDURES AND SPECIFICATIONS.4. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVERWILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICECONNECTIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUNDFIRE SERVICE PERMIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.5. ALL ABANDONED SEWER LATERAL OR WATER SERVICE SHALL BEDISCONNECTED AT THE MAIN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS.6. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANYUNDERGROUND UTILITY WORK WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY.7. EXISTING LANDSCAPE TO REMAIN.8. NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES (RETAINING WALLS, FENCES,COLUMNS, MAILBOX, ETC.) SHALL BE PROPOSED BEYOND THEPROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.9. NO EXISTING TREE OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE MEASURED AT54" FROM NATURAL GRADE MAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT APROTECTED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE PARKS DIVISION. ANARBORIST REPORT MAY BE REQUIRED.10. HARDSCAPE OR SOFTSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE FRONT OFTHE PROPERTY ARE NOT PART OF THIS PROJECT SCOPE. (E) DINING(E) KITCHEN(E) LAUNDRY(E) FAMILY(E) ENTRY(E) BEDROOM 1(E) BEDROOM 2(E) PRIMARYBEDROOM(E) BATH(E) P. BATH(E) GARAGET.V.42"REF.DWKITCHENFAMILYPRIMARYBEDROOMSITTINGT.V.COVEREDOUTDOORLIVINGDININGPRIMARYDRESSINGPRIMARYBATHBENCHOFFICE /GUESTCOATENTRYDN.BUILT - INBUILT - INENTRYPORCHDN.QUEEN MURPHY BEDPRIMARYPATIO(E) GARAGEDN.LINENPOWDER30"OVEN /MW.UP13'-0"(E) ~29'-3"(E) 7'-6 1/2"(E) 11'-2" 14'-9 1/2"13'-8"9'-8"11'-7 3/4"19'-11"(E) 21'-3 1/4"(E) 19'-0"LINENMUDDN.DN.DN.WD18'-0" CLEAR(E) 9'-10 1/4" CLEAR SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"FLOOR PLANSPROPOSED GROUNDEXISTING AND A40'1'2'4'8'EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN1A4GENERAL 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.SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"BRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGPROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN2A4SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGLEGEND(E) EXTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN. NOMODIFICATION TO STUDS ORFOUNDATION SHALL OCCUR.NEW WALL/STRUCTURE(E) CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED AS NOTED 5:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:12 5:125:125:125:12 5:12 5:125:125:125:125:12 5:12 5:12 5:125:12BATH BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 1STORAGE5:125:125:125:125:125:125:125:12 5:125:125:125:12 5:1213'-10"14'-8"14'-8"10'-3" 13'-10"5:12DN.LINENSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"PLANSAND ROOFSECOND FLOORA50'1'2'4'8'PROPOSED ROOF PLAN2A5SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"BRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGPROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN1A5SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGLEGEND(E) EXTERIOR WALL TO REMAIN. NOMODIFICATION TO STUDS ORFOUNDATION SHALL OCCUR.NEW WALL/STRUCTURE(E) CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED AS NOTED 0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.-2'-1" (23.11')T.O. (E) SLABAVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.23'AVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.86'12'-0"30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT (50.94')7'-6"8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATE9'-4"T.O. FIN. FLR.AVG. GRADE @ TOP OFCURB = 20.94'3'-3 1/2"20'-10" (46.02')T.O. RIDGE25'-1" TOP OF RIDGE (46.02') ABOVE T.O. CURBPAINTED METALGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTSPAINTED STEELRAILINGPAINTED WOODTRIMPAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITH TRUESIMULATED DIVIDED LITESCOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPELIGHT TO BE PROVIDEDAT ALL EXTERIORLANDINGS, TYP.4'-2 1/2"2'-9"EGRESSWINDOW11.6 SFNATURAL STONEVENEERWINDOW TO BEREPLACED WITHINEXISTING OPENINGWINDOW TO BE REPLACEDWITHIN EXISTING OPENING512512WOOD CORBEL2'-4"3'-9"3'-3"EGRESSWINDOW8.8 SF6'-0" TO (E) GRADE3'-0"2'-5"SEE 1/A8 FORGABLE ENDDETAIL0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.-2'-1" (23.11')T.O. (E) SLABAVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.23'AVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.86'8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATEAVG. GRADE @ TOP OFCURB = 20.94'14'-9 1/2" (40.00')(E) T.O. RIDGE19'-0 3/4" TOP OF RIDGE ABOVE T.O. CURB14'-9 1/2"0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATE-2'-1" (23.11')T.O. (E) SLAB0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATE9'-4"T.O. FIN. FLR.-2'-1" (23.11')T.O. (E) SLAB17'-4"T.O. PLATE8'-0"8'-4"LIGHT TO BE PROVIDEDAT ALL EXTERIORLANDINGS, TYP.COMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFCOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFINTEGRALCOLOR CEMENTPLASTERPAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITH TRUESIMULATED DIVIDED LITESPAINTED OR STAINEDWOOD COLUMNSPAINTED WOODTRIMWINDOW TO BE REPLACEDWITHIN EXISTING OPENINGWINDOW TO BE REPLACEDWITHIN EXISTING OPENING512512PAINTED METALGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTSWOOD CORBELNATURAL STONEVENEERNATURAL STONEVENEER512PAINTED OR STAINEDWOOD COLUMNSSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"ELEVATIONSPROPOSEDEXISTING ANDA6PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION2A60'1'2'4'8'BRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION1A6PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION4A6EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION3A6 AVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.86'AVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.23'30'-0" MAX. HEIGHT (50.94')AVG. GRADE @ TOP OFCURB = 20.94'0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATE9'-4"T.O. FIN. FLR.17'-4"T.O. PLATE20'-10" (46.02')T.O. RIDGE25'-1" TOP OF RIDGE (46.02') ABOVE T.O. CURB COMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFDECLINING HEIGHTENVELOPEINTEGRALCOLOR CEMENTPLASTERPAINTED ALUMINUM CLAD DOORSWITH TRUE SIMULATED DIVIDEDLITESLIGHT TO BE PROVIDEDAT ALL EXTERIORLANDINGS, TYP.3'-3 1/2"4'-2 1/2"2'-9"EGRESSWINDOW11.6 SFPAINTED OR STAINEDWOOD COLUMNSPAINTED METALGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTSPAINTED WOODTRIM12'-0"7'-6"512512WOOD CORBELAVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.86'AVG. GRADE ELEV. = 22.23'0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATE-2'-1" (23.11')T.O. (E) SLABAVG. GRADE @ TOP OFCURB = 20.94'14'-9 1/2" (40.00')(E) T.O. RIDGE19'-0 3/4" TOP OF RIDGE ABOVE T.O. CURB14'-9 1/2"0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.8'-4"(E) T.O. PLATE0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.8'-4"T.O. PLATE9'-4"T.O. FIN. FLR.17'-4"T.O. PLATECOMPOSITESHINGLE ROOFPAINTED OR STAINEDWOOD COLUMNS512512PAINTED METALGUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTSINTEGRALCOLOR CEMENTPLASTERPAINTED ALUMINUM CLADWINDOWS AND DOORS WITH TRUESIMULATED DIVIDED LITESPAINTED WOODTRIM9'-4"T.O. FIN. FLR.17'-4"T.O. PLATE8'-4"T.O. PLATE11'-8 3/4"FAMILYPRIMARYDRESSINGENTRYPORCH8'-4"0'-0" (25.20')T.O. (E) FIN. FLR.NO AREA OVER 12'1'-9"(E) GRADE ELEV. = 23.16'8'-0"SEE 1/A8 FORENLARGED GABLESECTIONSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"ELEVATIONSPROPOSEDEXISTING ANDA7PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION2A70'1'2'4'8'BRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 EXISTING REAR ELEVATION1A7PROPOSED SIDE ELEVATION4A7EXISTING SIDE ELEVATION3A7PROPOSED SECTION5A7 4'-0" SIDE SETBACK(E) WATER METER(E) SSCO(E) GAS METER(E) CONCRETEDRIVEWAY(E) SSCOCHATHAM ROAD NEIGHBORINGGARAGENEIGHBORINGRESIDENCE(E) GRADE ELEV. =23.57'(E) GRADE ELEV. =24.46'(E) GRADEELEV. = 21.07'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.26'(E) GRADE ELEV. =21.00'(E) GRADE ELEV. =20.89'COVEREDOUTDOORCOVEREDPORCH(E) WOOD FENCE(E) 24"Ø TREE(E) CURB ANDGUTTER(E) SIDEWALK(E) HEDGE(E) HEDGE(E) HEDGE TO BE PRUNED/MAINTAINEDELEC. METERCREEPING THYME AND COYOTEBUSH AROUND EDGES OFPROPERTYAT LEAST 3" OF MULCHON EXPOSED SOILSURFACES, TYP.DIRECT ROOF RUNOFFONTO VEGETATEDAREASPROPOSED PAVERSFROM SIDEWALK TOFRONT PORCHPRIVACY HEDGES INCLUDINGWESTERN REDBUD, EVERGREENHUCKLEBERRY, AND PINKFLOWERING CURRANT. 5-GALLONMINIMUMHEDGES AT FENCE/ PROPERTYLINE, INCLUDING CALIFORNIALILAC, COMPACT MYRTLE, ANDSUNSET MANZANITA.3-GALLON MINIMUMSOME OF (E)LAWN TO BERETAINEDPROPOSED PAVERS TOBACK YARDGROUND COVER AND SMALLPERENNIALS AROUND EDGES OFLAWN INCLUDING CREEPINGTHYME, DARA'S CHOICE CREEPINGSAGE, AND EL DORADO GOLDFREMONTIAPARTIAL (E)LAWN TO BERETAINED(E) FENCENEW RED MAPLE TREE, 24"BOX MINIMUM.(E) 6"Ø GLOSSY PRIVETTO REMAIN(E) 8" LIQUIDAMBER TOREMAINCALIFORNIA NATIVE GRASSES ATEXISTING LAWN AREA EDGESINCLUDING DEER GRASS, BERKELEYSEDGE, AND QUARTZ CREEK RUSH.3 GALLON MINIMUM.FOCAL PLANTING,LEWIS MOCKORANGE, 5 GALLON.FOCAL PLANTING,CALIFORNIA BAY, 5GALLON.WD2'-5"3'-0"PAINTED WOODCORBEL5" 2 1/2"VERTICAL BATTENS1 1/2"1 1/2"1"PAINTED WOODCOLUMNPAINTED WOODTRIMNATURAL STONEVENEERPAINTED STEELRAILINGLANDSCAPE PLAN,A8LANDSCAPE PLAN2A8SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"BRAKER RESIDENCE 442 CHATHAM ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA APN: 029-162-170IssueDateProject No.Checked ByDrawn ByDate DESIGN REVIEW08.31.23DESIGN REVIEW07.18.2322-06 NORTHTRUENORTHBLDGGABLE END DETAILA81