Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout032904PCminCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 29, 2004 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Bojués called the March 29, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:02 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: C. Keele left at 11:00 p.m. Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineers Phil Monaghan and Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the March 22, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with revisions on page 3 that the east side of the gateway at the south end of Rollins Road should extend north, up to the P G and E substation; that the Broadway interchange will be rebuilt in the future to be an urban interchange which may affect the gateway properties and design, and that the southern gateway area should include the properties on both sides of Rollins Road at Broadway. The minutes were approved with these revisions. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 7, 1537 Drake Avenue, was moved to the last action item because the applicant’s representative had a conflict which was scheduled before this meeting was moved to the fifth Monday. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1861 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS CENTER (CHARLOTTE HOLLAND, APPLICANT; STEVE AND MERRY-LEE MUSICH, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Will any classes or group instruction be offered at this site; • Concerned with the increase in the number of customers expected at the site from 30 when the business opens to 150 customers in two years and 170 customers in five years, applicant should explain the large increase; • Applicant should explain why the number of employees is not expected to increase while the number of customers will increase so significantly; • Will disabled accessible facilities be provided, such as bathrooms, showers or a laundry facility; • What is the maximum number of people allowed in this tenant space at one time, provide building occupancy; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 2 • The applicant's letter notes that massage and other related services will be provided, please provide a detailed explanation of these services; • The staff report indicates that 13 parking spaces are required for this use and that a total of 59 spaces are required on this site, how was the total number of required spaces for this site calculated, what was it based on; and • Concerned with customer safety for this business, is one door at the front and one door at the rear enough, will the rear door also be used as an entrance for customers. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 1080 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (FOOD ESTABLISHMENT) (RINO BETTI, APPLICANT; NORTHBAY RESTAURANT EQUIPMENT & DESIGN, DESIGNER) CITY OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Auran recused himself because has a business relation with the applicant, and stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • What percentage of the business will be take-out compared to on-site consumption; • Is there any historic significance of this building; • Does the applicant intend to remove the existing greyhound signage/logo as part of the changes for their business; • Provide the number of customers per day at the existing location, this calculation could be based on daily receipts; • Will there be many deliveries and how will deliveries to this site be handled; and • Provide the number of seats available in the outdoor seating area and a plan showing their location. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:18 p.m. C. Auran returned to the dias. 3. 1704 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION USE (BATTING CAGES) (TERRY WHITFIELD, APPLICANT; PETER VALENTI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Why did the batting cage business close at the previous location; • Provide a more detailed schedule of people on site during the day and evening hours; • Will there be a waiting list for people to use the batting cages and what is the average wait time; • Will the batting cage facility be open to the public or only for user of the Prime Time Athletic Club next door; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 3 • How many customers are anticipated to come to the site by carpool; • Provide a detail description of what activity will occur at this site, describe activities such as washing machines, showers, locker rooms, etc.; • The previous batting cage facility was located on a site twice as big, did the previous location have any parking problems, were there any complaints; • Provide the number of customers who are under driving age, will kids come in groups; • Applicant indicates that he anticipates five additional customers in five years, is this correct; • Will a bicycle rack be provided and if so, where; and • Commercial Application is not complete, please provide employee and customer data for business in five years. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS 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. 4A. 123 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TADHG CANNIFFE, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 4B. 1318 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDALL AND KATHRYN KARP, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Bojués asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from voting Item 4b, 1318 De Soto Avenue, because he lives within 500' of the property. C. Brownrigg moved approval of items 4a and 4b on the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners’ comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the projects at 123 Dwight Road and 1318 De Soto Avenue. The motion passed 7- 0 for the project at 123 Dwight Road and 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) for the project at 1318 De Soto Avenue. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 5. 1341 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RENE ARIAS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CESAR SIFUENTES, DESIGNER) (82 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 4 Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Rene Arias, architect, was available to answer questions. Commission pointed out that the note on sheet 1 of the plans indicating "relocated sewer meter" should be "relocated water meter". Commission noted that the plans indicate new non-fruit trees to be planted along the right side of the house and asked what type of trees will they be? Architect noted that he did not know at this time but would follow the Commission's suggestion. Commission expressed a concern with the increased amount of hardscape now proposed with a two-car garage and asked why is a two-car garage needed and why is it set back two feet from the side and rear property lines. Architect noted that the property owners wish to have a two-car garage for their vehicles and that he understood that the garage had to be set back from the property lines. The Commission pointed out that a detached garage in the rear 30% of the lot is exempt from setback requirements and that it can be as close as one foot from the property line without requiring a survey. Commission noted that its unfortunate that the with the two-car garage there will be more paving, two trees will have to be removed and the rear yard will be reduced in size. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: there is no reason why the garage can't be shifted further back so that it is located one foot from the side and rear property lines, can be added as a condition of approval; should also add a condition that the new trees to be planted along the right side of the house be chosen from the Burlingame Tree List and that the City Arborist shall approve the tree species to be planted, conditions should also include protection of the existing trees. C. Keighran noted that the proposed changes are consistent with the design of the house and that the two-car garage was appropriate in this case, and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 24, 2004 sheets 1 through 5 (Revised Drawings), site plan, floor plans and building elevations; and that the detached two-car garage shall be relocated further back so that it is built 1'-0" from the left side and rear property lines; 2) that the four, new trees to be planted along the right side of the house as shown on the Site Plan date stamped February 24, 2004, shall be chosen from the Burlingame Tree List and that the species chosen shall be approved by the City Arborist; the existing trees at the front of the property shall be protected based on protection measures recommended by the City Arborist; that the tree protection measures for the existing trees at the front of the lot shall be installed and that the protection measures shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal’s memos dated June 30, 2003 shall be met; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 5 in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 6. 1521 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARK AND SHEILA BURAN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the project. She stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Project was represented by Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road and Mark Buran, property owner. Neighbors Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Carol Oushani, 1527 Drake; Janet Garcia, 1557 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake; Denise Balestieri, 414 Cost Rica/1550 Bernal; Jerry Deal 1228 Paloma; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake spoke. Applicant noted revised plans took out square footage affecting closet, laundry room, affects mass and bulk, tried to keep the building one and a half stories with dormers to reduce impact, feel that addressed the volume of the house, that more important that square feet; this would be the third house on the block that is shingle clad, felt it would balance the other two, but could make stucco if you want; three key elements, the house is only three bedrooms, the basement which is 700 SF does not count in FAR but has no effect on mass and bulk because completely below grade; and the garage may require one car but two cars will better address the parking on the street issue, has two-car garage now. Commissioners asked is there a reason that you did not have a hydrology report prepared to evaluate the impact of the basement on the drainage in the area; are the windows true divided lights; how many 4,000 SF houses are there on this block; is fireplace gas or wood burning? Applicant responded: did not know who would do such a drainage study, water table in area moves up and down depending upon rainfall, did drawing to show water would flow into drain rock on site and then into street and the city’s storm drain; windows will be true divided lights; do not see this as a 4,000 SF house, only is that big if add garage and basement area which is only a game room, not a bedroom; do not know how many 3,500 SF houses there are on this block; fireplace is gas. Applicant noted would pump water to curb and go through gutter to closest catch basin which is toward the dead end of the street. Neighbors commented: represent 9 different properties and their owners, at the last meeting the commission asked that this house be “downsized”, only 114 SF were removed, the FAR of the house is still 125% of the original, design does not reduce mass and bulk, does not fit in neighborhood; should not grant unless 700 SF is taken off the top of the house, the principle of the basement is good if it reduces mass and bulk by relocated square footage; concerned about the lack of drainage study, live across street, the off flow from the basement will go into her driveway, want study before go forward with project; average size house on block is 1,800 SF, this is 70% larger; there are 22 houses on the street which are stucco, counter productive to add shake to solve problem at 1553 Drake; there are five new houses to be built on this dead end block, send this back it’s almost identical to the original. Concerned about drainage, have small cellar with sump, runs all the time when it rains, the water will go to the properties on the sides or across the street, this is a charming City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 6 house it could be remodeled; feel that house at 1529 Drake on streetscape is in error, it is shorter than her house, driveways appear to provide more space between buildings than they really do; applicant’s tend not to provide requests that commission makes, should not go forward without drainage study; not just about getting what allowed, neighbors are being hammered with proposals for big houses on this block; down size was only to remove less than 3%, when commission suggested 5 to 10 percent; did not assign to design reviewer last time thought they would be responsive and sorry that they weren't. Drainage may go to basement area but it will not be directed when it is pumped out so will affect neighbors. Water ends up in my front yard, compacting the soil at 1537 increased water flow, plugged new drain, water flowed over straw, this project is going to increase the problems, both Tredwell ROC and URS engineers do such hydrology/drainage studies and can answer these questions, this house is just too big, the current cellar on the site is 5’ x 8’. Am in favor of project, applicant is property owner, pays taxes, is following the guidelines of the city; purpose of design review in 1998 was to help design houses to build not to reduce size, more people work from home, need bigger houses. When the 700 SF was added for basements it was to be completely below ground, not as a trade off for SF above ground; understand that the number of new houses in a row can create a problem, but this house is not bulky, put garage at rear, architect did things to reduce the mass of the second floor; water in the basement will be addressed by putting in a drain designed for greater than the flow generated, will not deflect water on to adjacent property; would like legislation to prevent multiple new houses in a row but it would penalize individual property owner, can’t just address size, because could take it all off the back and the smaller house would look the same from the front; professionals would all say the same about drainage, take water from soil and roof to the street gutter at front, not need to hire an expert, not provide any new information and cost $5,000; people want larger houses now, not double up kids as used to. Neighbors have rights, every project does not need to be built to maximum, that’s what the guidelines are for; this block is under siege, this is the cutest house on the block, some intent should be made to retain that character. Applicant responded they are willing to remove the 700 SF basement area; do not agree that the design is the same, this house is one and one-half stories, not massive, prepared the streetscape as close to scale as could, houses are shown in perspective, the giant yellow house for example looks smaller, but this was done to one eighth scale, and field measured the distance between the houses. Commissioner noted help neighbors more to take 700 SF off the top of the house and retain the basement, could only do by reducing one of the dormers and put a bedroom in the basement. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: two issues basement and water/drainage; same water issue in my neighborhood, sumps run day or two after rain, three new houses behind actually reduced the surface flow across his lot because required to take drainage to the street at front; water will follow the path or least resistance. Asked Sr. Eng is city drainage system adequate? Will the larger basement (40 SF to 700 SF) increase flow in the storm drain? Front of this lot flows toward the dead end of the street and the creek, ground water will rise and fall in this area; might get a lot of water in the basement but can engineer around, this neighborhood has problem with tree debris blocking drains and resulting water backup so can flow down driveway at end of street at creek; the larger basement at 8 feet will not affect drainage because there the ground water is lower than 8’ most of the year, major affect on flow will be during storms. Will it make a design difference if the basement is a bedroom? Staff noted that a separate door and stair would probably be required. Don’t know much about water, but persuaded by testimony, that given drainage problems in the area now, proximity to the creek, and the increased density of use in the area, commission should have information/data on soils from a hydro-geologist to determine the impact on the neighborhood; at the time design guidelines were developed did not contemplate seriatim development in a neighborhood, but design criteria seems to address this when speaking of intensity of use, increas e in size relative to what is there now; this house is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 7 too large for the lot and neighborhood, the reduction in size, footprint and FAR was not enough given the commission’s direction at study. Feel that the architecture is very well done, respect the choice of variety when using shingles, that type of variety happens on almost every block. C. Bojués made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: problem is that have five applications on this block, not one, would challenge the applicant, don’t know what the square footage the block can take, that is what "discretion" means, think design is fine, know it is bigger, less than maximum height, 26/27 feet from grade and looks like a story and a half house; basement water issue is unknown, don’t know if design review would help, should consider approving. Agree don’t know if sending to design review would fix, it is well designed given the impact is on the total neighborhood, the cumulative impact is significant; need to see more work done; suggested design reviewer for a third party to expedite process; don’t think design review proper place, many options discussed for change, better to let applicant. C. Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to send the item to a design reviewer suggesting that the house size be reduced by looking at the bathroom in the second bedroom, reduce size of dormer, pull the second floor back from the front. Chair Bojués asked for a roll call vote. The motion failed 2-3-1 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining). C. Vistica moved to continue this item for the applicant to revise the plans given the direction given including a redesign including the idea of putting a bedroom and bath room in the basement in order to reduce the mass and bulk above grade. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: should a hydrology report be required? Maker of motion added a condition that it was all right to come back without a hydrology report, but applicant should be aware that the site drainage issue would have to be addressed when they applied for a building permit. Second accepted added condition. Commissioner pointed out given the circumstances of the area need some expert information regarding hydrology. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue with conditions. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Keele dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining). It was noted that this action to continue is not appealable and the item will be renoticed when it returns to the Planning Commission. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. C. Keighran took her seat on the dias. 7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MEG MONROE/RUBEN HURIN A. LOT 11 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 8 B. LOTS 9 AND 10 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. Item 7A and 7B, 1537 Drake Avenue, was moved to the last action item because the applicant’s representative had a conflict which was scheduled before this meeting was moved to the fifth Monday. 8. 137 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A BASEMENT AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CLEMENT HUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, designer, 1228 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame, noted the copy of roof plan included in the staff report was not highlighted to show the locations of the installed story poles, submitted a highlighted copy of the roof plan, the gable ends were replaced with hip roofs as suggested by the Commission and neighbor, ridge will be lower than the house on the right, will now be less bulky. Commission asked if the next door neighbor is present; no, the designer noted that he agrees with the change in roof design. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 17, 2004, sheet 1, date stamped January 8, 2004, sheets 2 through 4, G-1 and L-1, and date stamped March 17, 2004, sheets 5 and 6; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height, pitch or design, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall set the property corners, set the building corners and certify the first floor finished elevation of the new structure(s) and have the datum accepted by the City Engineer; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's January 12, 2004, memos shall be met; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 9 a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. C. Keele noted that he was originally not in support of the project, but the applicant has worked well with the neighbor to address his concerns and after reviewing the revised roof design and story poles on site he is now in support of the project. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 9. 2711 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM CARRUBBA, SQUARE THREE DESIGN STUDIOS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MONIQUE AND LEO REDMOND, PROPERTY OWNERS) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 29, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that the was an error made when the story poles were installed, they were installed showing the roof ridge one foot taller than proposed. Commission asked if the neighbors were notified of this error; no. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Leo Redman, property owner, was present and noted that he bought the house in September, 2000, with the idea to remodel the house to accommodate his family and three children, so far has invested $35,000 in designs for this project, intent is to blend in with the neighborhood, tried to minimize the impact on views with this design, like the rear yard but is willing to reduce the yard space by 10' to place the addition at the rear instead of adding on the second floor in order to have the least impact on neighbors, spoke to eight neighbors including Mr. Wong at 2720 Martinez Drive, looked out of neighbor's window and verified that there will be minimal view loss, will not lose view of the bay, visited the next door neighbor on five occasions after the story poles were installed but was not home; the proposed design is within the height limit, only increasing the height by 1'-9" where the code allows an increase of up to 5'-0", neighbor at 2707 Martinez Drive completed a major remodel in 2001, this addition is smaller in scale; would like to build before the rainy season, if not may reconsider the whole project; consider it a tacit approval from Mr. Wong since he is not present at the meeting; family has been involved with the community, school and fundraising, would like to remain and Burlingame and ask that the Commission approve the project. Commission asked if the project was discussed with the uphill neighbor at 2715 Martinez Drive and did they have any complaints? The property owner noted that he spoke to them and they shared no issues with the project. Commission suggested that the property owner add more windows in the kitchen since there are nice view from this part of the house; owner thanked the Commissioner for the suggestion and will seriously consider it. Tom Carrubba, architect, Square Three Design Studios, clarified that the story poles as installed are in their correct location, discrepancy was in the civil engineering data and the way the drawings for the original house were prepared, initial survey showed the roof pitch to be 4:12, the actual roof pitch is very odd and is more like 4½:12, contractor correctly installed story poles based on points shown on the plans and survey. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 10 C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 29,2004, Sheets EC1 through EC5, A1 through A3.4, and sheet C1, site plan, floor plans, roof plan and building elevations, with a maximum height of 25’3” (elevation 122.77’) as measured from average top of curb elevation at the front of the house; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist’s and Fire Marshal’s January 30, 2004 memos, and the City Engineer’s February 30, 2004 memo shall be met; 4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 5) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 7) that prior to under floor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 8) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 9) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 10) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: wanted to note for the record that it doesn't appear that Mr. Wong is in support of the project; visited the site and the view from neighbors house, don't think view will be obstructed; disagree, think there will be some view blocked, can easily address by altering the roof, will not support the project; visited the neighbors houses today, have full panoramic view, only the bottom of some trees will be blocked, addition is modest, overall distant views will be maintained. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 11 10. 1428 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW, TWO STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Robert Gilson, property owner, 1428 Cabrillo Avenue, was present and noted that the design of the house is not changing, the additional square footage is being requested at the rear of the house, the roof configuration will also change in some areas, master bathroom will be extended out an additional five feet, noted that the existing house is five to seven feet taller and therefore the proposed new house will be less of an impact, large existing trees surrounding the house will provide screening and reduce the impact on the street, there will be no visible change from the street since the added area is at the rear of the house. Commission asked what is the reason for adding 284 SF? Property owner noted that the previously approved floor plan seemed cramped, the family room, master bathroom and closest is too small. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the originally approved project was a package, two houses in one project, when a single house is demolished and replaced with two new houses, the idea is to make each house smaller to reduce the cumulative impact, if the floor plan doesn't meet your needs, the changes should be made within the interior of the house, not by adding more square footage; feel that the proposed changes are acceptable, house is within the allowable FAR, other new house has been reduced, house is located on the downhill side of the street, proposed height is at 25', houses across the street on the high side are much taller, the large oak tree and a 70' tall Redwood tree at the front of these properties will screen the houses, the house is well designed and articulated throughout, front right side of the house will be screened by the existing Oak tree, lot slopes downward and therefore mass and bulk will go away; we need to be careful when reviewing two houses simultaneously as one project, do not want to be nickel and dimed later with changes, the house was previously revised by reducing the size of the house by 3 to 4 percent off the maximum FAR, this is not an issue if the lot can accommodate this size house, but that an agreement was reached at a certain house size and now the property owner want to add more; there were a number of comments when the project was originally reviewed, there was more flexibility at that time, owner addressed a number of issues, came back to the Commission with revised plans and those plans were approved, now want to make changes to increase the size of the house, this is not acceptable, Commission's original decision based on the applicants proposal should be respected; with present proposal also concerned with the increase in lot coverage from 34% to 39.7%, reduction in front setback from 22' to 20', reduction in the side setback from 5'-6" to the minimum required 5'-0", need to look at the principal and philosophy, a decision was made and the property owner needs to abide by the decision, not in support. Continued discussion: this is a tough decision, feel like the process has been abused, in principal the request should be denied, was submitted as one application for two new houses, there were criteria for both houses, now the property owner would like to make changes to one of the houses, does not satisfy the design review criteria addressing the impacts on the neighborhood or the interface of the two structures. CA noted that the property owner asked staff how to process this application for changes to the project, based on staff direction he submitted the application to make changes to one house rather than resubmitting the entire project for two new houses. Commission suggested that another option is to submit a new application for reconsideration of both new houses. Commission asked if the current request for a design review City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 12 amendment is denied, will the approval of the original application still stand? CA noted that the original approval would still stand and that they have a certain timeline in which to have building permits issued. C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application for design review amendment. The motion was seconded by C. Keele. Comment on the motion: wanted to make it clear that the Commission did not interpret any malice with this request after the project was approved, comments focus on the changes and how that affects the mass and bulk of the project. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Auran dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m. 11. 1132 DOUGLAS AVENUE, ZONED R-4 – APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING FOR A NEW THREE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (99 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND VARIANCE FOR DELIVERY VEHICLE PARKING B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP C. Vistica recused himself because he owns property within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked SrE. Monaghan if a curved driveway at grade at the front could be installed given that the driveway is sloping downwards to the garage from the curb level. SrE. noted that a curved driveway is possible, but that you would end up with a cross-sloping driveway and that it would eliminate one more on-street parking space. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 851 Burlway Road, Burlingame, noted that the tree species was changed to evergreen as requested by the Commission at the study meeting, considered adding a space for delivery vehicles, provided a drawing to show what it would look like in front of the building, would have a double slope because the ramp slopes down to the below-grade garage, considered a circular driveway but would lose one on-street parking space, felt that it was more important to provide the front setback landscaping rather than the delivery vehicle space, would be better for the street, don't think there would be many deliveries to the site with a three-unit building. Commission noted that the Leyland Cypress trees to be planted along the left side property line are very messy, suggest replacing these with one of the other tree species proposed. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used, yes; concerned with the west elevation, can the long expanse on this side of the building be articulated more? Architect noted that the rear one-third of this site faces the new multi-family residential project to be built at 512 Primrose Road, feel that this wall is not broken up, carried the chimney up at the front of the building, have bay windows towards the back of the building. Commission asked if the architect read the letter dated March 29, 2004, submitted by Mr. Jacobson? No, did not see that letter, staff then provided a copy of the letter to architect. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 13 Matt Jacobson, 1137 Douglas Avenue, spoke in opposition of the project, noted that the variance for delivery vehicle space is unjustified, the lot is not problematic, this lot is not big enough to accommodate a project this large, approximately half of the neighborhood is multifamily residential, the rest are single family houses, there are a number of lots in this neighborhood which are too small to handle multifamily residential buildings, have several concerns with the project: concerned with safety, project is located close to downtown, have many traffic problems with large intersection at Primrose Road and Douglas Avenue, traffic on Douglas Avenue is heavy and fast, delivery trucks double parking on street creates a dangerous situation; parking on the street is terrible, on-street parking is limited to two hours, not enough on-street parking, the library, City Hall and dental office are located within the same area and add to on-street parking, parking requirement is not realistic; need to consider the structure being demolished and what will replace it, a small Victorian house will be demolished, this is the signature house on the block, City needs to define the area and arrive at a good balance between single family and multifamily uses, small house will be replaced with very large multifamily structure, too much concrete with this project, existing multifamily projects are less massive and bulky, more articulated, project will change the feel of Burlingame, ask that the project be denied as proposed, project needs to pr ovide a parking space for a delivery vehicle, project should comply with all of the city's development requirements without exceptions, project should be compatible, the neighborhood character should not be changed. Dale Meyer, architect, noted that the property and surrounding area is zoned R-4, there are ways to design in the delivery vehicle parking space but that there are trade-offs, it would take away from the front landscaping if the delivery space is provided at the front of the lot, on-street parking would be reduced if a curved driveway is proposed, feel that with a small project such as this there will be fewer deliveries made to the site, proposed project complies with the parking requirement based on the number of bedrooms per unit, provides the required amount of landscaping within the front setback, project is not oversized, the design will be an asset to the neighborhood, could have designed a building with more units but decided to keep the project small. Commission asked what is the size of each unit; approximately 3,200 SF per unit. Commission asked the architect to explain the hardship on the property to justify the variance for delivery vehicle, why not make the units smaller? Architect noted that if the unit size is reduced, the number of required parking spaces would not changes since parking is based on number of bedrooms per unit, the sloping ramp to the below-grade parking would create difficulties for the back-up space for the delivery vehicle, there will be a double slope in the back-up area, because the lot is narrow a curved driveway would require two curb cuts and therefore eliminate on-street parking, feel that the front setback landscaping is more important to the community than the delivery vehicle parking space. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: seem to have trade-off between the front setback landscaping and delivery vehicle parking space, could have landscaping on the site full-time and also lose a full-time on-street parking space, prefer landscaping to off-street parking; agree, could use turf-block for the delivery space but in this case the ramp slopes down and requires a wall parallel to the driveway for safety, hardship on this lot is the width; don't see this as a trade-off, this is a function of design and unit size, can have both parking and landscaping since this is a new project, feel confident that the architect can figure out a design that would provide both landscaping and a delivery vehicle space, there is no hardship on the property for new construction; not sure if reducing the size of the units would provide enough space for a delivery vehicle, prefer to keep the landscaping, eight parking spaces are provided for the three dwelling units including a guest parking space, this is more than enough parking for the units, don't know if there is a high demand for the delivery vehicle, see the hardship as being the narrow width of the lot and the double-slope on the driveway, but see the neighbors concern with the design of the project, concerned with the west elevation, no articulation, there is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 14 room for improvement, the front and rear are well articulated but the side elevations need to be more articulated. C. Osterling made a motion to approve the condominium permit and variance for vehicle delivery parking, by resolution, with the amended condition that the Leyland Cypress trees along the left side property line be replaced with another species taken from among the other trees proposed on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: the neighbors concern have been thoroughly stated, the problem is that their house is located in an R-4 zoning district, surprised with some of the projects which have been approved and built in this area, see no hardship for not provided a space for a delivery vehicle, would like to see a design without a variance, project would work better without variances, would like to see a no variance design, this is a landmark area in the downtown area, cannot support the project. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and variance for delivery vehicle parking. The motion failed 2-4-1 on a roll call vote (Cers. Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran and Keele dissenting, C. Vistica abstain). C. Brownrigg made a motion to continue the project based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission to come back with a no variance design alternative. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on the motion: not sure if there is a better answer to this problem, will know when the revised project returns, architect needs to pursue a no variance design alternative. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue the project with the direction provided by the Commission. The motion passed 5-1-1 on a roll call vote (C. Auran dissenting, C. Vistica abstain). This item concluded at 9:54 p.m. C. Vistica took his seat on the dias. 12. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 – APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS (STEVEN FLANAGAN, W.L. BUTLER, APPLICANT; JASON BELL, CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT; GRANT RIGGS, THE WESTYE GROUP WEST INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report March 29, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that condition #1 has been amended to include the following: with 19, 60-degree on-site parking spaces with 12 to 16 foot back- up space where 18 feet is required for the parking spaces along the north side of the building. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Steven Flanagan, applicant, 204 Franklin Street, Redwood City, noted that they would like to add more landscaping along the north side property line, new trees in landscaping pockets next to the parking spaces would screen the view of trucks parked on the street, because the City is requiring that a new sidewalk be installed along the same property line the landscaping and parking spaces had to be shifted, in order get the additional landscaping in, the parking configuration will change from perpendicular to angled parking, the angled parking will make maneuvering easier for vehicles and will allow more landscaping to be added, the existing perpendicular parking configuration is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 15 nonconforming. Commission noted that the plant materials were not provided on the plans. Applicant noted that plant and irrigation details are still being worked and will be shown on the construction plans submitted for a building permit. Commission asked if the parking variance is approving the nonconforming parking count or just the nonconforming back-up? CP noted that the variance only applies to the nonconforming back-up dimension of the spaces identified. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: support the project as proposed, most landscaping of the buildings in this area is marginal, this is an improvement, clarified that the parking variance only applies to the nonconforming back-up space and not the nonconforming number of on-site parking spaces. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped February 24, 2004, sheets A1.0 and L0.1, site plan and landscape plan; with a total of 56 on-site parking spaces and 11,030 SF of on-site landscaping, with 19, 60-degree on-site parking spaces with 12 to 16 foot back-up space where 18 feet is required for the parking spaces along the north side of the building; 2) that the building shall have 65,888 SF of warehouse, 8,083 SF of office and 10,000 SF of showroom, any change to this configuration shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and may require Planning Commission approval; 3) that the maximum number of employees on site at any one time will be 50 persons; 4) that all the existing and new landscaping to be installed on site will be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system that shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times; 5) that all signage shall require a separate permit from the Planning and Building Departments; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 1, 2004 memo shall be met; and 7) that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to approve noting that the parking variance only applies to the nonconforming back-up space and not the nonconforming number of on-site parking spaces. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:50 p.m. 7. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., DESIGNER (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS: MEG MONROE/RUBEN HURIN A. LOT 11 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE AND AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of this site. She left the chambers. City Attorney Anderson also recused himself from advising the Planning Commission because of California State Law and he left the chambers. Reference staff report for 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 11, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. 36 conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked are the issues raised in the Levinson report attached to the neighbor’s letter; addressed in the conditions of approval for lot 11. CP Monroe responded that they were in the amended conditions. Does City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 16 this apply to the conditions for Lots 9 and 10 tonight as well. CP noted yes; in those conditions all previously Lot 11 approved were brought forward, those no longer in effect were shown as strike outs, and the amendments to the others shown in italics to reflect what is known so far, knowledge is evolving on Lots 9 and 10. Is it the consensus of the arborist that it is all right to build on Lot 11 and the staging area on Lot 10? CP Monroe responded yes, there is a comment to that effect from the City Arborist in the staff report. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road represented the project. Long process to arrive here, the result of much compromise by all involved, hope not to re-do entire; only reason here is unfortunate error by grading subcontractor; not here to apply for anything new, want to break Lot 11 from 9 and 10, and proceed as originally approved, except to build the house one foot taller; we will return with Lots 9 and 10 later. All three arborists agree that there are no significant roots on Lot 11; only want to raise the house on Lot 11 one foot to bring it into better aesthetic alignment with the houses on Lots 9 and 10; on Lot 9 need to know compaction of fill soil, test was done, compaction will allow roots to grow; have proceeded with foundations, investigated roots as were able given conditions, investigated location of each pier within the root zone, when done will come back to the Commission for final approval of houses on Lots 9 and 10, findings suggest raising foundations one to two feet to avoid grade at back of the lot. On Lot 11 would like Commission to remove condition 12 regarding the water line being installed before foundation inspection, in discussion with City Engineer, may want to relocate line to the center of the street on Drake, would like to delay until before the city issues a certificate of occupancy on Lot 11. Also to cleanly break Lot 11 from Lots 9 and 10 do not want mitigations for Lots 9 and 10 tied to Lot 11 could create a legal problem if wish to sell Lots 9 and 10, so would like conditions 4, 16, 25-33 and 35-36 removed from Lot 11. These same conditions are proposed to be added to Lots 9 and 10, so are redundant and create technical problems for Lot 11, all protections for Lot 9 and 10 are in place and we will be back in 30-45 days with final foundations for these two lots. Commissioners asked: If someone buys Lot 11 couldn’t the buyer and seller address the reservation and indemnity. Hudak, no way out from obligations, only like to indemnify against things one can control. From economic point of view understand cash flow reason for breaking off Lot 11, but doesn’t it raise questions about the redevelopment of the other lots, foreclosing options if you build a smaller house on Lot 11. Hudak, independent arborist more confident after foundation investigation, has looked at ways to build driveway on Lot 9, owner believes it will evolve in the way he intended within the modifications and mitigations the arborist’s will insist on, pretty confident they are going to do what they agreed to. What time lapse do you expect between Lot 11 and Lots 9 and 10? Lot 11 is ready now, house could be occupied this year; 30-45 days before sure on Lots 9 and 10, then back to the Commission, don’t know if we can do it this year, possible. Neighbors spoke: Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Jani Ochse, 1512 Drake; Mark Thomas, 1520 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1556 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake; Sean Abshire, real estate attorney; Denise Balestra, 414 Costs Rica. It is unclear how the arborist report is evolving, seems applicant is trying the change Mr. Levinson’s report; the compaction analysis has been done, OK; now he wants to break off development contrary to the Commission’s request to see the whole as one picture; two years ago expressed concern about the Redwood Grove, have attended 12 meetings, he keeps coming back about the trees, this process is dragging out in the absence of data, it is on the agenda without data; last time he asked to separated the conditions the City Arborist was not here and he is not hear tonight, the 20 foot staging area does not agree with the arborist report of March 23; should not decide on Lot 11 without information and don’t know if Lots 9 and 10 are buildable. All tried for a workable plan, one issue keep the Redwood trees, no one knows City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 17 how to build around asked for an independent arborist, first few days property owner worked on the site put the trees in jeopardy, he is very casual, want to be sure that he is supervised. There is an application for a Lot 11 fourth lot, 1551 Drake, next to Lot 11, applied for a permit to demolish and rebuild; these lots should be looks at in their totality, 4 parcels, asked City Attorney before if the standards are stricter for four lots, he said yes, not get full picture if you take Lot 11 out, premature. There are photos to show how extensively the roots were ripped up; developers behavior indicates he does what he pleases; deny all applications, City Attorney said that council would be provided the Planning Commission for the revocation of all permits, here is a newspaper article to show the Mark Hudak also has a conflict of interest. First issue is the Redwood Grove, on December 8 commission’s direction was independent arborist is not obliged to accept project, he notes that development could result in a decline in the Redwoods over the long term; now applicant is back making changes to Lot 11, wants to increase the height one foot, and the roofs of the other houses 2 feet taller, this is a bate and switch pattern, rather it returns us to ground zero, and discussion of a 4 lot development. Public Comment continued: Represent the neighbors who wish to preserve the Redwood trees, concerned about the General Plan and the goals in the Housing Element, project proposed by Miller threatens to impact the neighborhood, I would suggest a process like that of a subdivision, and process all lots as a single unit, evaluate as one project under CEQA, General Plan and impact on neighborhood; now the developer is back and wants to parcel off, this is a process to amend the conditional use permit, is it in accord with the General Plan; the conditions protect the city, by dividing he increases his opportunity and city decreased his risk; he needs to protect his investment to divide off Lot 11 and has taken advantage of the emerging lots. Commission has not asked if the conditional use permit should be revoked, to do that the Commission must provide notice and proper findings; the project cannot be built as originally designed, he has done detrimental damage to the property, he has not preserved the trees and has violated city ordinance, the project needs to be changed, he may not come back with Lots 9 and 10 for a year. Live behind this project; all property owners all have rights, Miller owns the trees, neighbors simply looking for loop holes to stop him from developing; property was on the market for 9 months as a development project. C. Keele left the dais and chambers at 11:00 p.m. Public Comment continued with applicant's response: Comment made that applicant wishes to piecemeal development, staff is actually adding conditions; remind that city holds a $120,000 cash bond against damage to the Redwood Grove; at the last meeting asked the City Planner the number of times this developer had been in trouble with the city, she answered none noting he had taken over a problem property ; grading done in December was unintentional, still have a red tag on Lot 11, developer has a right to proceed. On Lots 9 and 10, even conditions as currently approved expected additional investigation, this has not changed, it is what you intended. There were no further comments from the floor and public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: can the approvals on Lots 9 and 10 be revoked later? CP noted that she believed so particularly based on the situation of the tree roots or needs of the trees or site cause the applicant to make changes to the structures; applicants requests for changes to the conditions of approval, plus any we might add, makes it appear that we should discuss and bring back the conditions of approval before acting on this request; part of the problems is the three lots, this house on Lot 11 is a good design, modest size, contributes to the neighborhood, that is not the fact of all three houses; the root investigation report indicates concern about trenching within 30 feet from the Redwood trees, that is well into the second half of the Lot 10; availability of Lot 11 during construction may facilitate options for building on Lots 9 and 10, there may City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 18 be some risk that Lots 9 and 10 may not be developable as approved without Lot 11 available during construction—is Lot 11 a part of the solution for Lots 9 and 10? No ordinary family is going to be able to Lot 11 live up to and around these trees, not inclined to break this project up. Agree that applicant is requesting a lot of modifications to the conditions; could continue and look at revised conditions, by then may know more about two lots and determine the impact on Lot 11; report indicates that in this case roots have grown in an unusual pattern, location of piers and cantilevers will be key. All arborists have agreed it is all right to use the 20 feet of Lot 10 for staging; need to look at conditions, there is a clear read from the City Arborist. Key issue is permission to separate Lot 11 or look at the development as a whole. What has been approved? Are there three lots? CP Monroe responded there are presently three lots. Chair Bojués made a motion to approve the revised conditions for Lot 11 which separates it from Lots 9 and 10 with all the conditions in the staff report and by resolution. C. Auran seconded the motion with the addition to condition 12 that to insure a continuous water source from the distribution line to the required soaker hose irrigation in the Redwood Grove the property owner maintain and continue to use the existing water line along the rear of the three lots or replace it as required by the City Engineer and add a condition that when the certificate of occupancy is granted for Lot 11 and the construction fence along the 20 foot construction zone is removed, Lot 11 shall no long be responsible for any conditions which apply to Lots 9 and 10 and these conditions shall become void. The maker of the motion accepted the additional conditions. The amended conditions of approval for Lot 11 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 9, 2004, sheets A.1 through A.5 and L1; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 10; 3) that when the certificate of occupancy is granted for Lot 11 and the construction fence along the 20 foot construction zone on Lot 10 is removed, Lot 11 shall no long be responsible for any conditions of approval which apply to Lots 9 and 10 and these conditions shall become void; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met including appropriate removal of the construction staging area fence on Lot 10; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the conditions of the City Engineers March 15, 2004, May 31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's March 10, 2004 memo shall be met; 8) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 19 overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 9) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 11; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 10) that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site or in the construction staging area during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lots 9 and 10; 11) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable condition to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood tree grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2-inch water line as approved by the City Engineer to provide to water source for the required soaker hose irrigation system to serve Lots 9 and 10 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and that all new utility connections to serve Lot 11 and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems any increase in capacity required shall be at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; 13) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit shall not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 14) that the new sewer connection to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 15) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supply the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 20) that the development on this site shall comply with Burlingame Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 21) that the property owner shall comply with Burlingame Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 22) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 23) that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape and irrigation plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued; the plan shall address the landscaping, flat work, driveway design and materials, and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, retaining walls, soil deposits and driveway construction details; landscaping shall be inspected and approved by the City Arborist before the City shall issue an occupancy permit for the house; 24) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame or edition in effect at the time a building permit is issued; 25) that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather- proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 26) that if work is done in violation City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 20 of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist and the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 27) that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot 9; 28) that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground, water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 29) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9, 10 and 11 has been finaled and the removal authorized by the City Arborist; 30) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 31) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 32) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 33) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 34) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11, the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8- inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 35) that the property owner shall establish a twenty-foot wide staging area strip along the north property line of Lot 10 by installing a permanent six-foot tall, chain-link fence at the location shown on the Site Plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 9, 2004, according to the specifications of the City Arborist; this fence shall be posted with the same laminated waterproof warning signage as used on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing at the same intervals; at no time during the construction on Lot 11, including installation of landscaping, shall this fencing be moved, removed or relocated without the approval of the project arborist and City Arborist; this fencing shall be removed prior to any construction activity on Lot 10; 36) that all protective fencing, staging area fencing on Lot 10 and Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 11; violation of the fenced areas and/or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 21 removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 37) that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 11 and in the 20 foot staging area on Lot 10 to support construction on Lot 11 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9 and 10. Comment on the motion: have not had much time to review arborist report, assume modified conditions reflect these findings so am uncomfortable changing staff proposed conditions tonight, realize that the conditions for Lots 9 and 10 will come back to the commission later; its OK to separate Lot 11, it’s a good idea to ease into construction, will reduce impact on the neighborhood, like seeing consensus of the three arborists, report contains a clear set of modified conditions. Independent arborists concerns are on Lots 9 and 10, he agreed that Lot 11 is OK as well as using the 20 feet on Lot 10, I agree professionally that its OK as well. What is the issue regarding the location of the water line? Sr. Engineer commented that there is a 10 foot wide right-of-way at the rear of the houses where the water line is presently located, plan to move the water line to the front in the street, the line will come off Adeline and down Drake. Does commission want to consider allowing the property owner to use the rear of Lot 10, out of the area affected by the Redwoods for additional staging area so long as the proposal is endorsed by all three arborists. Commissioners determined that they did not want to add this option as a condition at this time. Chair Bojués called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the conditions as amended for Lot 11 which would allow Lot 11 to be developed independently of Lots 9 and 10. The motion passed on a roll call vote 4-1-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:45 p.m. 7B. LOTS 9 AND 10 – APPLICATION TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EMERGING LOTS TO SEPARATE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS. C. Keighran continued to abstain because she lives within 500 feet of this project. CA Anderson continued to recuse himself. Both were not present in the chambers. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that these conditions although separated into two sets, one for Lot 9 and one for Lot 10, remain the same as those approved by the Commission on May 27, 2003, except for being amended to require additional Redwood Grove maintenance and protection for the term of construction on all three lots and the placement of a barrier fence on Lot 10 for the 20 foot construction City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 22 staging area to be used while building on Lot 11. CP noted that the conditions which have already been completed are shown by strike through and the changes are shown in italics. Although the initial studies of root location and impact areas and probing at specific locations for foundation piers have been done, the applicant still has foundation design and other work to complete and get approved by the arborists before these conditions are complete to cover construction. As a result the project proposals and conditions of approval will return to the Planning Commission again. Commissioners asked if the chain link fence protecting the trees should be expanded immediately. CP noted that Lots 9 and 10 would be protected from all construction on Lot 11 by the fence placed along the inner edge of the 20 foot staging area on Lot 10 and by the continued supervision of the Redwood Grove maintenance including proper placement and ongoing fence inspection by the arborist. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public hearing for Lots 9 and 10. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, represented the applicant. Shean Abshire, attorney for the neighbors, Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake; Ann Thomas, 1512 Drake, spoke. Applicant noted that there is an existing water source on the site that the applicant can use for the soaker irrigation on Lot 9; agree with the way the process is evolving, believe as the independent arborist becomes more familiar with the site and more work is done on the foundation design, the lots will be found to be buildable; view these conditions on Lots 9 and 10 to be interim, know that they will be finalized later. Other comments from the floor: No question given the Levinson report in the record that the projects on Lots 9 and 10 do not comply; do not like the implication of Mark Hudak that the independent arborist is coming around “to our way”; foundation as designed is not buildable so there is no project to attach conditions to; can’t find that it is not detrimental to the property based on the record here, if it has been revised need to deny the application. Report which was given to her was not in the staff report or any finding from Mr. Levinson, a February 20 report was referred to; don’t know if the conditions of approval include; the three arborists agree on the 20 foot construction staging area on Lot 10 but based on what? CP Monroe noted that there was a staff comment from the City Arborist in the Commission packet. Have been asking for two years for an independent arborist report to be put into the record, have denied due process, outrageous. Applicant submitted his arborist’s report stating that there were no significant roots affected, also regarding the pier locations only 2 were affected based on site investigation on February 4, 2004. This is not a new approval for Lots 9 and 10, there are amendments to the existing report based on additional study, now the conditions as presented reflect what city wants as interim. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in the original 32 conditions it notes that location of the pier and beam foundation are yet to be determined and these conditions represent no change from that; on that basis should move to approve the amendment to the conditional use permit to separate the conditions of approval for Lot 9 and Lot 10. Staff was asked if these conditions are more stringent than the original? CP responded yes, these conditions provide more protection for the trees during the entire time of any construction on the lots; also more investigation will need to occur for the foundation locations, for that reason the arborist report is still being prepared, an arborist analysis/report will accompany any resubmitted plans for Lot 9 and/or Lot 10, including revised conditions. C. Auran moved approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit to separate the conditions of approval including mitigation monitoring for Lots 9 and Lots 10 at 1537 Drake Avenue, including additional conditions to address the on-going maintenance of the Redwood Tree Grove during construction on all three of the originally merged lots. C. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. The conditions for Lot 9 are:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 23 2003, sheet L-1; and that any changes to the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height, building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or to tree trimming shall require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 10 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineers April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15 , August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshals September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 9; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9) that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 9; 10) that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable conditions to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood Tree Grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards; and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13) that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 14) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 24 that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections to the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 20) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 23) that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25) that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until the timing, design, method of construction and materials have been approved by the City Arborist, and a licensed arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the driveway and to make adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction; the construction activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction compliance with the approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin; 26) A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27) A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 25 conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist shall also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 28) A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 29) A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 30) that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 31) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 32) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 26 condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 33) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 34) that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; 35) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 36) that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site (completed); 37) that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather-proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 38) that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 39) that the property owner shall receive an encroachment permit from the City and shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2- inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line south lot 9; and a connection provided to Lot 9 at a location approved by the City Arborist; 40) that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground, water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 41) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 9, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for the development on Lot 9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued; except for modification of the protective fencing as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9; 42) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 43) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 27 the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 44) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall cause to have a three- inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 45) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 46) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 47) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 48) that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 9 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9, 10 and 11. Conditions of approval for Lot 10 are: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 and A.6, date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and L1 for Lot 10; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 28 same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineers' May 31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8) that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 10; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9) that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 10; 10) all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 12) that the existing water line at the rear of the properties shall be retained and maintained in operable conditions to supply the required soaker hose irrigation system for the Redwood Tree Grove on Lots 9 and 10 or a new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department; and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13) that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 14) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 29 site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17) that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18) that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19) that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 20) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22) that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 23) that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25) that the driveway and the detached garage it serves for the proposed house on Lot 10 shall be shifted to the north side of the lot within 5 feet of the north side property line and the driveway shall be designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and installed according to approved plans with the supervision of a licensed arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist; 26) A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27) A. that driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; C. that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 28) A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 30 grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site;29) A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on-site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 30) A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 31)that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 32) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 33) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the property owner shall receive from a certified arborist; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 31 die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 34) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 35) A. that the fence post holes shall be hand-dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 36) Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 37) that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 38) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building permit is issued; 39) that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site; (completed); 40) that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather- proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 41) that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 32 the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 42) that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot 9 and a connection provided to Lot 10 shall be provided at a location approved by the City Arborist; 43) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lots 9, 10 and 11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9 and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the protective fencing; 44) that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 45) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 46) that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 47) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 48) that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall affix at least four (4), 8- inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a “Tree Protection Fence”, “Do Not Alter or Remove” and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 49) that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 50) that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 33 declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on-going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist’s selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9, 10 and 11. Comment on the motion: asked are these conditions more stringent than the original? CP responded yes, these conditions add requirements to both Lots 9 and 10 for maintenance and protection of the Redwood Grove for the time of construction on Lot 11 and through the completion of whatever construction to be determined on Lots 9 and 10. CP also noted that more investigation will need to take place for the foundations of structures and driveways on these lots, depending on the design and location proposed so the arborist report is evolving and will continue to be worked on since no foundation or driveway submittals have been made yet. Whatever the proposal is made it will be brought back to the commission with a full arborist report. Feel that this is a bad policy at this time, however the conditions are more restrictive, and will not be harmful, but this is not a good habit for processing. Chair Bojués called for a voice vote on the motion to amend the conditional use permit by separating the conditions of approval for Lots 9 and 10 and amending them for additional maintenance of the Redwood Tree Grove. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent). IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 13. 312 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TOM AND TRISH NICHOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT MEDAN, ARCHITECT) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Robert Medan, architect, noted that the applicant's family has three children and that they need more space, proposing to add a third bedroom. Commission asked if the top of the roof was cut to stay within the 30' height limit? Yes, tried to stay within the height limit and did not want to change the roof pitch to lower the height, changing the roof pitch would have altered the overall design envelope. Commission noted that a special permit to exceed the height limit would be appropriate in the case of this architectural style in order to have the roof terminate at a point. Architect noted that he would make the suggested changes to the roof as long as it would not delay the review process. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 34 C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions to the roof have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Bojués. Comment on motion: Commission requested that the architect provide information on how the chimney will be stabilized with the next submittal. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised for the roof and chimney stabilization as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. 14. 1125 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MAURISSA HEFFRAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL MOYER, ARCHITECT) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the 100-year flood flow limit is shown on the plan. Plr. Hurin noted that the 100-year flood flow limit is indicated by the thick, black line on the Site Plan and that the it was determined by hydraulic calculations as required by the City Engineer. Commission asked if the proposed "L" foundation footing near the existing 48-inch oak tree, as proposed in the arborist report, was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. Plr. Hurin noted that the City Arborist reviewed and accepted the recommended mitigations in the arborist report. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Dion Heffran, part owner and designer, and Maurissa Heffran, property owner, were available to answer questions. Submitted three letters of support from neighbors, noted that the proposed design is not bulky, primarily single story with a high pitched roof, will be using a stone slate roof, design is French Normandy, will have little impact on the existing landscaping which will be retained. Commission noted that this is a great design and that two of the existing nonconforming conditions have been eliminated with the new project. The Commission asked the applicant if he was positive that a slate roof is going to used, asked if this is a real slate product and not a simulated material, do not want to see it changed during construction. Applicant verified that a real slate product roof will be used for the roofing, feels that this is an important aspect of the structure, the roof structure was designed to handle 13 lbs/SF, proposed slate roof weighs 11 lbs/SF, and therefore the roof structure has been designed to handle the loads of the proposed slate roof. Commission expressed a concern with the proposed construction near the existing 48-inch oak tree and asked if the house and roof will encroach into the canopy of the oak tree, have seen other projects get too close to tree canopies, do not want to see major tree limbs cut for the addition. Applicant noted that the oak tree is located on an upward slope and several feet higher than the finished floor of the house. In addition, the house is single-story at that point and the roof pitches away from the tree, the house and roof will not encroach into the canopy and no tree limbs will have to be cut, recently trimmed the tree to remove dead limbs. The area adjacent to the existing oak tree is currently paved so there will be no additional impact to the tree roots from construction. Commission commented that the designer has done a great job, appreciates that the applicant also approached the neighbors on Easton Drive who will look down on this property, it was a good idea to contact them. Commission noted that it appears that a small portion of the house will remain, why not just make this a new house? Applicant noted that some existing walls and foundation will remain to preserve a nonconforming rear setback, existing house sits awkwardly on an odd-shaped lot and it would negatively affect the floor plan if it had to conform at that section. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 35 Denise Balestieri, 414 Costa Rica Avenue, San Mateo, spoke in favor of the project, has seen the applicants' work and they do a very nice job. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as proposed with no changes. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: Commission discussed if a single pole was necessary near the oak tree to verify that the addition will not encroach into the canopy, because the oak tree is located on an upward slope and the roof pitches away from the tree, it was determined that a story pole would not be necessary. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:30 a.m. 15. 1608 MONTE CORVINO WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ELIZABETH QUINTO, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BEVERLY CHEN AND S.J. XIONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Elizabeth Quinto, architect, 1212 Beattie Lane, Sebastopol, and Beverly Chen, property owner, 167 San Pablo Avenue, San Francisco, were available to answer questions. Noted that the owners bought the property because they like the neighborhood, the property has a large rear yard, wanted to add to the house and also preserve the rear yard space, also would like to change the look of the house. Commission asked if true divided light windows will be used? Architect indicated that because of the high cost, true divided light windows are not proposed, could possibly add them to the front of the house. Property owner asked if the Commission would have to review any changes to the interior of the house after approval? No, only changes to the exterior would have to be reviewed as an amendment to the design review. Owner asked if converting the existing den into a bedroom, making it a fourth bedroom would be a problem? No, since the existing single-car garage meets the requirement of a four bedroom house. Commission noted that access to the laundry room and backyard is provided from the garage, but don't see access directly into the house from the garage, please explain. The architect noted that direct access from the garage to the house is provided by a stairway located in the left rear corner of the garage. Commission commented that the 12' x 15' laundry room is very large and recommended that this area be used for additional storage. Architect noted that the laundry room is existing and larger because it contains a washer/dryer, storage area, furnace, and water heater all within one room. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar as the project is proposed with no changes. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on the motion: would like to add a condition that requires true divided light windows be used on the front elevation. Make of the motion and second agreed. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with a condition that true divided light windows be used on the front elevation. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 36 Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:40 a.m. 16. 1544 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KATHY PHENGRASAMY, JAIDIN CONSULTING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PETER LIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter dated March 29, 2004, was submitted by Amit Chopra, 1547 Los Montes Drive, was submitted after preparation of the staff report. The letter expresses concern with possible view obstruction from the proposed addition. Commission asked staff to clarify where encroachment into the declining height envelope occurs, it is not clear on the plans. Plr. Hurin reviewed the plans and noted that the declining height envelope was not drawn on the building elevations. Staff sketched it in and determined that an exception is required for the proposed addition and noted that the existing house encroaches into the declining height envelope. Staff will have the architect correctly show the declining height envelope on the revised plans. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojués opened the public comment. Barbara Roczniak-Kugay, architect, was available to answer questions. She noted that she will resubmit plans showing the declining height envelope, also wanted to add a 5' x 5' window in the family room along the left side of the house to meet light an ventilation requirements, will also show on revised plans for the next meeting. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission asked since a letter of concern was submitted by a neighbor regarding view obstruction, should story poles be installed to view potential impacts? Commission agreed that story poles should be installed and their location and height surveyed. Commission also requested that a phone number for the concerned neighbor be provided in the staff report so that the Commission can make an appointment to view the story poles from his dwelling. C. Bojués made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the plans have been revised to show the declining height envelope, added window in the family room, and story poles installed and surveyed). This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojués called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed and story poles installed and surveyed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:50 a.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2004. CP Monroe briefly reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of March 15, 2004. - FYI - CHANGES TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AT 1504 ARC WAY Commission had no comment on the proposed changes and approved the request. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 29, 2004 37 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Bojués adjourned the meeting at 1:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary MINUTES03.29.04