Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2024.04.22Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, April 22, 2024 Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Planning Commission Meeting will be held in person and virtually via Zoom. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting virtually 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 Attend the Meeting via Zoom: To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 876 5999 5806 Passcode: 645460 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-444-9171 Meeting ID: 876 5999 5806 Passcode: 645460 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. Page 1 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/18/2024 April 22, 2024Planning 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 April 22, 2024. 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 April 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft April 8, 2024 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 4/18/2024 April 22, 2024Planning 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. 1427 Montero Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Variances for building height and side setback for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Travis Culwell, applicant and property owner; Costa Brown Architecture, architect) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao a. 1427 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1427 Montero Ave - Attachments 1427 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved project 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit a. 34 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1148 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 – Application for Special Permit for a new second floor deck addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer; Stefan and Seoyoung Fischer, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao a. 1148 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1148 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1148 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting April 15, 2024 Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 4/18/2024 April 22, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 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, April 22, 2024 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 April 22, 2024. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on May 2, 2024, 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 4/18/2024 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, April 8, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - HoranAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION Commissioner Tse requested to participate remotely due to a medical condition pursuant to AB 2449 (Government Code Section 54943(f)). The Planning Commission approved the request. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft March 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft March 25, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments, non-agenda. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1541-1565 Adrian Road and 960 David Road, zoned I -I - Recommendation on an Page 1City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Application for a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for Lot Merger and Subdivision to create four parcels. (Colby Schaefer, applicant; Jason Yee, BKF Engineers, Engineer; Lift II Adrian 1541 LLC, property owner) (27 noticed) Staff Contact: Victor Voong Memorandum Attachments Plans Attachments: Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1602 Forest View Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Edward Collantes, applicant, designer, and property owner) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1602 Forest View Ave - Staff Report 1602 Forest View Ave - Attachments 1602 Forest View Ave - Renderings 1602 Forest View Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Edward Collantes, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Rendering is not consistent with the elevations. >The second story on the proposed east elevation is cantilevered over the garage. The front elevation does not reflect that condition; knee brace corbel details are missing. The details on top of the garage on the proposed elevation do not match up with what is being shown on the east elevation. There is confusion about what you are intending to do between those two elevations. >Correct drafting errors. >Why would this project have been exempted, the whole front elevation is changing? (Gardiner: The changes on the front elevation do not trigger Design Review. If the addition is less than 100SF, then it is Page 2City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes exempt. One can change the façade of their home without expanding it and that would not be subject to Design Review.) >If you extend the first floor it will not trigger Design Review? (Gardiner: Under most circumstances, no . There are a few circumstances where a first floor addition would trigger Design Review, but in most instances it does not.) >I’d like the plans to be representative of what is actually happening and the renderings to be more accurate per the plans. Come back with the correct details on the plans. >I don’t have issues with the extra square footage on the back and the reason why we got here. It’s the fact that nothing about the front is coordinated at the moment that bothers me. I am concerned that there is a cantilever and am not sure if there are structural drawings in the building permit set; with the lack of coordination I am afraid of what will happen as this project gets finished. This was not in our purview at the beginning either. My whole interest is in the front and not the back which is why they are here for. >I don’t disagree with that either. I don’t have any issues with the second story addition. >Given what they came here for, we should take action on the second story addition. I hope that the Building Division will take another look and confirm that the front of this house is going to work. If we continue, then this will go on forever and that is not the intent of what we wanted to do with this application. >I do not have a problem with the additional square footage on the second story. But because this is now being brought to us as a Design Review project due to the size of the second floor addition, we must look at it from that perspective. If some of the architectural details, style and the composition of the front isn’t pulled together clearly, then we may be facing an issue later when the house is built, and it does not match the approved design. There certainly should be another round of review to give the applicant the opportunity to look at some of the things we have questioned, think through with their contractor or designer how all these elements will come together and come back to us with updated drawings and a more applicable rendering that will reflect that design. In that way, everything will be cohesive in one package despite the fact that we are all generally in approval of the second story addition. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - b.1410 Carlos Avenue, 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. (Joe Sabel, Aero 11 Design, applicant and designer; Neda Hamadani and Bahram Razani, property owners) (62 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1410 Carlos Ave - Staff Report 1410 Carlos Ave - Attachments 1410 Carlos Ave - Renderings 1410 Carlos Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Joe Sabel, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: Page 3City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Thank you for the changes, they are going in the right direction. >The front entry cantilevered roof feels like it's floating; consider incorporating columns. >Understanding that the homeowners do not want columns at the front entry, there is something about it that makes it look like it is not holding weight. Consider using details, like the structural L -brackets mentioned earlier, as an architectural component to show that the roof is actually sitting on something. I love that the roof was brought down, this is much better than the previous design. >The front is very symmetrical, but the house is not. The front door gives the impression of a chapel . Consider changing the front door so it pulls back to the rest of the house, making it less symmetrical. >Still struggling with the front of the house. You’ve done an exceptional job with the rest of the house . Consider making the front entry more grand. This characteristic is bothersome because it is so symmetrical. The free-floating piece above the entry is not helping with the look, it needs something to hold it at the ends to make it more cohesive. >Consider following the rendering more, widen the gable and extend the pediment so it intersects with the gable. It gives you some space to work with where you can ground the doorway on both sides. >Instead of a decorative attic vent which is non -functioning, consider a change in material or an alternative treatment to the gable end to call more interest to that front entrance. >The design has greatly improved. I like the windows, especially with the way the frames have been added on the first story, now looking at the primary facade it ’s like a series of pairs of openings. I’m okay with the doors, but you’ve gotten a lot of feedback on that one if you choose to make changes. There is definitely a little bit of room for tweaking on the lower portion of the front entry. Consider having a more inviting or grand entry by curving the outer corners that are facing the door on the recess inward, instead of it being right angles; that can open that portion up a little bit. The design language will make the overhang feel a little less hanging if it was curved backward. The brackets, whether a traditional or modern bracket, are also good ideas. In isolation, that part of the house does not look exactly like a house. Chapel-like is a good description. If it is by itself, it will be a little bit concerning, but it ’s part of a larger structure and it reads as residential. As presented right now, it is ok if it has a mass that is non -traditional. It’s going to be an interesting entrance. It is different from most of the houses in the neighborhood, but not so different that it causes some issues. I no longer have issues with no divided lites or simulated divided lites. The windows with the added frames will look better without the divided lites. >Revisit the floor plan to see how you can open the space up to allow you to get more creative with the front entry. If you have a nice glass door with two side lites, you may not need the windows. It needs to be more rounded, more inviting, and less of a pitch. Not sure if it is the door or the pediment that makes it not look right. >We have given a fair amount of feedback, but it does not feel like the issues have been resolved. I’m not sure moving this project forward will put us in a better spot, it just gives us an unresolved entry. >I agree, but in a little disagreement about the window grids. In this neighborhood every house has grids. This house originally had grids. I understand that they have made improvements to the windows, but this is not a super modern house. Curious if we are creating something that sticks out. >I don’t have issues with the windows. I like looking out my windows without grids. I have a problem with the front door and the pediment above it; it feels out of place. I don ’t think I can move forward in approving this project with that front door. Other than that, I am ok with everything else. >All of us have some issues with the front entry. There were comments last time that they can keep the windows without the grids moving forward, but some work is needed on the front of the house. >I totally understand the comment regarding the consistency in the neighborhood. I can also see this house with grids. If the front is somehow resolved, it can be a statement and can define the whole thing . Then you would not notice if the windows had grids or not. >Suggest walking by the door and window store along Broadway, it has a good front door on their building. Look at their products to get inspiration on ideas of what you can do for your design style. Page 4City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Vice-Chair Lowenthal, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - c.34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved project 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 34 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, and Peter Gorski and Susan Nguyen, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Make sure there is enough space between the top of the front entry door and the angled recessed entry. >The angled recessed entry appears to be missing some lines on the front elevation; correct drafting errors on the elevations. >Consider using the same wood trim detail on the second floor cantilevered element on the rear elevation on the cantilevered element on the left side of the house for a more consistent look. >I prefer some things in the prior design. I don ’t think we should be designing for all the neighbors. We have a house with three different designs. You must be really careful. It’s nice to respect neighbors as much as you can, but adding or taking away window grids does nothing to a neighbor. I don ’t think it is busy, I personally like the three grids. Whatever style you choose, you need to be consistent and do it on all sides. With the way it is presented, it looks like you didn ’t get around to replacing the windows on one side of your house or the other three sides. The house is supposed to be whole even though we are mainly seeing only one side. There needs to be consistency all the way around. >I agree. I find all the changes to be cost -saving measures. I understand that as a contractor, it is a huge reduction in cost. Unfortunately, with it comes some looks. I also like the design as it was before, but it is fine the way it is now. I believe this design solution happened because it has become expensive to build. The beautiful arch window in the front is very expensive to build. An arched doorway with a beautiful cascading entry way looks great and is very expensive to build. The new design is not Page 5City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes deplorable, but not as nice as the first one. I would be fine moving it forward. That is probably why this item was pulled from the last meeting, because it is drastically different. >I like the original design better. This project will look flat, which is unfortunately what a lot of the existing houses have now. It is flat with aluminum windows and not a whole lot of depth to the design. The entry is important and maybe getting the chamfer there will help. It seems that everything else is going flat and simple. I don ’t think it is making the house look better. I can appreciate the changes and the desire of the owners. I don’t necessarily oppose it, it’s just not better. >If this project comes before me today, not knowing what the first design was, would I approve this project? I think we are almost there. Having said that, something needs to be done on the left side elevation. I also agree with the comments made about the window grids. If you are going to do grids, do them all around. Other than that, I can see moving this project forward. >I wanted to thank the applicants for bringing this to our attention now rather than later when the house is constructed. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - d.1499 Old Bayshore Highway/825 Mahler Road, zoned I-I - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for building height and development under Tier 3 with a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map for a new 8-story research and development building with a 7-story parking structure. (King 1499 Bayshore Owner LLC, applicant and property owner; DGA, Inc. architect) (105 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - IS/MND 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - MMRP 1499 Old Bayshore Hwy - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto noted that she had communications with the applicant via Zoom. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Peter Banzhaf and Gary Leivers represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Was a wind study conducted especially on the balconies? (Banzhaf: Yes, we conducted a wind study; it is a windy location by default. The prevailing winds come from the northwest which is the San Bruno Page 6City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Mountain gap in the mornings and most of the day. The wind shifts, particularly in the summer, and they come from the east. What we envisioned the balcony to be is a private space. I don ’t imagine people spending tremendous amounts of time there. The light exposure there is in the morning, but they will be protected from the wind most of the time.) >Is there an update on how the café is being developed? I know you don ’t have a tenant yet and is still probably programmatic. (Banzhaf: That is a deviation of what we showed last year where we proposed an area where a café can go. On these new set of drawings, we have removed the caf é. Over the past year during our community outreach to life science users and the feedback we received from them, we learned that they put a very high value on the ground floor space for a few reasons. First, is employee retention - they’d like to be able to get outside quickly. Second, they like the ground floor so they can have sensitive equipment on the ground versus upper floors where you must strengthen the structure to accommodate the equipment. Lastly, we don ’t know yet who the tenant is, in the absence of having it identified, we ’d like to go and bring a full building user here. The best way we can do that is to have the blankest canvas that we can. That is why we have pulled the café from the proposal this evening. With that said, we heard the commission wanting to have a food amenity and to have an activated experience for the plaza. We believe it can be achieved by having a wider access road to get food trucks in this area and to provide restrooms so the community can come and use this space and its intended purpose. We thought about the process of what the marketplace is asking for versus what the commission asked for as well.) >Have you considered having café kiosks in the public area? (Banzhaf: The infrastructure involved with café kiosks is more challenging than meets the eye. It’s been done in the past, but it does not give you the variety that we think can be achieved as opposed to having a more mobile food amenity. I have worked in the same office building for nearly seven years; if you have the same café with the same menu, it’s hard to have a variety of choices. If we can have the ability to make it a food truck, food choices can vary from coffee to tacos or anything a la carte at any time. We think that is a better solution than having a fixture that must be programmed and if you change the program, it is much more challenging.) >Where in the site plan is that being programmed? (Banzhaf: There’s an ability to park a food truck at the end of the emergency vehicle access, there is a hammer head turn towards the plaza.) >I think we are losing our access to food and other things in the area as we densify an office. Your project and several others are taking over areas that otherwise had restaurants. That area has become denser with non-amenities. As we continue to approve projects like this and they don ’t have anything to replace those amenities, then it just makes that area worse. I understand the food truck concept. For us, it is only as good as somebody programs it and asks the food trucks to come. Whereas a built environment, you will put a tenant in. I do like the idea of putting it out like a café kiosk. There have been some projects who have done remote venues outside of the building. Yes, they are more challenging. I have done them and getting all the utilities there can be troublesome for a small vendor, but it also enhances the experience in the plaza. Right now, it feels that the plaza is going to be mostly a tenant piece than a public piece if we are not engaging the public. It is a good thing that we are improving the shoreline there, which I like. But it ’s thinking what will draw the public there versus several other public spaces that are being created by other developments up and down Old Bayshore Highway. The lack of a programmed public amenity makes me nervous. The idea of having the food trucks come and have a variety is a good thing. It’s just that if it gets ignored it does not happen and we have no control over that . That is worrisome. >How many parking spaces are available to the public? (Banzhaf: There are eight parking stalls in the garage.) >The area where the bird sanctuary is, where the creek starts, is very flat. At what point does sea level rise overburden Old Bayshore Highway before it goes to the Mills Creek area that we are expanding on this plan? It is great, but it also feels like it will overcome Old Bayshore Highway. I do notice that the east side of the building is elevated. Why is it not considered a sea level rise infrastructure, or does it need that seawall for it to happen? (Banzhaf: I think it is more global comment about the bayfront which is a mixture of public and private lands. We don ’t own the corner at Mills Creek and Old Bayshore Highway. It’s a carve-out, we will show it as improved, and we ’ll work on the details with the Public Works Division. That is PG&E and part of the bridge infrastructure so we can ’t do work within that property. Regarding the comment about the bayfront is a comprehensive approach. Yes, you are correct. If we were to build a seawall in front of the bayshore, what would happen to Old Bayshore Highway? The bigger issue for the Page 7City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes bayfront is dealt with One Shoreline and we are trying to do our part, which is the tidally component of Mills Creek in our property.) >Is the cumulative effect of these bayshore infrastructure improvements making sense or are we creating gaps? It is nice to have infrastructure, but as we know, the whole bay is going to rise not just in segmented areas. I am concerned that we are looking at this as a public benefit but, is it actually a public benefit for the entire Burlingame bayshore area? >Are you improving the foot bridge across from your building? Is it something you can imagine doing someday? (Banzhaf: Initially, we thought to have a mid -block crossing where we would tie that component into our building. Right now, we don ’t have a mid-block crossing, but we are not opposed to helping that area be better. We did that by The Landing down the street. It is something we want to express tonight that we are committed to keeping the bay trail as a nice amenity. It is not required of us, but we are willing to contribute towards that effort. Again, we don ’t own the land, but we can give our ideas to city staff with the monetary ability to execute on it.) >Thank you for the presentation. The plans are well done and exquisite. I definitely understand what the project is about. I like the building a lot. I liked it the first time. I know some of my fellow commissioners thought it was a little plain or flat, I didn ’t mind it. The building orientation you have chosen is ideal. I am concerned, as my fellow commissioner said, that public amenities need to have something that draws people in that area. It needs to be activated. If you build it, they will come. If you don ’t have a reason to go over there, why am I going to take my kids across Old Bayshore Highway off the bay trail to go to this public plaza? I just don ’t see myself doing that. I also agree that the plaza will be a great amenity for the tenants. The worst thing is to approve these buildings for them not to be occupied. That is extremely important to me, to make sure these will not end up being ghost buildings. I’ll take your word for it that occupying an entire building is more feasible than trying to make it segmented. It is a problem for me, I wanted a café there. With all these big buildings, it is one of the nice things about it. >I am concerned about the entirety of the bay trail infrastructure and the sea level rise component . That seems to be a common theme with many of the public amenities that these buildings are proposing . Maybe we can put it as a different item in a future meeting. I am trying to understand how this Mills Creek enhancement is an actual benefit to the public. Fundamentally it works as it is, but as we have noted, the water will just go around. I’m struggling to see how this one actually helps the city in itself. (Gardiner: To explain how the vision works is ultimately that the entire bayfront will be protected, that is something OneShoreline wants to do. What OneShoreline is hoping, and the city would like is as projects come forward, is that they will pre -build their piece of the protection. The standards they are building to are typically seen by OneShoreline and ultimately stitched together. What OneShoreline does not want to do is come in ten years after a project was built and tear it all down. As it is now, it does not connect to anything, but there is a wall built in there that will connect to the next adjacent property and each project is able to design their landscaping in a way that the protection fits with their design aesthetic. If OneShoreline comes in and puts in protections, they may be a little engineering -focused as to urban design-focused, so we are asking the proposed projects to front that. It is both a cost and an obligation to do their part. Each piece does not work in isolation, they do have to be stitched together ultimately.) >Obviously, it is a benefit to this building and to this lot. How then does that define a community benefit at this time? (Gardiner: It would mean that when the full infrastructure is put in, OneShoreline or whoever is doing the improvements, does not need to put in protections along the creek. They will already be there and will connect on each side.) >Thank you for the project and the explanation of what you are doing engineering -wise to build up the property and the plaza. A food truck is a great idea, but it will be hard to get food trucks there. It will take time for someone to organize that. I don ’t know if that will happen. It is very windy and can get cold out there. I agree with my fellow commissioners that an enclosed coffee shop where we can sit down, see the wetlands, and enjoy the bay like you do at Kincaid ’s, is a public benefit. It will do our city a complete disservice not to have a café or a place to sit inside. If we want to take a walk out there and sit to enjoy being outside, we don’t have anywhere to do that. There is no enclosed space that we can do that. There is a coffee shop at the Meta campus, I see it engaged by the public and it is interesting to see how that is working. >My fellow commissioner also mentioned public parking. I believe you have about 600 parking spaces and only providing eight parking spaces for the public. I would ask that you provide at least 20 public Page 8City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes parking spaces so we can utilize that space more. I know that the buildings at 555-577 Airport Boulevard have several public parking spaces and they have always been full. Providing only eight public parking spaces will not be enough for what you have in the building. >You have done a great job on the details of the building. How you have configured the design architecturally, I love everything about it, but I want to see something out there that we can utilize to sit and enjoy. >The public parking does not have to be designated at all hours; consider looking to program off hours . You will not need 600 parking spaces during some of the off hours. As we talked to the developers who are doing the project south of this site, we went from 20 public parking spaces to 100 public parking spaces. They were thinking of how to provide additional public parking spaces, so it is not locked off from security all the time. That is the key piece. How do you make it accessible without necessarily being behind security all the time so that it can be used by both. >Regarding providing a food amenity, I ’ve asked for it on all the projects that have come before us. It is an important piece to try and engage in this area. >I like the site plan a lot and how you made it work. It is a difficult site when you think about the different things that are going on. I can appreciate the intricacies and seeing how it developed from the original hotel site plan to where we are today is a huge improvement. I like the efficiency of this project and how it lays out. I can support the EIR. The height is not a problem for me. I like the idea of having a public restroom. It is a help because it is one of the pieces that we find we don ’t have enough public amenity of. >The south and west elevations facing the plaza and the bay are good looking elevations. I am not sold on the front entry. The rendering is nice, but there is not a whole lot to show in that elevation, it ’s just glass. There is no depth in the detail to see anything other than glass. The renderings you brought tonight are a huge help in seeing the character which the drawings didn’t do anything for me over the weekend. >The project has gone a long way; I can be supportive of it. >I want to thank the applicant for a thorough presentation, for all the renderings and the drawings provided. It is a very complete package that we have here. The design of the building is quite nice. It fits program needs and hopefully you find a nice tenant. It would have been nice to see your other project in the renderings to see the congruous connection along that street. The landscaping is really beautiful. The public amenity space is nicely developed apart from the lack of a café or some type of eating establishment to provide the public. I appreciate the art elements at the corner of Mahler Road and Old Bayshore Highway as a draw into the public amenity space off the street. Concerned how pedestrians would want to get across the street from the bay trail as opposed to walking all the way up to the traffic signal area at the far corner. >You have more than met the requirements for parking, with the TDM program you are only required to have 377 to 471 parking spaces and you are providing 639. There is ample opportunity to provide for public use spaces since you have more than exceeded the need for parking. Revisit and consider the potential for increase on the public parking spaces. >I am in support for all the applications for Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Commercial Design Review, and the Special Permits for building height. All the other elements on the staff report all seem approvable. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The lack of some kind of ground floor cafe or restaurant tenant would hurt in the long run. It doesn ’t have to be large. I do appreciate the change from the last time. They are noticeable but good. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. This reminds me of the Meta campus because of how generous it is with the landscaping, which I really appreciate because you are way over and above what is required. The building feels very much in proportion to the setting. We don ’t see that much often . Regarding the restaurant situation, during the Meta campus application we wanted them to provide a restaurant, a day care and some other public benefit amenities. In reality what we ended up with is a very small café. I don’t know how to resolve this. Do we make it a destination place where people specifically go to dine? We lost a lot of restaurants in that area that were destination places. At the same time, the rest of Burlingame really doesn’t have much. It’s for people who just got here. >They must build it, so people can go there. We don ’t ask for it, but we need some spaces out there for the public to go and have a good time. Page 9City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Generally, it looks great. You did a really good job. Agree with my fellow commissioner ’s comments regarding the temptation to just jump across the median to get to this project; that is not good. Would appreciate if you provide more public parking spaces because you have more than enough to accommodate the public. As mentioned by the applicant, it would be good to contribute to the other side of the street to make a complete package and they are beautiful together. Anything that you could help to make that bay trail beautiful will be nice. >I would also like to echo my fellow commissioners’ comments about the crosswalk. In the future, it ’ll be interesting to dig into how that process works; how it could or could not work here. The lack of a median crosswalk is definitely a negative to the project. Based on the flow of patterns, there should be one there. That is something that the developers are not in control of but a city thing. >(Keylon: Original proposal submitted by Helios did include the crosswalk. We had several meetings with the development team, their traffic engineers and the city ’s traffic engineers. The city's traffic engineers felt that the distance between the signalized intersection at Mahler Road and Old Bayshore Highway, based on the speed from that take off point when the light turns green to where the crosswalk would be, is too short of a distance to have a crosswalk location. Helios was very much supportive of it . This was a discussion they also had with BCDC. It was the city ’s determination that it can pose an issue in terms of safety since it would be unsignalized. We are looking at the Bayshore Feasibility and Street Landscape Improvement Plan, which is on the Public Works’ list of projects that are coming up and it is something that is in the works. I can discuss internally with the Public Works team about the suggestion of the commission regarding the details on the median as that street landscape plan evolves. For now, Helios was asked specifically by Public Works to eliminate that from their project. I can pass along your comments and maybe that is something that the city can consider exploring in other ways to make that happen.) >I would like to see if the Public Works Division will be amenable to considering a proposed crosswalk with blinking lights, not a traffic signal, located towards the south between the two bridge connections to the bay trail. Will this be a greater distance from the other crosswalk? It could be a potential idea to have another connection to the other side. >This is a beautiful building. The design is subtle, not enormous, and totally in proportion. I am in support of this project. Chair Pfaff re-opened the public hearing. >Banzhaf: We are 100% supportive of a mid -block crossing. We have proposed a beacon activation, similar to what they have at The Landing. We thought that was an appropriate solution given the proximity of another crosswalk. We support what the staff has told us, hence the proposed project what was presented tonight. We would like that mid -block crossing; it adds to the value and there is obvious need to it. I know Public Works is working through that and we are working together with them. There is a bigger picture, and we are just a portion of it. I don ’t want to ignore the effort that they are going through which is more comprehensive and complicated than I can imagine. >Banzhaf: Regarding the sea level rise infrastructure, the way we have considered is that we are future-proofing without it being aesthetically awful. It is easy to build something that is utilitarian and as a resident of the community, I am nervous as to what that could look like. There are areas that are closer to San Francisco Bay, the hotels, and restaurants along the bay front, that would lose the ambiance that they enjoy right now if a large riprap wall is built. We are trying to think through the current issues, like storm surge issues. How do we build up a seawall that prevents Mills Creek from flooding our neighbors? We can’t control adjacent properties down the street, but we can design something thoughtful and adaptable, not so blunt, but at the end of the day it is effective. It is our way of future -proofing it for the longevity of the building, which is 75 years. >Banzhaf: On the public parking, the garage is configured with the ability to put access gates. It can be done at Mahler Road, which is our first approach. We acknowledge that without public parking, there is a reduced amount of vibrancy that can be on the trail system. So, we offered public parking through the community outreach that we received from BCDC and the community around. Eight public parking stalls is what we came up with from understanding the other projects in the neighborhood. I was not in attendance during the presentation of the Peninsula Crossing. I understand how they can flex their parking spaces; Page 10City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes they have a parking structure for 1000 vehicles. The size of that project is five times bigger than ours; it is proportionally different. We have the ability to move gates within the garage to the second level which opens up one whole ramp tray. Instead of eight stalls that are at -grade that allow for all the ADA access, there can be an extension which goes down the ramp before the gates. That will be feasible, because now I won’t be moving the gates up into the building, which reduces the capacity of the garage. If that is something that the commission would like us to do, we can do that. It will probably double the public parking count. We must study it. It can be something with flexible hours, but a dedicated set of parking spaces with the first tray can easily be done. Beyond that, it becomes more complicated. If that is something the commission wants to be part of the conditions of approval, we can accept that. >Banzhaf: We don’t own the bay trail area similar to waterfront properties, but we recognize the association of it. With The Landing project, we contributed $100,000 to clean up the access point between the Marriott Hotel, the T-intersection and the Fox parking garage. It is not the most desirable and we don ’t have control over how to direct the money because it ’s not our property. We came up with an idea for our project and are committed to that funding. We can propose something like that here and we can contribute the same amount of money because that would create the same inviting environment that we have on the Mills Creek trail across the street. That makes a cohesive environment. If that is something the commission wants to be part of the conditions of approval, we can accept that. >Banzhaf: The one thing that is difficult for us is the plaza and the café because that is not something that the life science community wants. They don ’t want a café in the building. The property that you saw at Peninsula Crossing is an office building that can swing into labs, that is why the parking ratio is 2.5:1,000 versus 2.0 like ours. That is also one reason why they have taller buildings. As you go up in the structure, you can’t have controlled access space for chemical storage. So, every floor above level six, you lose that and becomes less valuable. For offices, as you go higher you get better views, and you get more premium. It’s the opposite for Life and Science, lower floors, better equipment, higher premium. That is a difficult position for us. It is not required by zoning. We do think that there is a community benefit to the amount of land that we procured that helped us orient the building. It creates a really nice environment . We are doing as much as we can to make it a publicly accessible place. We have parking, but we are unwilling to make the interior of the building a public café because we are all required to. We are trying to be thoughtful about the project that we can present our best foot forward for longevity. That is not to say that a café can’t be here, it’s just that we want to bring a full building user to Burlingame, and the best way to do that is to have a blank canvas. >Is there a possibility of putting utility lines for a possible caf é/restaurant in the future? (Banzhaf: We studied the building for the ability to put a café there and CEQA studied that too for traffic counts; the infrastructure for an entitlement standpoint is there. From the physical standpoint of piping, most restaurants run on gas, and we have an all -electric building. We can get away with the things that you will see in the café that we are doing at The Landing; we view this as a sister building so we will try to hopefully curate the two together. The infrastructure can be built within the space, but it cannot meet the Reach Code if there is more than one caf é. If it is meant to be a full -scale restaurant, it has different requirements. You need a different type of parking situation. You need to be able to arrive and feel welcome. A garage is difficult to do that with a restaurant unless it is in an urban setting. Destination restaurants tend to be 6,000 to 10,000 sf. But the back of the house is very large. You must have grease traps; it is a different methodology. I don ’t know if you can get a mixed -use building where there is a full restaurant in it. I know it is a desired. Hotels have that because they have a totally different audience, they have to serve people. Life science buildings are not well -meshed with cafes because they will be using the same loading docks in receiving materials for experiments and food. The primary purpose of the building is to create scientific experiments, that is part of the reason why a full -service restaurant is very difficult in life science buildings. >Will the food truck operators be charged rent to be on property? (Banzhaf: No. The food trucks will be there as a subsidy. We will have contracts with the food truck operators where we will guarantee them a certain amount of revenue, they can make that through sales or we can come up with the balance .) Consider putting up some signage to let the public know that the food trucks are there. (Banzhaf: Yes, that is what we are trying to promote, the ability to have variety and to bring people into the plaza. A food truck will be there when we have people there. If we have people within the building or on weekends when we know it is busy, we can spread that revenue stream out. It’s hard to define that if you have a vacant Page 11City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes building and entitlements.) >The food truck solution is a viable one. I understand the challenges of getting food into this building . The commitment to program for that to try and continue to push it and not just blow it off because that is what we are feeling on some of the other projects; we say go and they say yes but there is no programming. The tenant will not program it. We don ’t want it to be just a dead plaza. I don ’t think you can do either. We can ’t go back to you in 10 years that nobody bothered to program this. We are trying to be encouraging on trying to help the project be successful for both the tenants and the public and to take advantage of this great public amenity that you are doing. There are a lot of possibilities that you are bringing on the table with this. I like it. I am just trying to make sure that it gets fully utilized. >I appreciate all the things that you have done. I understand about this dilemma of the coffee shop, but it is not about the coffee shop. It’s about the entire bayshore area and if we don ’t ask for what we want now, that will not be a vibrant part of our community. I really want to see that part of the community over by the bayshore to be vibrant. This may fall on the staff side for us to consider. We are getting some amazing projects with great benefits but how do we take it to the next step? Thank you for all your hard work. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Chair Pfaff called for a ten minute recess to allow staff to draft conditions of approval for consideration regarding increasing the number of public parking spaces and contribution towards improvements on the Old Bayshore Highway frontage near the Shorebird Sanctuary. Chair Pfaff reconvened the meeting. The Commission reviewed the added conditions of approval and accepted them. Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the environmental review. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse Absent: 1 - Horan Chair Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the entitlements application with the following added conditions: >that at least 20 of the parking stalls on Level 1 in the Parking Structure shall be public stalls dedicated for use from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm, seven days a week. >that the applicant shall contribute $100,000 towards improvements on the Old Bayshore Highway frontage near the City of Burlingame Shorebird Sanctuary. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS a.1427 Montero Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Variances for building height and side setback for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Travis Culwell, applicant and property owner; Costa Brown Architecture, architect) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao Page 12City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1427 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1427 Montero Ave - Attachments 1427 Montero Ave - Renderings 1427 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Albert Costa, designer and Travis Culwell, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Kate and Rob Buccieri, 1423 Montero Avenue, submitted via public comment email: As next door neighbors to 1427 Montero Avenue, we'd like to let you know our support for the proposed remodel plan . We are familiar with the design and support the proposed variances and special permits. The design is beautiful, and the neighborhood will be all the better for it. Old houses are the charm of Burlingame, and we appreciate remodels that keep these treasures intact and allow owners to reach their vision on aesthetics and functionality. Just completing our own remodel, we very much appreciate the thoughtful and practical approach to the plans that we submitted and the process. Thanks for your work. >Fred Pahlavan, 1431 Montero Avenue, submitted via public comment email: We, the Pahlavan family, have seen the 1427 Montero Avenue project proposal. We want to inform you that we support the Culwell ’s remodel project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The window at the far right corner on the dormer located on top of the bathtub is almost up to the corner. Consider giving it enough space from the edge and dividing it with grids to match the style of the rest of the house so it does not look like an add-on. >I like the house. I appreciate that it is being reused. I don ’t think that this has a negative impact on the street going forward. It seems like there is no height issue because of how the property is configured . There is a huge upslope at the front. I can appreciate the declining height envelope and the overall height from the curb doesn ’t actually apply very well. I don ’t have any issues with the additional height they are asking for. When we think about the characterization of the declining height envelope, this is not what it was meant for. This is an excellent candidate for the Variance for what it is doing and reusing. I support this project. >I agree and I can see this moving forward to the Consent Calendar. >It is an absolutely beautiful house. I understand the concerns from the neighbor at the back given that this is a different look from the small gable that was there. This is a very modest and thoughtful proposal. A little more work can be done on the windows to make them more cohesive. Other than that, I can see reason for the Variance and the declining height issue in this case. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - Page 13City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff noted that she attended a Safety Element workshop; it was an informational workshop which included input from the public on experiences and concerns with natural hazards. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reminded the Commission of the Annual Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting on Saturday, April 13, 2024. Discussion items include Mills Act and Historic Preservation Incentives, General Plan Buildout Evaluation, and Multiunit Residential Standards . He also noted that at the April 1, 2024 City Council meeting the Council approved the entitlements for the development project at 1200-1340 Old Bayshore Highway; the Development Agreement will return to the City Council as an Ordinance on April 15, 2024. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The Planning Commission requested that a study session be held in the future to review zoning regulations in the bayshore area and look at how uses can be encouraged that would not only be office and life science, but can provide community benefits that we are asking for. That could include reviewing zoning regulations for smaller properties that are not destined for office or life science, how we better provide incentives to larger developments to provide community benefits that we want to see, or other strategies. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Page 14City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances Address: 1427 Montero Avenue Meeting Date: April 22, 2024 Request: Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Variances for building height and right side setback for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicants and Property Owners: Travis and Alexa Culwell APN: 027-181-050 Designer: Albert Costa, Costa Brown Architecture Lot Area: 6,100 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing single-unit dwelling and a detached garage. The applicant is proposing a second story addition at the rear of the dwelling. With this application, the floor area would increase from 3,001 SF (0.49 FAR) to 3,268 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,366 SF (0.55 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and basement exemptions). The existing dwelling contains five bedrooms and with this application there is no increase in the number of bedrooms. The existing on-site parking is nonconforming since only one covered parking space (10' x 18') is provided in the detached garage, where two covered parking spaces are required for a five-bedroom dwelling. However, because there is no change in the number of bedrooms, a Parking Variance is not required. One uncovered parking space (9' x 18') is provided in the driveway. The existing second floor along the right side of the house currently encroaches into the declining height envelope. The proposed dormer expansion would also encroach into the declining height envelope. Therefore, the application includes a request for a Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side of the second floor (103 SF, 7’-5” x 13’-11” extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff would note that the lot slopes downward towards the front and right side of the property and as a result establishes the declining height envelope at a much lower elevation compared to the finished floor of the house (point of departure for the declining height envelope is approximately 11 feet lower that the finished floor). In addition, a Variance for right side setback for the second floor addition is also required (2’-9” right side setback proposed where 4’-0” is the minimum required). The subject property slopes upward approximately 17’-0” from the front to the rear of the property which as a result affects the measurement of the overall building height. The existing finished floor of the house is 18’-9” above average top of curb. A Variance for building height is required for the proposed second floor addition (38’-2” building height proposed as measured to the top of dormer roof, where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed; up to 36’-0” allowed with a Special Permit). Staff would note that the existing dwelling is nonconforming in height since the top of the existing roof ridge is 42’-0” above average top of curb. There are no existing trees on site. The proposed landscape plan shows three new 24-inch box Dogwood trees to be planted on-site. Based on the proposed floor area, three landscape trees are required on-site. Therefore, the project complies with the Tree Reforestation Ordinance requirements. The applicant is requesting the following applications: • Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(b)); Item No. 8a Consent Calendar Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue -2- • Special Permit for declining height envelope along the right side of the house (103 SF of the second floor addition extends beyond the declining height envelope) (C.S. 25.10.055); • Variance for building height to the second floor addition (38’-2” proposed where 30’-0” is the maximum allowed) (C.S. 25.10.030, Table 25.10-2); and • Variance for right side setback to the second floor addition (2’-9” proposed where 4’-0” is the minimum required (C.S. 25.10.030, Table 25.10-2). 1427 Montero Avenue Lot Area: 6,100 SF Plans date stamped: April 10, 2024 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37’-7” 35’-7” no change no change 25’-4” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 11’-9” 2’-9” ¹ no change 2’-9” to addition ² 4'-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 26’-6” 29’-0” no change 26’-6” to addition 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 1,929 SF 32% no change 2,440 SF 40% FAR: 3,001 SF 0.49 FAR 3,268 SF 0.54 FAR 3,366 SF ³ 0.55 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered 4 (10’ x 18’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) no change 2 covered 4 (20’ x 18’ clear interior) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 42’-0” 5 38’-2” 6 30’-0” Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-5” 8’-2” no change 8’-2” 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: second floor along right side extends beyond DHE 7 second floor addition along right side extends beyond DHE 8 C.S. 25.10.055 ¹ Existing nonconforming right side setback. ² Variance request for right side setback for proposed second story addition (2’-9” proposed where 4’-0” is the minimum required). ³ (0.32 x 6,100 SF) + 1100 SF + 314 SF (garage) = 3,366 SF (0.55 FAR) 4 Existing nonconforming covered parking. Variance for covered parking not required because the number of bedrooms is not changing. 5 Existing nonconforming building height. 6 Variance request for building height (38’-2” proposed where 30’-0’ is the maximum allowed). Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue -3- 7 Existing nonconforming DHE along right side. 8 Special Permit request for declining height envelope (103 SF extends beyond the DHE along right side of the house). Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: wood windows • Doors: wood and glass doors • Siding: horizontal lap siding • Roof: asphalt shingles Staff Comments: None. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on April 8, 2024, the Commission had several suggestions and comments regarding this project and voted to place this item on the Consent Calendar when all information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division (see attached April 8, 2024, Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, dated April 10, 2024, 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 (see attachments). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Suggested Findings for Design Review: 1. The proposed second story addition to the 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 addition to the dwelling is consistent with the design guidelines; that the mass and bulk Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue -4- of the proposed structure is in scale with the lot and in relation to neighboring properties, and that architectural details, such as wood clad windows, horizontal lap siding, and asphalt shingles, make the project compatible with the character of the neighborhood. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development as shown on the proposed plans. 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property because the project complies with left and rear setback, lot coverage, and floor area ratio requirements. Required Findings for a Special Permit (Declining Height Envelope): In order to grant a Special Permit for declining height envelope, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining height envelope): 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the proposed second story addition is consistent with the design of the dwelling and is consistent with the character of the street and neighborhood, which consists of one and two-story single-unit dwellings in a variety of architectural styles and massing. 2. The variety of façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed second story addition is consistent with the existing dwelling; that the existing house is currently nonconforming and encroaches into the declining height envelope on the right side and that the second floor extension along the right side, in the form of a shed dormer, represents a minor encroachment (103 SF) into the declining height envelope; and that the architectural style that would result from a code complying project would not be compatible or true to the massing and style of the house if the second floor were offset in order to comply with declining height envelope. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City in that the proposed structure is compatible with the requirements of the City's design review criteria as noted above. Required Findings for a Variance (Building Height and Right Side Setback): Any decision to approve a Variance application for building height and side setback pursuant to Chapter 25.84 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: A. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district; B. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue -5- property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; C. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and D. That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Suggested Variance Findings (Building Height and Right Side Setback): 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district in that the subject property slopes upward approximately 17’-0” from the front to the rear of the property which as a result affects the measurement of the overall building height. The existing dwelling is nonconforming in height since the top of the existing roof ridge is 42’-0” above average top of curb, with the existing finished floor of the house being 18’-9” above average top of curb. While the building height to the top of the proposed dormer roof is 38’-2”, it is 3’-10” lower than the existing highest roof ridge; 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that it allows the existing second floor to be expanded in a reasonable manner; 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the second floor addition matches the existing right side setback of the house and that the overall height of the second floor addition is 3’-10” lower than the existing highest roof ridge; and 4. That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk, and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity in that the project includes expanding an existing single-unit dwelling and the project is designed and will be finished with materials to complement the existing house. 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 April 10, 2024, sheets A-00 through A4-03 and site survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue -6- 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 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; 11. 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 12. 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. Brittany Xiao Assistant Planner c. Travis and Alexa Culwell, applicants and property owners Albert Costa, Costa Brown Architecture, designer Attachments: April 8, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant’s Response Letter, dated April 10, 2024 Email Submitted by Craig Srabian, dated April 8, 2024 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Form Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue -7- Variance Application Forms Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed April 12, 2024 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, April 8, 2024 a.1427 Montero Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Variances for building height and side setback for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Travis Culwell, applicant and property owner; Costa Brown Architecture, architect) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1427 Montero Ave - Staff Report 1427 Montero Ave - Attachments 1427 Montero Ave - Renderings 1427 Montero Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Albert Costa, designer and Travis Culwell, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Kate and Rob Buccieri, 1423 Montero Avenue, submitted via public comment email: As next door neighbors to 1427 Montero Avenue, we'd like to let you know our support for the proposed remodel plan . We are familiar with the design and support the proposed variances and special permits. The design is beautiful, and the neighborhood will be all the better for it. Old houses are the charm of Burlingame, and we appreciate remodels that keep these treasures intact and allow owners to reach their vision on aesthetics and functionality. Just completing our own remodel, we very much appreciate the thoughtful and practical approach to the plans that we submitted and the process. Thanks for your work. >Fred Pahlavan, 1431 Montero Avenue, submitted via public comment email: We, the Pahlavan family, have seen the 1427 Montero Avenue project proposal. We want to inform you that we support the Culwell’s remodel project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The window at the far right corner on the dormer located on top of the bathtub is almost up to the corner. Consider giving it enough space from the edge and dividing it with grids to match the style of the rest of the house so it does not look like an add-on. >I like the house. I appreciate that it is being reused. I don ’t think that this has a negative impact on the street going forward. It seems like there is no height issue because of how the property is configured. There is a huge upslope at the front. I can appreciate the declining height envelope and the overall height from the curb doesn ’t actually apply very well. I don ’t have any issues with the additional height they are asking for. When we think about the characterization of the declining height envelope, Page 1City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes this is not what it was meant for. This is an excellent candidate for the Variance for what it is doing and reusing. I support this project. >I agree and I can see this moving forward to the Consent Calendar. >It is an absolutely beautiful house. I understand the concerns from the neighbor at the back given that this is a different look from the small gable that was there. This is a very modest and thoughtful proposal. A little more work can be done on the windows to make them more cohesive. Other than that, I can see reason for the Variance and the declining height issue in this case. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Chair Pfaff, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - Page 2City of Burlingame 1620 Montgomery Street, Suite 300, San Francisco CA 94111 | 415.986.0101 | costabrown.com April 10, 2024 Ms. Brittany Xiao City of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1427 Montero Avenue – APN 027-181-050, Zoned R-1 Dear Ms. Xiao: In response to comments from the Planning Commission hearing on April 8, 2024, following are the changes made. Sheet A0-01 • Showed the existing hedge and noted “existing hedge to remain.” It is an existing hedge, tall enough (approximately 15’-0”) to provide privacy for the rear-yard neighbor. Sheet A2-00.2 • Divided the wide horizontal window in the primary shower so that it appears as a pair of smaller windows. • The window at the top of the stairs is centered in that area. • For the upper right bedroom, moved the bedroom door closer to the closet so that furniture can fit better. Sheet A2-01.2 • For the upper right bedroom window placement, aligned it with the windows downstairs (seen on the proposed East Elevation). Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Albert Costa Principal and Architect From:Craig Srabian To:CD/PLG-Brittany Xiao Cc:pardinimc@gmail.com Subject:Project Site 1427 Montero Date:Monday, April 8, 2024 10:20:02 AM You don't often get email from cmsrabian@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Mary and I live at 1428 Benito directly behind 1427 Montero. We have enjoyed our private yard for many years. We enjoy gardening, sunbathing and entertaining here. It is an extension of our home. After reviewing the plans for the remodel directly behind us, we have several concerns. The Height Envelope and Building Height and proposed extra large windows give us concern. The added second floor structure will bring the rear of the house very close to our property and overlooking our yard which will remove any sort of privacy we now have. The new proposed windows will also look directly into our primary bedroom and the one bathroom we now have. When these neighbors first moved into that home, they installed obscure glass in the current dormer window which I saw as a reason to protect privacy. This window looked into our bedroom and bathroom as well as us looking at them. May I propose that the build move to the front of the house. There is plenty of room in the front yard. According the plans, it appears that the new addition has either 4 large windows or 7 single windows. The use of obscure glass with much smaller windows would alleviate some of our privacy concerns. This may not seem to be a big deal, but losing our privacy after living here for almost 40 years, I feel it an invasion and a huge deal to us. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please reach out to me. Craig Srabian cmsrabian@gmail.com 650-867-2077 This email is from an external source. Please take caution when clicking links or opening attachments. When in doubt, contact your IT Department 10.05.23 City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P (650) 558-7250  www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application – Building Height The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain how the proposed modification to standards respects and preserves the character of the neighborhood in which the project is located. 2. Explain how the proposed modification to standards results in a project that is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring properties. 3. Explain how the additional development capacity is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. (Please see addendum: Exterior Design and Materials) Constructed in 1925, our home was among the first built on the 1400 block of Montero, providing early definition to this part of the Easton Addition with its 1920s cottage style, tall dormer-style roof shape, lap siding, and broad lawn all still existing. Sited to take advantage of bay views, the lot sits atop the steepest slope on the block, with the house set back a full 37 feet from the property line in order to build at grade on the top flat portion. These factors combine in a gracious old hilltop home which now exceeds current height limits. We seek to add a small dormer addition to the rear of the second floor, repurposing existing attic space as living space. The proposed addition would sit behind the existing house and roof peak, invisible from the street. Viewed from the rear, the proposed addition fits within the existing form and massing of the house, its shape and materials typical for the style and period of original construction. Within the home, the dormer addition will allow creation of an en-suite bath for the primary bedroom, bringing the home up to modern standard. Neighboring properties will experience no adverse affects from the proposed work. Bedroom and bath uses are typical residential uses for the neighborhood. The proposed addition fits within the form and massing of the house and does not alter the existing views for any neighbors. Shape, materials and finishes will be consistent with the historic character of the house and blend seamlessly with the original portion. The project will correct existing seismic and site drainage deficiencies while remediating toxics and replacing worn and antiquated HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems with new green systems. Our proposed plan will carefully preserve a highly visible historic home, updating the interior of this aging 1925 property for modern family life (remedying obsolete 1920s bedroom, bath, and hallway layouts), while renewing its stately neighborhood character for the next generation. Preserving the home overall, and specifically the redwood framing, trim, and orinal lap siding, will allow for conservation-minded renewal. New interior features and materials will be selected for green sustainability and healthful indoor and outdor air quality. Our project will replace outdated, inefficient 1920s gas heating equipment and leak-prone plumbing with energy efficient modern systems, while addressing latent seismic/ structural issues. The updated roof will correct storm drainage issues which are problematic in heavy rains. New landscaping will focus on drought-tolerant materials to replace the existing lawn. 1. Explain how the proposed modification to standards respects and preserves the character of the neighborhood in which the project is located. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. 2. Explain how the proposed modification to standards results in a project that is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring properties. How will the proposed structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance, etc. Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, and traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city’s policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? 3. Explain how the additional development capacity is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Compare your proposal with the General Plan goals and policies and explain why this proposal is consistent with those goals and policies. City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  P (650) 558-7250  www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain how the proposed modification to standards respects and preserves the character of the neighborhood in which the project is located. 2. Explain how the proposed modification to standards results in a project that is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring properties. 3. Explain how the additional development capacity is consistent with General Plan goals and policies. Constructed in 1925, our home was among the first on the 1400 block of Montero Ave. The current exterior retains the shape and material of its original construction, and does not conform to the DHE requirement. We propose a small dormer addition to the rear of the second floor, repurposing existing attic space as living space. The addition would align to the existing exterior wall to the north, which falls outside the DHE plane. Due to the steep downhill topography and the existing high roof shape, the new dormer would be fully hidden from the street, and nearly invisible for the neighboring property on that side. Architecturally, the new dormer will fit the shape, style and materials of the original construction. Structurally, aligning first and second floor walls will simplify structural/ seismic design. Within the home, the dormer addition will allow creation of an en-suite bath for the primary bedroom, bringing the home up to modern standard. Neighboring properties will not experience adverse impacts. The proposed bedroom and bath uses are typical residential uses for the neighborhood. Our existing 1925 home does not conform to the DHE requirement, and the existing wall and roof of the home would conceal the proposed dormer for the adjacent property to the north. The new work would minimally obstruct the "sunshine plane" for the adjacent property. Our proposed plan will carefully preserve a highly visible historic home, updating the interior of this aging 1925 property for modern family life (remedying obsolete 1920s bedroom, bath, and hallway layouts), while renewing its stately neighborhood character for the next generation. Preserving the home overall, and specifically the redwood framing, trim, and orinal lap siding, will allow for conservation-minded renewal. New interior features and materials will be selected for green sustainability and healthful indoor and outdor air quality. The project will correct existing seismic and site drainage deficiencies while remediating toxics and replacing worn and antiquated HVAC, plumbing and electrical systems with new green systems. New landscaping will focus on drought-tolerant materials to replace the existing lawn. City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Variance Application The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Code Section 25.84.030). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. D. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? dŚĞĞdžƚƌĂŽƌĚŝŶĂƌLJĐŝƌĐƵŵƐƚĂŶĐĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƉƉůLJƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƌĞƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƐŝƚĞĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚ ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĚŽŶŽƚĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚŐĞŶĞƌĂůŚĞŝŐŚƚƐ͕ĂƐŵĞĂƐƵƌĞĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬĐƵƌď͘dŚĞƐƵďũĞĐƚ ƚǁŽͲƐƚŽƌLJŚŽƵƐĞŝƐƐŝƚƵĂƚĞĚŽŶĂŶƵƉͲƐůŽƉƉŝŶŐůŽƚ͕ĂŶĚŝƐƐĞƚďĂĐŬĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůLJĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͕ƐŝŵŝůĂƌƚŽŽƚŚĞƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐŝŶƚŚĞ ĂƌĞĂ͘dŚĞƐůŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞĨƌŽŶƚLJĂƌĚ͕ĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞϮͲƐƚŽƌLJŚŽƵƐĞ͕ĐƌĞĂƚĞƐĂŶĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŶŽŶͲĐŽŵƉůLJŝŶŐ ŚĞŝŐŚƚ;ƉĞƌƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐͿĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐĂŶĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶŽĨĂƐĞĐŽŶĚƐƚŽƌLJĚŽƌŵĞƌ͕ĨĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚ͘ dŚĞǀĂƌŝĂŶĐĞŝƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJĂƐƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞŝƐůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶĂŶƵƉͲƐůŽƉŝŶŐůŽƚ͕ĚĞĞŵĞĚŶŽŶͲĐŽŵƉůŝĂŶƚ͕LJĞƚ ŽƚŚĞƌŚŽƵƐĞƐŝŶƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĞŶũŽLJƐŝŵŝůĂƌďĂĐŬƐŝĚĞǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚ͘dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚŝƐƚŽĂĚĚĂĨĞǁǁŝŶĚŽǁƐĨĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬ͕ďLJĞdžƉĂŶĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĨĂĐŝŶŐĚŽƌŵĞƌŽŶƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐƌŽŽĨ͘ dŚĞƵŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJŚĂƌĚƐŚŝƉ͕ŝĨƚŚŝƐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚŵŝŐŚƚƌĞƐƵůƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĚĞŶŝĂůŽĨƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ŝƐƚŚĞůŽƐƐŽĨůŝŐŚƚƚŽ ƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚĨůŽŽƌƐƉĂĐĞƐ͕ĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůůŽƐƐŽĨĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚĨŽƌƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚǁŝůůŶŽƚďĞĚĞƚƌŝŵĞŶƚĂůƚŽƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐǁĞůĨĂƌĞŽƌŝŶũƵƌŝŽƵƐƚŽƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌŽŽĨĚŽƌŵĞƌŝƐŝŶƚŚĞďĂĐŬ͕ŶŽƚǀŝƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚĨƌŽŶƚ͕ĂŶĚ ŝƐŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞĂƉƌŝǀĂƚĞŶŽŶͲŝŶƚƌƵƐŝǀĞĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶŽĨĂŶĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĞůĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͘dŚĞĂĚĚĞĚ ǁŝŶĚŽǁƐ͕ĨĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬ͕ǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƐĂĨĞƚLJŝŶƚĞƌŵƐŽĨĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJĂĐĐĞƐƐŝĨƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚ͘dŚĞ ĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚŽƵƐĞĨƌŽŶƚĨĂĐĂĚĞĂŶĚƌŽŽĨ͕ĂƌĞƚŽƌĞŵĂŝŶĂƐͲŝƐ͘ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚŽƌŵĞƌĞdžƉĂŶƐŝŽŶ͕ĨĂĐŝŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚ͕ǁŝůůďĞĐŽŵƉĂƚŝďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ ĂĞƐƚŚĞƚŝĐƐďLJŵŝŵŝĐŬŝŶŐƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞ͕ŵĂƚĐŚŝŶŐƚŚĞŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͕ĐŽůŽƌ͕ĂŶĚ ǁŽƌŬŵĂŶƐŚŝƉĨŽƵŶĚĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘dŚĞŵĂƐƐŝŶŐĂŶĚďƵůŬŽĨƚŚĞŚŽƵƐĞǁŝůůďĂƐŝĐĂůůLJƌĞŵĂŝŶƚŚĞ ƐĂŵĞ͕ǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĞdžĐĞƉƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƌĞĂƌĨĂĐŝŶŐƌŽŽĨĚŽƌŵĞƌ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐŶŽƚǀŝƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ ƐƚƌĞĞƚ͕ĂŶĚǁŝůůŶŽƚĂĚǀĞƌƐĞůLJĞĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůǀŝĐŝŶŝƚLJ͘ A. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Do any conditions exist on the site which make other alternatives to the variance impracticable or impossible and are also not common to other properties in the area? For example, is there a creek cutting through the property, an exceptional tree specimen, steep terrain, odd lot shape or unusual placement of existing structures? How is this property different from others in the neighborhood? B. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. Would you be unable to build a project similar to others in the area or neighborhood without the exception? (i.e., having as much on-site parking or bedrooms?) Would you be unable to develop the site for the uses allowed without the exception? Do the requirements of the law place an unreasonable limitation or hardship on the development of the property? C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. How will the proposed structure or use within the structure affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Think about traffic, noise, lighting, paving, landscaping sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties, ease of maintenance, etc. Public health includes such things as sanitation (garbage), air quality, discharges into sewer and stormwater systems, water supply safety, and things which have the potential to affect public health (i.e., underground storage tanks, storage of chemicals, situations which encourage the spread of rodents, insects or communicable diseases). Public safety. How will the structure or use within the structure affect police or fire protection? Will alarm systems or sprinklers be installed? Could the structure or use within the structure create a nuisance or need for police services (i.e., noise, unruly gatherings, loitering, and traffic) or fire services (i.e., storage or use of flammable or hazardous materials, or potentially dangerous activities like welding, woodwork, engine removal). General welfare is a catch-all phrase meaning community good. Is the proposal consistent with the city’s policy and goals for conservation and development? Is there a social benefit? Convenience. How would the proposed structure or use affect public convenience (such as access to or parking for this site or adjacent sites)? Is the proposal accessible to particular segments of the public such as the elderly or handicapped? D. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. How will the proposed project be compatible with existing and potential uses in the general vicinity? Compare your project with existing uses. State why you feel your project is consistent with other uses in the vicinity, and/or state why your project would be consistent with potential uses in the vicinity. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. If changes to the structure are proposed, was the addition designed to match existing architecture, pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? If a use will affect the way a neighborhood or area looks, such as a long term airport parking lot, compare your proposal to other uses in the area and explain why it fits. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation, etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review, Special Permit for declining height envelope, and Variances for building height and right side setback for a second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling at 1427 Montero Avenue, zoned R-1, Travis and Alexa Culwell, property owners, APN: 027-181-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 22, 2024, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Special Permit and Variances are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of April, 2024 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue Effective May 2, 2024 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 10, 2024, sheets A-00 through A4-03 and site survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Special Permit, and Variances 1427 Montero Avenue Effective May 2, 2024 Page 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the 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; 11. 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 12. 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. 1427 Montero Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 027-181-050 No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. PROJECT INFORMATIONLOCATION PLAN PROJECT CONTACTS DRAWING INDEX 1. All labor, materials, fabrication, installation, etc., shall be performed in full accordance with California Title 24, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), all governing agencies and all national, state and local codes, laws and ordinances, especially those requirements regarding energy and handicapped accessibility. In case of conflict, the more stringent shall govern. 2. It is the general contractor's responsibility to verify and coordinate all work with the design build subcontractors to ensure project completion in accordance with the design intent set forth within these construction documents and specifications. Contractor to refer to Project Manual for additional information. 3. The appearance of the architect's identification block on drawings prepared by other firms shall not be construed to indicate responsibility for the contents of such drawings on the part of the architect. 4. General contractor shall verify all dimensions and conditions at the job site before starting work and shall notify architect of any discrepancies or errors. Contractor shall be responsible for all costs required due to his failure to do so. Commencement of work by any trade shall constitute agreement that conditions are acceptable for such work. 5. The drawings and specifications are complementary. Every effort has been made to coordinate the drawings and specifications of the architect and the consulting engineers; however, any item, instruction, specification, etc., shown in one location shall be required as if shown in all applicable locations. In case of discrepancy, consult with architect before proceeding. 6. All work shown, listed or implied on any construction document must be supplied and installed by the general contractor, unless noted otherwise. The general contractor must closely coordinate his work with that of subcontractors and suppliers to assure that schedules are met and that work is done in conformance to manufacturer's requirements. 7. The use of the word "provided" in connection with any specified item is intended to mean that the item must be furnished, installed, connected, and ready for use, unless otherwise noted. 8. The construction documents illustrate the design and type of construction desired in general and imply only the finest quality of construction, material and workmanship. By assuming responsibility for the work indicated, the general contractor must comply with the spirit as well as the letter in which they were written. 9. The general contractor shall coordinate the work of all subcontractors: mechanical, electrical, structural, plumbing, etc. General contractor shall report to the architect any discrepancies for correction. Requests for cost increases caused by lack of proper coordination will not be allowed. All work listed, shown or implied on any construction document shall be supplied and installed by the general contractor, except where noted otherwise. General contractor shall coordinate his work with that of other contractors or vendors to assure that all schedules are met and that all work is done in conformance to manufacturer's requirements. Workmanship shall be equal to the best standard of the following institutions: - American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) - American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) - American Welding Society (AWS) - American Concrete Institute (ACI) - American National Standards Institute (ANSI) - Architectural Aluminum Manufacturer's Association (AAMA) - Aluminum Association, Inc. (AA) - American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) - Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) - National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers (NAAMM) - National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) - National Woodwork Manufacturer's Association (NWMA) - Woodwork Institute of California (WIC 10. General contractor shall continuously check architectural and structural clearances for accessibility of equipment, including construction equipment, and mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems. Contractor shall verify that no conflicts exist and that all required clearances for installation and maintenance of such items is provided without altering noted dimensions. No allowance of any kind will be made for general contractor's failure to foresee means of installing such items into position inside structure. 11. All materials shall be new and of first quality, and all work shall be performed by skilled mechanics. 12. Dimensions: a. All partition dimensions are to face of finish, unless otherwise noted. b. Do not scale drawings. c. Dimensions and reference elevations are to finished face of floors and at roof (not to top of covering or roofing), unless otherwise noted. d. All dimensions shall be verified in field before fabrication. 13. All dimensions are to be exact within 1/4" along full height and full width of walls. Contractor shall not adjust any dimension marked "clear" or "clr" without written instructions from architect. 14. "Typical" or "typ" means identical for all similar conditions, unless noted otherwise. 15. "Similar" or "sim" means comparable characteristics for items noted. Verify dimensions & orientation on plan. 16. General contractor shall provide all chases, sleeves, openings, etc., as required by the various trades, whether noted on construction documents or not. 17. Substantial blocking, backing or other support shall be provided for all fixtures, appliances, cabinets, shelves, rods, accessories or other items to be secured in the walls, whether such blocking or backing is specifically indicated or not. 18. Attachments, connections or fastenings of any nature are to be properly and permanently secured in conformance with best practice. The drawings show only special conditions to assist the contractor; they do not illustrate every such detail. 19. All work shall provide for material expansion and contraction, shrinkage, building movement, etc., sufficient to prevent cracks, buckling or other deformation due to humidity/temperature change and normal loading. 20. All openings to exterior shall be fully sealed all around. Sealant colors shall match adjacent surfaces where possible. Verify sealant colors with architect. Operable doors and windows shall be fully weather-stripped. 21. Provide all flashings, counterflashings, copings, sheet metal, etc., to provide a fully watertight building, whether specifically indicated on the drawings or not. Flashings shall be compatible with all adjacent surfaces. See specifications for more information. 22. Contractor shall waive "common practice" and "common usage" as construction criteria wherever details and contract documents or governing codes, ordinances, etc., require greater quantity or better quality than common usage would require. 23. No work defective in construction or quality or deficient in any requirements of drawings and specifications will be acceptable, despite owner's or architect's failure to discover such defects or deficiencies during construction. Defective work shall be replaced by work conforming to intent of contract. No payment whether partial or final shall be construed as an acceptance of defective work or improper materials. 24. The general contractor must submit shop drawings for all fabricated items, cut sheets for all fixtures and equipment, and samples of all finishes to architect for review and action prior to ordering and fabrication. 25. The contractor must protect the area and all new or existing materials and finishes from damage which may occur from demolition, construction, dust, water, etc., and must provide and maintain temporary barricades as required to protect the public during the period of construction. Damage to new and existing structures, materials, finishes and equipment must be repaired or replaced to the satisfaction of the Owner at the expense of the general contractor. 26. The contractor must notify the architect of any lead time coordination challenges. 27. Substitutions, revisions or changes may be allowed only if such items are submitted to the architect in a timely manner, in writing, and subsequently approved by the architect in writing. All substitutions must be at least of equal quality, design and performance. The contractor is liable for replacement, repair and delays caused by an unauthorized substitution of any item for this project. All requests for substitutions shall include the project name, description and drawings, as required, comparing items. The architect reserves the right to reject any substitutes for any reason. 28. The general contractor must maintain a complete, current set of construction documents on the job site during all phases of construction for use by all trades and must provide all subcontractors with current construction documents as required. 29. The subcontractors must remove all rubbish and waste materials on a regular basis and must exercise strict control over job cleaning to prevent any dirt, debris or dust from affecting, in any way, finished areas in or outside job site. 30. The structural, mechanical and electrical drawings are supplementary to the architectural drawings. If a discrepancy exists between the architectural drawings and other drawings, such discrepancy shall be brought to the architect's attention in writing prior to installation of said work. Any work installed in conflict with the architectural drawings shall be corrected by the contractor at contractor's expense. 31. Provide gypsum wallboard behind and around all openings (including cabinets and electrical panels) and fire rated 3M box wrap pad around electrical boxes, where required by code, to maintain fire rated construction. 32. The contractor shall be responsible for and shall supervise all cutting and patching of finished work already installed if made necessary by errors, changes or other reasons. All replacement work shall match adjoining surfaces with no visible markings of redo/repair work. 33. All material shall be furnished and installed by the contractor, unless otherwise noted. 34. All revisions to the drawings must proceed through the owner and architect. Contractor revisions may be considered invalid if not approved by the owner. 35. Contractor shall be responsible for providing adequate cover for the protection of all installed utilities during the construction of this project. 36. Contractor shall be responsible for locating and protecting all utilities that are to remain in use, whether or not shown hereon. 37. Contractor shall provide all temporary lights, signs, barricades, flag persons, and other devices necessary to provide for public safety. 38. Contractor shall be responsible for any on-site permit signs required by local ordinances. 39. Mechanical, electrical and fire safety to provide drawings for location of all access panels for architect's review and approval. 40. Large scale detail drawings take precedence over smaller scale drawings. 41. The contractor shall be responsible for verification and coordination with other trades and their work for compliance with the drawings and specifications. Also, contractor shall verify sizes and locations of all openings for mechanical, plumbing and electrical equipment with these subcontractors, as well as obtaining the approval of the architect before proceeding with the work. Otherwise it will be assumed that the contractor can perform the work as outlined on the drawings without additional cost to the owner. 42. Contractor shall maintain and keep accurate record drawings that show the final location, elevation and description of the completed work. 43. The contractor must notify the architect in writing when his work nears completion. Upon inspection, the architect will prepare a final "punch list" outlining incomplete or unacceptable work. The project will not be considered complete until all items on the punch list have been resolved. 44. The contractor shall furnish to the owner two copies of the manufacturer's instruction, operation and maintenance manuals for products and equipment specified in the contract documents, including special tools, accessories, spare parts, etc. 45. Prior to completion of the project, the contractor must submit to the owner in duplicate on behalf of himself and his respective subcontractors a one (1) year written guarantee against defective workmanship and/or materials, as well as complete operating and maintenance instructions for all mechanical and electrical portions of the work. 46. Contractor to submit to owner release of all liens from subcontractors, suppliers, etc., assuring owner that all payrolls, bills for equipment and materials, and all other indebtedness connected with the work has been paid or otherwise satisfied. STAMPS COVER SHEET A0-00 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1427 Montero Ave. PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT ADDRESS: 1427 MONTERO AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PARCEL NUMBER: 027-181-050 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VB STORIES: 2 HEIGHT LIMITS: 30 FT LOT AREA: 6100 SQFT OCCUPANCY: R-3 - SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING: NO DATA ASSIGNED SPRINKLERS: NO PROJECT DESCRIPTION INTERIOR REMODEL AND RENOVATION OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. HORIZONTAL EXPANSION OF EXISTING DORMER AT REAR OF HOUSE. ADDING NEW OPENING WITH SLIDING DOOR TO DETACHED STRUCTURE MEP UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT OWNER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COSTA BROWN ARCHITECTURE, INC. 1620 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 300 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 (415) 986-0101 BUILDING CODE EDITIONS: 2022 CBC, CMC, CPC, CEC, CRC, TITLE24 - STATE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS, AND LOCAL BUILDING AND PLANING REQUIREMENT MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL UNDER SEPARATE PERMITS TRAVIS AND ALEXA CULWELL 1427 MONTERO AVE. BURLINGAME, CA 94010 ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS A0-00 COVER SHEET C1.0 SURVEY A0-01 EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLAN A0-02 BLOCK AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK A0-03 GENERAL NOTES A1-00.1 EXISTING + DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANS A2-00.00 EXISTING & PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS A2-00.1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL & 1ST FLOOR PLANS A2-00.2 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR & ROOF PLAN A2-01.1 WEST ELEVATION - EXISTING & PROPOSED A2-01.2 EAST ELEVATION - EXISTING & PROPOSED A2-01.3 NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING & PROPOSED A2-01.4 SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTING & PROPOSED A3-00 SECTIONS A4-00 TITLE 24 A4-01 TITLE 24 A4-02 TITLE 24 A4-03 TITLE 24 STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS S-1 BASEMENT & FRIST FLOOR PARTIAL FOUNDATION & FRAMING PLANS S-2 SECOND FLOOR & ROOF FRAMING PLANS S-3 STRUCTURAL DETAILS S-4 STRUCTURAL DETAILS S-5 STRUCTURAL DETAILS S-6 STRUCTURAL MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS & SCHEDULESFIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: UNDER DEFERRED SUBMITTAL 6 “Construction Hours ”Weekdays: 8:00 a.m. –7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. –6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: No Work Allowed *See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 18.07.110 for details. *See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Note: Construction hours for work in the public right of way must now be included on the plans. 6 6 No.Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 5 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 09-29-2023 6 Response to Plan Check Comments Received on 11-07-23 12-13-2023 7 Response to Plan Check Comments 03-06-2024 8 Response to Plan Check Comments 03-29-2024 9 Updated per Planning Commission Comments 04-10-2024 DN DN 115120120123124125126128128129130131132133135136137139140142115120120123124125126128128129130131132133135136137139140142DN DN 50' - 0" .122' - 0"PL PL PL PL 1427 MONTERO ADJACENT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY MONTERO AVENUE(E) DRIVE WAY(E) DECK 37' - 7"18' - 11"31' - 1" UP (E) CURB CUT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING LANDSCAPED SIDEWALK EXISTING LANDSCAPED SIDEWALK EXISTING CURB PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE 15' - 0"15' - 0"VIF34' - 11"VIF17' - 6"18' - 0"16' - 5" 9' - 0" PROPOSED PACIFIC DOGWOOD TREES - 3 x 24" BOX SIZE -TO FOLLOW LANDSCAPING -CODE SECTION 11.06.090 EXISTING SHRUBS EXISTING HEDGE EXISTING HEDGE DASHED LINE SHOWS ROOF EDGE ABOVE DASHED LINE SHOWS GARAGE ROOF ABOVE DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT CHANNEL DRAINCLEAN OUT SSCO SSCOSEWER LATERALDRAIN PIPECHANNEL DRAIN CHANNEL DRAINPOLE ELECTRIC METER GAS METER EXISTING WATER MAINEXISTING OVERHEAD LINE9' - 0" 8 PROPOSED CATCH BASIN TO MITIGATE 13% SITE RUN-OFF - LOCATION TO BE COORDINATED IN FIELD 7 EXISTING HEDGE TO REMAIN 50' - 0" .122' - 0"PL PL PL PL 1427 MONTERO ADJACENT PROPERTY ADJACENT PROPERTY MONTERO AVENUE(E) DRIVE WAY(E) DECK UP (E) CURB CUT EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING LANDSCAPED SIDEWALK EXISTING LANDSCAPED SIDEWALK EXISTING CURB PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE 15' - 0"15' - 0"VIF34' - 11"VIF17' - 6"18' - 0"16' - 5" 9' - 0" EXISTING SHRUBS EXISTING HEDGE EXISTING HEDGE DASHED LINE SHOWS ROOF EDGE ABOVE DASHED LINE SHOWS GARAGE ROOF ABOVE EXISTING HEDGE TO REMAIN PERVIOUS GROUND LEGEND -GROUND TYPE No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS As indicated EXISTING & PROPOSED SITE PLAN A0-01 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1/8" = 1'-0"1 SITE PLAN -PROPOSED N1/8" = 1'-0"2 SITE PLAN -EXISTING Notes Per Public Work s Engineering Comment s:• The General Contractor shall provide replacement of all curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk fronting site, all water line connections to city water mains for services or fire line are to be installed per city standard procedures and specification, and any other underground utility works within city's right-of-way. • Please call-out these items to be removed and replaced on the site plan. All abandoned sewer lateral or water service shall be disconnected at the main and per City requirements. An encroachment permit will be required for these items. • Please be aware that rear access to the 6' City Alley is not permitted. Furthermore, no Stormwater is permitted to drain to the rear Alley. • There will be no permanent structures such as retaining walls, fences, columns, mailbox, etc. proposed beyond the property line and into the public right-of-way. 6 No.Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 6 Response to Plan Check Comments Received on 11-07-23 12-13-2023 7 Response to Plan Check Comments 03-06-2024 8 Response to Plan Check Comments 03-29-2024 DN VIF17' - 6"37' - 7"50' - 0"122' - 0"LOT 9 PROJECT SITE LOT 8 LOT 7 LOT 6LOT 10LOT 11LOT 12LOT 13LOT 14 MONTERO AVENUEVIF34' - 11"VIF21' - 8"VIF16' - 8"VIF26' - 4"VIF16' - 8"VIF16' - 8"VIF26' - 4"BLOCK AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK: TO BE VERIFIED LOT 13+ LOT 11+LOT 10+LOT 8+ LOT 6 / 5 26' -4" + 21' -8" + 34' -11" + 17' -6" + 26' -4" / 5 = 25' -4 3/16" No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS 1" = 20'-0" BLOCK AVERAGE FRONT SETBACK A0-02 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1" = 20'-0"1 SITE PLAN NNo.Issue Date No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS GENERAL NOTES A0-03 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 PLUMB ING FIX TURE NOTES : As of January 1, 2014, SB 407 -2009-requires non-compliant plumbing fixtures to be replaced by water-conserving plumbing fixtures when a property is undergoing alterations or improvements. This law applies to all residential and commercial property built prior to January 1, 1994. Details can be found at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0401-0450/sb_407_bill_20091011_chaptered.html. 6 ME P NOTE S:• Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 2022 CRC §303.8 or 2022 CBC §1008.2 and 2022 CBC • §1205.4 • Provide a single line drawing for all electrical, plumbing and mechanical. • All receptacles serving the outdoors, bathroom, kitchen and Dishwasher shall be of the GFCI type. CEC-2022 art.210.8 & 210.8-D-Rec shall be place adjacent to the space occupied by the DW per art.422.16. B.2.6 -E1.x-• Provide an electrical plan indicating that two 20-amp GFCI protected circuits will be provided in the kitchen counter and island outlets. 2022 CEC 210.52 -B-, -1-, -2--3--C-• Provide an electrical plan to include dedicated circuits for the dishwasher, garbage disposal, and microwave. 2022 CEC 210.23 A -1-, -2-• Amend the plans to specify that Combination Type Arc-Fault Circuit Interrupter shall protect all receptacles in all bedrooms, dining rooms, living rooms, parlors, libraries, dens sunrooms, recreation rooms, closets, kitchens, laundry areas, hallways or similar rooms or areas with branch circuits that supply 125 volt, single-phase, 15 and 20-ampere receptacle outlets, and be readily accessible. 2022 CEC Section 210.12 • NEW, Amend the plans to include the note all 15A and 20A 125V receptacles supplying dishwashers & garbage disposals must be readily accessible and GFCI protected per 2022 CEC 210.8 -D-.• Specify water hammer arrestors at all appliances that have quick-acting valves -i.e. Dishwasher hot water line and the hot/cold water lines for the clothes washer.-2022 CPC 609.10 • Provide framing details and structural calculations. Mec hanic al equipment. Note: That if a new A/C unit or mechanical equipment is going to be installed on the exterior of the building, the new equipment cannot exceed a Maximum Outdoor Noise Level -dBA-of sixty -60-dBA Daytime -7:00 a.m. –10:00 p.m.-or fifty -50-dBA Nighttime -10:00 p.m. –7:00 a.m.- as measured from the property line. BMC 25.58.050 • A Recycling and Waste Reduction form will need to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permit. Contact Joe McCluskey, our Recycling Specialist, at 650-558-7273. Here is the link for the newest version: https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/RECYCLING%20PLAN%20JULY%202021.pdf • Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. Public Works Engineering -Plan Check Comment Notes: 8. Based on the scope of work, this is a “Type I ”project that requires a Stormwater Construction Pollution Prevention Permit. This permit is required prior to issuance of a Building Permit. An initial field inspection is required prior to the start of any construction -on private property or in the public right-of- way. 9. Any work in the City right-of-way, such as placement of debris bin in street, construction parking, work in sidewalk area, public easements, and utility easements, is required to obtain an Encroachment Permit prior to starting work. Porta potty ’s are not allowed to be placed in the City right-of-way. Work without the benefit of an Encroachment Permit will be double the permit fee. 10. Construction hours in the City Public right-of-way are limited to weekdays and non-City Holidays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. for all activities -including hauling. 11. All water lines connections to city water mains for services or fire line protection are to be installed per city standard procedures and material specifications. Contact the city Water department for connection fees. If required, all fire services and services 2" and over will be installed by builder. All underground fire service connections shall be submitted as separate Underground Fire Service permit for review and approval. 12. Sewer Backwater Protection Certification is required for the installation of any new sewer fixture per Ordinance No. 1710. The Sewer Backwater Protection Certificate is required prior to the issuance of Building Permit. 14. Please submit an erosion control plan. This plan shall include, but not limited to, delineation of area of work, show primary and secondary erosion control measures, protection of creek or storm drain inlets, perimeter controls, protections for construction access points, and sediment control measures. Park Plan Check Comments Notes: 2. Specify on plan: Per Chapter 11.06, this project requires at least 2 landscape trees. Trees may be existing or new. New landscape trees must be 24 ”box size trees, single-trunked, and may not be fruit or nut trees, Palms, Italian Cypress or Japanese Maple. Replacement trees must have a mature height of over 15 feet. All required trees must be in good condition at the final Arborist inspection. Street trees do not count towards the required total. 3. Specify on plan: all new trees shall be double staked with 2 ”poles and secured with at least two rubber ties or straps. Nursery stake shall be removed at planting except by permission of City arborist. 4. Specify on plan: Provide separate irrigation -drip or bubbler -to new landscape trees. 5. Specify on plan: All Protected trees including on adjacent property and Street trees shown on plan are to be in good condition at the time of final inspection. Stormwater Plan Check Comments Notes: All construction projects, regardless of size, must prevent stormwater pollution from construction-related activities. Project applicants shall ensure that all contractors implement appropriate and effective Best Management Practices -BMPs -during all phases of construction, including demolition. No.Issue Date 6 Response to Plan Check Comments Received on 11-07-23 12-13-2023 UP UP DN DN DN UP DN (E) CRAWL SPACE MECH MAN COVER WATER HEATER (E) GAP IN CONCRETE WALL -VIF REF D W UTILITY SINK VIF BEFORE DEMOLISHING (E) CONCRETE WALL VIF BEFORE DEMOLISHING (E) STAIRS PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL 5' - 0" CL (E) BEDROOM (E) BATHROOM CL (E) BEDROOM(E) HALLWAYCL (E) ENTRY FOYER (E) DINING (E) KITCHEN (E) ROOM (E) DECK (E) GARAGE (E) ENTRY PORCH (E) LIVING ROOM (E) HALLWAYVIF-(E) FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED TO CREATE HEADROOM FOR (N) STAIR FROM 1ST FLOOR TO BASEMENT PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL (E) BATHROOM (E) BATHROOM (E) TOP LANDING (E) BEDROOM CL (E) SPACE (E) BEDROOM (E) CLOSET (E) BEDROOM PL PL PL PL PL PL PL PL EXISTING DORMER EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE PL PL PL PL PL PLPL PL EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN NEW WALLS WALL LEGEND No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS As indicated EXISTING + DEMOLITION FLOOR PLANS A1-00.1 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1/8" = 1'-0"1 (E) LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 (E) 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 (E) 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"4 (E) ROOF PLAN NNo.Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 UP DN DN UP DN DN DN UP DN DN DN UP DN (E) LOWER LEVEL-VIF (E) STORAGE (E) CRAWL SPACE NOTE: CEILING HEIGHT AT BASEMENT IS LESS THAN 7' - 0" DINING KITCHEN CL STUDY LIVING18' - 2 1/4"GARAGE FAMILY CL BATH ROOM NEW INFILL FLOOR GRAY COLOR SHOWS AREA WITH 7' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT: 1ST FLOOR - 1619 SF GARAGE - 314 SF (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM (N) BEDROOM (N) BATHROOM (N) BEDROOM (N) MASTER BATH (N) CLOSET (N) CLOSET GARAGE W D (E) OPEN SPACE TO REMAIN (N) BATHROOM (N) CLOSET (E) BEDROOM CLOSETNEW LAUNDRY CL CL GRAY COLOR SHOWS AREA WITH 7' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT: 1335 SF GARAGE (N) ADDITION HABITABLE SPACE UNDER DORMER - 162 SF (N) SKYLIGHT (N) SKYLIGHT (E) CRAWL SPACE (E) GAP IN CONCRETE WALL -VIF (E) LOWER LEVEL (E) STORAGE NOTE: CEILING HEIGHT AT BASEMENT IS LESS THAN 7' - 0" CL (E) BEDROOM (E) BATHROOM CL (E) BEDROOM(E) HALLWAYCL (E) ENTRY FOYER (E) DINING (E) KITCHEN (E) ROOM (E) DECK (E) GARAGE (E) ENTRY PORCH (E) LIVING ROOM (E) HALLWAYVIF-(E) FLOOR TO BE DEMOLISHED TO CREATE HEADROOM FOR (N) STAIR FROM 1ST FLOOR TO BASEMENT GRAY COLOR SHOWS AREA WITH 7' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT: 1ST FLOOR - 1619 SF GARAGE - 314 SF (E) BATHROOM (E) ATTIC (E) TOP LANDING (E) BEDROOM CL (E) SPACE (E) BEDROOM (E) CLOSET (E) BEDROOM GRAY COLOR SHOWS AREA WITH 7' - 0" CLEAR HEIGHT: 1068 SF (E) HABITABLE SPACE UNDER DORMER - 81 SF No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING & PROPOSED FAR CALCULATIONS A2-00.00 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1/8" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"3 PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"4 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"5 (E) LOWER LEVEL PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"6 (E) 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"7 (E) 2ND FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"8 (E) ROOF PLAN MAXIMUM ALLOWED FAR = 3366 SF {(0.32 X 6100 SF) + 1100 SF + 314 SF GARAGE} EXISTING FAR = 1619 SF 1ST FLOOR + 1068 SF 2ND FLOOR + 314 SF GARAGE = 3001 SF MAXIMUM ALLOWED FAR = 3366 SF {(0.32 X 6100 SF) + 1100 SF + 314 SF GARAGE} PROPOSED FAR = 1619 SF 1ST FLOOR + 1335 SF 2ND FLOOR + 314 SF GARAGE = 3268 SF NNo. Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 DN DN UP DN UP A2-01.3 1 A2-01.41 DINING KITCHEN CL STUDY LIVING0' - 6"18' - 2 1/8"5' - 0"(E) GARAGE 17' - 3 9/32" A2-01.2 3 FAMILY 12' - 1" 7' - 3 1/2"3' - 3"CL 12' - 0 1/4"4' - 2"8' - 0"(N) WINDOW (E) WINDOWS TO BE MOVED OVER / CENTERED IN ROOM 1' - 0"10' - 0" 3' - 6 3/4"20' - 2 1/2"0' - 5"6' - 5"5' - 6 1/2"9' - 10 1/2" 9' - 8 1/4"10' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"9' - 10 1/4"3' - 8 1/2"3' - 8"2' - 8"3' - 8 1/2"PANTRY BATH ROOM 1' 0" DEEP BUILT IN CABINET (N) STAIR TO REPLACE (E) ALIGN 3' - 6 3/4"0' - 5" 4' - 0" 0' - 5" 5' - 2"2' - 0"0' - 5"7' - 6"13' - 6 1/2"3' - 3"11' - 1 1/2" 3' - 3 3/4"4' - 5"1 A3-00 2 A3-00 3 A3-00 NEW INFILL FLOOR 4' - 11"LANDING2' - 6"5' - 1"5' - 1"1' - 5"2' - 6" 0' - 1"2' - 11 7/8"5' - 6" 1' - 8 1/16"2' - 2 5/8"26' - 5 5/8"UP MAIN ENTRY (E) DECK (E) DRIVE WAY9' - 0" RESCUE WINDOW 6 EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN NEW WALLS WALL LEGEND A2-01.3 1 A2-01.41 1 A3-00 2 A3-00 3 A3-00 NEW STAIR -VIF NEW WALL AT EXISTING CRAWL SPACE -VIF EXCAVATION MAY BE REQUIRED FOR HEADROOM CLEARANCE -VIF (E) CMU WALL -VIF (E0 LOWER LEVEL -VIF (E) STORAGE (E) CRAWL SPACEALIGN 6' - 6" - VIF4' - 8"6' - 6" - VIFVIF 0' - 10 31/32" VIF 3' - 9 15/16" WINDOW GENERAL NOTES:• PER CBC 2022 -SECTION R310.2, EMERGENCY ESCAPE RESCUE OPENINGS TO HAVE MINIMUM 5.7 SQUARE FEET OPENING, WITH MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT SHALL BE 24 INCHES AND MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING WIDTH SHALL BE 20 INCHES. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAT 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FINISH FLOOR LEVEL. No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL & 1ST FLOOR PLANS A2-00.1 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED LOWER LEVEL PLAN NNo.Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 6 Response to Plan Check Comments Received on 11-07-23 12-13-2023 DN A2-01.3 1 A2-01.41 A2-01.2 3 (E) GARAGE NEW DORMER ROOF - ROOFING TO MATCH EXISTING 1 A3-00 2 A3-00 3 A3-00 (N) SKYLIGHT (N) SKYLIGHT A2-01.3 1 A2-01.41 A2-01.2 3 (E) PRIMARY BEDROOM (N) BEDROOM (N) BATHROOM (N) BEDROOM (N) PRIMARY BATH (N) CLOSET(N) CLOSET (E) GARAGE 14' - 7 3/4" W (N) WASHER / DRYER SIDE BY SIDE UNITS D 6' - 6"3' - 0"7' - 0 3/4"11' - 8"4' - 11"4' - 11"11' - 8" - VIF2' - 0"5' - 0"0' - 5"9' - 5"3' - 0"3' - 0"2' - 6"3' - 0"(E) OPEN SPACE TO REMAIN 1' - 6"5' - 2 1/2" 10' - 3" (N) BATHROOM 3' - 8 3/4" 4' - 4 3/4" (N) CLOSET (E) BEDROOM14' - 8 1/2"6' - 0"1' - 11"3' - 1"9' - 6 1/2"1 A3-00 2 A3-00 3 A3-00 CLOSETNEW LAUNDRY CL CL EQ EQ SKYLIGHT ABOVE CENTER ON WINDOW SKYLIGHT ABOVE CENTER ON WINDOW 2' - 11 15/16" 1' - 0" 0' - 5"EQEQRESCUE WINDOW 6 RESCUE WINDOW 6 RESCUE WINDOW 6 RESCUE WINDOW6 EQ EQ EXISTING WALLS TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING WALLS TO REMAIN NEW WALLS WALL LEGEND WINDOW GENERAL NOTES:• PER CBC 2022 -SECTION R310.2, EMERGENCY ESCAPE RESCUE OPENINGS TO HAVE MINIMUM 5.7 SQUARE FEET OPENING, WITH MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT SHALL BE 24 INCHES AND MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING WIDTH SHALL BE 20 INCHES. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAT 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FINISH FLOOR LEVEL. No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR & ROOF PLAN A2-00.2 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 1/4" = 1'-0"2 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"1 PROPOSED 21ND FLOOR PLAN NNo.Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 6 Response to Plan Check Comments Received on 11-07-23 12-13-2023 1st Floor0' -0"2nd Floor9' -3 3/4"Ceiling17' -5 3/4"Top of Roof24' -0 3/8"Deck Level-0' -7 3/4"Lower Deck-3' -11 3/4"Lower Level-6' -10 7/8"(N) SKYLIGHT(N) DORMER ROOF TO HAVE SIMILAR ROOF FINISH AS EXISTING -VIFPLPL6' - 11"ABOVE FFL7' - 6"AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE128' -11"4' - 11"AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE131' -1 5/16"12' - 0"45.00°7' - 5"PLPLHEIGHT LIMIT150' -0"HEIGHT LIMIT150' -0"DECREASING HEIGHT ENVELOPEDECREASING HEIGHT ENVELOPE2' - 0"ADJACENT PROPERTYADJACENT PROPERTY14' - 0"4 5 .0 0 °(N) DORMER TO HAVE SIMILAR WOOD LAP SIDING FINISH AS EXISTING -VIFNEW WOOD SIDING, PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING 20" CLR.24" CLR.RESCUE WINDOW6ALIGNALIGNNEW WOOD WINDOWS & WOOD TRIM, PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING -VIFEXISTING WOOD SIDING PAINTED1st Floor0' -0"2nd Floor9' -3 3/4"Ceiling17' -5 3/4"Top of Roof24' -0 3/8"Deck Level-0' -7 3/4"Lower Deck-3' -11 3/4"Lower Level-6' -10 7/8"PLPLEXISTING DORMERADJACENT PROPERTYADJACENT PROPERTY WINDOW GENERAL NOTES:• PER CBC 2022 -SECTION R310.2, EMERGENCY ESCAPE RESCUE OPENINGS TO HAVE MINIMUM 5.7 SQUARE FEET OPENING, WITH MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT SHALL BE 24 INCHES AND MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING WIDTH SHALL BE 20 INCHES. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAT 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FINISH FLOOR LEVEL.No.C 25678REN.LICENSEDARCHITEC T S T A T E OFCALIFORNIAALBERTCOST A 5/25Scale:Date:Description:Sheet Number:Job Number:All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024.STAMPSAs indicatedEAST ELEVATION-EXISTING &PROPOSEDA2-01.21427 Montero Ave.150501427 Montero AveBurlingame, CA04-18-20243/16" = 1'-0"3East - PROPOSED - PERMIT3/16" = 1'-0"1EAST ELEVATION - EXISTINGNo. Issue Date3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-20236 Response to Plan CheckComments Received on11-07-2312-13-2023 1st Floor0' -0"2nd Floor9' -3 3/4"Ceiling17' -5 3/4"Top of Roof24' -0 3/8"Deck Level-0' -7 3/4"Lower Deck-3' -11 3/4"Lower Level-6' -10 7/8"(N) SKYLIGHT(N) DORMER ROOF1' - 11 7/8"PLPL1 3/8" / 1'-0"8" / 1'-0"15' - 0"15' - 0"EXISTING GRADE128' -7 1/2"EXISTING GRADE133' -7 1/8"EQEQAVERAGE EXISTING GRADE131' -1 5/16"4' - 11"EXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING CURBMONTERO AVE.(N) DORMER WOOD SIDING, PAINTEDTO MATCH EXISTING24" CLR.20" CLR.RESCUE WINDOW6(E) WOOD SIDING, PAINTED1st Floor0' -0"2nd Floor9' -3 3/4"Ceiling17' -5 3/4"Top of Roof24' -0 3/8"Deck Level-0' -7 3/4"Lower Deck-3' -11 3/4"Lower Level-6' -10 7/8"PLPLEXISTING DORMEREXISTING SIDEWALKEXISTING CURBMONTERO AVE.8" / 1'-0" WINDOW GENERAL NOTES:• PER CBC 2022 -SECTION R310.2, EMERGENCY ESCAPE RESCUE OPENINGS TO HAVE MINIMUM 5.7 SQUARE FEET OPENING, WITH MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT SHALL BE 24 INCHES AND MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING WIDTH SHALL BE 20 INCHES. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAT 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FINISH FLOOR LEVEL.No.C 25678REN.LICENSEDARCHITEC T S T A T E OFCALIFORNIAALBERTCOST A 5/25Scale:Date:Description:Sheet Number:Job Number:All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024.STAMPSAs indicatedNORTHELEVATION -EXISTING &PROPOSEDA2-01.31427 Montero Ave.150501427 Montero AveBurlingame, CA04-18-20243/16" = 1'-0"1NORTH ELEVATION - PROPOSED - PERMIT3/16" = 1'-0"2NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTINGNo. Issue Date6 Response to Plan CheckComments Received on11-07-2312-13-2023 1st Floor0' -0"2nd Floor9' -3 3/4"Ceiling17' -5 3/4"Top of Roof24' -0 3/8"Deck Level-0' -7 3/4"Lower Deck-3' -11 3/4"Lower Level-6' -10 7/8"PLPLFRONT YARD SETBACK15' - 0"EXISTING GRADE124' -0"REAR YARD SET BACK15' - 0"EXISTING GRADE133' -8"AVERAGE EXISTING GRADE: 128' -11"EQEQEXISTING THRESHOLD: 128.99'EXISTING RIDGE : 161.5'6' - 11"EXISTING SIDE WALKEXISTING CURBMONTERO AVE.1 3/8" / 1'-0"8" / 1'-0"NEW SKYLIGHTNEW DORMER WITH WOOD SIDING, PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTINGNEW REPLACED WINDOWS TO MATCH EXISTING OLD WINDOWS -TYPICAL24" CLR.20" CLR.RESCUE WINDOW24" CLR.20" CLR.RESCUEWINDOW66NEW WOOD WINDOW & WOOD TRIM, PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTINGNEW WOOD WINDOW & WOOD TRIM, PAINTED TO MATCH EXISTING,TYP. FOR ALL NEW WINDOWS1st Floor0' -0"2nd Floor9' -3 3/4"Ceiling17' -5 3/4"Top of Roof24' -0 3/8"Deck Level-0' -7 3/4"Lower Deck-3' -11 3/4"Lower Level-6' -10 7/8"PLPLEXISTING SIDE WALKEXISTING CURBMONTERO AVE.EXISTING DORMEREXISTING GRADE124' -0"EXISTING GRADE133' -8"EXISTING THRESHOLD: 128.99'EXISTING RIDGE : 161.5' WINDOW GENERAL NOTES:• PER CBC 2022 -SECTION R310.2, EMERGENCY ESCAPE RESCUE OPENINGS TO HAVE MINIMUM 5.7 SQUARE FEET OPENING, WITH MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT SHALL BE 24 INCHES AND MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING WIDTH SHALL BE 20 INCHES. EMERGENCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE OPENINGS SHALL HAVE THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING NOT GREATER THAT 44 INCHES MEASURED FROM THE FINISH FLOOR LEVEL.No.C 25678REN.LICENSEDARCHITEC T S T A T E OFCALIFORNIAALBERTCOST A 5/25Scale:Date:Description:Sheet Number:Job Number:All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024.STAMPSAs indicatedSOUTHELEVATION -EXISTING &PROPOSEDA2-01.41427 Montero Ave.150501427 Montero AveBurlingame, CA04-18-20243/16" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION3/16" = 1'-0"2SOUTH ELEVATION - EXISTINGNo. Issue Date6 Response to Plan CheckComments Received on11-07-2312-13-2023 1st Floor 0' -0" 2nd Floor 9' -3 3/4" Ceiling 17' -5 3/4" Top of Roof 24' -0 3/8" Deck Level -0' -7 3/4" Lower Deck -3' -11 3/4" Lower Level -6' -10 7/8"0' - 7 7/16"0' - 11" NEW INFILL FLOOR FOR STAIR TO BASEMENT -VIF 2' - 0" (N) SKYLIGHT (N) DORMER ROOF 6' - 6 3/8" - VIF6' - 0 3/8" - VIF6' - 10 7/8" - VIF7' - 4 7/8" - VIF0' - 7 17/32"0' - 11"(E) ROOF RIDGE TO GRADE HT. PER SURVEY30' - 0"(E) ROOF RIDGE TO GRADE AT PROPERTY LINE38' - 0"PROPERTY LINE EXISTING SIDEWALK EXISTING SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE EXISTING CURB MONTERO AVENUE 8 " / 1 '-0 "TO TOP OF NEW DORMER ROOF35' - 0"PL PLFFL TO FFL9' - 4"FFL TO FFL6' - 11"1 3 /8 " / 1 '-0 " 1st Floor 0' -0" 2nd Floor 9' -3 3/4" Ceiling 17' -5 3/4" Top of Roof 24' -0 3/8" Lower Deck -3' -11 3/4" Lower Level -6' -10 7/8"8' - 2"PL FFL TO FFL9' - 4"FFL TO FFL6' - 11"1st Floor 0' -0" 2nd Floor 9' -3 3/4" Ceiling 17' -5 3/4" Top of Roof 24' -0 3/8" Deck Level -0' -7 3/4" Lower Deck -3' -11 3/4" Lower Level -6' -10 7/8"8' - 2"8' - 5 1/4"PLFFL TO FFL6' - 11"FFL - TO FFL9' - 4"No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS As indicated SECTIONS A3-00 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 3/16" = 1'-0"1 Section 4 1/4" = 1'-0"2 Section 5 1/4" = 1'-0"3 Section 6 No.Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS TITLE 24 A4-00 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 No. Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS TITLE 24 A4-01 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 No. Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS TITLE 24 A4-02 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 No. Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 No.C 25678 REN.LICE NSE D AR C HIT E CTSTATE OF C A L I F ORNIAALBERTCOS T A5/25 Scale: Date: Description: Sheet Number: Job Number: All drawings and written material appearing herein constitute original and unpublished work of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. and may not be duplicated without the prior written consent of Costa Brown Architecture, Inc. © 2024. STAMPS TITLE 24 A4-03 1427 Montero Ave. 15050 1427 Montero Ave Burlingame, CA 04-10-2024 No. Issue Date 3 ISSUED FOR REVIEW 07-14-2023 N City of Burlingame Amendment to Design Review Address: 34 Dwight Road Meeting Date: April 22, 2024 Request: Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved first and second story addition to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. Applicant and Designer: Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conception Designs, Inc. APN: 029-301-230 Property Owners: Piotr Gorski and Suzan Nguyen Lot Area: 5,834 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that additions to existing structures are exempt from environmental review, provided the addition would not result in an increase of more than 50% of the floor area of the structures before the addition. History and Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage at 34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2022 (see attached July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). A building permit was approved on July 31, 2023, but it has not yet been issued. The deadline to have the building permit issued without an extension request is July 21, 2024. The property owners decided to make some modifications to their approved plans and submitted an FYI application, which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 25, 2024. The Commission called this FYI up for further review and requested that this project be reviewed as a Design Review Amendment at a public hearing. The Planning Commission held a hearing for this action item on April 8, 2024. The Commission requested several revisions to the proposal and continued the action item (see attached April 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes). The owners are requesting exterior revisions to the approved plans. No revisions are proposed to the approved floor plans and site landscaping. Please see the applicant’s explanation letter, date April 11, 2024, for the two changes made to the plans in response to the April 8, 2024, Planning Commission comments (see attachments): • Number of grids/divided lites reduced on the doors and windows at each elevation (proposed windows remain aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites); • Decorative vents added at gables at front and rear elevations; • Garage door design revised (proposed door is solid wood); • Porch entry, front door, and right side window on front elevation revised from an arch top design to right- angle design; • Wood trim and smooth paneling added at gable pop-outs on rear and left elevations; • Steel railings at the rear elevation instead of wrought iron and railings eliminated at front entry; • 2 x 10 wood belly band with 2-inch water table added at second floor cantilever on rear elevation; and • Decorative steel awning added above doors on rear elevation. Description of Previously Approved Project: The subject property is an interior lot containing an existing split-level house with an attached garage. The approved project included a single-story addition along the right side of the house and a two-story addition at the rear, left side of the house. The project also included replacing all of the existing windows in the house with aluminum clad wood windows with simulated true divided lites and reconfiguring the front entry. With the additions, the total floor area increased from 2,643 SF (0.45 FAR) to 2,959 SF (0.51 FAR) where 2,967 SF (0.51 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). Item No. 9a Regular Action Item Amendment to Design Review 34 Dwight Road 2 The total number of bedrooms increased from three to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The existing attached garage provides the required covered parking space (12'-1” x 18'-6” clear interior dimensions, where 9’ x 18’ is required for an existing garage) and there is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements were met. The following application was approved by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2022:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)). The development table below provides information on the originally approved project; there are no changes proposed with this Amendment application. 34 Dwight Road Lot Area: 5,834 SF EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED 0BSETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 14'-3½” ¹ 23'-2½” No change No change 15'-0" 20'-0” Side (left): (right): 4'-7½” 3'-0” ¹ 7’-3½” to addition 4’-0” to addition 4'-0” 4'-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 37'-0” 48'-10” 41’-8½” 41'-8½” 15'-0” 20'-0” Lot Coverage: 2,126 SF 36% 2,281 SF 39% 2,334 SF 40% FAR: 2,643 SF 0.45 FAR 2,959 SF 0.51 FAR 2,967 SF ² 0.51 FAR # of bedrooms: 3 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (12’-1" x 18’-6”) uncovered (9' x 18') No change 1 covered (10' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Building Height: 23'-7” No change 30'-0" Plate Height: 8’-4” on 1st flr ³ 8’-4” on 2nd flr 9’-0” at 1st flr addition 8’-4” at 2nd flr addition 4 9’-0” on 1st flr 8’-0” on 2nd flr Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.055(A)(1) ¹ Existing nonconforming front and right side setbacks. ² (0.32 x 5,834 SF) + 1100 SF = 2,967 SF (0.51 FAR). ³ 1st floor plate height on existing house varies; majority is at 8’-4”. 4 Special Permit not required for second floor additions where plate height of addition matches the existing plate height up to 8’-6” above finished floor. Amendment to Design Review 34 Dwight Road 3 Summary of Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood front door and wood garage door • Siding: cement plaster • Roof: asphalt shingle • Other: wood corbels, steel guardrails, wide wood casing with smooth panel finish at second floor overhangs Staff Comments: None. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the 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 Amendment to Design Review: That the traditional massing and rooflines of the structure are compatible with the proposed contemporary architectural details (such as the right-angle porch opening and no-grid windows) and that this blend of styles retains the aesthetic of the existing two-story house while incorporating compatibility with newer houses and remodels in the surrounding neighborhood; that materials such as the casing at the second floor bay windows and simplified grid windows are repeated throughout the elevations to create a consistent style; and that the proposed additions are designed to blend with the original split-level massing of the house. For these reasons, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City’s five design review criteria. This space intentionally left blank. Amendment to Design Review 34 Dwight Road 4 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission’s decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 28, 2024, sheets A.4 through A.8, June 1, 2022, sheets T1.0 through A.0, and AD.2, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and sheets SP1, A1, and A7 date stamped June 24, 2022; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 5. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 7. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 8. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, in effect at time of building permit submittal, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 10. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; Amendment to Design Review 34 Dwight Road 5 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to 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. Erika Lewit Senior Planner c. Jesse Guerse, applicant and designer Peter Giorski, property owner Attachments: April 8, 2024 and July 11, 2022 Planning Commission Minutes Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated April 11, 2024 Planning Commission Resolution (proposed) Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed April 12, 2024 Area Map BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, April 8, 2024 c.34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Amendment to Design Review for proposed changes to a previously approved project 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 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (66 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 34 Dwight Rd - Staff Report 34 Dwight Rd - Attachments 34 Dwight Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, and Peter Gorski and Susan Nguyen, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Make sure there is enough space between the top of the front entry door and the angled recessed entry. >The angled recessed entry appears to be missing some lines on the front elevation; correct drafting errors on the elevations. >Consider using the same wood trim detail on the second floor cantilevered element on the rear elevation on the cantilevered element on the left side of the house for a more consistent look. >I prefer some things in the prior design. I don ’t think we should be designing for all the neighbors. We have a house with three different designs. You must be really careful. It’s nice to respect neighbors as much as you can, but adding or taking away window grids does nothing to a neighbor. I don ’t think it is busy, I personally like the three grids. Whatever style you choose, you need to be consistent and do it on all sides. With the way it is presented, it looks like you didn ’t get around to replacing the windows on one side of your house or the other three sides. The house is supposed to be whole even though we are mainly seeing only one side. There needs to be consistency all the way around. >I agree. I find all the changes to be cost -saving measures. I understand that as a contractor, it is a huge reduction in cost. Unfortunately, with it comes some looks. I also like the design as it was before, Page 1City of Burlingame April 8, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes but it is fine the way it is now. I believe this design solution happened because it has become expensive to build. The beautiful arch window in the front is very expensive to build. An arched doorway with a beautiful cascading entry way looks great and is very expensive to build. The new design is not deplorable, but not as nice as the first one. I would be fine moving it forward. That is probably why this item was pulled from the last meeting, because it is drastically different. >I like the original design better. This project will look flat, which is unfortunately what a lot of the existing houses have now. It is flat with aluminum windows and not a whole lot of depth to the design. The entry is important and maybe getting the chamfer there will help. It seems that everything else is going flat and simple. I don ’t think it is making the house look better. I can appreciate the changes and the desire of the owners. I don’t necessarily oppose it, it’s just not better. >If this project comes before me today, not knowing what the first design was, would I approve this project? I think we are almost there. Having said that, something needs to be done on the left side elevation. I also agree with the comments made about the window grids. If you are going to do grids, do them all around. Other than that, I can see moving this project forward. >I wanted to thank the applicants for bringing this to our attention now rather than later when the house is constructed. Vice-Chair Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to continue the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - Page 2City of Burlingame BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, July 11, 2022 a.34 Dwight Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, Inc ., applicant and designer; Peter Gorski and Suzanne Nguyen, property owners) (130 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I don't see any changes made. Both the doors and windows on the rear elevations, the lowest ones on the right-hand side, still appeared to be very oversized. >I really enjoy the design. I like the two -tone of the older bungalow where you can see the entry way and the way you have designed that is beautiful, thank you for that. >I like this project. The last time it was in front of us, I liked the adaptive reuse of the split -level house that was there. I like the height of it and the whole thing is working nicely in that space. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. I like the design and the designer has done a nice job. I like the architecture, it fits into the neighborhood very nicely. >I agree with what my fellow commissioners said. >It's a good job working with split level home which is typically difficult to make of it, this looks real nice. >I wanted to echo what my fellow commissioners said and would like to thank the designer for addressing the header heights and the window below the bay window on the lower floor, I appreciate that. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Absent:Horan1 - Page 1City of Burlingame City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š (650) 558-7250 Š planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post plans submitted with this application on the City’s website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. _________ (Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Property Owner Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: E-mail: E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #:* Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION MAR 11, 2024 34 Dwight Road Peter Gorski piotr.gorski@gmail.com Jesse Geurse 650-703-6197 jgeurse@gmail.com Peter Gorski 650-784-5626 piotr.gorski@gmail.com 22811 3-4-2024 3-4-2024 jg 029301230 R-1 34 Dwight Road Burlingame, California 94010 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 ✔ ✔ 34 Dwight Road Burlingame, California 94010 Request for exterior alterations for previously approved plans by planning and planning commission Geurse Conceptual Designs, Inc. 405 Bayswater Avenue Burlingame, California 94010 April 9, 2024 City of Burlingame attn: Erika Lewitt 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 re: FYI-1 for misc. revisions to the residence located at 34 Dwight Road for planning and planning commission review and approval. Dear Members of the City of Burlingame Planning and members of the Planning Commission, Please find attached plans addressing planning commissioners concern’s at the planning commission hearing on 4-8-2024 We had taken your comments to heart and revised the elevations per your recommendations. Please find attached revised FYI-1, pc-2. We ask the planning commission’s approval for the following FYI’s. Please see attached 12”x18” originally approved plans and requested FYI-1, pc-2 plans all explanation for changes as follows: Commissioners comment: add additional horizontal grid to all windows to be consistent with window design. GCD Response: Please see attached elevations for grids to match all windows. Commissioners comment: add casing to side bay window on leftside elevation to match rear in style and design. GCD Response: Please see attached elevations leftside elevation for additional casing. corative Thank you for your attention regarding this project. Should you have additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at 650.703.6197 Sincerely, Jesse Geurse Principal Secretary RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Amendment to Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing two-story single-unit dwelling at 34 Dwight Rd, zoned R-1, Piotr Gorski and Suzan Nguyen, property owners, APN: 029-301-230; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 22, 2024, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15301(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, is hereby approved. 2. Said Amendment to Design Review is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Findings for such Amendment to Design Review are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of April, 2024 by the following vote: EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review 34 Dwight Road Effective May 2, 2024 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 11, 2024, sheets A.4 through A.8, June 1, 2022, sheets T1.0 through A.0, and AD.2, and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and sheets SP1, A1, and A7 date stamped June 24, 2022; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 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, EXHIBIT “A” Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Amendment to Design Review 34 Dwight Road Effective May 2, 2024 that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; Page 2 11. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to 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. 34 Dwight Road 300’ noticing APN: 029-301-230 City of Burlingame Special Permit Address: 1148 Bernal Avenue Meeting Date: April 22, 2024 Request: Application for Special Permit for a new second story balcony addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Tim Raduenz, Form One Design APN: 026-182-230 Property Owners: Stefan and Seoyoung Fischer Lot Area: 6,004 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing two-story single-unit dwelling. Staff would note that a separate ADU Permit and building permit has been issued for the new detached ADU in the rear yard, the interior JADU on the first floor, and the first floor addition at the rear of the house (shown on the plans). With this application, there would be no increase in the floor area since the uncovered balcony is not counted in floor area (3,001 SF existing (includes first floor addition noted above) where 3,021 SF is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption)). With this application, the applicant is proposing a new second story uncovered balcony at the front of the dwelling. The second story balcony would be located above a covered patio. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for the proposed 68 SF second story balcony (Special Permit required for any second story balcony; 75 SF maximum allowed). The proposed balcony meets the setback requirements for a second story balcony, including declining height envelope and the minimum horizontal setback of twice the distance of the required side setback (13’-1½” proposed where 8’-0” is the minimum required). There are two existing trees on-site. The proposed site plan shows two new Crepe Myrtle trees to be planted in the rear yard. In addition to the existing trees to remain, the Parks Division is requiring that two new landscape trees be planted to comply with the Tree Reforestation Ordinance requirements. The existing street tree in front of this site will remain. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Special Permit for a new second story balcony addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (68 SF proposed where up to 75 SF is allowed with a Special Permit) (C.S. 25.10.035(7)). This space intentionally left blank. Item No. 10a Design Review Study Item Special Permit 1148 Bernal Avenue -2- 1148 Bernal Avenue Lot Area: 6,004 SF Plans date stamped: April 10, 2024 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/ REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 19’-4” 26’-5” 19’-4” 20’-0” 18’-9” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 4’-5” 9’-5” no change 13’-1½” to second floor balcony 4'-0" 8’-0” to second floor balcony Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 44’-5” 56’-4” no change no change 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,607 SF 27% no change 2,402 SF 40% FAR: 3,001 SF 0.50 FAR no change 3,021 1 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 5 no change --- Off Street Parking: 1 uncovered (9' x 18') no change 0 covered 2 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: 8’-4” on 1st floor 8’-6” on 2nd floor no change 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Second Floor Balcony: --- 68 SF ² 75 SF Building Height: 25’-11” no change 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies complies C.S. 25.10.035(2) 1 (0.32 x 6,004 SF) + 1100 SF = 3,021 SF maximum allowed (0.50 FAR). 2 Because the existing garage is being converted into an ADU under a separate building permit, the covered parking spaces are not required to be replaced (C.S. 25.48.030 (L)(5)). 3 Special Permit for second floor balcony (68 SF proposed, where 75 SF is the maximum allowed). Staff Comments: None. Required Findings for a Special Permit: Any decision to approve a Special Permit application in the R-1 zoning district pursuant to Chapter 25.78 shall be supported by written findings. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The blend of mass, scale, and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the well-defined character of the street and neighborhood; Special Permit 1148 Bernal Avenue -3- 2. The variety of roof line, façade, exterior finish materials, and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street, and neighborhood; 3. The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City; and 4. Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements, and that the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is consistent with established City policies and practices. Brittany Xiao Assistant Planner c. Stefan and Seoyoung Fischer, applicants and property owners Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Application Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed April 12, 2024 Area Map City of Burlingame  Community Development Department  501 Primrose Road  (650) 558-7250  planningdept@burlingame.org Authorization to Reproduce Project Plans: I hereby grant the City of Burlingame the authority to post plans submitted with this application on the City’s website as part of the Planning approval process and waive any claims against the City arising out of or related to such action. _________ (Initials of Architect/Designer) Project Application - Planning Division Type of Application: Accessory Dwelling Unit Conditional Use/Minor Use Permit Design Review Hillside Area Construction Permit Minor Modification Special Permit Variance Other Project Address: Assessor’s Parcel #: Zoning: Project Description: Applicant Property Owner Name: Name: Address: Address: Phone: Phone: E-mail:E-mail: Architect/Designer Name: Address: Phone: E-mail: Burlingame Business License #:* Architect/Designer must have a valid Burlingame Business License. Applicant: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant’s signature: Date: Property Owner: I am aware of the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Division. Property owner’s signature: Date: Date Application Received (staff only): 12-12-23 12.18.23 City of Burlingame Š Community Development Department Š 501 Primrose Road Š P (650) 558-7250 Š www.burlingame.org City of Burlingame Special Permit Application (R-1 and R-2) The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City’s Ordinance (Chapter 25.78). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Refer to the end of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the City’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. At 1148 Bernal, the existing mass and scale will remain but we will be completing the existing facade and completing the mix mash of architectural design to be more (contemporay) which is was in the begininng as I would expect it should have been. We will give the house a few small details to turn it back into what it should have been in the first place a contemporay design. There are many styles of homes on this block and it will work nicely with all the styles. The 2nd floor deck comes off the existing master bedroom, so its a nice addition to the house itself, it is more private for the other neigbhors as its not located on the rear part of the home, the deck will be a seldom used area to sit out side in the mornings or for a few minutes a day. We are just simply existing the existing roof line off the entry and creating a more horizontal line to help with getting a front covered porch as well, to help with the street presence, and to have 2 or 3 spots for chairs so to keep the neigbhorhood feel in tack, which it is currently lacking. We are adding the covered front deck / patio space to conform more with the residental design guidelines! its a more inviting home! then it was before. NA, no trees will removed for this project. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure’s design and with the existing street and neighborhood. How will the proposed structure or addition affect neighboring properties or structures on those properties? If neighboring properties will not be affected, state why. Compare the proposed addition to the mass, scale and characteristics of neighboring properties. Think about mass and bulk, landscaping, sunlight/shade, views from neighboring properties. Neighboring properties and structures include those to the right, left, rear and across the street. How does the proposed structure compare to neighboring structures in terms of mass or bulk? If there is no change to the structure, say so. If a new structure is proposed, compare its size, appearance, orientation etc. with other structures in the neighborhood or area. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. How does the proposed structure or use compare aesthetically with structures or uses in the existing neighborhood? If it does not affect aesthetics, state why. Was the addition designed to match existing architecture and/or pattern of development on adjacent properties in the neighborhood? Explain why your proposal fits in the neighborhood. How will the structure or addition change the character of the neighborhood? Think of character as the image or tone established by size, density of development and general pattern of land use. If you don’t feel the character of the neighborhood will change, state why. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the City? Following are the design criteria adopted by the City Council for residential design review. How does your project meet these guidelines? 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city’s reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Will any trees be removed as a result of this proposal? If so, explain what type of trees will be removed and if any are protected under city ordinance (C.S. 11.06), why it is necessary to remove the trees, and what is being proposed to replace any trees being removed. If no trees are to be removed, say so. 1148 Bernal Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-182-230 See DetailsTitle Page T1.0APPLICABLE CODESREFERENCE SYMBOLSBUILDING DATACONSULTANTSDESIGNER FORM + ONE DESIGN CONTACT: TIM RADUENZ 4843 SILVER SPRINGS DR. PARK CITY, UT. 84098 E: tim@formonedesign.com P: 415.819.0304OWNER FISCHER + KIM 1148 BERNAL, AVENUE BURLIGAME, CA. 94010STRUCTURAL ENGINEER SUNG ENGINEERING 29300 KOHOUTEK WAY UNION CITY, CA. 94587 P: 510.475.7900STEFAN FISCHER + SEOYOUNG KIM1148 BERNAL AVENUESPECIAL PERMIT (2ND FLR DECK)BURLINGAME, CA. 94010T1.0GNSW1ARFAR1OF1A1.0ELEVAB2.0A2.0A2.1A2.2A3.0A3.1A3.2A3.3TITLE PAGEGENERAL NOTESBEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICESARBORIST REPORTFLOOR AREA CALC.TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYPROPOSED SITE PLANEXISTING / PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONSARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGSEXISTING + DEMO PLANS FIRST + SECOND FLRSPROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANPROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANEXISTING + PROPOSED ROOF PLANEXISTING + PROPOSED ELEVATIONSEXISTING + PROPOSED ELEVATIONS + SECTIONEXISTING + PROPOSED ELEVATIONSEXISTING + PROPOSED ELEVATIONSFIXTURE OR EQUIPMENT SYMBOL T.W. 12.0 T.P 15.6 T.C 14.0 78 92203BED RM.CDABSheet numberMATCH LINE, SHADED SIDE ISCONSIDEREDNumber indicates color and / or materialEXISTING CONTOURSNEW OR FINISHED CONTOURSTOP OF PAVEMENTTOP OF WALLTOP OF CURBSETBACK LINEPROPERTY LINEREVISION SYMBOLSCloud around revisionWORK, CONTROL, OR DATUM POINTCOLOR / MATERIAL SYMBOLROOM REFERENCEEXT. DOOR & WINDOW SYMBOLIndicates door & window numberINTERIOR DOOR SYMBOLIndicates door numberRoom nameRoom numberNumber indicated elevation, wall sectionor detailBLDG & WALL SECTION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewLetter indicates building sectionSheet numberINTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewLetter indicates building elevationSheet numberDETAIL REFERENCENumber indicates wall sectionEXTERIOR ELEVATION REFERENCEArrow indicates direction of viewSheet numberTITLE SYMBOLSSheet numberGRID LINE REFERENCEEXTERIOR FINISHESWALL FINISH: (N) STUCCO PAINTED TO MATCH (E) HOUSE, 2"CEDAR SIDING AS ACCENT WALL FINISHROOF: (N) STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF OR ASPHALT SHINGLESTO MATCH (E)WINDOWS: (N) WOOD/CLAD WINDOWS FROM SIERRA PACIFIC OREQ. MATCH (E) DETAILSParticle Bd.Prefabricate(d)Plate (line)PlasterPlywoodPanel(ing)Paint(ed)PairPre CastPressure TreatedQuarry TileRiserRadiusReinforceRelocateRemoveRequiredResilentRough OpeingRedwoodSee Struct. Dwg.ShelfSheathingSimilarSealerSpecificationSquareStandardStainless SteelSuspendedSymmetricalTreadTowel BarTemperedTougue & GrooveThroughTop of SurfaceToilet PaperDispenserTypicalUnless OtherwiseNotedUnfinishedVerticalVert. GrainWhite BrothersWoodWindowWrought IronWith (out)WaterproofWater ResistantWainscotPBDPFBPLPLASPLYWDPNLPNTPRPRCSTPTQTRRADREINFRELOREMOREQDRESILRORWDSSDSHSHRSIMSLRSPECSQSLDS. STLSUSPSYMTTBTEMPT&GTHRUTOSTPDTYPUONMECHUNFVERTVGWBWDWDWWIW/OWPWRWSCT&d@CO#ABABVACACOUSADHADJAGGALAPAPXBDBELBLKBMBOTBRKBSBTWNCABCEMCERCICLGCLKGCLRCMUCNTRCOLCOMPOCONCCONNCONSTCONTCPTDBLDEMODFDIADIAGDNDRDSDRAEAELELECENCLEQEQPTEW(EX)AndPennyAngleAtCenter lineDia. or roundPerpendicularPound or No.Anchor BoltAboveAsphalt Conc.AcousticalAdhesiveAdjustableAggregrateAluminumAccess PanelApproximateBoardBelowBlock(ing)BeamBottomBrickBoth SidesBetweenCabinetCementCeramicCast IronCeilingCaulkingClearConc. Mas. UnitCounterColumnCompositionConcreteConnect(ion)ConstructionContinuousCarpetDoubleDemolishDouglas FirDiameterDiagonalDownDoorDown SpoutDrawerEachElevationElectricalEnclosureEqualEquipmentEach WayExistingEXHEXPEXPOEXTFBOFDNFINFLFLASHFLOURFLXFOCFOFFOXFOFPLFTGFURRFUTGAGALVGBGIGLGRGYPHBDHDHDRHWDHORINTINSULJSTJTLAMLTLVRMASMCMECHMEMBMFRMIRMNTMTLNICNTSO/OCOPNGOPPPPARExhaustExpansionExposedExteriorFurinshed byOwnerFoundationFinishFloor (line)FlashingFluorescentFlexiableFace of Conc.Face of Fin.Face of StudFinished OpeningFireplaceFootingFurringFutureGaugeGalvanizedGrab BarGrab IronGlass/GlazingGrade (Ground)GypsumHard BoardHeavy DutyHeaderHardwareHorizontalInteriorInsulationJoistJointLaminateLightLouverMasonryMedicine CabinetMechanicalMembraneManufacturerMirrorMount(ed)MetalNot inContractNot to ScaleOverOn CenterOpeningOppositePlasticParallelSHEET INDEXELECT/MECHSYMBOLSABBREVIATIONSBUILDING NOTES:-SCOPE OF WORK1. NEW 68 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR DECK OFF (E) MASTER BEDROOM, OVER NEW 136 SQ. FT. (103 SQ. FT. COVERED, 33 SQ. FT.UNCOVERED) PATIO BELOW.VICINITY MAPMATERIAL SYMBOLSDuplex convenience outlet & plateFloor convenience outletGFI duplex convenience outletFourplex outletDuplex conv. outlet, 1/2 hot, 1/2 switched220V amerage as per equipmentGFI/W.P. weatherproof outletFlush mounted floor & ceiling outletJunction boxTelevision outletTelephone outlet & plateFlood lightCeiling fixtureWall lightPorclein recepticle w/ pull chainIndirect cove lightingRecessed ceiling can lights4" recessed low voltage w/ directional trimRecessed ceiling lightWaterproof ceiling fan/light & plateRecessed waterproof exterior up lightSingle pole switch3 way switchSwitch w/ dimmerDoor activited switchMotion detectorTimer (switch)Vacancy sensor w/ dimmer "manual on"Vacancy sensor "manual on"Weatherproof switchCountertop air switchDoorbell pushbuttonChimeSmoke/Carbon detectorThermostatSpecial outletInstant start florescent lightLandscape lightElectrical panel boardExistingDelete existingReplace existingGas outletHose bibCeiling/floor supply registerCeiling/floor return registerWall diffuserT.V./Computer OutletCentral vacuum inletAutomatic garage door switchAlarm control keypadRE DEE 36" ETC CH T S C CSM S D 3S S FAN S JSSTSV/DSVSWP GFI220vWP G HB4 x 12 CDFD4 x 12 CDFDCvGASITEGravel / Rock fillPrecast concreteBituminous pavingPlywoodRigid insulationEarthWoodSteelStone VeneerConcrete BlockGypsum boardConcreteBrick VeneerBatt insulationMetal LathMarble / tileExisting constructionWood frame constructionMetalSand/ Mortar/ PlasterExisting construction removedGREEN BUILDING MEASURECONSTRUCTION HOURS1. NO PERSON SHALL ERECT (INCLUDING EXCAVATION AND GRADING), DEMOLISH, ALTEROR REPAIR ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE OTHER THAN BETWEEN THE HOURS OF EIGHTA.M. AND FIVE P.M. ON WEEKDAYS, TEN A.M. AND FIVE P.M. ON SATURDAYS, AND NOWORK ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS.CITY OF BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING form1. A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE NON- HAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION WASTER GENERATED AT THE SITE WILL BEDIVERTED TO AN OFFSITE RECYCLE, DIVERSION, OR SALVAGE FACILITY PER CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDINANCE + 2022 CGC §4.4082. AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE BUILDING OCCUPANT OR OWNER. 2022 CGC §4.410.13. UPON REQUEST, VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CODE MAY INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS,SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION, INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THEBUILDING DIVISION THAT WILL SHOW SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE 2022 CODE REQUIREMENT. 2022 CGC §703.14. AT TIME OF ROUGH INSTALLATION, DURING STORAGE ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND UNTIL FINAL STARTUP OF THEHEATING, COOLING & VENTILATING EQUIPMENT, ALL DUCT AND OTHER RELATED AIR DISTRIBUTION COMPONENTS OPENINGS WILLBE COVERED W/ TAPE, PLASTIC, SHEET METALS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO REDUCE THEAMOUNT OF WATER, DUST, OR DEBRIS THAT MAY ENTER THE SYSTEM. (CGC 4.504.1).CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE CHECKLIST: Single Family to be attached to jobsite building set2022 California Plumbing Code2022 California Mechanical Code2022 California Electric Code2022 California Energy Code 2022 California Fire Code2022 California Green Building Standards Code2022 California Residential Code2022 California Building Code(*) = BUILDING SUBMITTAL PAGESPLUMBING NOTES1. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE A SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM AT TIME OFINSPECTION AND ANY INSTALLATION PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK AND APPROVAL IS ATCONTRACTOR'S RISK.TITLE 24 RICK ROCKLEWITZ NRG COMPLIANCE INC. P.O. BOX 3777 SANTA ROSA, CA. 95402 P: 707.237.6957SURVEYOR L. WADE HAMMOND LAND SURVEYING 36660 NEWARD BLVD. STE. C NEWARK, CA. 94560 P: 510.579.6112DEFERRED SUBMITTALS1. -026-182-230LOT AREA:ZONING : R1USE OF BUILDING: RESIDENTIALOCCUPANCY: R3TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-BNUMBER OF (E) STORIES: 2NUMBER OF (N) STORIES: 2 (REMAINING) NO WORKNUMBER OF (E) DWELLINGS: 1PARKING: (E) 2-UNCOVERED(N) 2-COVEREDHOME SPRINKLERED: (E) YES SPRINKLERS APN #:6,004 SQ. FT.NUMBER OF (E) BEDROOMS : 4 (NO CHANGE)NUMBER OF (E) BATHROOMS: 3 (NO CHANGE) COMPLETE FAR:(E) 1ST FLOOR -(E) 2ND FLOOR -1,221 SQ. FT.1,391 SQ. FT.(N) 1ST FLOOR ADDITION* - 386 SQ. FT.TOTAL -2,998 SQ. FT.COMPLETE LOT COVERAGE:(E) 1ST FLOOR -TOTAL -1,221 SQ. FT.1,607 SQ. FT.(N) JADU CONVERSION* - 0 / 269 SQ. FT.(N) DETACHED ADU* -0 / 720 SQ. FT.(N) FRONT PATIO -0 / 136 SQ. FT.(N) 1ST FLOOR ADDITION* - 386 SQ. FT.MAX FAR -3,021 SQ. FT.MAX LOT COVERAGE -2,401 SQ. FT.DUE BEFORE ISSUANCE1. RECYCLING + WASTE REDUCTION FORM(CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PRIOR TO PERMITISSUANCE)2. SEWER BACKWATER PROTECTIONCERTIFICATE (CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PRIORTO PERMIT ISSUANCE)3. STORM WATER CONSTRUCTION POLLUTIONPREVENTION PERMIT (CONTRACTOR TO SUBMITPRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE)4. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL TEST(CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT PRIOR TO PERMITISSUANCE)5. A GRADING PERMIT (IF REQUIRED) WILL BEOBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKS PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE6. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WILL BEOBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICWORKS PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE*ALL AREAS MARKED AS (N) ARE UNDERSEPARATE PERMIT #B23-0838*ALL AREAS MARKED AS (N) ARE UNDERSEPARATE PERMIT #B23-0838 MECHANICAL NOTES:1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIAMECHANICAL CODE (CMC) AND ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL,STATE AND LOCAL CODES.2. MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR TO ACCEPT SOLERESPONSIBILITY FOR PROPER DESIGN AND INSTALLATIONOF MECHANICAL SYSTEM. SEE MECHANICAL DWGS. BYOTHER FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION.3. MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITHGENERAL CONTRACTOR TO DESIGN AND INSTALLSUITABLE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PER TITLE 24. MECH.CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY AND DETERMINE SIZE ANDCONFIGURATION OF DUCTS AND REGISTER. SEE SHEETINDEX FOR LOCATION OF TITLE 24 CONFORMANCEWORKSHEETS AND ENERGY COMPLIANCE NOTES WITHINTHIS SET. HVAC DUCTS LOCATED IN ATTIC SPACE SHALLBE PLACED AS CLOSE TO PERIMETER AS POSSIBLE SO ASNOT TO INTERFERE WITH USEABLE ATTIC STORAGESPACE.4. MECHANICAL LAYOUT SHOWN IS SCHEMATIC AND ISSHOWN FOR DESIGN INTENT ONLY.5. PROVIDE COMBUSTION AIR SUPPLY TO GAS FIREDAPPLIANCES BY COMBUSTION AIR DUCTS PER (CMC) &CPC. VERIFY DUCT SIZE WITH MANUFACTURER'SSPECIFICATIONS.6. FURNACES OR BOILERS SHALL BE INSTALLED PERMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL MEET THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE(CMC)7. PER CMC, COMBUSTION AIR DUCTS FROM THE ATTICSHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE UPPER AND LOWER 12INCHES OF THE ENCLOSURE. DUCTS SHALL BE SEPARATEAND SHALL NOT BE OBSTRUCTED.8. APPLIANCES DESIGNED TO BE FIXED IN POSITION SHALLBE SECURELY FASTENED IN PLACE. SUPPORTS FORAPPLIANCES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TOSUSTAIN VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOADS AS REQUIREDBY CMC. WATER HEATERS TO BE SECURED WITH AMINIMUM OF 2 STRAPS, ONE EACH TO BE LOCATED IN THEUPPER AND LOWER THIRD OF THE UNIT.9. UNDERCUT ALL INTERIOR DOORS (AS APPROPRIATE)FOR AIR RETURN CIRCULATION TO VENTS, TYPICAL OFINTERIOR CONDITIONED SPACES.10. VERIFY ALL FIXTURE LOCATIONS WITH OWNER PRIORTO INSTALLATION.11. ALL FIXTURES TO BE SELECTED (OR APPROVED) BYOWNER.12. EXHAUST FANS IN LAUNDRY AND BATHROOMS MUSTCONNECT DIRECTLY TO THE OUTSIDE AND PROVIDE AMINIMUM OF 5 AIR CHANGES PER HOUR. EXHAUST FANVENTS MUST TERMINATE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET FROM ANYOPENINGS INTO THE BUILDING AND BE PROVIDED WITHBACKDRAFT DAMPERS.13. AT NEW FORCED AIR FURNACE INSTALLATIONSPROVIDE 3' MIN. WORKING SPACE ALONG EACH SIDE (WITHA TOTAL OF AT LEAST 12" ON BOTH SIDES COMBINED),BACK AND TOP OF FURNACE.14. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS FOR ALL LISTEDEQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELDINSPECTOR AT TIME OF INSPECTION.PLUMBING NOTES:1. VERIFY ALL FIXTURE LOCATIONS WITH OWNER PRIORTO INSTALLATION.2. ALL FIXTURES TO BE SELECTED AND (OR APPROVED) BYOWNERS.3. ALL NEW WATER CLOSETS SHALL BE 1.28GALLON/FLUSH MAXIMUM.4. NO DISHWASHER MACHINE SHALL BE DIRECTLYCONNECTED TO A DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR FOOD DISPOSERWITHOUT THE USE OF AN APPROVED AIR GAP FITTING ONTHE DISCHARGE SIDE OF THE DISHWASHING MACHINE.LISTED AIR-GAPS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE FLOODLEVEL MARKING AT OR ABOVE FLOOD LEVEL OF SINK ORDRAINBOARD, WHICHEVER IS HIGHERELECTRICAL NOTES:1. ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIAELECTRIC CODE (CEC) AND ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL,STATE, AND LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES.2. PER CEC, ALL ELECTRICAL RECEPTACLES INSTALLEDAT CRAWL SPACES AT OR BELOW GRADE, ANDOUTDOORS SHALL HAVE GROUND-FAULTCIRCUIT-INTERRUPTER (G.F.C.I.) PROTECTION. ALLRECEPTACLES LOCATED IN BATHROOMS SHALL HAVEGROUND-FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER (G.F.C.I.)PROTECTION.3. SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER CBC. ADETECTOR SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EACH SLEEPINGROOM AND AT A POINT CENTRALLY LOCATED IN THECORRIDOR OR AREA GIVING ACCESS TO ROOMS USEDFOR SLEEPING PURPOSES. A DETECTOR SHALL BEINSTALLED ON EACH LEVEL OF A MULTI-STORYDWELLING, INCLUDING BASEMENT LEVELS. INSPLIT-LEVEL OR MULTI-LEVEL FLOORS, A SMOKEDETECTOR SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE UPPER LEVEL,OR ON BOTH LEVELS IF THE LOWER LEVEL CONTAINSSLEEPING AREAS. WHERE THE CEILING HEIGHT OF AROOM OPEN TO THE HALLWAY SERVING THE BEDROOMSEXCEEDS THAT OF THE HALLWAY BY 24 INCHES, SMOKEDETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE HALLWAY AND INTHE ADJACENT ROOM. DETECTORS SHALL BE INSTALLEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED MANUFACTURER'SINSTRUCTIONS. WHEN THE VALUATION OF AN ADDITIONOR REPAIR EXCEEDS $1,000.00, OR WHEN ONE OR MORESLEEPING ROOMS ARE ADDED OR CREATED IN ANEXISTING DWELLING, THE ENTIRE DWELLING SHALL BEPROVIDED WITH SMOKE DETECTORS LOCATED ASREQUIRED FOR NEW DWELLINGS. IN NEWCONSTRUCTION, REQUIRED SMOKE DETECTORS SHALLRECEIVE THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDINGWIRING WHEN SUCH WIRING IS SERVED FROM ACOMMERCIAL SOURCE AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH ABATTERY BACKUP. THE DETECTOR SHALL EMIT A SIGNALWHEN THE BATTERIES ARE LOW. WIRING SHALL BEPERMANENT AND WITHOUT A DISCONNECTING SWITCHOTHER THAN THOSE REQUIRED FOR OVER CURRENTPROTECTION. SMOKE DETECTORS MAY BE SOLELYBATTERY OPERATED WHEN INSTALLED IN EXISTINGBUILDINGS, OR IN BUILDINGS WITHOUT COMMERCIALPOWER, OR IN BUILDINGS WHICH UNDERGO ALTERATION,REPAIRS, OR ADDITIONS REGULATED AS OUTLINEDABOVE.4. TELEPHONE OUTLETS TO BE PREWIRED BYSUBCONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE ASREQUIRED. VERIFY LOCATION OF ALL TELEPHONEOUTLETS WITH OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.5. ELECTRICAL OPENINGS (SWITCHES, RECEPTACLES,ETC.) ON OPPOSITE SIDES OF FIRE RATED WALLS SHALLBE MAINTAINED AT LEAST 24 INCHES APART.6. PER CEC, RECEPTACLE SPACING SHALL NOT EXCEED 12FEET MEASURED HORIZONTALLY ALONG THE WALL.7. PER CEC, AT LEAST ONE WALL SWITCH-CONTROLLEDLIGHTING OUTLET SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EVERYHABITABLE ROOM; IN BATHROOMS, HALLWAYS,STAIRWAYS, ATTACHED GARAGES, AND DETACHEDGARAGES WITH ELECTRICAL POWER, AND OUTDOORENTRANCES OR EXITS.8. PER CEC, LIGHTING FIXTURES LOCATED WITHINCLOTHES CLOSETS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON THE WALLABOVE THE DOOR OR ON THE CEILING. CLEARANCESSHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:A. SURFACE MOUNTED INCANDESCENT FIXTURES - 12"B. SURFACE MOUNTED FLUORESCENT FIXTURES - 6" 9.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDINGNECESSARY TEMPORARY POWER.10. VERIFY ANY AND ALL LANDSCAPE LIGHTING ANDSWITCHES WITH OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFROUGH ELECTRICAL.11. ALL ELECTRICAL HANGING FIXTURES TO BE SELECTEDAND PURCHASED BY OWNER. VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONSWITH OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.13. ALL INCANDESCENT LIGHTING FIXTURES RECESSEDINTO INSULATED AREAS SHALL BE APPROVED FOR ZEROCLEARANCE INSULATION COVER PER 2022 CALIFORNIAENERGY CODE AND RATED IC OR APPROVED EQUALMEETING UL RATING OR OTHER TESTING /RATINGLABORATORIES RECOGNIZED BY THE ICC.14. THIS DRAWING IS FOR LAYOUT PURPOSES ONLY. NEWELECTRICAL SHALL BE DESIGN-BUILD. NEW ELECTRICALWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED AND BUILT IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND APPLICABLECODES, STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR BUILDINGLIFE SAFETY, EMERGENCY, EGRESS AND NIGHT LIGHTING.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOROBTAINING SEPARATE PERMIT. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORTO PROVIDE COMPLETE DESIGN-BUILD ELECTRICALSYSTEM AS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE (NEW) SERVICESHOWN (SCHEMATICALLY) ON THE DRAWINGS.GENERAL NOTES:ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY W/ THE 2022 EDITION OF THE CA.BUILDING CODE AND ALL OTHER CODES ANDREQUIREMENTS, IN THEIR MOST RECENT EDITIONINCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:2022 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE2022 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE2022 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE2. THE INTENTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ISTO INCLUDE ALL LABOR, MATERIAL, EQUIPMENT FACILITIESAND TRANSPORTATION NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE ANDPROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK IN AN ACCEPTABLEINDUSTRY'S STANDARDS. CONTRACTOR IS TO OBTAIN ANYREQUIRED PERMITS FOR THIS OR HER WORK.3.THE MIN. ACCEPTABLE QUALITY OF MATERIALS,WORKMANSHIP, AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION SHALLMEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERION: CONFORM TO THEAMERICAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE STANDARDS WHERE SUCHSTANDARDS EXISTS.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM ALL ADDITIONALELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, AND FIRE PROTECTION WORKREQUIRED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMISSIONOF BID TO REVIEW SCOPE OF WORK, DEMOLITION, ETC.6. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYALL DIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TOSTARTING WORK. ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BEREPORTED TO THE DESIGNER FOR REVIEW.7. DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FRAMING, UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED, (U.O.N.)8. DIMENSIONS NOTED CLEAR (CLR.) ARE NOT ADJUSTABLEWITHOUTAPPROVAL FROM THE DESIGNER.9. SAFETY MEASURES: AT ALL TIMES THE CONTRACTORSHALL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FORCONDITIONS OF THE JOB SITE INCLUDING SAFETY OFPERSONS AND PROPERTY.10. CUTTING AND DEMOLITION SHALL BE DONE BYMETHODS, WHICH WILL AND WILL NOT JEOPARDIZESTRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTING CONSTRUCTIONAND WILL NOT DAMAGE PORTIONS TO REMAIN.11. CONTRACTORS SHALL REMOVE, CUT, CAP, ANDREPAIR, AS NECESSARY, ANY UTILITES. INCLUDING BUTNOT LIMITED TO: ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, PLUMBING,AND FIRE SPRINKLERS, WHERE PARTITIONS ARESCHEDULED FOR DEMOLITION OR ARE NO LONGEROPERATIONAL OR IN SERVICE. ALL OTHER EXISTINGUTILITES ARE TO REMAIN FULLY OPERATIONAL.12. IN GENERAL, THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TORETAIN ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT REMOVEDFROM THE PROJECT. ANY ITEMS OR MATERIAL NOTDESIRED BY THE OWNER ARE TO BE REMOVED FROMTHE SITE BY THE CONTRACTOR AT CONTRACTOR'SEXPENSE.13. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY DUSTPROTECTION AND/OR BARRICADING REQUIRED TOPROTECT ADJACENT SPACES AND EXISTING FINISHES.CONTRACTOR OS RESPONSIBLE TO REPAIR ANYDAMAGES CAUSED BY CONTRACTOR OR THEIRSUB-CONTRACTORS.14. PATCH AND REPAIR ANY DAMAGES TO FLOORS,WALLS, CEILINGS, HARDWARE, FIXTURES, WINDOWS,ETC. AS A RESULT OF THE DEMOLITION PROCESS.MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT FINISHES AS CLOSELY ASPOSSIBLE.15. IF ANY QUESTIONS ARISE TO THE INSTALLATION OFANY MATERIALS AND/OR EQUIPMENT, OR WITH THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLCLARIFY THE QUESTIONS W/ THE DESIGNER BEFOREPROCEEDING. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE MADE W/OTHE DESIGNERS AND OR OWNERS APPROVAL.16. TOTAL THICKNESS OF NEW WALLS SHALLMATCHTHAT OF ADJACENT WALLS.17. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DO ALL CUTTING, FITTING,OR PATCHING OF WORK THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TOMAKE ITS PARTS FIT TOGETHER PROPERLY AND SHALLNOT ENDANGER ANY OTHER WORK BY CUTTING,EXCAVATION, OR OTHERWISE ALTERING THE TOTALWORK OR ANY PART OF IT. ALL PATCHING REPAIRING,AND REPLACING OF MATERIALS AND SURFACES, CUTOR DAMAGE IN EXECUTION OF WORK, SHALL BE DONEW/ APPLICABLE MATERIALS SO THAT SURFACESREPLACED WILL, UPON COMPLETION, MATCHSURROUNDING SIMILAR SURFACES.18. ALL WORK SHALL BE SCHEDULED AND PERFORMEDSO AS NOT TO DISTURB ANY OTHER TENANTS IN THEBUILDING. ANY WORK THAT WILL DISTURB ANOTHERTENANT, ABOVE OR BELOW, OR IN THE FLOOR , SHALLBE PERFORMED MOST EXPEDITIOUSLY AND THEDISTURBED TENANT SHALL HAVE FULL USE OF THEPREMISE.19. ALL TRADES SHALL FURNISH ALL LABOR,EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, AND PERFORM ALLNECESSARY, INDICATED, REASONABLY INFERRED ORREQUIRED BY ANY CODE W/ JURISDICTION TOCOMPLETE THEIR SCOPE OF WORK FOR A COMPLETEAND PROPER FINISHED JOB. ANY CUSTOMARY ANDNECESSARY ITEMS WHICH ARE REASONABLY IMPLIEDAND REQUIRED TO COMPLETE PROPERLY THE WORKOUTLINED SHALL BE FURNISHED, EVEN IF NOTSPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ORMENTIONED IN THE SPECIFICATION.20. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLCONSTRUCTION CLEAN-UP, DURING AND FINAL.21. THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ART (ADA) ISSUBJECT TO VARIOUS AND POSSIBLY CONTRADICTORYINTERPRETATIONS. THESE PLANS AND ANYACCOMPANYING SPECIFICATIONS ("PLANS") REPRESENTTHE DESIGNER'S OPINION REGARDING ITSINTERPRETATION OF THE ADA AS IT APPLIES TO THESUBJECT PROJECT. IT IS NOT IN ANY WAY A WARRANTYOR GUARANTEE THAT SAID PLANS COMPLY WITH ANYOR ALL POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ADA BYOTHERS. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formGeneral Notes See DetailsGNCITY OF BURLINGAME 25.10.050GN1SPECIAL AVERAGE FRONT SETBACKGN2STRAW ROLL DETAIL Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formSee DetailsSW1BMP'S & Pollution Prevention Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formArborist Report See DetailsARScale: NAAR1ARBORIST REPORT (E) BED 1(E) KIT(E) GREAT RM(E) ENTRY(N) PWD(E) LIVING(E) PTY(E) BATH 1(N) PATIO(N) 30" BASE(N) DINING(N) NETWORK CLTA. 1,221B. 386 JA. 269 D. 103(E)UNCOV.PORCH(N)UNCOV.PORCHW.I.C(E) LAUN.HALLWAY(E) BED 2(E) BED 3(E) BED 4(E) M. BATH(E) M. BED(E) BATH 2(N) DECK(E) FLAT ROOFF. 1,391NEW SECOND FLOOR DECK68SQ. FT.KITCHENSTORAGE/WORK OUTBATHBEDHALLG. 720Floor Area Calc.See DetailsFARLOCATIONAREAFARAPN: 026182230LOT SIZE:6,004 SQ. FT.MAX ALLOWABLE FAR:FAR = LOT SIZE X 32% + 1,100 = LIVEABLE SQ. FT.6,004 SQ. FT. X 32% + 1,100 = 3,021 SQ. FT.MAX ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE:LC = LOT SIZE X 40% = ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE6,004 SQ. FT. X 40% = 2,401 SQ. FT. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formDETAILS:MAX LC = 2,401 SQ. FT.MAX FAR = 3,021 SQ. FT.1,607 SQ. FT.2,998 SQ. FT.FAR TOTAL:LC TOTAL:1STFLR LOT COVERAGEA - EXISTINGB - ADDITIONJA - JUNIOR ADU (N)1,221 386 269 (NOT COUNTED)SQ. FT.:1,221 386 269 (NOT COUNTED)SQ. FT.:REMARKS:EXISTINGADDITIONCOMPLETE FAR:2NDFLRF1,391---G - (N) ADU DETACHED 720 (NOT COUNTED)720 (NOT COUNTED)ADU FARScale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1PROPOSED FAR CALC. FIRST FLOORFARScale: 1/4 = 1'-0"2PROPOSED FAR CALC. SECOND FLOORRENOVATION OF (E) HOMEEXISTING GARAGECONVERTED TO ADUFARScale: 1/4 = 1'-0"3PROPOSED FAR CALC. ADUD - (N) FRONT PATIO 103 (NOT COUNTED)(N) FRONT PATIO (PLANNINGIMPROVEMENT) 103 (NOT COUNTED) (N) 30" BASELOT LINE 120.05'(NEW) ADU -720 SQ. FT.(UNDER SEPARATEPERMIT)(E) 2 STORY RESIDENCEW/ INTERIOR REMODELF.F. EL. = 53.00'(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)S 34°56'23" WLOT LINE 120.05'N 34°56'31" ELOT LINE 50.01'S 55°03'58" E LOT LINE 50.02' N 55°04'00" W WOOD DECKABOVE2ND STORYBUILDING LINE1144 BERNAL AVE.2ND STORYBUILDING LINE2ND STORYBUILDING LINE2ND STORYBUILDING LINE1915 BROADWAY10' ALLEYDIRTBUILDINGBUILDINGOEOEOEOEOE OE(E) POWER POLEOEOERIM=53.3SSMHEL=47.38" FLSSFL EL=42.3 (calc)50.4SSCO(E) 10" BIRCHPROTECT(E) 20"MAGNOLIAPROTECT(N) CONCRETE SIDEWALK (E) LANDSCAPING (N) CONCRETECURB + GUTTER(N) 6' WD. FENCE(E) 6' WD. FENCE(E) BRICK RET. WALL(E) CONC. RETAININGWALL UNDER 6' WD.FENCE(E) STEPPING STONES PROTECT(E) A/C PROTECT -CAN RELOCATE TO REAR75% OF LOT IF REQUIRED(E) POWER POLEOEOE DRIVEWAY (N) DRIVEWAYPERVIOUS PAVERS(E) 18"MAGNOLIAPROTECT(E) LAWNPROTECTB E R N A L A V E N U E ( 5 0 ' R . O . W . )(E) 6' WD. GATE(N) WALKWAY, TYP. PAVERS (E) LAWNPROTECTFIRSTFLOORADDITION -386 SQ. FT.(UNDER SEP.PERMIT)(E) WATER METERPROTECT(N) GAS METER(N) COMPRESSOR(N) OVERHEADELECT. LINE15' FRONT SETBACK 15' REAR SETBACK 4' SIDE SETBACK4' SIDE SETBACK1'-0"33'-0"17'-0"1'-0"30'-0"13'-4"8'-6"39'-5"8'-5"19'-4"9'-6"15'-9"14'-7"5'-10"4'-5" (E) LANDSCAPINGEXISTING HOMETO JADU CONV. -269 SQ. FT.(UNDER SEP. PERMIT)50.90T.C.50.80T.C.50.0050.3050.5050.7050.5050.4051.7050.40B R O A D W A Y( 5 0 ' R . O . W . )4'-0" 4'-0"(E) WATER LINEPROTECT(N) ELEC. METER(N) UNCOVERED DECK (UNDER SEP. PERMIT) 4'-7" 4'-5"1'-0"15'-6"14'-6"8'-6"4'-10"11'-10"36'-1"10'-0"17'-9"(N) BURIED ELEC. LINE(N) BURIED GAS LINE15'-0"2'-2"5'-0"2'-6"6"1'-3"(N)LANDSCAPINGOE(E) FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM(N)PLANTER(E) LANDSCAPING(E) LAWNPROTECT(E) FRONT PORCH (UNCOVERED) (N) LANDSCAPING 19'-5" FRONT SETBACK OF (E)NEIGHBORING HOME18.95' FRONT SETBACK OF (E)NEIGHBORING HOMEOE 18'-3" FRONT SETBACK OF (E)NEIGHBORING HOME1140 BERNAL AVENUE(E) 26" OAKPROTECT(E) 6"JAP. MAPLEPROTECTPROVIDE PROPERILLUMINATION ALONGWALKWAY, TYP.(N) 3/4" WATER LINE(TIE IN FROM HOUSE)(N) 4" SEWER LINE + C/O (TIE IN FROM HOUSE)15'-0"(E) 4" SEWER LINE + C/O(E) 6" JAPANESE MAPLEPROTECT10'-0"10'-0"(N) LAGERSTROEMIAINDICA TO MEETLANDSCAPING TREEREQUIREMENT(N) LAGERSTROEMIA INDICATO MEET LANDSCAPINGTREE REQUIREMENTAVERAGE BLOCK SETBACK: 19.35'1110 Bernal Ave1112 Bernal Ave1116 Bernal Ave1120 Bernal Ave1126 Bernal Ave BIGGEST1128 Bernal Ave1132 Bernal Ave1136 Bernal Ave1140 Bernal Ave1144 Bernal Ave1148 Bernal Ave LOWEST - SITEAVERAGE:SEE SHEET GN FOR SURVEYOR STAMPED20.40'21.35'17.10'19.40'24.80'16.15'17.65'19.30'18.45'18.95'16.00'18.75'(N) FIRST FLOOR PATIO 136 SQ. FT.(103 SQ. FT. COVERED, 33 SQ. FT. UNCOVERED)16'-0"(E) SETBACK TOOVERHANG(E) SETBACK TO BUILDING(E) SOLAR EQUIPMENTDUE TO SCOPE OF WORK, THE FOLLOWINGMAY NEED TO BE REPLACED: ALL CURB,GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTINGSITE, PLUG ALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWERLATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4"LATERAL AND WYE TO MAIN, ALL WATER LINECONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FORSERVICES OR FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLEDPER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDSPECIFICATION, AND ANY OTHERUNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'SRIGHT-OF-WAYVIF AT END OF PROJECT WITH PUBLIC WORKSAND CONTRACTOR TO REVIEW SIDEWALKS,CURB AND GUTTER FOR KEEPING ORREPLACING.THERE WILL BE NO PERMANENT STRUCTURES(RETAINING WALLS, FENCES, COLUMNS,MAILBOX, ETC) PROPOSED BEYOND THEPROPERTY LINE AND INTO THE PUBLICRIGHT-OF-WAY20'-0" TO (N) 2ND FLR DECK19'-4" TO (N) 1ST FLR PATIO(N) SECOND FLOOR DECK 68 SQ. FT.(75 SQ. FT. MAX)2NDFLRDECK1ST FLR PATIOSECOND FLROUTLINE6'-5" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formProposed Site Plan See DetailsA1.0A1.0Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"1PROPOSED SITE PLANGENERAL NOTES & SCOPE1. PROTECT ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION,CONSULT ARBORIST AS REQUIRED.2. NO EXISTING TREES OVER 48" IN CIRCUMFERENCE AT 54" FROM BASE OF TREEMAY BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PROTECTED TREE PERMIT FROM THE PARKSDIVISION. NO TREES ARE TO BE REMOVED FOR THIS PROJECT.3. LANDSCAPING TO REMAIN EXISTING4. A PLAN HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, AND WILL BE IMPLEMENTED, TO MANAGE STORMWATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION. CGC 4.106.2 & CGC 4.106.35. ALL SPRINKLER DRAINAGE SHALL BE PLACED INTO LANDSCAPING AREAS.6. SANITARY SEWER LATERAL FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BECONNECTED TO THE EXISTING LATERAL ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SIDE PERMUNICIPAL CODE 15.08.050. NOTE: SUB-LATERALS TO THE MAIN SEWER ISPROHIBITED.CAL GREEN SITE DEVELOPMENT1. PROJECTS THAT DISTURB LESS THAN 1 ACRE SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT APLAN TO MANAGE STORM WATER DRAINAGE (DURING CONSTRUCTION). A BMPPAGE IS SUFFICIENT.2022 CGC 4.106.22. PLANS SHALL INDICIATE HOW GRADING + PAVING WILL PREVENT SURFACEWATER FLOWS FROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. EXCEPTION: PROJECTS THAT DO NOTALTER THE DRAINAGE PATH. 2022 CGC 4.106.33. ELECTRICAL VEHICLE (EV( CHARGING, PARKING SPACES: COMPLY W/ RELEVANTSECTIONS 2022 CGC 4.106.4PUBLIC WORKS NOTES1. A REMOVE/REPLACE UTILITES ENCHROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO (1)REPLACE ALL CURB, GUTTER, DRIVEWAY AND SIDEWALK FRONTING SITE, (2) PLUGALL EXISTING SANITARY SEWER LATERAL CONNECTIONS AND INSTALL A NEW 4"LATERAL, (3) ALL WATER LINE CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICESOF FIRE LINE ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER =CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDSPECIFICATION. (4) AND OTHER UNDERGROUND UTILITY WORKS WITHIN CITY'SRIGHT-OF WAY.2. ALL WATER LINES CONNECTIONS TO CITY WATER MAINS FOR SERVICES OR FIRELINE PROTECTION ARE TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARD PROCEDURES ANDMATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS. CONTACT THE CITY WATER DEPARTMENT FORCONNECTION FEES. IF REQUIRED, ALL FIRE SERVICES AND SERVICES 2" AND OVERWILL BE INSTALLED BY BUILDER. ALL UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE CONNECTIONSSHALL BE SUBMITTED AS SEPARATE UNDERGROUND FIRE SERVICE PERMIT FORREVIEW AND APPROVAL.STORMWATER CHECKLIST NOTES1. DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF INTO CISTERNS OR RAIN BARRELS AND USE RAINWATERFOR IRRIGATION OR OTHER NON-POTABLE USE.2. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS, AND/OR PATIOS ONTOVEGETATED AREAS.3. DIRECT RUNOFF FROM DRIVEWAYS AND/OR UNCOVERED PARKING LOTS ONTOVEGETATED AREAS.4. CONSTRUCT SIDEWALKS, WALKWAYS AND/OR PATIOS WITH PERMEABLESURFACES.5. USE MICOR-DETENTION, INCLUDING DISTRIBUTED LANDSCAPE-BASEDDETENTION.6. PROTECT SENSITIVE AREAS, INCLUDING WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS, ANDMINIMIZE CHANGES TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY.7. MARK ON SITE INLETS WITH THE WORDS "NO DUMPING! FLOWS TO BAY" OREQUIVALENT.8. (A.) RETAIN EXISTING VEGETATION AS PRACTICABLE (B) SELECT DIVERSESPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE. INCLUDE PLANTS THAT ARE PEST- AND/ORDISEASE-RESISTANT, DROUGHT-TOLERANT, AND/OR ATTRACT BENEFICIAL INSECTS.(C) MINIMIZE USE OF PESTICIDES AND QUICK -RELEASE FERTILIZERS.9. DESIGN FOR DISCHARGE OF FIRE SPRINKLERS TEST WATER TO LANDSCAPE ORSANITARY SEWER.10. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROLS TO STABILIZE ALL DENUDED AREAS UNTILPERMANENT EROSION CONTROLS ARE ESTABLISHED.11. DELINEATE WITH FIELD MARKERS THE FOLLOWING AREAS: CLEARING LIMITS,EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE OR CRITICAL AREAS,BUFFER ZONES, TREES TOBE PROTECTED AND RETAINED, DRAINAGE COURSES.12. PROVIDE NOTES, SPECIFICATIONS OR ATTACHEMENTS DESCRIBING THEFOLLOWING: (A) CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EROSION ANDSEDIMENT CONTROLS, INCLUDE INSPECTION FREQUENCY; (B) METHODS ANDSCHEDULE FOR GRADING, EXCAVATION, FILLING, CLEARING OF VEGETATION , ANDSTORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED OR CLEARED MATERIAL, (C)SPECIFICATIONS FOR VEGETATIVE COVER & MULCH, INCLUDE METHODS ANDSCHEDULES FOR PLANTING AND FERTILIZATION (D) PROVISIONS FOR TEMPORARYAND OR PERMANENT IRRIGATION13. PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRYWEATHER14. USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS OF FILTRATION TO REMOVE SEDIMENT WHENDEWATERING AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS.15. PROTECT ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS IN VICINITY OF SITE USING SEDIMENTCONTROLS (E.G. BERMS, SOCKS, FIBER ROLLS OR FILTERS)16. TRAP SEDIMENT ON-SITE, USING BMP'S SUCH AS SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS,EARTHEN DIKES OR BERMS, SILT FENCES, CHECK DAMS, COMPOST BLANKETS ORJUTE MATS, COVERS FOR SOIL STOCK PILES, ETC.17. DIVERT ON-SITE RUNOFF AROUND EXPOSED AREAS; DIVERT OFF-STE RUNOFFAROUND THE SITE (E.G SWALES AND DIKES)18. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROMCONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENTBARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES,MULCHING OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE.19. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESSPOINTS.20. NO CLEANING, FUELING OR MAINTAINING VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN ADESIGNATED AREA WHERE WASHWATER IS CONTAINED AND TREATED.21. STORE, HANDLE AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS/WASTESPROPERLY TO PREVENT CONTACT WITH STORMWATER.22. CONTRACTOR SHALL TRAIN AND PROVIDE INSTRUCTION TO ALLEMPLOYEES/SUBCONTRACTORS RE: CONSTRUCTION BMP'S.23. CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS,INCLUDING PAVEMENT CUTTINGWASTES,PAINTS,CONCRETE, PETROLEUMPRODUCTS,CHEMICALS,WASHWATEROR SEDIMENTS, RINSE WATER FROMARCHITECTURAL COPPER, AND NON-STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORMDRAINS AND WATERCOURSES.1. PLEASE INDICATE ON PLANS IF LANDSCAPE WILL REMAIN OR BE REHABILITATED. REHABILITATEDLANDSCAPE OVER 500 SQ. FT. WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPEORDINANCE (WELO). IRRIGATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED FOR BUILDING PERMIT.2. PROVIDE A REPORT WRITTEN BY AN ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST WITH PROJECT-SPECIFICRECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRESERVING STREET TREE HEALTH AND STABILITY DURING AND AFTERTHE REQUIRED WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY INCLUDING SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTERREPLACEMENT AND UTILITY WORK.3. INDICATE ON PLAN: ALL NEW TREES SHALL BE DOUBLE STAKED WITH 2” POLES AND SECUREDWITH AT LEAST TWO RUBBER TIES OR STRAPS. NURSERY STAKE SHALL BE REMOVED AT PLANTINGEXCEPT BY PERMISSION OF CITY ARBORIST. PROVIDE SEPARATE IRRIGATION (DRIP OR BUBBLER) TONEW LANDSCAPE TREES.4. PROVIDE GENUS AND SPECIES NAME OF OAK TREES TO BE PLANTED: QUERCUS AGRIFOLIACOAST LIVE OAKARBORIST NOTES ELEV.Scale: NA2PROPOSED FRONT ELEV. Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :02.22.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formRESPONSE TO BUILDING COMMENTS ROUND 1RESPONSE TO BUILDING COMMENTS ROUND 2RESPONSE TO BUILDING COMMENTS ROUND 3 01.22.2402.09.2402.22.24 Existing / Proposed Front Elev.See DetailsELEVELEV.Scale: NA1EXISTING FRONT ELEV. W D 6'-4 1/2" 1'-7 1/2" 2'-9"11'-4"40'-8 1/2"12'-1"2'-10"6'-0"5'-8"5'-0"4'-7"37'-4"6'-5"2'-3"5'-0"6'-7 1/2"1'-6"2'-1"2'-8"W.I.C(E) LAUN.HALLWAY(E) BED 2(E) -(E) BED 3(E) -(E) BED 4(E) -(E) M.BATH(E) TILE(E) BED 2(E) -(E) -(E) -(E) BATH 2(E) TILE(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)REMOVE (E) OVERHANGS SOTHEY ARE ALL EQUAL, NEWEDGE DETAILS (SEE ARCH)DETAILSA3.01A3.21A3.31A3.11(E)(E) SKYLIGHT(E) SKYLIGHT(E) SKYLIGHTD.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.REMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEDW REF.17'-9"6'-4"11'-4"10'-4 1/2"9'-8"15'-9 1/2"9'-8"6'-0"3'-3 1/2"1'-0"2'-3 1/2"(E) BED 1(E) KITCHEN(E) GREAT RM(E) ENTRY(E) PWD(E) DINING(E) LIVING3'-8"1'-3"1'-5"1'-11"R1'-3"3'-8" 3'-0"18'-11 1/2"9'-10 1/2" 11'-6"12'-7"11'-2"(E) PANTRY11'-2 1/2"4'-6 1/2"(E) -(E) BATH 1(E) TILE(E) -(E) -(E) -(E) TILE(E) -(E) -(E) -(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E) ELEC. METERSEE SITE PLANFOR (N) LOCATION(E) GAS METERSEE SITE PLANFOR (N) LOCATION(E) 200AELEC. PANELA3.01A3.21A3.31A3.11(E) SOLAR PANELMETERSUNIT 1ACD.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(E)(E)WINECELLARREMOVEREMOVESAVE CONC.STOOPREMOVEREMOVEREMOVEREMOVE DECKREMOVE ON-DEMANDREUSE @ CRAWLSPACE(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)(PROTECT)LEGEND:EXISTING WALLSWALLS/ITEMS TO BE REMOVESNEW WALLS Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting / Demo 1st + 2nd Flr Plans See DetailsAB2.0A2.01EXISTING / DEMO 2ND FLOOR PLANA2.02EXISTING / DEMO 1ST FLOOR PLANScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" 36" REF.(E) BED 1(E) KIT(E) GREAT RM(E) ENTRY(N) PWD(E) LIVING(E) PTY(N) WOOD(E) BATH 1(E) TILE(N) WOOD(N) TILE(N) WOOD(N) STONE OR WOOD(E)(E)(E)(N) PATIO(N) STONE OR CONC.(N)2/4(N)2/8(N) 6/0HIGH AWN.PRIVACY3'-0"20'-0" 36'-0" 6"2'-6"11'-10 1/2"36'-0 1/2"10'-0 1/2"46'-1" EXISTING57'-11 1/2"6'-0"1'-6"6'-6"8'-0"8'-6"6'-1"6'-2 1/2"39'-5" EXISTING8'-5"(N)2/4(N) WOOD(N) WODD(N)UCAB.(N)UCAB.(N)UCAB.(N) 24" BASE(N) 24" BASE(N) 30" BASE(N) 36" RANGE(N) 30" BASE(N)16" BASE(N) 24" BASE(N) 24" BASE(N) 30" BASE(N) 24" BASE (N) DRY BAR 3'-6"3'-0"(N) 18"BASE(N) 18"BASE5'-0"4'-3"5'-0"4'-3"(N) BLDG. LINE (E) BLDG. LINE CLCLCL20" D FLUSH HEARTH(N) 16" DEEP BUILT IN CAB(N) 18" DEEP BUILT IN CABCL(N)UC REF(N)16"PANTRY7'-10"3'-6"3'-6"4'-4"(N) DINING(N) WOOD40x111 (N) 2/63'-6" 5'-10 1/2"14'-7"12'-3" 36'-2" 3'-6"(N) DBL. HUNGLINE OF (N) DECKABOVE5" DIA. STEEL POST(E) 2ND FLR. LINE(MINIMAL TONO WORK)(MINIMAL TONO WORK)UP(N) CABINETRY - WINE DISPLAY (TBD)(N) CABINETRY - LIBRARY (TBD)4 1/2"3'-6"9'-0 1/2"11'-2"(N) 1/10HIDDEN DR.(N) NETWORK CLT(N) WOOD(N) 30" SINK BASE12x18QUEEN - 60x8012x18(N) PLANTER(E) 200AELEC. PANELA3.03A3.12A3.22A3.02A3.324'-0"(N) 5/0TEMP.(R) 5/6(N) 4/0HIGH AWN.PRIVACY(N) 20/0TEMP.BIFOLD(N) 2/0(N) 2/0(N) 3/4TEMP.(E) SOLAR PANELMETERS(N) 3/4TEMP.(N) 3/4TEMP.(E) 8' - 4" CLG HT 9'-9-1/2" CLG HT (E) PLANTER(E) PLANTER(E) PLANTERUPOPTION: (N) PLANTER(N) 3/033" CABINETBENCH W/ STORAGEOPTION: (N) PLANTERTEMP.UNIT(E) #1AC(E) CONC.W/ (N) STONECLAD(N) ADJ. SHELVES D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(R) 3/010433" SINK BASE COUNTER UP9/0TEMP.(N) 3/4TEMP.(R)(R)(E) (E) (E) (N) SOSS DR(OPTION)(E)(E)WINECELLAR2'-0"JUNIOR ADU CONVERSIONUNDER SEPARATE PERMIT(N)MICRO(N)10'-0"(N)HOTPLATE(N) 2/8TEMP.UP11"42" +/-(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)ADDITION UNDER SEPARATE PERMITNEW SECOND FLOOR DECKNE6x6x3/8 STEEL BEAM(103 SQ. FT. COVERED33 SQ. FT. UNCOVERED)6'-5"SIZE TO STAY AT 20' FROM FRONTLEGEND:EXISTING WALLSWALLS/ITEMS TO BE REMOVESNEW WALLS Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formAs Built + Proposed Floor Plan See DetailsA2.0A2.02PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLANScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"1. ALL EXTERIOR 2X6 WALLS: R-21 BATT INSULATION, OR MIN. BY TITLE-242. ALL EXTERIOR 2X4 WALLS: R-15 BATT INSULATIONOR MIN. BY TITLE-243. ALL CEILINGS TO RECEIVE R-32 MIN. INSULATIONOR MIN. BY TITLE-244. ALL UNDER FLOOR TO RECEIVE R-19 BAT INSULATION5. ALL BATHROOMS, LAUNDRY ROOMS, TO RECEIVE SOUND BATT, INSULATION, TYPICAL.6. CEILING INSULATION, MIN. R-30 INSULATION REQUIRED.7. BUILDING ENVELOPE INSULATION: PER CLIMATE ZONE: 3 TABLE 150.1-A, & B8. BUILDING ENVELOPE INSULATION: WALLS, ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE, MEETSTANDARDS IN TABLE 150.1-A & B9. QUALITY INSULATION INSTALLATION INSPECTION (QII) IS REQUIRED BY A THIRD PARTY.INSULATION:(See Title-24 For Min.)GENERAL BUILDING NOTES:1. REDUCED U-FACTOR (0.30) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS 2022 CAL ENERGY CODE §150.1 (C)3 A2. PROVIDE LIGHTING AT ALL EXT. LANDINGS PER 2022 CRC 303.8 OR 2022 CBC 1008.2 AND 2022 CBC1205.43. ALL ROOMS TO MEET NATURAL LIGHTING + VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS WILL MEET 2022 CRC R303RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (EGRESS)1. EGRESS WINDOWS SHALL HAVE A MIN. NET CLEAR OPERABLE AREA OF 5.7 SQUARE FEET.2. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR WIDTH DIMENSION SHALL BE 20"3. THE MINIMUM NET CLEAR OPENING HEIGHT DIMENSION SHALL BE 24"RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS) (CONT.):PLUMBING:- SHOWER MUST BE PROVIDED W/ TEMPERATURE CONTROL (ANIT-SCALD) TYPE VALVE. TOILETS MUST HAVE A MIN. CLEARSPACE OF 30" WIDE, & 24" CLEAR SPACE IN FRONT. IF NEW, TOILETS MUST BE WATER CONSERVING 1.28 GALLON. SHOWERDOORS SHALL OPEN OUTWARD AND SHALL BE A MIN. 22" WIDE, THE SHOWERHEAD CANNOT DISCHARGE DIRECTLY ATENTRANCE. ALL SHOWER COMPARTMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SHAPE,MUST BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30" CIRCLE. JOB-FORMED SHOWER PAN LINER MUST SLOPE 14" PER FOOT TO WEEPHOLES IN DRAIN, AND BE INSPECTED UNDER TEST PRIOR TO COVERING.RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS) (CONT.):BUILDING:- SHOWER WALL SHALL BE FINISHED TO A HEIGHT 72" A/ THE DRAIN INLET W/ MATERIAL THAT IS NOT AFFECTED BYMOISTURE. GREEN BD. CANNOT BE USED AS A BACKER FOR MASTIC TILE WHERE IT WILL BE EXPOSED TO SPLASHINGWATER & IS NOT ALLOWED ON CLGS.CEMENT BOARD WITH A MOISTURE BARRIER & CORROSION-RESISTANT FASTENERS IS AN APPROPRIATE BACKINGMATERIAL IN WET LOCATIONS. MIN. CEILING HEIGHT FOR ALL BATHROOMS IS 7'-0". SAFETY GLAZING IS REQUIRED FORWINDOWS IN TUB OR SHOWER LOCATIONS WHERE THE BOTTOM EDGE OF GLASS IS LESS THAN 5'-0" ABOVE THEDRAIN. AS PART OF REMODEL SMOKE DETECTORS WILL BE REQUIRED IN ALL BEDROOMS, ADJOINING HALL, & AT EACHLEVEL PER THE BUILDING CODE.RELATED CODE REQUIREMENTS: (BATHS)(CONT.)ELECTRICAL:- IT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE RECEPTACLE WITHIN 3-FEET OF THE OUTSIDE EDGE OF EACH BASIN, THISRECEPTACLE AND ANY OTHERS LOCATED WITHIN THE BATHROOM MUST BE GFCI PROTECTED.- A SEPARATE 20-AMP CIRCUIT IS REQUIRED TO SUPPLY BATHROOM OUTLETS ONLY, OR A SINGLE BATHROOM.- LIGHTING WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE HIGH EFFICACY OR CONTROLLED BY A MANUAL ON OCCUPANTSENSOR SWITCH. (TYPICALLY HIGH EFFICACY LIGHT FIXTURES ARE PIN BASE FLUORESCENT WITH ELECTRONICBALLAST.MECHANICAL:- A FAN CONNECTED TO THE OUTSIDE CAN BE PROVIDED, FAN EXHAUST SHOULD BE 3-FEET FROM BUILDINGOPENINGS AND PROPERTY LINES. BE INSPECTED UNDER TEST PRIOR TO COVERING.GENERAL NOTES:1. PROVIDE 30" MIN. CLEAR WIDTH, 15" ON BOTH SIDES FROM CENTERLINE OF W.C.) AND 24" CLEARANCE IN FRONT OFTHE W.C. PER CPC 402.52. PROVIDE MIN. SHOWER AREA - 1024 SQ. INCHES, CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30" CIRCLE. SEE PLANS PER CPC408.63. TEMPERED GLAZING, TYP. AT ALL DOORS AND REQUIRED BY CODE4. PROVIDE DEVICES TO ABSORB HIGH PRESSURES RESULTING FROM THE WASHER & DISHWASHER, ETC., PER CPC5. FLOORS, SLAB PERIMETER NR, RAISED R-19, CONCRETE RAISED U-FACTOR 0.2696. EXHAUST VENT FOR DRYER SHALL TERMINATE TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING AND SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH ADRAFT DAMPER AND SHALL BE RIGID METAL DUCT WITH SMOOTH INTERIOR SURFACES PER CMC SECT. 504.7. VERIFY ALL FINISH FLOOR CALL-OUTS W/ OWNERS, TYP.8. SUB- PANEL ELECT., VERIFY LOCATION.9. WALLS, ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE, MUST MEET STANDARDS IN TABLE 150.1-A, OR B.10. ALL SHOWER WALLS TO BE WATERPROOF TO 72" ABOVE DRAIN INLET, WALL FINISHES TO BE OF SMOOTH HARDNONABSORBENT SURFACE, PER CRC R307.2 (CEMENT BASED)11. QUALITY INSULATION INSTALLATION INSPECTION (QII) IS REQ'D BY A THIRD PARTY.12. NA13. WATER HAMMER ARRESTORS AT ALL APPLIANCES THAT HAVE QUICK-ACTING VALVES (I.E.) DISHWASHERS HOTWATER LINE AND THE HOT/COLD LINES OF THE CLOTHES WASHER) 2022 CPC 609.10.14. CONTROL VALVE FOR SHOWER OR TUB/SHOWER SHALL BE OF THE PRESSURE BALANCE OR THERMOSTATICMIXING VALVE TYPE, PER CPC 420.0.15. THRESHOLD FOR IN-SWING DOORS SHALL BE 7.75" MAX. AND 7" MAX. FOR OUTSWING DOORS.16. (E) GAS METER LOCATION, PG&E, TYPICAL 36" FROM OPERABLE WINDOWS.17. (E) ELECTRICAL METER LOCATION18. MAX. DROP FROM TOP OF THRESHOLD TO THE EXT. LANDING AT ALL SLIDING AND IN-SWINGING DOORS SHALL BELIMITED TO 7.75", AND NOT MORE THAN 1.5" LOWER THAN THRESHOLD FOR OUTSWING DRS. PER 2022 CRC R311.319. (N) STAIRS TO HAVE MAX. RISER HEIGHT OF 7.75" AND A MIN. TREAD DEPTH OF 10" PER CRC R311.7.4.20. A CAPILLARY BREAK WILL BE INSTALLED IF A SLAB ON GRADE FOUNDATION SYSTEM IS USED. THE USE OF A 4"THICK BASE OF 1/2" OR LARGER CLEAN AGGREGATE UNDER A 6 MIL VAPOR RETARDER WITH JOINT LAPPED NOT LESSTHAN 6" WILL BE PROVIDED UNLESS AND ENGINEERED DESIGN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY THEBUILDING DIVISION . 2022 CGC §4.505.2 AND CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE (CRC) §R5O6.2.321. BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER DAMAGE WILL NOT BE INSTALLED. WALL AND FLOORFRAMING WILL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THE FRAMING MEMBERS EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT. MOISTURECONTENT WILL BE VERIFIED PRIOR TO FINISH MATERIAL BEING APPLIED. 2022 CGC §4.505.322. NA23. ANY GAS FIREPLACE WILL BE DIRECT-VENT SEALED-COMBUSTIBLE TYPE 2022 CGC §4.503.124. NEW MANDATORY U-FACTOR (0.58) FOR FENESTRATION AND SKYLIGHTS §150.0B25. WALLS WITH 2X6 AND LARGER FRAMING REQUIRE R-19 INSULATION§150.0(C)226. ANY WOOD STOVE OR PELLET STOVE WILL COMPLY WITH US EPA PHASE II EMISSION LIMITS 2022 CGC §4.503.127. PLUMBING CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE THE CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR A SINGLE LINE DRAWING OF THEEXISTING AND NEW GAS LINES AND INDICATE THE DISTANCE FROM THE METER TO EACH GAS FIRED APPLIANCEPRIOR TO INSTALLATION. INCLUDE THE SIZE OF THE GAS PIPE TO EACH APPLIANCE AND BTU RATING OF EACHAPPLIANCE. GAS PIP SIZING WILL BE SIZED PER TABLE 1216.2(1) IN THE 2022 CPC. NOTE: ANY INSTALLATION OF NEWGAS PIPING PRIOR TO PLAN CHECK APPROVAL IS AT THE RISK OF THE CONTRACTORS RISK.28. HOT WATER PIPING INSULATION §150.0 (j)2 A ii29. LIGHTING - NEW MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDOOR ROOMS §150.0 (K)30. RADIANT BARRIER REQUIRED IN CLIMATE ZONE 3 §150.0 (C) 231. REDUCE U-FACTOR (0.30) AND SHGC (0.20) FOR HIGH PERFORMANCE WINDOWS §150.1 (C) 3 A32. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS AND CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL FOLLOW LOCAL AND REGIONAL AIRPOLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT STANDARDS 2022 §4.504.2.133. ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES, CONDUITS OR OTHER OPENINGS IN SOLE/BOTTOM PLATESAT EXTERIOR WALL WILL BE RODENT-PROOFED BY CLOSING SUCH OPENINGS WITH CEMENT MORTAR, CONCRETE,MASONRY OR SIMILAR METHOD ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY. 2022 CGC § 4.406.134. ROOF EAVES SHALL NOT PROJECT WITHIN 2" OF THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE SETBACK IS 4' PER 2022 CRC § TABLER302.1 (1) OR 2022 CBC TABLE 705.2. ALL ROOF PROJECTIONS WHICH PROJECT BEYOND THE POINT WHERE FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE REQUIRED WILL BE CONSTRUCTED OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE- RATEDCONSTRUCTION PER 2022 CRC § R302.1 (1) OR 2022 CBC § 705.2.35. EXTERIOR BEARING WALLS LESS THAN 5' FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WILL BE BUILT OF ONE-HOUR FIRE-RATEDCONSTRUCTION. 2022 CRC TABLE R302.1 (1) § OR 2022 CBC, TABLE 602.36. REQUIRED: NON-COMPLIANT PLUMBING FIXTURES TO BE REPLACED BY WATER-CONSERVING PLUMBINGFIXTURES WHEN A PROPERTY IS UNDERGOING ALTERATIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS.37. PLUMBING - INDOOR WATER USE:-THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF WATER CLOSETS WILL NOT EXCEED 1.28 GAL/FLUSH (2019 CGC - 4.303.1.1) FORDUAL FLUSH TOILETS AVERAGE TWO REDUCED FLUSHES WITH ONE FULL FLUSH- THE EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME OF URINALS WILL NOT EXCEED 0.125 GAL/FLUSH (2022 CGC - 4.303.1.2- MAX. FLOW RATE FOR SHOWERS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM, @ 80 PSI (2022 4.303.1.3- MAX. FLOW RATE FOR LAVATORY FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.2 GPM, @ 60 PSI (2022 CGC 4.303.1.4.1)- MAX. FLOW RATE FOR KITCHEN FAUCETS SHALL BE 1.8 GPM, @ 60 PSI, CAN TEMPORARILY INCREASE TO 2.2 GPM,BUT MUST DEFAULT BACK TO MAX. FLOW RATE OF 1.8 GPM (2022 CGC 4.303.1.4.4).POLLUTANT CONTROL NOTES:1. PAINTS + COATINGS WILL COMPLY WITH VOC LIMITS PER 2022 CGC §4.504.2.22. DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED THAT VERIFIES COMPLIANCE WITH VOC FINISH MATERIALS. 2022 CGC§4.504.2.43. CARPET SYSTEM INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING INTERIOR WILL MEET THE TESTING + PRODUCTREQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE 2022 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE. 2022 CGC §4.504.34. WHERE RESILIENT FLOORING IS INSTALLED, AT LEAST 80% OF THE FLOOR AREA RECEIVING RESILIENTFLOORING WILL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2022 CGC§4.504.45. HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD, + MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD COMPOSITE WOODPRODUCTS USED ON THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOWFORMALDEHYDE EMISSION STANDARDS. 2022 CGC §4.504.56. AEROSOL PAINTS + COATINGS SHALL MEET THE PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC ANDCOMPLY W/ PERCENT VOC BY WEIGHT OF PRODUCT LIMITS, REGULATION 8, RULE 49. PER 2022 CGC4.504.2.37. ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, + CAULKS USED ON THE PROJECT SHALL FOLLOW LOCAL + REGIONAL AIRPOLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT STANDARDS 2022 CGC §4.504.2.1 W D 1'-6"2'-1"2'-8"W.I.C(E) LAUN.HALLWAY(E) BED 2(N) WOOD(E) BED 3(E) BED 4(E) M. BATH(E) TILE(E) M. BED(N) WOOD(N) WOOD(E) BATH 2(E) TILE(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(E)(R)2/8(E)(R)(E)(E)(E)(N) DECK(N) STONE(E) FLAT ROOF(N) EPDM (R)2/8(R) 4/0(N) WOOD(N) WOOD(N) TILE(R)(N)3/0DN(N) WOOD(N)2/8(E)(E)(N) 42" HT. STEEL RAILING10'-7" 1'-8 1/2"36'-2" 3'-7 1/2"A3.22A3.12A3.03A3.32A3.02(N) 5/0TEMP.(E)(E) SKYLIGHT(E) SKYLIGHT(E) SKYLIGHTD.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.6'-5"68 SQ. FT.(75 SQ. FT. MAX )DECK AREA(E)(N)(E) OVERHANG (EQ.)NEW TRIM DETAILSFOR UPDATEDMODERN STYLE(N) OVERHANG TRIM DETAILSFOR UPDATED MODERN STYLE(N) ADDITION BELOWSEE FIRST FLOOR PLANS(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)(N) DOOR IN LINE W/DR. BELOW(N)(N)NEW SECOND FLOOR DECKSIZE TO STAY AT 20' FROM FRONTLEGEND:EXISTING WALLSWALLS/ITEMS TO BE REMOVESNEW WALLS Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formAs Built + Proposed Floor Plan See DetailsA2.1A2.12PROPOSED 2ND FLOOR PLANScale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) SLOPE123(E) SLOPE 12 1 (E) SLOPE 12 1 (E) SLOPE121(E) SLOPE121(E) ASPHALT ROOF(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECT(N) FLAT ROOFEPDM OR EQUALCLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) ASPHALT ROOF(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) PROTECT(N) FLAT ROOFEPDM OR EQUALCLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) FLAT ROOF(E) EPDM OR EQUAL(E) CLASS A: FIRE RATED(E) SOLAR PROTECT(E) SOLAR PROTECT(E) SKYLIGHTPROTECT(E) SKYLIGHTPROTECT(E) SKYLIGHTPROTECT(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) D.S.2% SLOPE2% SLOPE (N) SCUPPER(N) SCUPPERNEW SECOND FLOOR DECK(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)(UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)Existing / Proposed Roof Plans See DetailsA2.2GENERAL NOTES:1. (EXISTING) (OGEE) G.S.M. GUTTERS AND 3" G.S.M. DOWNSPOUTS (MATCHEXISTING AS REQUIRED), LINE ALL VALLEYS WITH G.S.M., AT LEAST 20" WIDE WITH1/4" EDGE TURNED OVER AND FASTENED WITH CLEATS. LAP JOINTS AT LEAST 4",BUT DO NOT SOLDER.2. ROOFING MATERIAL TO BE ASPHALT SHINGLES BY CERTAINTEED OR EQ. (CLASS'A') OVER 1 LAYER OF 15# FELT PAPER OVER 5/8" PLYWOOD OR PER STRUCTURALDRAWINGS. MIN. 40 YEAR WARRANTY SHINGLES. (CONFIRM COLOR WITH OWNER)3. WHEN INSULATION IS INSTALLED IN ENCLOSED RAFTER SPACES WHERECEILINGS ARE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO THE UNDERSIDE OF ROOF RAFTERS, AMINIMUM AIR SPACE OF 1" MUST BE PROVIDED, INSULATION BAFFLE NEEDED.4. FLASHINGS AND COUNTER FLASHINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.016-INCH (28GAUGE) CORROSION RESISTANT METAL, AND VALLEY FLASHING.5. AT THE JUNCTURE OF THE ROOF AND VERTICAL SURFACES, FLASHING ANDCOUNTER FLASHINGS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (26 GAUGE).6. TRUSSES (IF USED) ARE TO HAVE A MINIMUM 6" HEEL. VERIFY WITH DESIGNER.7. TERMINATION OF ALL ENVIRONMENTAL AIR DUCTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3'-0"FROM PROPERTY LINES OR ANY OPENING INTO THE BUILDING (I.E.) DRYERS, BATHAND UTILITY FANS, ETC., MUST BE 3'-0" AWAY FROM DOORS, WINDOWS, OPENINGSKYLIGHTS OR ATTIC VENTS, PER CODE.8. (IF USED) THE TRUSS PLAN AND THE TRUSS CALC. SHALL BE REVIEWED ANDAPPROVED BY THE ENGINEER OF RECORD BEFORE SUBMITTING TO THE BUILDINGDEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION. TRUSS PLANS SHALL BEWET SIGNED AND WET STAMPED BY TRUSS DESIGN ENGINEER.9. (IF REQUIRED) FURNACE LOCATED IN ATTIC SPACE SHALL BE LISTED FOR ATTICLOCATION AND PROVIDED WITH 24" WIDE SOLID FLOORING ACCESS WAY AND 30"WORKING SPACE AT CONTROLS.10. ATTIC VENTILATION AT CALIFORNIA FRAMING TO RECEIVE LOW PROFILE VENTSOR OPENINGS IN THE ROOF SHEATHING BELOW.11. (AS REQUIRED) ALL TRUSS / RAFTER BLOCKING SHALL RECEIVE 2" DIAMETERHOLES IN EVERY BLOCK, TYPICAL FOR EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF AIR FLOW.12. ATTIC IS GETTING NEW INSULATION, VERIFY (E) FANS / VENTS MEET CURRENTCODE.PLUMBING + HVAC NOTE:1. GROUP ALL EXHAUST FLUES TOGETHER WHEN POSSIBLE AND LOCATE ONROOFS SLOPING TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, TYP. VERIFY LOCATION WITHDESIGNER.A2.2Scale: 1/4 = 1'-0"1EXISTING + PROPOSED ROOF PLAN Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING form DRIVEWAY1'-8 1/2" 8'-4"8"8'-6"6'-7 1/2"RIDGESECOND FLOOR T.O.P.FIRST FLOOR T.O.P.FIRST FLOOR SUB. FLR.53.00'61.33'70.50'77.13'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE (E) 6' WD. FENCE (E) 6' WD. FENCE 45° 7'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE51.30'GRADE51.17'AVERAGE T.O.C.50.40'D.H.E. LEFT SIDE50.35'45°12'-0"30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT80.40'11" 26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" MAX HEIGHTSECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR.62.00'12'-0" 3'-3 1/2"(E) D.S.(E) D.S.TEMP.(N)(R)(E)(N) STEEL FLAT ROOFDETAILS TBD(E) STUCCO W/ (N) PAINTEDFINISHWD. CLAD WINDOWS +DOORS BY S.P. OR EQUALW/ S.D.L. TYP.,TEMP.(N)EXISTING(E) DRIVEWAYSIMPLE EXP. AGG CONC.OR STONE CLAD (V.I.F)(N) 42" HT. STEEL RAILING(E)(E)(E)REMOVAL OFBEAMS (VERIFY)(E) ARCHITECTURALASPHALT SHINGLES(PROTECT)WD. CLAD WINDOWS +DOORS BY S.P. OR EQUAL1'-8 1/2" 8'-4"8"8'-6"6'-7 1/2"RIDGESECOND FLOOR T.O.P.FIRST FLOOR T.O.P.FIRST FLOOR SUB. FLR.53.00'61.33'70.50'77.13'(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE(N) 6' WD. FENCE 45° 7'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDE51.30'GRADE51.17'AVERAGE T.O.C.50.40'D.H.E. LEFT SIDE50.35'45°12'-0"30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT80.40'11" 26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" MAX HEIGHTPROPOSED ADUUNDER SEPARATE PERMITSECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR.62.00'12'-0" 3'-3 1/2"(E) D.S.(E) D.S.(E) PLANTER - RECLAD(E) STAIRS + PORCH(N) PLANTER(E) PLANTER -RECLAD(N) PORCHTEMP.(N)(R)(R)(N)(N)TEMP.(N)(E) PLANTER - RECLAD(N) 6' WD. FENCE 1'-0"3'-6"1'-0"(N) WOOD FENCE (BYOWNER) (N.I.C)(N) WOOD FENCE (BYOWNER) (N.I.C)(N)(N)5'-0"4'-0"(E)EGR.EGR.(N) ADDRESS LETTERS1/2" STROKE BY 4" HIGH (MIN.)EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATEDADU / JADU ADDRESSES TO BE DISPLAYED SEPARATE FROM THE MAIN DWELLING IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWINGMETHODS: ON A SECONDARY MAILBOX, GATE, OR NON-MOVEABLE STRUCTURE VISIBLE FROM THE STREETFRONTAGE AT THE PROPERTY LINE, INCLUDING THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF THE ADU PER BMC.NUMBERS AND ADDRESSES SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SUCH A POSITION ASTO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY. SAID NUMBERS SHALLCONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUNDS, SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 1/2" STROKE BY 4" HIGH, AND SHALL BEEITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATIONS, OR REPAIR OFEXISTING CONSTRUCTION. THE POWER OF SUCH ILLUMINATION SHALL NOT BE NORMALLY SWITCHABLE. CITY OFBURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE 18.08.010. 2022 CBC 502.111486"2'-6" 7'-0"NEW SECOND FLOOR DECK2'-0"FINISHED 1ST FLR 53.00'FIRST FLR T.O.P.@ ADDITION62.00'9'-0"1'-10 1/2"OVERALL HGT@ ADDITION63.88'1'-10" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.0A3.01EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONA3.02PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" DRIVEWAY1'-8 1/2"8'-4"8"7'-0"6'-7 1/2"RIDGEFINISHED FIRST FLOOR(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE (E) 6' WD. FENCE (E) 6' WD. FENCE 45°12'-0"7'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDEGRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.D.H.E. LEFT SIDE50.35'45° 12'-0"30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 80.40'11"26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT30'-0" MAX HEIGHT 77.13'53.00'51.30'50.40'51.17'FIRST FLOOR T.O.P. 61.33'SECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR. 62.00'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P. 70.50'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P.(LOWER)69.00'1'-6"(E) ELEC.METER(E)CRAWLACCESS(E) D.S.TEMP.(N)(E)SIMPLE VENEER BRICKOR STONE CLAD (V.I.F)(N) PAINTED STUCCO TOMATCH (E) STUCCO(N) STEEL FLAT ROOFOR BLK EPDM(E) STUCCO W/ (N)PAINTED FINISHWD. CLAD FOLDING DOORSBY LA CANTINA(E)EGR.8'-0"(E)1ST FLR. ADDITION(E) REAR YARD(E) DRIVEWAY(E) ARCHITECTURALASPHALT SHINGLES(PROTECT)1'-8 1/2"8'-4"8"7'-0"6'-7 1/2"RIDGEFINISHED FIRST FLOOR(E) PROPERTY LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE45°12'-0"7'-0"D.H.E. RIGHT SIDEGRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.D.H.E. LEFT SIDE50.35'45° 12'-0"30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 80.40'11"26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT30'-0" MAX HEIGHT 77.13'53.00'51.30'50.40'51.17'FIRST FLOOR T.O.P. 61.33'SECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR. 62.00'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P. 70.50'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P.(LOWER)69.00'1'-6"(E) D.S.TEMP.(N)FIXEDTEMP.(N)FIXED(N) 6' WD. FENCE (N) 6' WD. FENCE TEMP.(N)FIXED8"(N) MAX. HEIGHT OFROOFING (VERIFY IN FIELD)(N) WOOD FENCE (BYOWNER) (N.I.C)(N) WOOD FENCE (BYOWNER) (N.I.C)(N) CONC. STOOP LESS THAN 30" ABOVEGRADE. NO RAILING NEEDED, BUTPROVIDING A SIMPLE STEEL HANDRAIL5'-10 1/2"4'-0"(E)EGR.FINISHED 1ST FLR53.00'FIRST FLR T.O.P.@ ADDITION62.00'OVERALL HGT@ ADDITION63.88'1'-10"9'-0" 1'-10 1/2" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.1A3.11EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONA3.12PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"** FOR REFERENCE ONLY, NO PROPOSED WORKFOR REAR ELEVATION UNDER THIS PERMIT ** (E) FENCE OUTLINE3121128'-4"8"8'-6"6'-7 1/2"RIDGEFINISHED FIRST FLOOR53.00'77.13'GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.50.40'30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT80.40'26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" MAX HEIGHT 2'-7" (E) PROPERTY LINE FIRST FLOOR T.O.P.61.33'SECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR.62.00'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P.70.50'(E) SOLAR PANELMETERS(E) D.S.(E) D.S.WD. CLAD WINDOWS + DRSBY S.P. OR EQUAL(N) PAINTED STUCCO TOMATCH (E) STUCCO(N) STEEL DETAIL + FLATROOF(E) STUCCO W/ (N) PAINTEDFINISH(N)(N)(N) 42" HT. STEEL RAILING(E)(E)MAJOR REMODELADDITIONEXISTING(E) REAR YARD(E) FENCE OUTLINEREMOVE - ALL (E) VENTSFROM STREET VEIW(E) ARCHITECTURALASPHALT SHINGLES(PROTECT)(E) WD FASCIA DETAILS W/(N) PAINT (PROTECT)8'-4"8"8'-6"6'-7 1/2"RIDGEFINISHED FIRST FLOOR53.00'77.13'GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.50.40'30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT80.40'26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT 30'-0" MAX HEIGHT 2'-7" (E) PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED ADUUNDER SEPARATE PERMIT312112FIRST FLOOR T.O.P.61.33'SECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR.62.00'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P.70.50'(E) D.S.(E) SOLAR PANELMETERSFINISHED 1ST FLR 53.00'FIRST FLR T.O.P.@ ADDITION62.00'9'-0"1'-10 1/2"OVERALL HGT@ ADDITION63.88'(E) D.S.(E) PLANTER - RECLAD(N) 6' WD. FENCE(N) PAINTED STUCCO TOMATCH (E) STUCCO1'-10"NEW SECOND FLOOR DECK Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.2A3.21EXISTING LEFT ELEVATIONA3.22PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" (E) FENCE OUTLINE3121128'-4"8"8'-6"6'-7 1/2"RIDGEFINISHED FIRST FLOOR 53.00'77.13'GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.50.40'30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 80.40'26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT30'-0" MAX HEIGHT2'-7" (E) PROPERTY LINEFIRST FLOOR T.O.P. 61.33'SECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR. 62.00'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P. 70.50'(E) D.S.(N) 42" HT. STEEL RAILING(E)(E)(E)(E)MAJOR REMODELADDITION(E) REAR YARDEXISTINGTEMP.(N)(E) FENCE OUTLINEUPGRADE EXISTINGGRILLS FOR VENTINGALLOWANCE ($40.00 EA)(N)(R)(E) FRONT YARD8'-4"8"8'-6"6'-7 1/2"RIDGEFINISHED FIRST FLOOR 53.00'77.13'GRADEAVERAGE T.O.C.50.40'30' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 80.40'26'-8 1/2" EXISTING OVERALL HEIGHT30'-0" MAX HEIGHT2'-7" (E) PROPERTY LINEPROPOSED ADUUNDER SEPARATE PERMIT312112FIRST FLOOR T.O.P. 61.33'SECOND FLOOR SUB. FLR. 62.00'SECOND FLOOR T.O.P. 70.50'(N)FIXED(E) D.S.(R)(E) GAS ON-DEMANDW.H. RELOCATED TOMECH. RM. @ CRAWLMOVE HOOD VENT INTOFLOOR SYSTEM(N) ACCESS DOOR TO (E)CRAWLSPACE / MECH RM(E) PLANTER -RECLAD(E) PLANTER- RECLAD(N) PLANTER(N) PORCH(N)(N) 6' WD. FENCE (N) PAINTED STUCCO TOMATCH (E) STUCCO(N) CONC. STOOP LESSTHAN 30" ABOVE GRADE.NO RAILING NEEDED,BUT PROVIDING ASIMPLE STEEL HANDRAIL1'-10"TEMP.(N)2'-8"NEW SECOND FLOOR DECKFINISHED 1ST FLR53.00'FIRST FLR T.O.P.@ ADDITION62.00'OVERALL HGT@ ADDITION63.88'1'-10"9'-0" 1'-10 1/2" Sheet Scale:All drawings & Specifications provided as instruments of service are the property of the Designer whether the project is executed or not.It is unlawful for any person, without the written consent of the Designer. To duplicate or make copies of these documents,partly or in whole, for use for other projects & buildings. Rev.: 001002003004005006 Description :Date : Revisions4843 SILVER SPRINGS DRIVE E-mail: TIM@FORMONEDESIGN.COM Ph: 415.819.0304Park City, UT 84098Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 Title : Project : Date :04.01.24Drawn :TIM RADUENZ23_24Job No. : Owner : APN#: 026-182-230 Contractor : PLANNING SET Zoning: R1 BUILDING SET Stefan Fischer + Seoyoung Kim 1148 Bernal Avenue Burlingame, CA. 94010 oneDESIGN PLANNING formExisting + Proposed Elevations See DetailsA3.3A3.31EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONA3.32PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONScale: 1/4" = 1'-0"Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"