Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - PC - 2024.06.24Planning Commission City of Burlingame Meeting Agenda BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers/Online7:00 PMMonday, June 24, 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: 834 7951 9839 Passcode: 115804 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-669-444-9171 Meeting ID: 834 7951 9839 Passcode: 115804 Please note that the public may not submit public comments via Zoom during Planning Commission meetings. The public may either attend the meeting in person to comment or send an email to publiccomment@burlingame.org (see below). 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 6/20/2024 June 24, 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 June 24, 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 June 10, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutesa. Draft June 10, 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 6/20/2024 June 24, 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. Adoption of Resolution Updating the Guidelines Regarding the Level of Review Required for After-Action Changes to Approved Design Review Projects. Staff Contact : Ruben Hurin a. Staff Report Attachments Resolution Attachments: 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There are no Regular Action Items 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY 1556 Balboa Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Alex Tzang Architects, applicant and architect; Daniel Gage, property owner) (45 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon a. 1556 Balboa Way - Staff Report 1556 Balboa Way - Attachments 1556 Balboa Way - Plans Attachments: 114 Bayswater Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development LLC, applicant and designer; Rockwood Home Development LLC, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi b. 114 Bayswater Ave - Staff Report 114 Bayswater Ave - Attachments 114 Bayswater Ave - Plans Attachments: 1472 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. (Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group, designer; Tan Tseng, property owner) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao c. 1472 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1472 Drake Ave - Attachments 1472 Drake Ave - Renderings 1472 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Page 3 City of Burlingame Printed on 6/20/2024 June 24, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS - Commission Communications - City Council regular meeting of June 17, 2024 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, June 24, 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 t h i s a g e n d a w i l l b e m a d e a v a i l a b l e f o r i n s p e c t i o n v i a 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 June 24, 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 July 5, 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 6/20/2024 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, June 10, 2024 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Interim Community Development Director Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Erika Lewit, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent6 - ComarotoAbsent1 - 3. REQUEST FOR AB 2449 REMOTE PARTICIPATION There were no requests. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft May 28, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 28, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Vice-Chair Horan noted that he was not present at the May 28, 2024 meeting, but watched the meeting video and feels comfortable participating in the vote. Commissioner Pfaff made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Page 1City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Adoption of Resolution Updating the Guidelines for Determining the Level of Review Required for Changes to Approved Design Review Projects. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Attachments Resolution Attachments: Interim Community Development Department Director Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I feel that 25% change to a window is a lot. If it is cumulative, people change just one window, it can be a lot of windows 25% in any direction. As my fellow commissioners who are builders said typically it wouldn’t be in the width because of sheer and engineering issues. But we have seen a developer here who has often come with windows that go all the way up to the header and we ’ve repeatedly caught those in time, but those wouldn’t need to be re -engineered. My concern is that windows don ’t look great when made smaller all over. The increase in light pollution cumulatively can be major and we won ’t even see those again. It will just happen. They can go up to the header and I have an issue with that. I appreciate that you are dealing with the stairwell because those windows tend to be massive. We need to be careful. It’s not usually just one window, especially if we are talking about supply issues and do not get the specified window from a certain brand. For me, it is major change to allow window to change by 25% more. If you are going to have some flexibility on it, I will feel much better with 20% or 15% just to have guardrails on it. >On the landscaping issue, we really didn ’t discuss this in the last session. I’m getting the impression that the direction we are going is to be handling landscape as green infrastructure, which is great. It is a good thing. Green infrastructure has certain space needs and performs a certain function. If we are now going to say that “you can now have changes to landscaping that don ’t affect concerns expressly stated …” that would mean that someone would have shown up to the initial meeting that has something bad, and we would have caught it. Let’s say they had a plan that was acceptable to us or the neighbors, but they changed the privacy hedge to a deciduous hedge which has an effect on the neighbors all around them, that would go through and also not be checked because it was just fine when it came to us. In the same way that we have restrictions on the roofing materials. To be consistent, if you really want to have something for the landscaping, not to be as rigid, we don ’t need to wait for neighbors to complain. People don’t come to public meetings anymore. They don ’t participate much unless there is something that they are very passionate about. We should not be dependent on neighbors seeing or not seeing something because it might have been fine when it came through the Planning Commission the first time. In that example when something was changed from deciduous to smaller or an evergreen to a deciduous, there is a cumulative effect on the neighborhood. If it was originally planned to be deciduous, yes you can change to another deciduous hedge, but you cannot change into a different species that will suddenly change the nature of the landscape completely or a ground cover. It is fine if it is consistent with what was first approved, but personally I don ’t like the way it is written, it can cause more problems than what we currently have. We are trying to be holistic about how we plan structures together with landscape. I just Page 2City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes don’t think this is a good item to have unless it has restrictions on it. >With regards to the window comments, do you think it would be prudent if we add changes to window location, because it is not listed here? If you have a 3’x3’ window built 3 feet off the ground and then they change it and put it up by the top plate, that wouldn ’t change the size of the window but certainly changes the aesthetics. >We are setting parameters for staff; none of these things are automatic. >I trust the staff. I’m not trained in windows, but I know what light pollution is because I live around it. It does make a difference. >We are asked to comment specifically on vinyl windows and their application to our discretion, correct? (Hurin: Right now, any changes to a vinyl window automatically comes back to the Planning Commission for review. Over the years we have seen better quality vinyl clad wood windows. We just wanted to see if there is a distinction, or would you like to bring any vinyl windows or vinyl clad wood windows back for review? We have some vinyl clad wood windows that have been approved in the past.) >If it was approved as something else, then it is coming back as an FYI and is downgrading to a vinyl or a potential vinyl clad that staff is not already aware of that we have been approving regularly, it should come back because there is a change in quality that is being proposed which is detrimental rather than just an even swap. (Hurin: The tricky part is that we cannot specify a manufacturer name.) >If it is an obvious downgrade from one type of window to another that we have already seen, then we need to ask the question. It is fair to bring back to the commission rather than put that on the staff to evaluate. (Spansail: It is consistent to what is written now, any changes to vinyl, correct?) Yes. >A vinyl clad wood window downgrading to an all -vinyl window should come back to us. We don ’t need to talk about manufacturers, but with that type of a downgrade versus a vinyl wood clad window of one brand to another brand is not something that we would need to weigh in. (Hurin: Correct. The change to vinyl only is very clear. The question would be for a typical aluminum clad wood window, and they are changing to a vinyl clad wood window. This comes up more often.) >In my experience, it does not change the exterior aesthetics. The problem with vinyl is thermal expansion. That’s where we see a lot of window -fixing calls. The vinyl fails around the seal and the windows fail. That does not change anything with the vinyl wood clad and it is not in our purview to comment on that. If the exterior is the same material as what was approved, I suppose it does not matter what happens in the inside of the window. I think there are only a few cases. >If we go back five years, they were not making good vinyl composite windows then. So, we can easily say “no vinyl”. Today, that is evolving. There are a few manufacturers which have put out a new product that we can accept the vinyl composite. There’s probably out there that looks cheap. It is fair that if we are switching from something that was proposed as a higher -end material in the initial approval and there ’s a perception of trading down, then it is worth asking questions. It is safer that way on something as important as windows. We do seem to have a lot of challenges with windows. >Even though it is not in our purview to talk about color, often times we see a house presented to us in a certain color scheme, aluminum clad and fiberglass clad windows common colors. Fiberglass can be painted whereas vinyl windows can ’t. Vinyl windows come in different colors other than white now. For so many years it was only available in white and was very obvious. That would be something to be aware of also, the colors and what kind of change happened by going to an all-vinyl window. >Hurin: Whether it is a vinyl or vinyl clad wood it will come back for your review, and they can present the type of window they would like to use, typically they will bring in a sample or brochure. Page 3City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Regarding the percentage of the window size change, what happens on my own projects sometimes, a window is originally approved as a 36” wide window, like a 3’x4’. Along the way, a 32”x40” window might be more appropriate for whatever reason. Doing that calculation tends to be 20%-25% change in window size for a standard 3’x4’ window. The other change that can be happening is a 30” window going to a 24” size window or something in between, which tends to be at the range of 17%-20%. These are some examples of what the percentage might relate to in real window sizes. >I did the same calculation, but if it is a 5’x5’ or larger window, then that 25% gets a lot bigger. It is imperceptible in smaller increments. At a bigger window, the percentage multiplier becomes a much bigger risk. >So that means a 3’x5’ window becomes a 3’x6.5’. You can add almost 18” to every window in the house and still make that an administrative change. That seems too much. >Hurin: If I recall, during the Study Session we were discussing moving to a 10% change. >It says 25% here now. (Hurin: I believe we had not finished the discussion.) >My fellow commissioners who are builders were not sure about the 10% so we left it at 25% and took the stairwell window away. I don ’t build, but I think it is a lot when it gets a quarter larger. (Spansail: Not that we want to get into the details much and make it too complicated, if you want to delineate versus a larger size window by percentage like smaller windows under a certain dimension will be approved up to 25% and then others will be 10%. There are options. Again, we don ’t want to force you to get too creative, but if it is something you’d like to consider that is certainly something we can write in here.) >It is a helpful guideline for staff. When staff sees something odd, they can send it back to the Planning Commission to make the decision even though it is within the percentage that we gave away it does not mean that it will automatically be approved. It still needs to be reviewed. >I like guardrails on stuff, but I will leave it up to my fellow commissioners who are builders. >25% does sound large; 15% sounds more reasonable, I am fine with something around that range. >It is a good point on landscape design to not have that predetermined in terms of going to design review based on somebody saying something about it. We have seen many landscape plans that we made very little comment on because they were either great or fine. That means a lot of important things can change without any kind of review. If there is a way to put in some language similar to a like -for-like change, changing a deciduous to another deciduous or similar configuration like adding a giant flower bed to the middle, things that seem like a drastic change. But it still leaves a lot of common -sense things like when the applicant can’t find specific plants in stock and a similar plant is fine if it does the same job. >I agree with that. As a contractor, I come across quantity issues. For instance, you have 15 trees that need to be planted and at the same time you have a large drainage system that you also need to put in, but you can’t plant a tree on top of the drain or a big basin. Since there is no way to put in all these trees, you are now downgrading to 12 trees. Should that come back to us for approval or should the city have a say on that? It can’t be done, it’s one of those things that are part of the building process. >How is that same example being handled now? (Hurin: We make sure that they meet the minimum requirements, and we also review the meeting minutes to see if specific items were discussed. For example, if there was a suggestion that a tree be planted in the rear corner and they are not planting it, then we bring it back as a change. We don ’t get into the flower beds and one -gallon size flowers. There has to be a little bit of discretion otherwise our agenda would be full of Design Review Amendment items, and we don’t want to do that. Significant changes to landscape concepts and designs are things that we Page 4City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes do bring back to the Planning Commission. We can come up with some language for you to consider that will capture the design intent if there is a significant change.) (Spansail: To clarify, the city arborist does take a look at these especially if it is impacting trees. They will look to see if there is a feasible planting of where they proposed it and if not, where they can move it to make sure the tree is able to grow.) >Regarding the siding, I am ok with wood and cement fiber. If they are painted it is hard to tell the difference, but not any other type of material substitution. >I am not ok with the corner trim being substituted because that is an architectural detail. It changes the look of the house if you have a corner trim versus a mitered trim, so I don’t want that to come back. >I don’t think it is a bad product. We have seen good projects with it, but it can be a bad project too if they do the details wrong. The change from wood siding to vinyl siding is a risk. >Not vinyl, composite or cement board. >Interestingly, when I walked the neighborhood, I noticed more and more wood siding that is cupping and warping. It looks worse than the cement fiber siding. Sometimes wood looks great the first couple of years. These are fairly new homes that are having these issues. >Is that good enough direction? (Hurin: It was clear on the corner trim. Sometimes we approve projects with the corner trim in place. If the mitered corner got approved and they now want to change to corner trim, that is coming back. I am still unclear on the change from approved wood to fiber cement.) >In a lot of these we are saying, if you come in with one thing and you are presenting the A -type material and you come back and bring in a C -type, try to sneak it through and doing it poorly it, then it will be impactful. >Are we allowed to comment on stain versus paint? If you are using real wood, you can stain that material. If an applicant decides to use fiber cement boards, that you cannot stain, it must be painted . You can hardly tell the difference between painted wood and painted fiber cement board if it is done well . (Hurin: If we had a project approved with stain wood and they come back with fiber cement, we would bring it back to the commission because it can no longer be stained. Although we cannot look at staining versus color, that would be considered a change into the exterior. Any change to fiber cement or any type of material will be brought back to the commission.) >It sounds like they are the same thing but are not executed the same way. >Hurin: Would you like to make a determination on the percentage of window change? >I believe 15% is the consensus. >Hurin: We can go with 15%. If we start to see that it is a significant change and starts to look odd, then we can revisit that. This gives us good direction. We will not act on the resolution tonight. We will make the changes and perhaps bring it back at your next meeting as a Consent Calendar item, you can approve it then or pull it for further discussion. >In the staff report, the stairwell is listed but it is not in the amended documents. (Hurin: I will make sure that it is in the amended documents for the next meeting.) Interim Community Development Director Hurin thanked the Commission for their input and noted that this item will return to the Planning Commission for action at a future meeting. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY Page 5City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.2108 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Sherman Yan, applicant and designer; Chi Li, property owner) (46 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2108 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2108 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2108 Carmelita Ave - Renderings 2108 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Chi Li, property owner, represented the applicant regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Is it correct that there is no bedroom limit to house with a one -car garage? (Lewit: Correct. Previously, if you were increasing from four bedrooms to any number of bedrooms beyond that you had to provide two covered parking spaces. Now, for additions and remodels, we cannot additional required parking spaces per Assembly Bill No. 1308.) >The second story design is not working for me at all. It looks like it was just stacked on top of the first floor. It doesn ’t look like there was an attempt to turn it into one building like the neighbor to the left who recently redid their house. >The lack of consistency in the windows doesn ’t help turn this into a good -looking project, although I understand keeping the existing windows and having new windows on the top. That is a detriment. It is matching the existing, but the existing is not adding value to the neighborhood. A lot of the other houses in the area are quite nice and it is not doing it with this expansion. The side elevation is just a large expansive wall, it is not what we would have approved for any project. >I don’t know enough about the names of the trees that are in the site plan, but I don ’t see three decent size non-fruit trees that meet our criteria for landscaping. There’s a lot of work to be done on this project. I don’t see being able to approve it. >I agree. Depending on what my fellow commissioners say, this is a great candidate for a Design Review Consultant. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. On the windows, I understand the requirement to try to meet egress in the bedrooms, but it does not mean that a grid can be added to the windows very simply to look more like the main floor. >I also feel that the second story looks like a different house. It doesn ’t seem to go with the main floor . One element that should be addressed is the roof style. Going from a nice big gable being a defining Page 6City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes element at the front of the house to hipped roofs receding back does not show any prominence to the second story. The side elevation almost looks like an apartment building. It needs more details and improvements to enhance the use of the yard. >I love the massing of it, I like the way it is set back. I agree with my fellow commissioners that it does not look like a cohesive home. It needs work. It depends on whether the architect wants to try again or go to a Design Review Consultant. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The house is charming the way it is, but when you add this block on top, as my fellow commissioner said, it becomes very apartment looking. Unfortunately, the choice of materials is not helping. With flat stucco, flat T 1-11 siding, there’s nothing much happening . Review by a Design Review Consultant should be the next course of action. Commission Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The Commission directed that this application be brought back as a Design Review Study Item after the analysis is completed by the design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Absent:Comaroto1 - b.2750 and 2300 Adeline Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Environmental Review (CEQA Exemption), Amendment to Conditional Use Permit, Commercial Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit, and Variance for building height for a new gymnasium on the Mercy High School property (Natalie Cirigliano-Brosnan, applicant; DevCon Construction, Inc., architect; Mercy High School, property owner (334 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2750 and 2300 Adeline Dr - Staff Report 2750 and 2300 Adeline Dr - Attachments 2750 and 2300 Adeline Dr - Renderings 2750 and 2300 Adeline Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Lowenthal was recused as he lives within 500 feet from this project. Commissioner Shores noted that he spoke with Denise Severi, Kohl Mansion Coordinator, during the site visit. Commissioner Schmid noted that he attended one of the community outreach meetings and he has been in communication with one of the applicants. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. Acting Chair Horan opened the public hearing. Natalie Cirigliano-Brosnan, applicant and Jeff Berg, architect, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Christina Habelt, 1531 Coumbus Avenue: I am very supportive of Mercy High School getting a gym. It is beautifully designed. The main thing that I would request from the Planning Commission is to consider the traffic. I don’t know about the details of their Conditional Use Permit; I just ask that we be very conservative in applying maximum cars because although we are only talking about the Mercy High School gym, the gym does not exist in a vacuum. Everybody knows that there is a lot more in the works at Page 7City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that facility. In addition to that, with all the ADU ’s coming to these neighborhoods, we don ’t need any garages anymore. In the evenings, there are cars parked along the street. From the Hoover Avenue exit, we must consider that the street is very narrow. Even driving down Adeline Drive, there ’s a lot more cars parked on the street for the past two years, where you have to stop to make room for a car to drive one at a time. Let’s remember that if it is only the high school gym is what we are talking about, it is not in a vacuum. Let us be conservative and think about the future events that will be happening in the neighborhood. The shuttle option is great, but it does not run after 6 pm. For any evening events, the shuttle is not an available transport option. >Lynn Israelit, 1560 Columbus Avenue: We are supportive of this project. The school has gone out of its way to communicate with us, was very transparent and worked with us to allay our anxieties and fears . They have bent backwards to try and take into consideration the neighborhood when they were preparing their plans. However, I do have three issues that I feel are very important that I ’d like to the commission address. Currently, the Conditional Use Permit will be modified to have an end time at 10 pm. I do believe that the school will unlikely have an event that goes that late and they were probably asked to envision a worst-case scenario when coming up with this proposal. The problem is if Sunday through Saturday there really are events that go until 10 pm in a very dense neighborhood with very narrow streets. This high school is not on Carolan Avenue, Murchison Drive or Ralston Avenue like Notre Dame of Belmont. This is in a very quiet neighborhood. I would ask that you change that to reflect what will actually happen. Most of their games are going to be over by 8:30 pm. We would be happy to have exceptions for special events; CCS, championship games, Christmas at Khol, back to school night or open house. But I am very leery of having a blank back for 10 pm. When this administration may move one, there may be other administrations who see this as a legal document that says they can do whatever until 10 pm and may decide to take advantage of that. I feel like we are handing a blank check to the future. I would like more restrictions that shall always be revisited if needed to protect the neighborhood. You probably have seen how narrow and quiet the streets are around this property. It may be a technicality, but on page 11 of Hexagon’s traffic study indicates that it should overflow parking be used for larger events when there are also athletic events. That cars be directed to leave or enter that overflow parking through either the gate on Hoover Avenue, which is at a hairpin turn on the street that can barely accommodate two or three cars wide or at the gate at Hoover Avenue and Adeline Drive which is a blind intersection with near -miss accidents all the time. The driveway enters at an angle and is on a hill. I’ve had my car almost get hit multiple times. It is not a place to send traffic out. I am not sure if that was intended. Traffic should leave by the main gate up by Alvarado Avenue and have somebody conduct traffic for safety reasons. I really feel strongly that those lower gates are not used. >Karen Dittman, 1495 Columbus Avenue: I live at the corner of Adeline Drive and Columbus Avenue, where a hundred cars go through my intersection twice a day. I agree with everything that my neighbor had to say about concerns for the traffic. I am glad that Mercy High School is going to have better quality buildings and sports complexes. I would like you, as my fellow speakers said, to keep this in context . Over the years, Mercy has increased their enrollment. Maybe one year it is only 4% and then the next year it is only 5% or 2%. But as what Commissioner Pfaff said, it is cumulative. It is very cumulative to our neighborhood. We are the ones who are dealing with it. I’d like to see not just more conservative ending times; I’d also like to see some numbers on how many events you can have late and what the consequences are if you run over. We can talk about it, say you ’re not going to do that again and they will agree, but we need consequences also. >Joe Nezwek, 2335 Adeline Drive: We have lived across the Mercy High School for a really long time. I have to say that they have been a tremendous neighbor. Not only do they keep that parcel of land up, but they let the neighbors walk through there. We walk our dog there all the time. It is really a gem for Burlingame. I truly support what they are doing. They took their time to come up with a design that looks, feels and fits into the architecture. I support it completely. The only issue I have with the whole project is the parking for the construction is on Adeline Drive. Anybody who lives in Adeline Drive either has or knows somebody who’s car has been side swiped or who ’s rearview mirror has been torn off. Mine has twice. It is a narrow street. Thank you for the speed bumps, that helps. Having construction workers park Page 8City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes right on Adeline Drive for a year and a half is a danger to the community. I’d like to see them find another area in those 36 acres to park. As far as the project is concerned, this is going to be a dream project for the City of Burlingame. I appreciate Mercy High School for being so open with all the neighbors. Please take a look at the construction parking. >Public comment sent via email by Katie Riggs, 2341 Poppy Drive: I was unable to attend the June 10th public hearing but would like to add a comment. I have lived on Poppy Drive for 20 years and in that time have found the Sisters of Mercy and Mercy High School to be wonderful neighbors. I have no reason to suspect that they will be any less great neighbors while they pursue an exciting and much needed facilities update. I fully support their plans for the construction of a new gym, a project that I know has been in the works for a long time. >Public comment sent via email by David Greene, 2020 Adeline Drive: I am all for Mercy's improving their facilities. I just think they need to respect the neighborhood and the already nightmare traffic situation by planning an earlier closing time than proposed (be in line with other Catholic high schools at 8:30 pm) and not using Hoover gates as main entrance. The access and traffic is bad already. Be reasonable and everything will work out fine. >Public comment sent via email by Shirin and John Coleman: We are 37-year residents of Burlingame and will continue to make it our home. We have an interest in the beauty and well -being of our community and its future. We live in the neighborhood near Mercy High School. Our children attended Morning Glory Montessori, we have donated to the care and maintenance of the Labyrinth, attended offerings at Mercy Center and Music at Kohl Mansion. Regarding the Mercy High School gym, pool and student center project, we advocate for the following: 1)Set a curfew cutoff of 8:30 pm for weeknight activities. This matches up with current Catholic high school schedules in Mercy ’s league. We need to keep in mind the residential neighborhood where Mercy is located; a 10 pm curfew is too late. 2) On special occasions an exception can be made to the 8:30 pm curfew to 9 pm for specific and limited dates such as Christmas at Kohl, Open House, Back to School and championship games. The exception is not to become the norm . 3) The Conditional Use Permit needs to limit the number of cars attending events on the property to not exceed 75 which is in line with the current proposal. More cars is not better. Managing traffic, road congestion and ensuring safety is essential to an ongoing cooperative relationship between the high school and neighborhood. May the City take this seriously and consider this reality: On a Sunday evening at 6 pm, 108 cars were parked on neighborhood streets near and around Mercy High School. The streets were quiet and only one youth spotted riding his bike. These cars are parked on yield streets, thoroughfares around Mercy. From living in the neighborhood, we are aware that on weekdays there is more traffic and pedestrians: neighbors going to and from work, the commuter shuttle, dog walkers, construction/service vehicles, children and caregivers going to and from Lincoln, BIS and Franklin on foot, bike or car. Adding 75 more cars going to and from Mercy is significant and adds to congestion, more yielding and need for heightened pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. 4) Specify the approved entrance and exit for cars to be at the upper gates of Adeline and Alvarado. The lower entrances on Adeline at Hoover/Columbus and Hoover /Columbus/Marion Oaks are not suitable for handling a volume of traffic. 5) Preserve the wooded nature of the property and protect the old, majestic trees. If trees are failing and need to be replaced, replace them with the same species that will provide stature and canopy on the property. Replace trees in equal numbers or more than the number lost. >Public comment sent via email by Robert Smith, 2856 Hillside Drive: As a nearby resident of the Mercy campus, I support this reasonable improvement of facilities. We are vigilant and active neighbors who value the High School but strongly oppose any entity that would attempt to monetize the property with development out of character with our R-1 residential community. >Public comment sent via email by Brian and Marsha Lee, 1468 Benito Avenue: We submit this email to be read at the meeting on Monday, June 10, 2024 and we have the following comments and requests : 1) Require additional on-site parking. We believe that increased traffic and numerous events at the New Student Center will create a larger parking problem for the residents in close proximity to Mercy, as we Page 9City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes have already had students and drop -off and pick-up parking on Benito Avenue near our home. The busy Activities Schedule plus existing ongoing activities on the MHS /SOM property show the need for additional on-site parking. 2) Emergency Access only for Poppy /Adeline Drive (Re: Figure 5 Project Parking Plan) This access point is identified as Pedestrian and Automotive General Access Easement in Figure 5. Design the road to prohibit pedestrian access, vehicular access and turn -around. (Too tempting for visitors/students to park on neighborhood streets (Adeline, Poppy and Benito) and walk to the gym). 3) Provide a Drainage Plan that addresses stormwater impacts to Benito Avenue /Hale Drive where stormwater runoff is severe .4) Provide a Lighting Plan. Show the type and location of all lights including the Floodlights, Wall Mount, and Decorative Poles. 5) Maximum Capacity for the New Student Center . What is the Maximum Capacity for the New Student Center/Gymnasium Building? >Public comment sent via email by Jim Murphy: The subject of a gym at Mercy HS is a Title 9 issue. The girls at Mercy need the same facilities as Burlingame and Mills HS. The 40 acres of the property allow for construction, especially given the plans that are in the interior of the site. Public access to Mercy will not be impeded. Neighbor concerns about traffic should be mitigated by the fact that we ’re not talking about football games with 5,000 fans but girls basketball, volleyball etc. with at most a few hundred fans . The real benefit is for the 14 to18-year-old girls in our community, who will get the same resources as the boys at other schools. This is a no brainer. >Public comment sent via email by Sue Fuller, 2210 Poppy Drive: Sadly, I am unable to attend the meeting this evening. As a 30+ year resident in the Mercy area, I am saddened that any of these changes have to occur but hope that the changes can be made on an effort to keep our neighborhood like it is. I would strongly suggest that mercy keep in line with other catholic schools in our area and have completion times of activities at 8:30, for less neighborhood disturbance. Using the Hoover gate for such activities with as many cars as are proposed to be allowed is just not viable. That gate couldn ’t and shouldn’t withstand that kind of traffic. And while on the subject, it seems crazy to allow for the number of vehicles they are proposing. Seems like 50-75 should be max in my opinion. I’m hopeful that these changes can be considered in a way that keeps the neighborhood a neighborhood. >Public comment sent via email by Brian Manca: I am writing to express my support for the Mercy High School Athletic and Student Life Facility project. I am a parent of a current Mercy student, an active participant with the school, and the son of a Mercy graduate from the Class of 1961! I am also a proud financial supporter of Mercy ’s capital campaign to construct this facility. Mercy High School is a organization that cares deeply in its mission to educate the hearts and minds of young women; it is one that is respectful and considerate of its surroundings and neighbors; and the Athletic Center that MHS seeks to build will directly support one of the most important aspects of Mercy: Creating a fair and equal opportunity for Mercy students to engage in Athletics and Student Activities, without having to rely on other facilities; bus students to far -away locations; or not offer certain athletics or opportunities at all. I do not live in Burlingame, but I am a homeowner; and my one -way street is a thoroughfare for parents, students, and teachers to our local public elementary school. I experience and understand what are likely concerns by the local community near MHS about traffic or noise. But I can attest to the diligent and thoughtful approaches that MHS leadership applies to traffic and other concerns. Since my daughter has been at Mercy, I have seen Juan, our traffic control assistant, help to effectively navigate the confluence of cars at the corner of Adeline and Alvarado. I have read the authoritative emails from MHS leaders providing parking and traffic guidance (and what not to do!). And all of this has shown to me the respect that MHS has for its community and neighbors. I wish my street had less traffic too! - but I love seeing and hearing all of the little kids learning and having fun in a place they enjoy. Similarly with Mercy, I love the immensely positive and supportive impact Mercy has on the young women of its student body. I am supporting this project - now and in the future. And I ask that you also consider supporting it too; and helping Mercy continue to expand its wonderful influence on the women. Acting Chair Horan closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 10City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Were you aware of a previous proposal in the early 80’s that involved putting the gymnasium next to the tennis courts? (Cirigliano-Brosnan: I have heard stories about it, but I have never seen it.) Curious because there is a sizeable area next to the tennis courts. I understand that it is steeply sloped. Do you know if the project was approached at the beginning to be sited by the tennis courts or if there was a configuration explored where you build something next to the tennis courts on the slope or something like that. (Cirigliano-Brosnan: I can speak to what I know that in 2010 there was a plan to have a balloon -tent type of gym and it was always by the tennis courts. If it was the land directly behind the pool, I am not that the footprint is large enough for a gym. I have to look into that.) >Is there any potential use of the swimming pool in the summer or other times of the year for youth recreation besides the high school use? (Cirigliano-Brosnan: Right now, we are focusing on the school . Currently, Burlingame Aquatic Center (BAC) rents out a few evenings for water polo. We want to work with the city and our neighbors to keep them happy with anything that may be happening. If the city is interested in that and comes to us, we would be open to pursuing that, but we want full transparency with our neighbors as well. I know that some neighbors have asked if they will be able to have access to that . We would like to find creative ways to be able to provide our facilities to them.) >In the rare cases that Kohl Mansion hosts large events, and you happen to be a championship team, where would you anticipate holding your games? (Cirigliano-Brosnan: We addressed this in one of our documents. We know that if there is a Kohl Mansion scheduled rental that has to take priority, we can ’t postpone that booking. If there is an important game on the same day as a huge wedding, we would have to take serious consideration if we can accommodate parking. While it will break our hearts if we couldn ’t and have to use a different gym that evening, even if the Sisters of Mercy have ample parking we don ’t want to assume that we have access to that parking, there is always a desire to talk to the sisters if there is an opportunity to use their parking. There have also been other ideas about using a bus or shuttle to transport people in from another local site. The reality is if there is a wedding for 300 guests and a huge CCS game, we might have to look for a different gym on that day because we want to honor the agreement with the city.) >Are you using those facilities now? (Cirigliano-Brosnan: Serra High School is where we go for volleyball and College of San Mateo for basketball.) >Is there soundproofing in the gym that would prevent the noise to be heard by the neighborhood? (Berg: Yes, we have fixed windows in the gym. We also have a large lobby that acts as an ante space before entering the gym. It is essentially a double containment for sound. >Are the yellow zones on Alvarado Avenue and Hillside Drive, which allows students to walk to a loading zone to be picked up, used effectively on a daily basis? (Cirigliano-Brosnan: That just started this year. They are being used. As we continue to have them, more students will use them. I know that some parents have commented that they were happy to not be able to drive in, they can continue to drive up towards highway 280 rather than having a detour into the school. I will have to study at the beginning of the next school year and have somebody out there to count how many students are actually using it.) >Is it correct that there are approximately 30 cars that can back up to Alvarado Avenue inside, right before school is out? (Cirigliano-Brosnan : We can queue inside about 30 cars inside and for about 10 minutes on average, there is a line outside on Alvarado Avenue and Adeline Drive per the traffic study.) >Does that mean that the residents on those streets cannot leave or come home during that time period? (Cirigliano-Brosnan : In the morning, it is not an issue. In the afternoon, it can be. That is why we have somebody out to assist with the traffic and are constantly trying to get everybody in as much as they can before allowing them out. He was given those directives during our traffic committee measures last year. That has helped. Again, we are looking at doing a secondary pickup time next school year to see if that can help to not have that queuing out on the neighboring streets.) Page 11City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Have you considered two traffic guards? (Cirigliano-Brosnan: We only have one right now.) >Have you tried to keep the cars in motion, keep moving around the block so that the street is not as congested? (Cirigliano-Brosnan : We have never tried that. I would be interested in talking to the City Traffic Engineer if it will potentially help. The streets are so narrow, and we do have neighbors on Alvarado Avenue that park on both sides, so it makes it a bit of a maze when you are driving through. That did come up in our community meeting, if there is a potential of having parking on one side of the street. It is something that I have reached out today to see how we can explore other opportunities. I found working with the City Traffic Engineer a very pleasant experience, so I welcome bringing all our comments to him to see if there are additional pieces that we could look at for traffic issues.) >Do you have the same type of queuing on Adeline Drive? (Cirigliano-Brosnan : We do have queuing on Adeline Drive, but because it is a wider street, I don’t think it is disrupting the neighborhood.) >I like the project. It fits well with the Kohl Mansion and the property as a whole. I can support the height variance as the slope of that lot does not make it viable to hit 30 feet when you're already starting 20 feet below on the top of curb. I like the design. >There's a lot of talk about the CUP hours, but what I've heard most is the traffic. Although the CUP hours might be longer than people would like, I don't know if that negatively impacts traffic going up and down Adeline Drive. I lived on Adeline Drive for 30 years and I've dealt with the traffic too of Mercy High School and BIS and Lincoln, so I understand that. The area of focus is the traffic at drop -off and pickup, where there's an intense amount of traffic. What we've heard is Mercy's desire to work on their transportation plan to continue to alleviate that using scheduling and other aspects. >I have a question for City Traffic Engineer, Andrew Wong, on what the viability of restricting parking on Adeline Drive and Alvarado Drive during high commute times for the school? Those streets are difficult to get up and down when there's parking on both sides. In years past I'd not seen this in Burlingame, but now we're starting to see it on streets like Carmelita Avenue and other areas where we're introducing either one-way traffic or a timed one -way or a timed parking. Maybe it's an opportunity for us to revisit that because it's really the City's issue to help alleviate some of that traffic, it's not Mercy's issue. >I'm kind of at a loss because I'm not that familiar with after -school activities, sports and such. I don't know when Burlingame High School or any of these other public schools typically end their events. I feel like there's a compromise here. I agree that it should not be so open -ended, maybe there's compromise time in there where we see how things work and have them come back if they are having trouble with it . That way there's more input, and by then maybe some solution has come up with this traffic. With traffic I'm very familiar with similar issues where I live, but I'm not familiar with the traffic patterns with the schools. The times where you can't get out of your driveway, I totally get it. I don't want to discourage the idea of looking at an end time for their conditional use permit. >I have no complaints in terms of the design of the building. It's a textbook compatible building next to a very distinctive historic building, even though this proposed building isn't on a historic site, they took a lot of precautions. I really don't have anything I could offer to improve on it, I think it's perfect. >The site plan could be improved a little bit. I've already mentioned that at one time there was a plan for the gymnasium just east of the current proposed site down the slope. That would theoretically be a little bit better because this facade wouldn't show as prominently from the Kohl Mansion, but I'm sure that's also much more expensive being on the side of the slope. So, a much less expensive thing is right now on the site. There is a tree line along the outside of those tennis courts which does a pretty good job of obscuring the tennis courts from the front of the Kohl Mansion when you're sitting on the lawn. Right now, it looks like there's only two trees being planned to be planted in front of the Athletic Center . Consider adding another two trees to provide a little bit more masking so it doesn't quite feel like you're in Page 12City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a courtyard. The front of the Kohl Mansion isn't a courtyard, it's a giant manor -like estate yard. A little bit of extra landscape screening would be an improvement. >In reference to a comment about construction parking on Adeline Drive, looking at the construction plan, it looks like there's already a dozen construction parking spots on the Grassili entrance and the 16,000 square foot construction parking lot. I didn't see anything mentioning construction parking on the street, but that does sound like it would be an issue. Is it something that we have prerogative over on the Planning Commission, or is that something more for the Building Department? (Hurin: I believe what may have been mentioned was not street parking on Adeline Drive, but on a lot off Adeline Drive. Like construction staging, construction parking for work.) That's what I'm seeing, just making sure I wasn't missing something. >Maybe this can be another opportunity with the parking on Adeline Drive and the side streets, is to do permit parking for the 18 or 24 months surrounding construction. That would hopefully discourage worker use of the neighborhood and still protect the parking for the residents. That would just encourage the workers to park on site where they're supposed to be. Could they do a temporary, two -year parking permit within city regulations? (Spansail: It is something we could explore. I think going through the traffic plan and the conditions of approval, we can try to see which ways we could go to ensure that traffic for the construction crew is limited.) Any kind of creative opportunity in which we can manipulate the process is going to help. (Lewit: This is also something we could address to the applicant. I'm sure Devcon has dealt with this before with other projects, and they can tell us what they do to ensure that doesn't happen.) > Thank you for the very nice presentation and all the thorough conversations that Mercy High School is having with the neighborhood and community members. I like hearing that the community members are saying that they'd like to have you as a neighbor and continue to. It seems like overall there's a lot of support for the project. The design is great and is aligned with the mansion. I can see approval for the Commercial Design Review aspect, the Hillside Area Construction Permit and even for the Variance on the building height for this structure. I also hear a lot of concern about traffic, which is partly under our discussion and if there is a possibility that we look at that Conditional Use Permit. Reading the notes on the dates that a 10 pm timeline is needed for those home games and practices potentially, seems like it ends generally by 9 pm. But there are those home matches that the CUP is being proposed to potentially address in case a game gets started late or whatever it might be. I don't know if the Conditional Use Permit could be written in a manner to accommodate the home game dates for the school year. That obviously would change from year to year, but adding them up, it's about 15 days out of the year that we're looking at the 10 pm CUP timeline. I don't know if that's even something that can be done or we can like write it that way. (Spansail: It's certainly legal to do. We'd have to come up with a number and an exception of process that they could go through, but it's certainly something that could be done.) > I'm not really sure if the neighborhood's worried so much about the 10 pm time frame or more about traffic, but rather than a blanket Monday to Friday every day until 10 pm, that could be pretty extensive if they're allowed to have that, even if they don't want to. Maybe we can look at limiting the CUP to certain dates. It would be great to continue to be creative and think about how to move traffic through Alvarado Avenue in particular. It would be really hard on the residents on that street to not be able to park on that street at certain times of the day, morning and afternoons. But if we can keep traffic moving, at least people can get out of their driveways, get on with their business and not have to wait beyond that 15 -minute time frame every day. Our first home was on Trousdale, and I never noticed that there was all this traffic around Franklin Elementary because there are two lanes on both sides of the street. Traffic was always moving, and it never affected us. But I can see how difficult it can be for those residents on Alvarado Avenue. It could be very helpful if we can keep things moving, not have people just park there and find a way to make that happen. >I also saw that there is parking for construction on the property, that's going to be very helpful. It is a good idea to have a limited time permit to allow residents only to park on Adeline Drive during construction hours. As we see often in cities like San Francisco, to appease everybody and make sure that residents Page 13City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are happy and have their parking. Even with a single home under construction, there are many trucks and cars parked in front of a house. >I'm in support of the project and all the conditions per the staff report, and maybe there's some creative use of the creative way to write the Conditional Use Permit. >I'm supporting the project as well. It was interesting with the public comments. I tallied 10 in favor, one not in favor. But everyone in favor had a little bit of a hesitation and it was around traffic, the conditional use curfew, and around parking. There is room to improve all three of those. Certainly, it's a big site when you include the Sisters of Mercy, parking does seem like something that could be further increased, the traffic flow and the traffic patterns to get cars off the road. I agree with my fellow commissioner, I do like the idea of providing a specific number of days, maybe 20 days a year, that it can exceed 9 pm or 8.30 pm and go to 10 pm as exceptions. When they hit that 20th day, then there's a consequence to be determined. Other than that, the design looks great. I don't have a problem with the Hillside Area Construction Permit or the Height Variance. >We thank all the neighbors for coming out tonight. We thank the applicant also for their presentation, and for holding the recent meeting they had with the neighbors. This sounds like a pretty collaborative project, so we look forward to continuing processing the application. Interim Community Development Director Hurin noted that this application will return to the Planning Commission as regular action item. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner Shores noted that he recently attended a Preservation Conference, which included a seminar in new housing laws. He will be providing a written summary to the Commission. Commissioner Tse noted that she attended the Planning Commissioner's Training where the discussion focused on housing and sustainability issues each jurisdiction was facing. Commissioner Schmid noted that he and two other commissioners attended the Volunteer Fair on Saturday at the Community Center. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Interim Community Development Director Hurin noted that at the June 3, 2024 City Council meeting, the Council reviewed the parklet fee structure and term of agreement for the parklet program beginning on July 1, 2024. 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda Items were suggested. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. Page 14City of Burlingame 1 STAFF REPORT AGENDA NO: 8a MEETING DATE: June 24, 2024 To: Planning Commission Date: June 24, 2024 From: Ruben Hurin, Interim Community Development Director – (650) 558-7256 Subject: Adoption of Resolution Updating the Guidelines Regarding the Level of Review Required for After-Action Changes to Approved Design Review Projects RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution updating the Guidelines regarding the level of review required for after-action changes to approved design review projects. BACKGROUND Shortly after Design Review was implemented in 1998, the Planning Commission (Commission) adopted a policy for reviewing modifications made to approved projects subject to Design Review. This policy allowed applicants to submit For Your Information (FYI) applications for review by the Commission for proposed minor changes made to projects before construction of the project, or for as-built changes made during construction. In 2008, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee established criteria (Guidelines) for determining the level of review required for changes to approved design review projects. The Guidelines identify items that could be handled administratively by staff and those that would require Commission review by way of an application for FYI or Design Review Amendment. The Guidelines were updated by the Commission in August, 2015 (see Exhibit A). At their Study Session on May 28, 2024, the Commission made a determination to no longer allow FYI applications for proposed and as-built changes, nor to include FYI applications as a Condition of Approval in approving projects. This decision was based on processing and legal concerns shared by the Planning Division and City Attorney. DISCUSSION As noted above, Guidelines for how to process changes to design review projects after project approval were originally established in 2008 and then updated by the Commission in 2015. The Guidelines identify items that can be approved by staff or those that would require Commission review. More specifically, the Guidelines focus on identifying which items would be considered minor deviations that are proposed or encountered through the normal course of construction, but Adoption of Resolution – Guidelines for Reviewing Approved Design Review Projects June 24, 2024 2 remain consistent with the approved project, and those which would represent deviations from the approved project that would require Commission review. Staff would note that when determining whether an item is in the category of administrative review or subject to Commission review, staff typically meets as a group with the Planning Manager or Community Development Director to review the change(s) and develop a consensus opinion. Staff refers to the Guidelines to make its determination. Since the Guidelines were last revised in 2015 and given the determination that FYI applications will no longer be processed, staff believes it is the appropriate time to revisit the Guidelines. At its May 28, 2024 Study Session, the Commission reviewed the Guidelines and suggested that certain items be added/modified to the Guidelines. At their meeting on June 10, 2024, the Commission provided further clarification and direction to staff, which includes the following: Items that can be handled administratively by Staff:  Changes in window material to fiberglass or fiberglass clad wood  Changes in size of windows less than 15%  Change in roofing material that is consistent with overall design of the project  Change in landscaping including “like-for-like” replacement of landscape trees and privacy hedges; change in landscaping layout if the configuration is similar to that of the originally approved design intent Items requiring Planning Commission review (Design Review Amendment):  Changes to the complexity of window grid pattern, reduction in number of window grids, or elimination of window grids  Change in window material to vinyl or vinyl clad wood  Changes to window shapes (e.g., round-top to rectangular shaped window)  Changes to window trim package (e.g., wood trim to stucco foam trim, elimination of window trim, etc.)  Increase to the size of stairway window(s)  Change in exterior siding from wood to fiber cement or other lesser quality material  Change from mitered corner design to corner trim Any other types of changes will be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Planning Manager or Community Development Director to determine if Planning Commission review is required. However, if staff believes that a proposed change is not within the spirit and concerns expressed by the Commission and the neighbors at the time of Commission’s original or any subsequent action, it will be brought forward to the Commission as an application for Design Review Amendment. The updated Guidelines are now being brought back to the Commission for review and adoption as a Resolution. The updated/proposed Guidelines incorporating the changes reviewed and suggested by the Commission are provided in Exhibit A. For reference, the Guidelines which were last updated in 2015 are attached for review in Exhibit B. Adoption of Resolution – Guidelines for Reviewing Approved Design Review Projects June 24, 2024 3 Attachments: June 10, 2024 Planning Commission Minutes Exhibit A – Proposed Guidelines for Determining Level of Review Required for Changes to Approved Design Review Projects, dated June 24, 2024 Exhibit B – Current Guidelines for Determining Level of Review Required for Changes to Approved Design Review Projects, dated August 24, 2015 Resolution BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, June 10, 2024 a.Adoption of Resolution Updating the Guidelines for Determining the Level of Review Required for Changes to Approved Design Review Projects. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Staff Report Attachments Resolution Attachments: Interim Community Development Department Director Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Lowenthal opened the public hearing. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Lowenthal closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I feel that 25% change to a window is a lot. If it is cumulative, people change just one window, it can be a lot of windows 25% in any direction. As my fellow commissioners who are builders said typically it wouldn’t be in the width because of sheer and engineering issues. But we have seen a developer here who has often come with windows that go all the way up to the header and we ’ve repeatedly caught those in time, but those wouldn’t need to be re -engineered. My concern is that windows don ’t look great when made smaller all over. The increase in light pollution cumulatively can be major and we won ’t even see those again. It will just happen. They can go up to the header and I have an issue with that. I appreciate that you are dealing with the stairwell because those windows tend to be massive. We need to be careful. It’s not usually just one window, especially if we are talking about supply issues and do not get the specified window from a certain brand. For me, it is major change to allow window to change by 25% more. If you are going to have some flexibility on it, I will feel much better with 20% or 15% just to have guardrails on it. >On the landscaping issue, we really didn ’t discuss this in the last session. I’m getting the impression that the direction we are going is to be handling landscape as green infrastructure, which is great. It is a good thing. Green infrastructure has certain space needs and performs a certain function. If we are now going to say that “you can now have changes to landscaping that don ’t affect concerns expressly stated …” that would mean that someone would have shown up to the initial meeting that has something bad, and we would have caught it. Let’s say they had a plan that was acceptable to us or the neighbors, but they changed the privacy hedge to a deciduous hedge which has an effect on the neighbors all around them, that would go through and also not be checked because it was just fine when it came to us. In the same way that we have restrictions on the roofing materials. To be consistent, if you really want to have something for the landscaping, not to be as rigid, we don ’t need to wait for neighbors to complain. People don’t come to public meetings anymore. They don ’t participate much unless there is something that they are very passionate about. We should not be dependent on neighbors seeing or not seeing something Page 1City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes because it might have been fine when it came through the Planning Commission the first time. In that example when something was changed from deciduous to smaller or an evergreen to a deciduous, there is a cumulative effect on the neighborhood. If it was originally planned to be deciduous, yes you can change to another deciduous hedge, but you cannot change into a different species that will suddenly change the nature of the landscape completely or a ground cover. It is fine if it is consistent with what was first approved, but personally I don ’t like the way it is written, it can cause more problems than what we currently have. We are trying to be holistic about how we plan structures together with landscape. I just don’t think this is a good item to have unless it has restrictions on it. >With regards to the window comments, do you think it would be prudent if we add changes to window location, because it is not listed here? If you have a 3’x3’ window built 3 feet off the ground and then they change it and put it up by the top plate, that wouldn ’t change the size of the window but certainly changes the aesthetics. >We are setting parameters for staff; none of these things are automatic. >I trust the staff. I’m not trained in windows, but I know what light pollution is because I live around it. It does make a difference. >We are asked to comment specifically on vinyl windows and their application to our discretion, correct? (Hurin: Right now, any changes to a vinyl window automatically comes back to the Planning Commission for review. Over the years we have seen better quality vinyl clad wood windows. We just wanted to see if there is a distinction, or would you like to bring any vinyl windows or vinyl clad wood windows back for review? We have some vinyl clad wood windows that have been approved in the past.) >If it was approved as something else, then it is coming back as an FYI and is downgrading to a vinyl or a potential vinyl clad that staff is not already aware of that we have been approving regularly, it should come back because there is a change in quality that is being proposed which is detrimental rather than just an even swap. (Hurin: The tricky part is that we cannot specify a manufacturer name.) >If it is an obvious downgrade from one type of window to another that we have already seen, then we need to ask the question. It is fair to bring back to the commission rather than put that on the staff to evaluate. (Spansail: It is consistent to what is written now, any changes to vinyl, correct?) Yes. >A vinyl clad wood window downgrading to an all -vinyl window should come back to us. We don ’t need to talk about manufacturers, but with that type of a downgrade versus a vinyl wood clad window of one brand to another brand is not something that we would need to weigh in. (Hurin: Correct. The change to vinyl only is very clear. The question would be for a typical aluminum clad wood window, and they are changing to a vinyl clad wood window. This comes up more often.) >In my experience, it does not change the exterior aesthetics. The problem with vinyl is thermal expansion. That’s where we see a lot of window -fixing calls. The vinyl fails around the seal and the windows fail. That does not change anything with the vinyl wood clad and it is not in our purview to comment on that. If the exterior is the same material as what was approved, I suppose it does not matter what happens in the inside of the window. I think there are only a few cases. >If we go back five years, they were not making good vinyl composite windows then. So, we can easily say “no vinyl”. Today, that is evolving. There are a few manufacturers which have put out a new product that we can accept the vinyl composite. There’s probably out there that looks cheap. It is fair that if we are switching from something that was proposed as a higher -end material in the initial approval and there ’s a perception of trading down, then it is worth asking questions. It is safer that way on something as important as windows. We do seem to have a lot of challenges with windows. >Even though it is not in our purview to talk about color, often times we see a house presented to us in Page 2City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a certain color scheme, aluminum clad and fiberglass clad windows common colors. Fiberglass can be painted whereas vinyl windows can ’t. Vinyl windows come in different colors other than white now. For so many years it was only available in white and was very obvious. That would be something to be aware of also, the colors and what kind of change happened by going to an all-vinyl window. >Hurin: Whether it is a vinyl or vinyl clad wood it will come back for your review, and they can present the type of window they would like to use, typically they will bring in a sample or brochure. >Regarding the percentage of the window size change, what happens on my own projects sometimes, a window is originally approved as a 36” wide window, like a 3’x4’. Along the way, a 32”x40” window might be more appropriate for whatever reason. Doing that calculation tends to be 20%-25% change in window size for a standard 3’x4’ window. The other change that can be happening is a 30” window going to a 24” size window or something in between, which tends to be at the range of 17%-20%. These are some examples of what the percentage might relate to in real window sizes. >I did the same calculation, but if it is a 5’x5’ or larger window, then that 25% gets a lot bigger. It is imperceptible in smaller increments. At a bigger window, the percentage multiplier becomes a much bigger risk. >So that means a 3’x5’ window becomes a 3’x6.5’. You can add almost 18” to every window in the house and still make that an administrative change. That seems too much. >Hurin: If I recall, during the Study Session we were discussing moving to a 10% change. >It says 25% here now. (Hurin: I believe we had not finished the discussion.) >My fellow commissioners who are builders were not sure about the 10% so we left it at 25% and took the stairwell window away. I don ’t build, but I think it is a lot when it gets a quarter larger. (Spansail: Not that we want to get into the details much and make it too complicated, if you want to delineate versus a larger size window by percentage like smaller windows under a certain dimension will be approved up to 25% and then others will be 10%. There are options. Again, we don ’t want to force you to get too creative, but if it is something you’d like to consider that is certainly something we can write in here.) >It is a helpful guideline for staff. When staff sees something odd, they can send it back to the Planning Commission to make the decision even though it is within the percentage that we gave away it does not mean that it will automatically be approved. It still needs to be reviewed. >I like guardrails on stuff, but I will leave it up to my fellow commissioners who are builders. >25% does sound large; 15% sounds more reasonable, I am fine with something around that range. >It is a good point on landscape design to not have that predetermined in terms of going to design review based on somebody saying something about it. We have seen many landscape plans that we made very little comment on because they were either great or fine. That means a lot of important things can change without any kind of review. If there is a way to put in some language similar to a like -for-like change, changing a deciduous to another deciduous or similar configuration like adding a giant flower bed to the middle, things that seem like a drastic change. But it still leaves a lot of common -sense things like when the applicant can’t find specific plants in stock and a similar plant is fine if it does the same job. >I agree with that. As a contractor, I come across quantity issues. For instance, you have 15 trees that need to be planted and at the same time you have a large drainage system that you also need to put in, but you can’t plant a tree on top of the drain or a big basin. Since there is no way to put in all these trees, you are now downgrading to 12 trees. Should that come back to us for approval or should the city have a say on that? It can’t be done, it’s one of those things that are part of the building process. Page 3City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >How is that same example being handled now? (Hurin: We make sure that they meet the minimum requirements, and we also review the meeting minutes to see if specific items were discussed. For example, if there was a suggestion that a tree be planted in the rear corner and they are not planting it, then we bring it back as a change. We don ’t get into the flower beds and one -gallon size flowers. There has to be a little bit of discretion otherwise our agenda would be full of Design Review Amendment items, and we don’t want to do that. Significant changes to landscape concepts and designs are things that we do bring back to the Planning Commission. We can come up with some language for you to consider that will capture the design intent if there is a significant change.) (Spansail: To clarify, the city arborist does take a look at these especially if it is impacting trees. They will look to see if there is a feasible planting of where they proposed it and if not, where they can move it to make sure the tree is able to grow.) >Regarding the siding, I am ok with wood and cement fiber. If they are painted it is hard to tell the difference, but not any other type of material substitution. >I am not ok with the corner trim being substituted because that is an architectural detail. It changes the look of the house if you have a corner trim versus a mitered trim, so I don’t want that to come back. >I don’t think it is a bad product. We have seen good projects with it, but it can be a bad project too if they do the details wrong. The change from wood siding to vinyl siding is a risk. >Not vinyl, composite or cement board. >Interestingly, when I walked the neighborhood, I noticed more and more wood siding that is cupping and warping. It looks worse than the cement fiber siding. Sometimes wood looks great the first couple of years. These are fairly new homes that are having these issues. >Is that good enough direction? (Hurin: It was clear on the corner trim. Sometimes we approve projects with the corner trim in place. If the mitered corner got approved and they now want to change to corner trim, that is coming back. I am still unclear on the change from approved wood to fiber cement.) >In a lot of these we are saying, if you come in with one thing and you are presenting the A -type material and you come back and bring in a C -type, try to sneak it through and doing it poorly it, then it will be impactful. >Are we allowed to comment on stain versus paint? If you are using real wood, you can stain that material. If an applicant decides to use fiber cement boards, that you cannot stain, it must be painted . You can hardly tell the difference between painted wood and painted fiber cement board if it is done well . (Hurin: If we had a project approved with stain wood and they come back with fiber cement, we would bring it back to the commission because it can no longer be stained. Although we cannot look at staining versus color, that would be considered a change into the exterior. Any change to fiber cement or any type of material will be brought back to the commission.) >It sounds like they are the same thing but are not executed the same way. >Hurin: Would you like to make a determination on the percentage of window change? >I believe 15% is the consensus. >Hurin: We can go with 15%. If we start to see that it is a significant change and starts to look odd, then we can revisit that. This gives us good direction. We will not act on the resolution tonight. We will make the changes and perhaps bring it back at your next meeting as a Consent Calendar item, you can approve it then or pull it for further discussion. Page 4City of Burlingame June 10, 2024Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >In the staff report, the stairwell is listed but it is not in the amended documents. (Hurin: I will make sure that it is in the amended documents for the next meeting.) Interim Community Development Director Hurin thanked the Commission for their input and noted that this item will return to the Planning Commission for action at a future meeting. Page 5City of Burlingame GUIDELINES REGARDING THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED FOR AFTER-ACTION CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECTS Updated: June 24, 2024 This is a list of items created by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee and updated by the Planning Commission regarding the level of review required for after-action changes to a design review project made after project approval. Items that may be handled administratively by Staff:  Minor changes to the side and rear elevation (except street side on a corner lot) that are consistent with the design of the project  Changes to upgrade the quality of materials  Change to front door design if it is consistent with the overall design of the project  Change in window material to fiberglass and fiberglass clad wood  Adding a window if it is not a privacy issue  Adding or removing one window on a side or rear elevation  Changes in size of windows less than 15%  Changes to pitch of roof so long as the increased in height is one foot or less and does not exceed the permitted height of the structure, except in Hillside Overlay Area  Change in roofing material that is consistent with the overall design of the project  Adding skylights if tinted and flat  Change in landscaping including “like-for-like” replacement of landscape trees and privacy hedges; change in landscaping layout if the configuration is similar to that of the originally approved design intent Items requiring Planning Commission review (Design Review Amendment):  Significant changes in materials and details on the front elevation, or front and side on a corner lot  Changes in materials which are lesser quality than originally approved  Change in roofing material that is not consistent with the overall design of the project  Change to the complexity of window grid pattern, reduction in number of window grids, or elimination of window grids  Change in window material to vinyl or vinyl clad wood  Changes to window shapes (e.g., round-top to rectangular shaped window)  Changes to window trim package (e.g., wood trim to stucco foam trim, elimination of window trim, etc.)  Increase to the size of stairway window(s)  Change in exterior siding from wood to fiber cement or other lesser quality material  Change from mitered corner design to corner trim  Changes to exterior trim which are of lesser quality  Any changes which affect concerns expressly stated in the points made by the Planning Commission or neighbors during the original application review Any other types of changes will be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Planning Manager or Community Development Director to determine if Planning Commission review is required. However, if staff feels that during construction a proposed change to any project is not within the spirit and concerns expressed by the Commission and the neighbors at the time of Commission’s original or any subsequent action, it will be brought forward to the Commission as an amendment to the original approval. GUIDELINES DETERMINING LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED FOR CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECTS Updated: August 24, 2015 This is a list of items created by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to determine the level of review required for changes to a design review project made after project approval. Items that can be handled administratively:  Minor changes to the side and rear elevation (except street side on a corner lot)  Changes to upgrade the quality of materials  Changes to window grids (such as going from 9 grids to 4) as long as there are still grids and the revised pattern is consistent with the design of the project  Adding a window if it is not a privacy issue  Adding or removing one window on a side or rear  Adding a window in or next to the front door  Changes to pitch of roof as long as the increased in height is one foot or less and does not exceed the permitted height of the structure, except in Hillside Areas  Changes in size of windows less than 25%  Adding skylights if tinted and in side or rear Items requiring Planning Commission review (either FYI or amendment, depending on scope):  Changes in materials and details on the front elevation, or front and side on a corner lot  Changes in materials which are lesser quality than originally approved  Changes to roofing material  Removal of grids from windows, change of grids to a pattern that may not be consistent with the design of the project, or change to vinyl  Changes in plate height  Changes to exterior trim which are of lesser quality  Any changes which affect concerns expressly stated in the points made by the Planning Commission or neighbors during the original application review. Any other types of changes will be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Planning Manager to determine if Planning Commission review is required. However, if staff feels that during construction a proposed change to any project is not within the spirit and concerns expressed by the Commission and the neighbors at the time of Commission’s original or any subsequent action, it will be brought forward to the Commission either as an FYI or as an amendment to the original approval. RESOLUTION NO. 1 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME UPDATING THE GUIDELINES REGARDING THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED FOR AFTER-ACTION CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECTS WHEREAS, in 2003, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission discussed how best to handle changes made to projects during construction, including which changes should be considered “major” and which “minor” in terms of impacting the approved design of the structure; and WHEREAS, at the November 12, 2003 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed staff to prepare a clarifying policy statement regarding changes to projects that need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and those that can be approved by staff; and WHEREAS, at the January 12, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission adopted a policy on Processing of Minor Project Modifications During Construction (Guidelines); and WHEREAS, in 2008, the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee updated the Guidelines for how to process changes to proposed projects after project approval; and WHEREAS, at the August 24, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed and updated the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at the May 28, 2024 Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission reviewed the Guidelines and made suggestions regarding a proposed update; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the information contained in this Resolution and the accompanying staff report; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission now desires to update the Guidelines Regarding the Level of Review Required for After-Action Changes to Approved Design Review Projects. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. Section 2. The Guidelines Regarding the Level of Review Required for After-Action Changes to Approved Design Review Projects in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, shall take effect upon adoption. RESOLUTION NO. 2 Chairperson I, _____________ , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of June, 2024 by the following vote: Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 3 EXHIBIT A GUIDELINES REGARDING THE LEVEL OF REVIEW REQUIRED FOR AFTER-ACTION CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECTS Updated: June 24, 2024 This is a list of items created by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee and updated by the Planning Commission regarding the level of review required for after-action changes to a design review project made after project approval. Items that may be handled administratively by Staff:  Minor changes to the side and rear elevation (except street side on a corner lot) that are consistent with the design of the project  Changes to upgrade the quality of materials  Change to front door design if it is consistent with the overall design of the project  Change in window material to fiberglass and fiberglass clad wood  Adding a window if it is not a privacy issue  Adding or removing one window on a side or rear elevation  Changes in size of windows less than 15%  Changes to pitch of roof so long as the increased in height is one foot or less and does not exceed the permitted height of the structure, except in Hillside Overlay Area  Change in roofing material that is consistent with the overall design of the project  Adding skylights if tinted and flat  Change in landscaping including “like-for-like” replacement of landscape trees and privacy hedges; change in landscaping layout if the configuration is similar to that of the originally approved design intent Items requiring Planning Commission review (Design Review Amendment):  Significant changes in materials and details on the front elevation, or front and side on a corner lot  Changes in materials which are lesser quality than originally approved  Change in roofing material that is not consistent with the overall design of the project  Change to the complexity of window grid pattern, reduction in number of window grids, or elimination of window grids  Change in window material to vinyl or vinyl clad wood  Changes to window shapes (e.g., round-top to rectangular shaped window)  Changes to window trim package (e.g., wood trim to stucco foam trim, elimination of window trim, etc.)  Increase to the size of stairway window(s)  Change in exterior siding from wood to fiber cement or other lesser quality material  Change from mitered corner design to corner trim  Changes to exterior trim which are of lesser quality  Any changes which affect concerns expressly stated in the points made by the Planning Commission or neighbors during the original application review RESOLUTION NO. 4 Any other types of changes will be reviewed by staff in consultation with the Planning Manager or Community Development Director to determine if Planning Commission review is required. However, if staff feels that during construction a proposed change to any project is not within the spirit and concerns expressed by the Commission and the neighbors at the time of Commission’s original or any subsequent action, it will be brought forward to the Commission as an amendment to the original approval. City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1556 Balboa Way Meeting Date: June 24, 2024 Request: Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling. Applicant and Architect: Alex Tzang Architects APN: 025-228-220 Property Owner: Daniel Gage Lot Area: 5,500 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot and contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage. The applicant is proposing a 109 SF first floor addition consisting of an infill of the porch along the left side of the house and a new 1,042 SF second floor. With this project, the floor area would increase from 1,870 SF (0.34 FAR) to 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR) which is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch exemption). The existing house contains two bedrooms. With this application, the number of bedrooms would increase to four. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The existing attached garage provides one covered parking space (10’-0” x 19’-10” clear interior dimensions) where 9’-0” x 18’-0” is the minimum required for additions. One uncovered parking space (9’ x 18”) is provided in the driveway. The proposed project includes removal and replacement of 49.9% of the existing exterior walls, therefore the proposed project is considered an addition rather than new construction as the Zoning Code defines “substantial construction” as the removal or reconstruction of 50% or more of the exterior walls. The existing left side setback is nonconforming at 5’-0” where 6’-0” is required. There is no change proposed to the nonconforming portion of this wall other than removal of a corner of the dining room. The first floor addition (which would infill the existing left side porch) would create a new wall on this side that would be step in one foot and would be constructed with the required 6’-0” side setback. The existing right side setback is also nonconforming with the garage wall having a 3’-0” setback where the minimum side setback of 6’-0” is required. There are no changes proposed to the garage wall. However, the applicant has been informed that if the walls located within the setback are removed during construction, either an application for a Setback Variance will be required to replace the walls at the same location or an application for a Design Review Amendment would be required showing compliance with current setback requirements. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The site contains an existing Oak tree (22-inch diameter) at the rear of the lot, an existing Japanese Maple tree (15-inch diameter) along the right side property line, and seven small landscape trees along the rear property line (6-inch diameter)all of which would remain. Based on the proposed floor area, three landscape trees are required on-site. Therefore, the project complies with the Tree Reforestation Ordinance requirements with the existing trees on-site. The existing American Sweetgum tree (27-inch diameter) in the front yard is a City street tree and is proposed to be replaced with a new Chinese Pistache tree (24-inch box). The Arborist Report, prepared by Tree Management Experts and dated May 22, 2024 (attached), notes that this tree is in poor to fair condition and is causing significant damage to adjacent infrastructure. The Parks Division has reviewed the Arborist Report and notes that a Tree Removal Permit will be required for removal of this tree. The street tree must remain in place until building permit issuance. The applicant is requesting the following application:  Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (C.S. 25.68.020(C)(1)(b)). Item No. 10a Design Review Study Item Design Review 1556 Balboa Way -2- 1556 Balboa Way Lot Area: 5,500 SF Plans date stamped: May 24, 2024 EXISTING PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS Front (1st flr): (2nd flr): 15’-5” to garage N/A 16’-11” to new porch 27’-8” 16’-11” block average 20’-0” Side (left): (right): 5’-0” 1 3’-0” 2 6’-0” to addition 16’-11” to second floor 6’-0” 6’-0” Rear (1st flr): (2nd flr): 30’-11” N/A no change 30’-11” 15'-0" 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,070 SF 37.6% 1,932 SF 35.1% 2,200 SF 40% FAR: 1,870 SF 0.34 FAR 2,860 SF 0.52 FAR 2,860 SF 3 0.52 FAR # of bedrooms: 2 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’-0” x 19’-10”) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') no change 1 covered (9' x 18' for existing) 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 8’-0” n/a 9’-0” 8’-0” 9’-0” maximum 8’-0” maximum Building Height: 16’-5” 25’-0” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: N/A complies C.S. 25.10.055(A) 1 Existing nonconforming left side setback (5’-0” existing where 6’-0” is the minimum required). 2 Existing nonconforming right side setback (3’-0” existing where 6’-0” is the minimum required). 3 (0.32 x 5,500 SF) + 1,100 SF = 2,860 SF (0.52 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: aluminum clad wood windows with 4” wood trim • Doors: wood front door, wood garage door with 4” wood trim • Siding: stucco – 1st floor / board & batten siding – 2nd floor • Roof: composition shingles • Other: painted wood columns, wood trim (windows/doors) Staff Comments: None. Design Review 1556 Balboa Way -3- Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Catherine Keylon Senior Planner c. Alex Tzang, applicant and architect Attachments: Project Application Form Project Description Arborist Report Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 14, 2024 Area Map 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): 1556 Balboa Way Alex Tzang 415-309-8082 alex@alextzang.com Alex Tzang 415-309-8082 alex@alextzang.com Daniel Gage 650-642-7168 danielpgage@gmail.com 950222 2024-03-07 2024-03-07 AT 025-228-220 R-1 903 Sneath Lane Suite 230, San Bruno CA 94066 903 Sneath Lane Suite 230, San Bruno CA 94066 ✔ 1556 Balboa Way, Burlingame CA 94010 1. 52.2 SQ.FT. DEMOLITION TO REMOVED PART OF LIVING & PART OF DINING 2. DEMOLISH EXISTING COVERED PORCH 3. 123.6 SQ.FT. ADDITION TO INCLUDE NEW BED #1 & BATH #1 4. 1,312.5 SQ.FT. REMODEL TO INCLUDE NEW LIVING, KITCHEN, DINING, FAMILY, POWDER, FOYER, LAUNDRY & STAIRS 5. 1006.8 SQ.FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO INCLUDE 3 BEDROOMS, 2 BATHROOMS & WALK-IN CLOSET 03.11.24 ALEX TZANG ARCHITECTS 1556 Balboa Way, Burlingame CA Project descriptions A:903 Sneath Lane,Ste.230,San Bruno,CA |C:(415)309-8082 |E:alex@alextzang.com Date:3/8/2024 The one-story house at 1556 Balboa Way has an existing 1,365 sq.ft.living area.This Second Story development intends to max.out the FAR to provide 2,443 sq.ft.of total living space with 4 bedrooms and 3.5 bathrooms.The facade will be a combination of dark gray board and batten on top and light gray stucco at the bottom.The front porch will be articulated with a wood truss feature over columns to provide a prominent street frontage and entry experience.All the design criteria are satisfied and we are not applying for any variance. The first floor of the house will have 1,436 sq.ft.of living space to accommodate all of the shared spaces i.e. living,family,dining,kitchen and powder room.There will also be a guest suite on this floor.The second floor will have 1,007 sq.ft of living spaces housing the 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms for the family.The double height foyer at the heart of this house will be the centerpiece to connect all of these spaces together. The majority of the landscape is proposed to remain except for the relocation of the Oak tree in the front yard to allow for an unobstructed walkway to the new entry porch. Sincerely, Alex Tzang Project Architect Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 1 of 8 Daniel P. Gage 1556 Balboa Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Date: 5/22/24 ARBORIST REPORT Assignment • Identify on the plan any Protected Trees on site or on any neighboring property overhanging the subject property by botanical name and field-measured trunk diameter. • Identify all City Street Trees within 30 feet of the subject property by botanical name and field-measured trunk diameter. • Indicate whether trees are to be removed or to remain. • Provide an Arborist Report to support Protected or Street Tree removal, relocation or protection. • Identify 3 single-trunked landscape trees that are not street trees: o Not fruit, nut, palm, Italian cypress or Japanese maple o Mature height of 15 feet or more o Existing trees, with photos o New trees, 24-inch box sizes Tree Inventory Tree # Botanical Name Diameter Regulatory Status Disposition 1 Liquidambar styraciflua 27.1” Street Tree Remove 2 Acer palmatum 15.4” Protected Tree Preserve 3 Quercus agrifolia 22.5” Protected Tree Preserve 4 Syzygium paniculatum 6.0” Landscape Tree Preserve 5 Syzygium paniculatum 8.6” Landscape Tree Preserve 6 Syzygium paniculatum 6.5” Landscape Tree Preserve 7 Syzygium paniculatum 6.9” Landscape Tree Preserve 8 Syzygium paniculatum 6.5” Landscape Tree Preserve 9 Syzygium paniculatum 8.3” Landscape Tree Preserve 10 Syzygium paniculatum 4.0” Landscape Tree Preserve 11 Syzygium paniculatum 5.2” Landscape Tree Preserve Trees 2 through 11 were in good or better condition. Tree 1 is in poor to fair condition. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 2 of 8 Protected Trees Protected trees: 15.3” diameter at 54-inch height, and larger: Tree # Botanical Name Diameter Regulatory Status Disposition 1 Liquidambar styraciflua 27.1” Street Tree Remove 2 Acer palmatum 15.4” Protected Tree Preserve 3 Quercus agrifolia 22.5” Protected Tree Preserve Tree Removal Tree 1 is an American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) measuring 27.1 inches diameter at 54-inches height. This is a Street Tree, and is shown on the attached site plan. A set of photographs are attached (photos 1 through 11). Tree 1 is in poor to fair condition, depending on the extent of root cuts and internal decay. This tree is causing significant damage to adjacent infrastructure, has been root pruned, and has outgrown the available space. See photos 1 through 9. Root pruning has likely led to heart rot. See photos 10 and 11. Branch structure is failure-prone due to historic topping. See photos 1, 2 and 3, and in particular photo 1 where 15-foot long re-grown branches are visible. As with all American sweetgum, this tree produces thousands of seed pods every year. These seed pods are spiny, hard and about the size of a ping pong ball. These pods are a nuisance and create a slip and fall hazard to pedestrians. There are many pedestrians, and particularly due to Ray Park being across the street. The property owner would like this tree removed and replaced with a smaller tree. The new tree would be a Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), and would be 24-inch box nursery stock. The location is indicated on the attached site plan. Tree Protection The Project Arborist is either of these individuals from Tree Management Experts: Roy Leggitt roy@treemanagementexperts.com 415.606.3610 Aaron Wang aaron@treemanagementexperts.com 847.630.3599 Trees 2 and 3 are to be protected at all times during construction. The Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) are shown as red circles around each tree, as shown on the attached Site Plan. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 3 of 8 Tree protection measures must be installed prior to construction, and the Project Arborist must complete an inspection and provide an Arborist Report to the City. Because there will be no foundation, utility or other below ground work in the vicinity of either tree 2 or tree 3, monthly inspections are not necessary. If any below ground work takes place within either TPZ area, the Project Arborist must be on site. At the close of construction, prior to the removal of tree protection, the Project Arborist must complete an inspection and provide an Arborist Report to the City. Tree 2 – Japanese maple (Acer palmatum) TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING Areas within the TPZ that are not protected with a root buffer must be fenced. Fencing shall be 5- or 6-foot high chain link fencing strung tightly on iron posts driven into the soil by 2 feet minimum. IRRIGATION Maintain existing landscape irrigation in all areas and at all times. Japanese maple requires water during the dry season to survive. MULCH The surrounding exposed soil within the TPZ area must be mulched with clean wood chips, typical of those produced by a tree service company, or similar commercial mulch. Mulch shall be 4 inches deep, and kept 12 inches away from the trunk. ROOT BUFFERS As an alternate to tree protective fencing, plywood may be laid atop the mulch layer and secured with mending plates and contractor’s stakes. TRUNK WRAP The trunk and scaffold branches are close to adjacent concrete patio areas and will require armoring with a trunk wrap. The lower 6 feet of the trunk and scaffold branches will need to be wrapped with 3 layers of orange snow fencing that is secured with zip ties. 2 x 4 planking will then be tied to the snow fencing, and 3 additional layers of snow fencing wrapped and secured over the planking. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 4 of 8 Tree 3 – Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) This tree is located in the southeast corner of the property, and is surrounded by a patio, a jacuzzi, artificial turf and a raised planter. These features restrict access to the open soil area at the base of the tree. The soil has natural leaf accumulation. TREE PROTECTIVE FENCING With the current features present, tree protective fencing is not required. If any one of these features is removed or moved, tree protective fencing will be required. Fencing shall be 5- or 6-foot high chain link fencing strung tightly on iron posts driven into the soil by 2 feet minimum. IRRIGATION Coast live oak does not tolerate irrigation during the dry season. No irrigation is allowed. MULCH The surrounding exposed soil within the TPZ area is currently naturally mulched, but must have supplemental mulch added to make the depth 4 inches. Supplemental mulch shall be clean wood chips, typical of those produced by a tree service company, or similar commercial mulch. Mulch shall be kept 12 inches away from the trunk. PRUNING This tree is one-sided with poor form. The branch structure must be pruned on the heavy side of the tree, also the direction of the lean, to improve the overall form of the tree. This pruning must be done by a licensed contractor for tree service, and under the direction of the Project Arborist. Pruning must be completed prior to construction and is part of the tree protection plan. The pruning objective will be to improve the overall form of the tree. The pruning system will be a natural appearance. Several cuts will be 3- to 4-inches in diameter, and many cuts will be smaller. Pruning will primarily utilize drop-crotch cuts of varying sizes to reduce the upper half of the tree and reduce the heavy side of the tree. Pruning should achieve a uniform but natural appearance. This pruning and future pruning should avoid the removal of lower and interior shoots. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 5 of 8 Landscape Trees Tree 2 – Japanese maple (Acer palmatum) Although Japanese maples are not allowed to be counted as Landscape Trees when a new tree is to be planted, Tree 2 is of Protected Tree size and should be accepted as a Landscape Tree. This tree is in good condition. Tree 3 – Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) This existing tree qualifies as a Landscape Tree, and is already well over 15 feet tall. This tree needs to be pruned to improve the overall form, and then will be in good condition. Trees 4 through 11 – Eugenia (Syzygium paniculatum) These 8 trees are capable of reaching 40 feet or more. They are young mature trees, and are already in excess of 15 feet. They are being cultivated as a privacy screen and have been reduced / managed to keep them in bounds. With the 2nd story addition, height will continue to be maintained at or above 15 feet due to the screening value. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 6 of 8 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Title and ownership of all property considered are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible. The consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. Various diagrams, sketches and photographs in this report are intended as visual aids and are not to scale, unless specifically stated as such on the drawing. These communication tools in no way substitute for nor should be construed as surveys, architectural or engineering drawings. 5. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 6. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. 7. This report is confidential and to be distributed only to the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. Any or all of the contents of this report may be conveyed to another party only with the express prior written or verbal consent of the consultant. Such limitations apply to the original report, a copy, facsimile, scanned image or digital version thereof. 8. This report represents the opinion of the consultant. In no way is the consultant’s fee contingent upon a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. 9. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule, an agreement or a contract. 10. Information contained in this report reflects observations made only to those items described and only reflects the condition of those items at the time of the site visit. Furthermore, the inspection is limited to visual examination of items and elements at the site, unless expressly stated otherwise. There is no expressed or implied warranty or guarantee that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property inspected may not arise in the future. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 7 of 8 Disclosure Statement Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. An arborist cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Tree risk assessment is not tree risk management. The arborist typically has the distinct and separate role of being the tree risk assessor. The tree risk manager is typically the property owner or the agent thereof. Tree risk management should consider tree risk management and may consider other factors related to property management decision making. Tree Management Experts Consulting Arborists 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborists, Tree Risk Assessment Qualified Contractor’s License #885953 www.treemanagementexperts.blogspot.com Page 8 of 8 Certification of Performance I, Roy C. Leggitt, III, Certify: • That we have inspected the trees and/or property evaluated in this report. We have stated findings accurately, insofar as the limitations of the Assignment and within the extent and context identified by this report; • That we have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or any real estate that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; • That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are original and are based on current scientific procedures and facts and according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; • That no significant professional assistance was provided, except as indicated by the inclusion of another professional report within this report; • That compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party. I am a member in good standing of the American Society of Consulting Arborists and a member and Certified Arborist with the International Society of Arboriculture. I have attained professional training in all areas of knowledge asserted through this report by completion of a Bachelor of Science degree in Plant Science, by routinely attending pertinent professional conferences and by reading current research from professional journals, books and other media. I have rendered professional services in a full-time capacity in the field of horticulture and arboriculture for more than 36 years. Signed: Certified Arborist WE-0564A Date: 5/22/24 roy@treemanagementexperts.com Cell (415) 606-3610 1556 Balboa Way 300’ noticing APN: 025-228-220 COVER SHEETPLOT PLANA-0SHEET INDEXSCOPE OF WORK1556 BALBOA WAYBURLINGAME CASECOND STORY ADDITIONPROJECT INFORMATIONOCCUPANCY & BUILDING SUMMARYPROJECT TEAMVICINITY MAPN.T.S.4SCOPE OF WORK3PLOT PLANSCALE = 1/16" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOORSCOPE OF WORKSCOPE 1:FIRST FLOOREEXISTING HOUSE1PROPOSED HOUSE2SCOPE 2:SCOPE 3:SCOPE 4:SCOPE 5:xxxxxxAPPLICABLE CODES2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082xDEFERRED SUBMITTALCONSTRUCTION HOURSxxx“xxBUILDING NOTES PERSPECTIVESA-0.12PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082PROPOSED WEST STREET VIEW1PROPOSED SOUTH STREET VIEW2PROPOSED EAST YARD VIEW3PROPOSED NORTH YARD VIEWN.T.S.4N.T.S.N.T.S.N.T.S. SITE PLANSA-11EXISTING SITE PLANSCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0"E2PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0"Ex’xxPUBLIC WORKS NOTES:2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082 EXISTINGFLOOR/ DEMOPLANA-2.01EXISTING FLOOR / DEMO PLANSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"EDEMOLITION LEGEND2EXTERIOR WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONSCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0"E2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082 PROPOSEDFLOOR PLANSA-2.11PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"EWALL LEGEND2PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"EATYP. 1-HR RATED INTERIOR WALL DETAILSCALE = 1"=1'-0"2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082 2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082ROOF PLANSA-2.21EXISTING ROOF PLANSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"EWALL LEGENDROOF DEMOLITION NOTES:2PROPOSED ROOF PLANSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"E FRONTELEVATIONSA-3.02PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING FRONT ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082 RIGHTELEVATIONSA-3.12PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-80821EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" REARELEVATIONSA-3.22PROPOSED REAR ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-80821EXISTING REAR ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" LEFTELEVATIONSA-3.32PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"1EXISTING RIGHT ELEVATIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082 SECTIONA-41PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL SECTIONSCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0"2PLANNING SUBMITTAL 24/05/24SECOND STORYADDITION124/03/08PLANNING SUBMITTALR.W.2024-03-081556 BALBOA WAY,BURLINGAME CA 94010LICENSEDARHITEC TC NO.C32232STATEOFCALIFORNIAALEXJUSTINTZ AN G REN.9-30-25ALEX TZANGARCHITECTS903 SNEATH LANE SUITE 230SAN BRUNO CA 94066STAMPPROJECTAPPROVAL STAMPISSUE HISTORYNO.DESCRIPTIONDATESHEET TITLEJOB NO.DRAWN BYDATESHEET NUMBERALEX@ALEXTZANG.COM(415) 309-8082 Item No. 10b Design Review Study Item City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 114 Bayswater Avenue Meeting Date: June 24, 2024 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. Applicant and Designer: Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development, LLC APN: 029-284-160 Property Owner: Rockwood Home Development, LLC Lot Area: 4,896 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot that contains an existing one-story single-unit dwelling with a detached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish all structures on the site and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling , a new detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and a new detached garage (attached to the ADU). The project proposes a total floor area of 2,874 SF (0.59 FAR) where 2,894 SF (0.59 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes 28 SF front porch exemption). The new dwelling would contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. The new detached garage (10’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) provides the required covered parking for the f our-bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9’ x 18’) is provided in the driveway . All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. As part of this project, three (3) new 24-inch box landscape trees (Magnolia ‘Little Gem’) are proposed throughout the site. A plant schedule for proposed trees and plantings can be found on sheet L 1.0 of the proposed plans. There is one existing City tree to remain at the front of the lot. Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes a detached ADU (388 SF) that is located at the rear of the lot and is connected to the new detached garage. Review of the ADU application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the ADU complies with the ADU regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application: ▪ Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and detached garage (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)). 114 Bayswater Avenue Lot Area: 4,896 SF Plans date stamped: June 4, 2024 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 16’-3” 22’-3” 16’-3” (block average) 20’-0” Side Setbacks (left): (right): 4’-0” 10’-0” 4'-0" 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 41’-5” 41’-5” 15'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1,723 SF 35.2% 1,958 SF 40% Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue -2- PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED FAR: 2,874 SF 0.59 FAR 2,894 SF 1 0.59 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (10’ x 20’) 1 uncovered (9’x18’) 1 covered (10' x 18') 1 uncovered (9' x 18') Plate Height: 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor 9’-0” on 1st floor 8’-0” on 2nd floor Building Height: 30’-0” 30'-0" Declining Height Envelope: complies using window enclosure exemption along left side C.S. 25.10.55(A)(1) 1 (0.32 x 4,896 SF) + 1,100 SF + 227 SF = 2,894 SF (0.59 FAR) Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: fiberglass with simulated true divided lites • Doors: wood entry door, fiberglass garage door • Siding: stucco • Roof: composition shingle 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 C riteria above, as applicable. Design Review 114 Bayswater Avenue -3- 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. ‘Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Associate Planner c. Quinn Ye, Rockwood Home Development, LLC , applicant and designer Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission Applicant’s Letter of Explanation, dated January 8, 2024 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 14, 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 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): 114 Bayswater Ave Rockwood Home Development LLC 650 797 3999 Quinn.ye.sf@Gmail.com Logic Home Development LLC 650 797 3999 Logichomeinc@gmail.com 20504745 12/26/2023 12/26/2023 QY 029284160 R1 274 Redwood Shores Pkwy, STE 318, Redwood City CA 94065 274 Redwood Shores Pkwy, STE 318, Redwood City CA 94065 ✔ 1) demo a (e) 1206-sf single family residence 2) construct a (n) 2658-sf single family home, a (n) 390-sf ADU, and and a (n) detached garage 530 360 8082 rockwoodhomedev@gmail.com 274 Redwood Shores Pkwy, STE 318, Redwood City CA 94065 Property Owner Rockwood Home Dvelopment LLC Name: 1.8.24 AK 114 Bayswater New Residence Project Overview: This residential project at 114 Bayswater Ave,Burlingame,CA,embodies a commitment to seamlessly integrate with the existing neighborhood while adhering to city codes and guidelines.The design focuses on harmonizing with the local environment and contributing positively to the community. Design Philosophy: The design philosophy centers on blending into the neighborhood's architectural character.Careful consideration has been given to the nuances of Burlingame's aesthetic,ensuring a cohesive and respectful addition to the area. Neighborhood Context: Situated on Bayswater Ave.,the design draws inspiration from the surrounding architectural styles.Rooflines,materials,and landscaping have been thoughtfully chosen to align with the prevailing aesthetics,fostering a sense of continuity and cohesiveness. Community Harmony: More than just a residence,this project strives to promote community harmony. Thoughtful landscaping,pedestrian-friendly elements,and a scale in line with neighboring homes contribute to a positive living experience for both residents and the local community. Compliance with Codes and Guidelines: The project diligently adheres to city codes and guidelines,ensuring full compliance with Burlingame's regulations.Working closely with city officials,every aspect of the design has been tailored to meet and exceed the expectations set by local authorities. RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIVISION 1.8.24 Environmental Considerations: In addition to regulatory compliance,the project integrates sustainable practices. Energy-efficient systems,responsibly sourced materials,and environmentally conscious landscaping reflect a commitment to ecological responsibility. Conclusion: This residential project at 114 Bayswater Ave,Burlingame,is more than a dwelling;it's a conscientious addition to the community.With a focus on seamless integration, adherence to city guidelines,and a commitment to sustainability,this project contributes positively to the vibrant fabric of Burlingame. 114 Bayswater Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 029-284-160 RECEIVEDCITY OF BURLINGAMECDD-PLANNING DIVISION6.4.24 114 BAYSWATER AVENUE(70' WIDE)BANCROFT ROAD(50' WIDE)THIS SURVEY PLAT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS REFLECTS THE SITE CONDITIONS AT THE TIMEWHEN THE FIELD SURVEY WAS PERFORMED.THIS SURVEY PLAT MUST BE USED AS A STAND-ALONE DOCUMENT. IT CAN NOT BESCANNED, ALTERED, CROPPED OUT OR MODIFIED WITH ZHEN'S LAND SURVEYING CORP.'STITLE BLOCK AND SURVEYOR'S STAMP AND SIGNATURE.THIS SURVEY PLAT CAN BE ONLY ATTACHED AS A SEPARATE DOCUMENT BY ITSELF TO THEDEVELOPMENT PROJECT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND CAN NOT BE USED ON OTHERDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF ZHEN'S LAND SURVEYING CORP.A1.1 City of Burlingame Design Review Address: 1472 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: June 24, 2024 Request: Application for Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage. Applicants and Property Owner: Tan Tseng APN: 026-042-190 Designer: Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management Group Lot Area: 6,000 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Project Description: The subject property is an interior lot with an existing single-unit dwelling and an attached garage. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and attached garage and build a new, two-story single-unit dwelling with an attached garage and junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU). The proposed floor area is 3,016 SF (0.50 FAR) where 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR) is the maximum allowed (includes covered porch and basement exemptions). The new single-unit dwelling would contain four bedrooms. Two parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a four-bedroom house. One covered parking space (11’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) is provided in the attached garage and one uncovered parking space (9’-0” x 18’-0”) is provided in the driveway. Per C.S. 25.48.030(L)(4), no parking is required for the JADU. Therefore, the project is in compliance with off-street parking requirements. Staff would note that Per C.S. 25.10.035(1), a Special Permit is not required in cases where an existing attached garage is being replaced with a new attached garage. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The site contains an existing protected size Magnolia tree (36-inch diameter) and two fruit trees (6 and 7-inch diameter). All three trees are proposed to be removed as part of this application. An Arborist Report, prepared by Mathey Tree Care, dated May 29, 2024 (attached), notes that the Magnolia tree is in poor health and recommends removal of the tree “as this tree is located in an unsuitable location and the space for the tree to grow is far too limited”, and that “the tree is in severe decline”. The Parks Division has reviewed the Arborist Report. Based on the proposed floor area, three landscape trees are required on-site. The proposed landscape plan includes three new 24-inch box landscape trees to be planted in the front yard, including one Chinese pistache, one Japanese blueberry, and one Southern magnolia. Therefore, the project complies with the Urban Reforestation Ordinance requirements. Staff would note that currently there is one street tree along the parcel frontage which would remain. Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit This project includes the construction of a new 500 SF JADU on the first floor of the dwelling. Per State law, review of the ADU Permit application is administrative only and is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff has determined that the JADU complies with the JADU regulations. The attached JADU is exempt from lot coverage and floor area regulations. The applicant is requesting the following application: • Design Review for a new, two-story single-unit dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.68.020 (C)(1)(a)). Item No. 10c Design Review Study Item Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue -2- 1472 Drake Avenue Lot Area: 6,000 SF Plans date stamped: June 18, 2024 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQ’D Front Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): (attached garage): 25’-10” 34’-4” 31’-9” 24’-9” (block average) 20’-0” 25’-0” for single-car garage Side Setbacks (left): (right): 5’-8” 4’-0” 4'-0” 4’-0” Rear Setbacks (1st flr): (2nd flr): 35’-3” (23’-3” to deck) 34’-11” 15'-0” 20’-0” Lot Coverage: 2,164 SF 37% 2,400 SF 40% FAR: 3,016 SF 0.50 FAR 3,020 SF ¹ 0.50 FAR # of bedrooms: 4 --- Off-Street Parking: 1 covered (11’-0” x 20’-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) 1 covered ² (10’-0” x 18’-0” clear interior dimensions) 1 uncovered (9’ x 18’) Building Height: 25’-11” 30’-0” Plate Height: (1st flr): (2nd flr): 9’-0” 8’-0” 9’-0” 8’-0” Declining Height Envelope: complies CS 25.10.055(A)(1) ¹ (0.32 x 6,000 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,020 SF (0.50 FAR). ² Per C.S. 25.48.030(L)(4), no parking is required for the JADU. Summary of Proposed Exterior Materials: • Windows: recycled wood windows • Doors: glass door • Siding: wood lap siding • Roof: composition shingle and standing seam metal over the front porch • Other: wood retaining wall and fence Staff Comments: None. Design Review 1472 Drake Avenue -3- Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 2000 adopted by the City Council on December 6, 2021 are outlined as follows: 1. Consistency with any applicable design guidelines; 2. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 3. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 4. Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; 5. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; 6. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and 7. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. Required Findings for Design Review: Any decision to approve a Major Design Review application shall be supported by written findings addressing the criteria set forth in Chapter 25.68. In making such determination, the following findings shall be made: 1. The project is consistent with the General Plan and is in compliance with all applicable provisions of Title 25, all applicable design guidelines, all other City ordinances and regulations, and most specifically, the standards established in the Design Review Criteria above, as applicable. 2. The project will be constructed on a parcel that is adequate in shape, size, topography, and other circumstances to accommodate the proposed development; and 3. The project is designed and arranged to provide adequate consideration to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare, and to prevent adverse effects on neighboring property. Brittany Xiao Assistant Planner c. Tan Tseng, applicant and property owner Debo Sodipo, dZXYN Management, designer Attachments: Project Application Arborist Report, prepared by Mathey Tree Care, dated May 29 2024 Notice of Public Hearing – Mailed June 14, 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): 1472 Drake Avenue dZXYN Management Group 925 980 9880 debs@dzxyn.xom Debo Sodipo 510 681 9411 debs@dzxyn.xom Tan Tseng 650 430 8997 20508060 March 08, 2024 3/8/2024 DS R-1 2603 Camino Ramon, Ste 200 San Ramon, CA 94583 dZXYN Managment Group 3826 Naughton Avenue Belmont, CA 03.08.24 May 29,2024 Site: 1472 Drake Ave Burlingame,California Subject 1 Magnolia Tree ARBORIST REPORT On May 23,I Rich Mathey,inspected one Southern Magnolia tree located in the back yard of 1472 Drake Ave,Burlingame,CA. Please consider my observations as noted below: Subject tree #1 –Magnolia -Magnolia grandiflora DBH –36 inches. Height –Approximately 50 feet Canopy Spread –Approximately 50 feet Health –Poor Comments -The Magnolia tree is in very poor health.The tree was topped at some point and the branches as a result have weak branch attachments.There are less than 40%of live branches throughout the crown of the tree.The tree appears to have declined as a result of drought stress and a very limited area for the root zone to thrive. The buttress roots are touching the fence post and the soil is compacted.There are targets in the drop zone which include the fence,potentially people in the backyard and the communication wires run through the canopy.The tree has a history of large branch failure and the 2 central leaders of the tree are dead.I did assess the health of this tree 6 months ago and since my last site visit the tree has declined further and is now a hazard. 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com Recommendation -I am recommending removal of the Magnolia as this tree is located in an unsuitable location and the space for the tree to grow is far too limited.The tree is in severe decline and the targets under the crown include a house and living spaces. Please observe the pictures below. 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com Although the recommendations in this report are based on sound and accepted horticultural practices,the author cannot be held responsible for the final outcome of the recommendations or any liabilities associated with this project.Tree inspections,in this case,do not cover all internal cavities,condition of the root system nor non-visible structural defects or disease.Trees are living organisms that exist in a natural setting with variable conditions.Healthy trees that appear free of defects can and do fail. Recommendations and various tree services are intended to provide a reduction of risk but do not eliminate risk. If you have any questions or require any additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me.You may contact me on my cell phone at (510)326-2686 or by email at matheytreecare@gmail.com.Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration in this matter. 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com Regards, Ricd L.Mat Richard L.Mathey Certified Arborist WI-1084A ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified 4635 Dolores Ave.Oakland,CA 94602 (510)326-2686 matheytreecare@gmail.com 1472 Drake Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-042-190 1472 Drake Avenue 300’ noticing APN: 026-042-190