The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2509 Easton Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 2509 Easton Drive Item No. 5 Action Item Meeting Date: February 24, 2014 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two- story single family dwelling with an attached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Emporio Group Inc. Landscape Architect: Aitkens Associates General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-195-060 Lot Area: 8,850 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. History and Proposed Amendment to Design Review: An application for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2012 (February 27, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued in June, 2012 and construction is nearing completion. At the Planning Commission regular action meeting on February 10, 2014, the Commission continued this item so that the applicant could address the Commission's concerns with the proposed changes to the project (see attached February 10, 2014, Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes, applicanYs response letter dated February 14, 2014 and revised plans, date stamped February 18, 2014, for responses to the Commission's comments. At the meeting, the Commission also noted that there may be changes to the house that were not described in the FYI. Staff visited the property on February 12, 2014 to check if there were other discrepancies between the approved plans and the as-built project. Given that construction is complete and there is a current application for Amendment to Design Review, staff is including changes to the house with this application. The following is a list of as-built changes as they pertain to the rear deck, landscaping and exterior of house. The list also describes any changes made since the February 10th meeting in response to the Planning Commission's concerns. 1) New Patio/Garden Wall in Front Yard: The originally approved project included landscaping in the area adjacent to the front entry and living room. Soft landscaping in this area was replaced with a travertine patio and low garden wall (see revised Landscape Plan, date stamped February 18, 2014, sheet L-1). Please refer to the owner's letter dated January 17, 2014 for additional information. The Planning Commission did not express any concern regarding this as-built change at the previous meeting. 2) New Uncovered Deck at Rear of House: The originally approved project included an 88 SF uncovered deck and stairway at the main level at the rear of the house. The property owner modified and increased the amount of uncovered decking at the rear of the house. In a letter dated January 17, 2014, the owner notes that a deck at the rear of the house was added "to make the transition from interior to exterior living more comfortable" and that "the original proposed concrete pad is not practical due to the elevation change from the edge of the house to the ground." At the February 10th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested that the applicant and adjacent property owner at 2517 Easton Drive work together to find a way to mitigate his concern with loss of privacy. In his letter dated February 14, 2014, the applicant notes that the two parties were able Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive to agree upon a mutually acceptable solution. The solution includes reducing the size of the deck by 48 SF at the right rear corner of the deck (along the shared property line) and planting a 24-inch box Marina Strawberry Tree, (Arbutus `Marina� where the portion of the deck is being removed. Marina Strawberry trees are considered an evergreen tree or shrub and can grow up to a height of 40 feet (Sunset Western Garden Book, 2001 Edition). In addition, the applicant will be working with the neighbor to plant a bamboo screen on the neighbor's property along the shared property line. Lastly, the applicant is proposing a Laurel hedge on his side of the property in this area. With the new deck area, the lot coverage would be increased by 576 SF from 24.6% (2182 SF) to 31.1 % (2758 SF) where 40% (3540 SF) is the maximum allowed. The proposed lot coverage is well within the maximum allowed. The deck also complies with setback requirements. 3) Removal of Protected Size Trees: In May 2012, a tree removal permit was issued for removal of five protected size trees (tree numbers #1, 2, 3, 5 and 11 on the attached arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011). Several other non-protected size trees have also been removed (no permit required). During construction, three protected-size trees were removed without a tree removal permit. These include a 20-inch diameter Hedge maple (tree #8), a 20-inch diameter Valley Oak (tree #9) and a 24-inch Italian stone pine (tree #12). Tree #12 was located on the adjacent property to the west, which was once part of a larger lot which was subdivided to create two lots (2509 and 2517 Easton Drive). Tree #9 is located within the footprint of the deck; tree #8 is located near the deck; and tree #12 was located along the right side property not near the deck. The Parks Division is currently addressing this issue and is requiring that the owner install additional larger trees to replace those that were removed (see attached letter from Bob Disco, City Arborist, dated January 15, 2014). In addition to the five, 24-inch box size trees originally required for the project, the ownerwill be required to install three, 36-inch box size Cork Oak trees within the rear yard. The new 24- inch and 36-inch trees are shown on the revised Landscape Plan, date stamped February 18, 2014. 4) Changes to Exterior of House: The following is a list of the as-built changes to the exterior of the house noted by staff. Please refer the applicanYs letter, dated February 14, 2014, for a detailed explanation of the changes. ■ There is additional spacing between the window edge and head and sill wood trim for all windows at front of house. ■ Chamfer design elements were omitted on the first floor corners at the front of the house. ■ The iron railings on the front and rear decks were installed without wooden posts. ■ The front entry door design changed from a wood door with a wrought iron railing insert to a wood door with wood grids. Project Description (based on original approval): The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive were once owned and used by one family, which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and a detached three-car garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive (the properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist of two legally subdivided lots). The properties were sold a few years ago and an addifion was completed at 2517 Easton Drive in 2010, which included converting a portion of the existing house to a one-car garage to provide parking for the house at 2517 Easton Drive. With this application, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached three-car garage and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (the lower level meets the definition of a half-story since it is less than two-thirds of the area above it). The lot slopes downward approximately 42'-0" (23°/o) from the front to the rear of the lot. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,922 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 10 SF below the maximum allowed � Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive FAR and is within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. A Special Permit is required for an attached garage and declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF e�ends beyond the declining height envelope). The project includes an attached garage which provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010); ■ Special Permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035 (a)); and ■ Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF e�ends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)). 2509 Easton Drive Lot Area: 8,850 SF Plans date stamped: December 5, 2011 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS ------....._. ............................._......................._.........._............._........_......_.._....... _. ( ) _.._ ............................................................................................................._._..._................................>.................._......._......_................................._...(.._...._........................................_......g......).... Front 1st flr : 19'-0" 16 -4" block avera e (2nd flr): 25'-0" 20'-0" (attached garage): 25'-0" ; 25'-0" (two single-wide doors) ---....._. .........................__.._.... _._.__.. _....__.._......................................................................................................._...._......._.._............:. ........................................................................................................................ Side (IefE): 5'-0" 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 4'-0" _. . ...___...._....__..._ .........................._......_...----..................... .........__......----......................_...._.......----.._.._............._......................................................_......................................_.;...._................................................._..............._.......__....................._.........._...................................................................._...... Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 90'-0" 20'-0" , __ ....................._....... Lot Coverage: 2260 SF 3540 SF 25.5% 40% FAR: 3922 SF 3932 SF 0.44 FAR 0.44 FAR -- -....._..---......._. .............._......_.. _..__........._.._........................__.._....._. _................................ _....................._ . -- ......................._.._........................................._..............._......_............_........ # of bedrooms: 5 --- _ .. _.._.....--- _.._ ............._.................................._.........._.._...._............................_........._.,_................._...................._.._..__.._.............................................._.._..._.._.._............._...................._._._............._.................... Parking; 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 18'-4" 30'-0" DH Envelope: Special Permit required (159 SF extends beyond declining CS 25.28.075 height envelope) Z ' (0.32 x 8,850 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) Z Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF e�ends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)). Staff Comments: See attached memos for the previously approved project from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. 3 Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. InterFace of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and' consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 18, 2014, sheets L-1 through L-3 and A3, and date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5 and GPC; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; C! Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Emporio Group Inc., applicant and property owner � Design ReviewAmendment Attachments: 2509 Easton Drive Applicant's Response to Planning Commission's Comments, letter dated February 14, 2014 February 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes January 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Explanation Letter, dated January 17, 2014 Letter from Bob Disco, City Arborist, dated January 15, 2014 Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011 Staff Comments from Originally Approved Project Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed February 14, 2014 Aerial Photo � Emporio Group Inc Dimitrios Sogas 1290 Howard Ave #323 Burlingame Ca, 9401 Feb 14, 2014 Subject property: 2509 Easton, Burlingame Planning Coinmissioners: �-., �. � �a�� `� z �>.,r �EB � � 20i4 CITf OF BURLii�GryME Ci�D-t�i�iN�lItJG DiV. After the discussion of the Planning Commission meeting of Feb 10`�', we would like to offer the following information. After review of the as-built condition of the house relative to the approved design we found some ininar deviations from the plans we would like to bring forward in addition to the discussions about the landscape changes we have pro�osed. 1) In the meeting of Feb 10, a commissioner remarked about installation of the faux exposed lintels and window sills. We have evaluated them and discussed the issue with our architect and we believe that while they inay differ from some people's expectations, they meet the intent of the design. There is no diinension provided on the construction drawings, and since the windows are recessed, there are more eleinents to consider but we think it is clear that there is some gap intended between the window frame and these trim pieces. Further, these trim pieces are embedded in the stucco and cannot be moved without comproinising the waterproofing of the windows. It should be noted that these windows will have iron shelves/boxes attached when the house is complete and so the sills will not be apparent. 2) The corners of the building on the front facade were intended to have a chamfer on them. The first floor outer corners did not get the chamfers as intended. No one ever noticed they were missing and it was an apparently oversight by the framer. 3) The iron railings on the front and back were installed without wooden posts. Instead the iron is continuous. The wood posts were omitted for several reasons — to match the other wood trim, the posts would need to be stain grade, but to make them waterproof would have required them to be painted (to properly seal the joints etc.) and we felt that adding another finish type/color would be too busy. Also it was felt that it would be an odd mixture of styling's to have the wood posts and iron rails — that iron-only better suited the house. 4) The front door was changed because the iron insert was felt to be too ornate for the styling of the house. An FYI to request this change was prepared long ago but apparently it did not get submitted to the Planning Division. [Recipient Name] February 14, 2014 Page 2 5) Regarding the deck and landscaping plan, we have met with the concerned neighbor at 2517 Easton and have a mutually acceptable solution. We spent a lot of time together on both sides of the fence and we can appreciate lus concerns. Therefore, our mutually agreed solution is to cut back the deck by approximately 48 sq ft, add another tree to screen the deck and also add a large bamboo screen on his property (please refer to the revised plans). 6) Regarding the removal of the protected trees, we cannot explain what happened but in reviewing in-process photos of the project it's clear that they were remove at the very beginning, during the initial site prep The initial arborist report had 29 listed trees,( a small forest) and in the process of creating the landscape plan it seems some of the numberings (on paper) were mixed up. We do strongly believe that there inust have been an error in marking the trees. Until we were notified by the Parks Dept, we believed that only the appropriate ones were removed. In fact, we found that one more tree needed to be removed several months after the initial work was done and requested and received a permit for that tree remomval, which we believe is evidence that we take tree removal seriously. 7) There was no covert effort to quietly remove protected trees and build a decic. As we said the trees appear to have been removed at the very beginning, and yet we only arrived at the idea of adding a deck once the house was finished almost 1 year later, since it became very apparent that the house needed a transition from inside to outside. As two of the commissioners are aware, we spent much tiine and effort with the commission designing the home to make certain fllat bacic yard was not far removed and usable with a good transition between the home and the yard. We felt that a larger deck would make the transition more palatable in this respect and use of the outside and of the yard more conveiuent. We have received numerous positive comments with respect to this deck and transition. We did have a plan drawn in June of 2013 for the deck and landscape revisions that include the items we are proposing here and we would be happy to produce that plan set. However the construction company changed foreman in July/August of last year and that plan apparently was lost in the transition of foreman and never subinitted. In November of 2013, we discovered that it had not been submitted and our new foreman started the process. They submitted plans to the Burlingame building department in early December, received comments and then submitted the revised plans. It was only after that second submittal that we were told an application for FYI would be needed. Because the first round of comments were not significant, our contractor started work on the deck, with the expectation that the plans would be approved since they met all the criteria of lot coverage set back etc. [Recipient Name] February 14, 2014 Page 3 8) Change the hardscape in front and add an articulated garden wall. The original plan does not suit the contours of the land adequately. The revised plan allows for more comfortable pedestrian access to the front door, and gives the front yard a much more gradual grade increasing the functionality and making maintenance more practical. The hard scape runs down the northeast side of the house to provide pedestrian access to the back yard. 9) We want to emphasize that none of these items were done for the sake of cost cutting or expediency. Framing errors and accidental tree removals were certainly not our intentions, but aside from those, everything was done far the sake of a better product, and each was done at the expense of both time and inoney. We believe the final product is an exceptional house. We continue to receive numerous, high praise for the house, built on a1z extraordinarily difficult lot — one of the 5 most difficult of ot�r architect's career. We regret how these issues have come to the surface and that they may be perceived as attempts to "get away with something" but that was not the case. We hope for your tmderstanding on these matters and respectfully request your support on our requested adjustments. Sincerely Emporio Group EXCERPT — February 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes 2509 Easton Drive (Agenda Item 7) Commissioner Sargent recused himself for non-statutory reasons. He left the City Council Chambers. 7. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (EMPORIO GROUP INC., APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AITKEN ASSOCIATES, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, PROPERTY OWNER) CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Yie noted that she had spoken with the project landscaper. Reference staff report dated February 10, 2014, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice-Chair Davis opened the public hearing. Dimitrios Sogas represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ How did three protective trees get removed without the property owner knowing of it? (Sogas — is not on the property on a regular basis. Assumes that the contractor is following the approved plans. Noted that the arborist report number of trees doesn't align with what was shown on the plan. Doesn't object to solving the problem.) ■ Who oversees the construction? (Sogas — had a transition in the project foreman late last year, the tree removal could have happened at that time.) ■ Is the Italian Stone Pine on the neighbor's property? (Hurin — noted that this site and the one to the right were once one property. When the arborist report was prepared, it was described differently. The tree was on the adjacent property.) ■ Is there any objection from the neighbor to the left? (Sogas — so far the neighbor has been supportive of the project.) ■ Note that many of the lintels above the windows appear to be floating above the windows. Is this a mistake, or are they drawn incorrectly. Thought that they were to be wood headers above the windows. (Meeker — will review this element of the design. ■ Has there been any interaction with the neighbor to the left? The deck has views into the neighbor's yard. (Sogas — dropped off approval letters, but have not received a response yet. ) • Would have preferred an FYI in advance of the changes being made. ■ It is the nature of the topography of the rear yard; it is like a big bowl, that the privacy of the neighbors can be affected. ■ The deck enhances the home and makes the back yard more useable. ■ Is okay with the deck as constructed, if the neighbor is not opposed. 1 EXCERPT — February 10, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes 2509 Easton Drive (Agenda Item 7) Public comments: Mike Liu, neighbor on the right side (2517 Easton Drive) spoke. ■ Now his rear yard has no privacy due to the size of the deck. (Commissioner — no matter what, they can see the rear yard.) ■ Perhaps add some trees to enhance the landscaping. ■ People that occupy the home can look across his fence into his yard. ■ Has installed trees on his side, but there is no more space for it on the lot. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked how much was added to the deck? (Hurin — the deck extends sixteen feet from the wall. It was previously shown as flush with the adjacent wall.) ■ Has a problem with the change. There is an additional 600 square feet of decking that stares into the neighbor's property. The approved design would have minimized the impact on the neighbor's privacy. ■ Feeis the neighbor would have questioned the size of the deck if it had been proposed initially. ■ Protected trees should have been protected. ■ The owner should come up with a different design that takes the neighbor's concerns into account. ■ The onus is on the applicant to come up with a solution to address the neighbor's concerns. Should come back with a proposal for consideration. • Agrees that there may be some mitigation that could occur. Perhaps the deck could be reduced in width and additional landscaping provided. ■ Seems like the property was clear cut for development. Her eye was drawn to the right; additional landscaping could help. Commissioner Yie moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to mitigate the impacts of the deck upon the neighbor,� other changes are acceptable. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Vice-Chair Davis called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-0 (Commissioner Sargent recused). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes January 27, 2014 XI. DIRECTOR',S�REPORT Com ' sion Communi 'tions: ■ None. Actions from egular City Council mee ' g of January 21, 201 . ■ ne. FYI• 748 Paloma Avenue - eview of proposed bu' ding material for a prev' usly approved Design view Project. ■ Accepted. � FYI: 2509 Easton Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. ■ Scheduled for a public hearing. Deck is significant, very large, and looks into neighbor's yard. There was not a deck on the previous plan in that location. Does not have an issue with the front, but has an issue with the deck. During construction three trees were removed — ensure they work with the arborist on replacement. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary m CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2092 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS ChairYie indicated thatshe would recuse herselffrom participating in the discussion regardingAgenda Item 2(2509 Easton Drive) since she has a business relationship with the applicant. She left the City Council Chambers. 2. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 93, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) Reference stafF report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: ■ None. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Feels that the areas that were of major concern in the original design have been addressed. ■ The substantive changes that have been made at the rear have helped to make the building look less like an apartment building — the massing has been broken up. ■ Have provided an exit to grade from the bonus room and stairs to the rear yard area. ■ On rear elevation, the hipped roof element doesn't appear on the side elevation — there appears to be a drafting error. (Stotler—this is an error.) • Believes that the major concerns on the rear elevation have been addressed — is dramatically improved. ■ Feels the project is approvable. ■ Understands that the site is difficult— understands the predicament. It is now approvable as revised. • Feels there is justification for the special permit request for declining height envelope because due to the steep downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope is significantly below the grade at the front of the site. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CommissionerAuran 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 Division date stamped January 31, 2012, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, orgarage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building O�cial's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. 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; 11. thaf 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. 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 ru n off; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2092 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project archifect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenfing framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ The success of the project will be in the details - be certain to follow-through with the details. ■ Thanked the architect for the collaborative efforf. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (CommissionerLindstrom absent, CommissionerYie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. Chair Yie returned to the dais. N7 Emporio Group Inc Dimitrios Sogas 1290 Howard Ave #323 Burlingame Ca, 9401 January 17, 2014 �� Subject property: 2509 Easton, Burlingame '�, ,1AN �- 7 2014 CiT`( OF BURLWGAM� Planning Commissioners: G�D-Pt1,NNING Dty We are in the process of constructing this ne�v, single fainily residence. We would like to make changes to the landscape/hardscape an�d we hereby request FYI approval for the following: ' 1) Change the hardscape in front and add an articulated garden wall. The original plan does not suit the contours of thelland adequately. The revised plan allows for more comfortable pedestrian access to the front door, and gives the front yard a much more gradual grade increasing �'the functionality and making maintenance more practical. The hard scape runs down the northeast side of the house to provide pedestrian access to the back yard. 2) Add a deck in the rear to make the transition from interior to exterior living more comfortable. The original proposed concrete pad is not practical due to the elevation change from the edge of th''e house to the ground. 3) During construction, apparently 3 small trees that were to be kept were inadvertently removed. We are in re�lceipt of the request from Parks Dept to mitigate this and we will comply. We strongly believe these changes add to the appeal and usability of the house and appearance of the house both stand alone an!d as part of the neighborhood Sincerely ', Emporio Crroup City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. • 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 a'�"�� BURLIN�,AJNE phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-721b � ¢ > � � �' � ��«�" January 15, 2014 Mr. Sogas 1409 Chapin Avenue $urlingame, CA 94010 RE: ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF THREE PROTECTED SIZE TREES @ 2509 EASTON DRIVE — BIIRLINGAME Dear Mr. Sogas, During a recent inspection of the property at 2509 Easton Drive, I noticed that three protected size trees were removed in the rear of the property without a permit from the Parks Division. On May 10, 2012 a permit was issued for the removal of five protected size trees. Trees numbered (on the arborist report attached) #1, 2, 3 Coast live Oaks, #5 Maple and #I1 Canary Island Palm, were all approved for removal. Tree #3 still remains. During my inspection, trees numbered #8, 9, and #12 (Maple, Valley Oak, and Italian Stone Pine) have also been removed. These were protected size trees and aze subject to the penalties outtined in Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance sections 11.06.050 (a) (b2} and 11.06.100. These sections state: 11.06.050 (a): "No protected tree shall be removed from any pazcel without a permit except as provided in Section 11.06.040." 11.06.050 (b2): "The following conditions shall be observed during construction or development of property: Protected trees that have been damaged or destroyed by construction shall be replaced or the city shall be reimbursed, as provided in Section 11.06.090." 11.06.100 "In addition to any other penalties allowed by law, any person removing ar pruning a tree in violation of this ordinance is ]iable to treble damages ....Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tree..." In order to prevent any penalries from occumng, and in an ef�'ort to restore the Oak canopy that was removed, I am requiring that in addition to the S— 24" box size landscape trees required for the permit issued on May 10, 2013, 3- 36" box size Quercus suber (Cork Oak) also will be included in the rear landscape. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questians or concems at 650-558-7330 or bdisco@burlingame. org. Sincer �� ob Disco City Arborist City ofBurlingame Kielty Arborist Services Certiiied Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650 — 525 — 1464 August 30, 2011 Stotler Design Group Attn: Mr. Scott Stotler 349 First Street Suite A Los Altos, CA 94022 Site: 2509 Easton, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Stotleg, :_F _ : ,__:i As requested on Monday, August 28, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. New construction is planned for this site and as required a survey of the trees on site and a tree protection plan will be included. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection: The trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diasneter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30 - 49 Poor 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The heights of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. Survey: Tree# Species 1 2 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) DBH CON At/Sp Comments 40est 45 24.1 55 3 Coast live oak 28est 55 (Que�cus agrifolia) 50/70 Vigor fair, form fair, cables installed to support tree. 50/40 1' from existing building, bend in trunk, heavy to the south. 50/50 Vigor poor-fair, form fair, codominant at 5'. 2509 Easton/8/30/11 (2) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 4 Privet 8.6 40 45/25 Poor vigor, poor form, codominant at 4' (Ligustrum japonicum) 5 Hedge maple 19.1 55 45/35 Multi at 6', vigor fair, form poor (Acer campestre) 6 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 7 Plum (Prunus spp.) 8 Hedge maple (Acer campestf�e) 9 Valley oak (QueYcus Zobata) 19.6 40 r' . .1 20est 55 50/25 Leans against structure, very poor form, fair vigor 35/25 Fair vigor and form 35/25 Fair vigor and form 20est 30 10 Hedge maple 11 est 65 (Acer campestre) 11 Canary island palm 24est 70 (Phoenix canariensis) 12* Italian stone pine 24est 65 Pinus pinea) *denotes neighbor's tree 35/55 fair vigor, very poor form, nearly horizontal 40/20 On property line, fair vigor 25/30 Good vigor, good form, 5' of standing tru.nk. 35/25 Good vigor, fair form, located between shuctures. Summary: The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native oaks and imported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in the trunks or stems. Oak #1 has several decayed areas within the canopy. The installation of cables has helped preserve the tree but does not guarantee the safety of the tree. Tree #2 has a large bend in its trunk and is located less than 1 foot from the existing structure. Tree #6 has very poor form and is being supported by the structure. The trees around the perimeter of the property can be retained with little or no adverse effects to their long term health. 2509 Easton/8/30/11 (3) Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones: ♦ Should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. o Fencing for the protection zones should be 4 foot tall orange plastic type supported by inetal stakes pounded into the ground. The support stakes should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. ♦ The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. ♦ Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out". ♦ No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. ♦ Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips. The spreading of chips will help to relieve compaction and improve the soil structure. Root Cutting: ♦ Any roots to be cut should be monitored and documented. ♦ Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist. ♦ The site arborist may recommend fertilizing or irrigation if root cutting is significant. ♦ Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers. ♦ Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Trenching: ♦ Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. ♦ Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. ♦ Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below. Irrigation: ♦ Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the proj ect. ♦ The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. ♦ During the sununer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 times a month. ♦ Irrigation during the winter months may also be necessary, depending on the seasonal rainfall. Flood type irrigation 1 time per month during the fall and winter months may be advised by the site arborist. ♦ Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. 2509 Easton/8/30/11 (4) Demolition, Parking and Staging: ♦ During the demolition process all tree protection must be in place. ♦ An inspection prior to the start of the demolition may be required. ♦ All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. If vehicles are to stray from paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch layer when inside root zones. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction of desired trees. ♦ Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces near protected trees. ♦ The removal of foundation materials (including curbs, asphalt and retaining walls), when inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out with care. Hand excavation may be required in areas of heavy rooting. ♦ Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil. ♦ Tree protection fencing may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist should be notified and the relocated fence should be inspected. This information should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A _ f �_ .... _. _ � o �.— , , � --- - —�------ ._..'. w� V IX� J i - cu..�oxa '�---_ � g _f . - --- -- - ►- - .-- __.� ` _- � .. __ _. ----- � b. - ----- ^ i -- r -... � �- - -- ) ` ' -' � - __ ` - - I �- � -- --'"_ - -- _-- �. -- � � �1 =�-.-�--- ------�-- -----.....__ -�-' _ �J"�f .., � �a -_ _.-.. -•'__.—__"'__._- .'"� � 11 .r� � __..,----... } , �........ '- . � -- ._ d .__.—_'_. . _ . _. . " . i . �/i^`` � .-�"� � _ — "^ 8 / �.__ �"__' _ . '_""_' �,_. _. . ' . � ' ` ' '____— .-' � . ,_ - f � � � : _�_ � �� - � .. .� � - __. _ , - _ __. . � _ -� � :_ �� _ __�________�___ __ . __.._ _ � , __ __ __ _. ___ ..___ _: .. . f ----. 3 _ � �- --j -- - �...-- — --� _-- ---...__..___.. �. -I . � � � _ (f � .. � � I i.... � i` 1 �- � 0 � �,..�� -��;�� F � Z ,J -lt4 L � 4 r°s�'§ � �i��Ss.socaiir�$ ��! ,, E ; s� � y'�'� 2�04 I3URLII�GAME CA r.�i�sc.ar� A�cr�rrEcrs Y z 5 Y �•,�,�=f LAI`IDSCAPE PLAN 8262 Ranch o IZ�af, Gitroy, CA 95020 • Cali£ Re� �2239 —C3IlRls3d2_r1��c Project Comments Date: September 14, 2010 To: � City Engineer � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 � Chief Building Official � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 X Parks Supervisor 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 St�ff Review: Landscape Plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations'. Complete attached Water Conservation in Landscape checklist. 2. Protected Tree Permit required ore construction begins. Application may be obtained from Parks Division 558-7254). 3. Include Tree Protection Diagram (attached) on plans and note as determined by Arborist Report. �� .� t.�- � �- � � � ��'�' ��'C%� ��--� % . �� . - ��f ` ` �.,��r-� ,�— '� �-� � �,�` �,�'�. � �,� � ��: -�� l �v'= ��" % ? , ,; z-�.��,��,�=�� , — � � C' �,�`1�,�,L v , ��,�� Reviewed by: B. Disco Date: 9/20/11 I URBAIV FOREST MANAGEN _. ✓T PLAN ( � � � � ! � �. � � � � � � 1 � r �. -- -�----.�� , , � ' :.: -'�'� � ��-�:..�. : _. f .. . .. .�:�;.r.-';`�`' (PRt7i�CT�D RDOT ZC3ttE) E%15i7NS iREE T9 'RENIUM. �RQTECT#YE FEHG?�6 � i . RRDTEC�lY� FEN�1�+� S}3JlLt BE �GN7 fl)L1:1i�E POL�PRtSPYIEHE FEta'i`.�F+l�. �. M➢TH�MG I#tS�DE 7�iE or��[ ,cR�. �tu e� Ri�KED. CU7, STi3RiEI3. OR O7ft€F2'�Y3SE 61Si'tf3iBE�, 3. CpN'�Rdt�CToR �F�1eLL L� E�ETk£41� �'h� 7�FlI� �itbTEi7' �il:l �s�r1NG TRE� TE'7 REWi�J3�. k5 FiEC�iJ�fiEE` BY E33cD5tAf�f Pti�7i. 1. TfiEE PSi9ft'L]`F03i 33f:iL 9E iH5T�1L�€a i71 l�G9Ri�hi3G� lti(i�3-1 PEtO.1C�T aS}3��Si R£P�'A� - T��:, P'��T��f�C�' QE��L � � �� `, T�! iFEE fi�1�[PTICSFt �F ,th'T t��i Tt3 s��LE w�� Updaied Jv.ly 20, 2009 -32- �UTDO�R 1iUATER USE EFFICIEiVCY CHEC9�CLIST certify that the s ject roject meets the spec�ed requirements of �he Water [onservation in Landscaping Ordinance. g�ZB-1J ignature Date � Single Family ❑ Multi-Family ❑ Commercial ❑ fnstitutional CI Irrigation oniy R lndustrial 0 Other: � Applicant Name (print): �ai��r/ ��j. f�� Contact Phone #: yv - 8U2 -oz�i ProjedSiteRddress: z 'J�O9 CaS,�On �(� 'aUf��►��{GtYY�. ��• Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): �� Z 1 s9,�. # of Units: �, # of Meters• "� Total Landscape Area (sq.ft.}: /r '�„'- _ e ci '�{� 7Z� Sq- ��' �' �- ��, � � ' - ;�� TurflrrigatedArea(sq_ft_): �Z( Sq- �i-• Non-Turf irrigated Area (sq.ft.): '�� (p D� Sq. +• Special Landsqpe Area (SLA) (sq.ft_): N. ft , Water Feature 5urface Area (sq.ft.): �. �i; . Turf Errigation System EfficiPncy Irrigation System Design Time 1Netering Swimming Poots / Spas Water Features Documentation Less than 25% of the landscape area is � Yes � �rf ❑ No, See Water Budget Alf turF areas are > 8 feet wide � Yes Ali turf is pla nted on slopes < 25% � Yes At least 80°6 of non-turf area is native � Yes . or low water use plants ❑ No, See Water Budget Plants are grouped by Hydrozones � Yes At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed � Yes soil surFaces 7d% Efo (140°� ETo for SIAsj � Yes No overspray or runoff ❑ Yes System efficiency > 70% � Yes Automatic, self-adjusfing irrigation ❑ No, not required for Tier 1 controilers � Yes Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutofFs � Yes No sprayheads in c 8-ft wide area. � Yes System anly operetes between 8 PM � Yes and 10 AM Separate irrigation meter � No, not required because < S,OOQ sq.ft. ❑ Yes Caver highly recommended Q Yes �j. �• ❑ No, nat required Recirculating ❑ Yes Less than i6% of landscape area ❑ Yes Checklist � Yes Landscape and Irrigation Desigrt Plan 0 Prepared by applicant � Prepared by professiona{ Water Budget (optional) ❑ Prepared 6y applicant ❑ Prepared 6y professional ��'�� Post-installation audit completed ❑ Completed 6y applicant N. j�- ❑ Completed 6y professional Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff t�eview: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 X City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 1. Protected tree permit required for all trees proposed for removal that are 48 inches in circumference or over measured 54in from ground level. Contact Parks Division (558.7334) for permit application. ��2. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape egulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due for Final. ' 3 Landscape plan must include 4(four) 24" box size tree as per Landscape `�quirements. 4.�Add new Street Tree in parking strip, if Public Works requires sidewalk eplacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be implemented. Street Tree list attached. Revoewed by: B Disco Date: 7/27/11 Date To: From September 14, 2010 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Buiiding Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 Staff Review: No further comments. All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 7-26-2011 will apply to this project. � � Reviewed i Date: 9-15-2011 Date: To: From Subject: Staff Review: July 25, 2011 d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Code, 2010 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1813. � On the plans provide a copy of the GreenPoints checklist for this project at full scale. �3�i Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.enerqy.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/ for publications and details. � Specify the roofing material to be used. If the roofing material weighs more that 51bs/ft. then Indicafe on the plans that the roof will comply with Cool Roof requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC �151 (fl 12. The 2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line at http:/Iwww.eneray.ca.qov/title24/2008standards/ � Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) L6 On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be performed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically iilustrated in these plans prior to performing this work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 9) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 11)Obtain a survey of the property lines. �21�On the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. �� Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2010 CBC, Table 602) �14�ooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The areas labeled "Guest Bedroom" and "Bonus Room" are rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. ,�Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. �Some guardrails, as shown, appear to be 36" in height. Revise the plans to show that all exterior guards will be 42" in height per 2010 CBC §1013.2 17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 20)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the.building within ten feet. 2010 CBC §2113.9 NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed by: T� l�`' � Date: 7-26-2011 � Project Comments Date: �� From: Subject: Staff Re�riew: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 1. See attached. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. 3. pplicant is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of sidewalk area around trees in the planter strip. Reviewed by: V V Date: 8/17/2011 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMM�NTS �� "'� ``�� Project Name: ��-fL �i^f n�u�r Project Address: � �"1�[, �- The following requirements apply to the project 1 � A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land all property lines, property corners, and utilities. (Required prior to the surveyor. The survey shall show easements, topographical features building permit issuance.) 2 _�i The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street� (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) oYL.. �jr� ��'� � �'t-�� fN�-��f �'�fS'i�M , 3 � 5 The applicant shall submit proj ect grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. � � �.�� A sanitary sewer lateral �is requ�red for the project in accordance with the City's standards. ) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project: The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. � � Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the proj ect. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project sha11 file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEVJ COMI��NTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condomuuum map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 �'The project sha11, at its own cost, design and consiruct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during constzuction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these i_mpacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and e�sting improvements with proposed improvements. 1 g �_ Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 `� No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 2p _� The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway disnensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street uito private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area sha11 be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEVJ COn�IIvIENTS.doc Project Comments Date: To: From Subject Staff Review: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: �� Date: z„� � �/ Project Comments Date: �� From Subject: Staff Review: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 0 City Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 X NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. Please inciude a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The brochure may also be down loaded directly from "flowstobay.org." It is recommended that the cnnstruction BMP's be placed on a separate full size pian sheet (2' x 3` or larger as appropriate) for readability. For additional assistance, please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (650) 342-2727. - _ __ � ,. ,� ,� `:u� _ �._.. r;� -_ <,. � ;� a — �:, .�_ . w..,.. �!; �,_i� !� Reviewed by: fL�,�`�, � � 9�� Date: r� 7�� _ ;� `'. � � `9�� '�'` , • � .II�° rr!' , �' ' s i �F%�.r� `•'�''"-:1�::�,,: 1� �. : Construction & 5itc Supervision sa ,�, ��` r""� J��.o.ti�.�a�� e �s.r��°"� �. �ww �.mmm.n.bm..waHo[ma ,�,� �e�,��, � ��, �. �.. � �, �,. , �. ,. � ��m�� k��.� . �,. � �.., .� a. m. � �. ,., �' .� � �� ,� �a� .� ��a�. ,Ydlm.ro6idcM�t6c �w�lxyvbm�.� �eo.�naaw�,aa...sauen. M.u..,r r��.s m,mm�.mee�.evffi.- ��i.�: ��.�-w..w��u ce �eWdNne( .Wv '��v � ... �po�muesn¢�auAnmeu.Pluvwhm �uV�v��woW�hd�m 'mu�%a Po¢ �A1 �+<➢PM v4.= vl.t b�lc m rvm.wrc uab. wdimi�.11wAvm 0.u6a h��e.>. �ma5c�caeh� fOm vp luy A}y aed cya �pp41�d4eyu �m �x �� Au Q .,�a..� w i.... .�.a m.c �ac,.nv�nd . �`�� JU�c si�m�bnmdm 1�b.Ibea 8q��m� ml�iwu�wev � m� fa a➢��ck.Ivme ��a uamm� u+nunwm.� b46�v(LT+�=�Nv�adnu� w��CC�g' Ivdvt 4 Mv m de m+�a�cun� J�.. J146.m� vm�+e�� IWah s ��uWud in cW �ru�im�bkJ' �tampy��eAuv.�n we4 .dorr^M7. �'k mWu upo�tykr le4 wim� � �� ammryw.�m�r�e=a �v yn�wam+elWvhmnvM�WlcNm�v J •9a�4 nm �4 w��. dn,...,...m.d..s. wmmct ud rdJcY m�h.�c. . • • q1, �m'p�, hwki am du, �n1yo� wd.��e m a�wlm aemi. vwdH �qa.amA�+mw.DeN^artAYJcvWe�i, � dakeuupEJ� wE �mrnv.rvnd.�W elmd rcyw Jm Mw�1t W dd�'u Ouaa�t4roeY�4dm.u1 ��m��a�a�� ,�,.�.,�.a�.. m� m m. m� o. o.r. aat m w�.um. Stormwater Polluti�n Prevention I'rogram Pollut�on Freven�tion — It's Part of the Plan It is your responsibility to do the job right! Runofffrom streets and otherpaved azeas is a major source ofpollu$on in local creeks, San Francisco Bay andthe Pacific Ocean, Consauction activifies can d'vec[ly affect the health of ouzwaters uoless contractors and crews plan aheadto keep dirt, debris, and other construction waste away from storm drains and creeks. Following these gui.delines will ensure your compliwce with local sCormwater ordinaace requirements.l�memUe , ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is crucial to propa implemenTaiion. . +.. '� ��-� •.- .� �.ti�. _,��. �� .c/uWm4 mep,.�rn..Ml.I. e.mma ��n•�. �Y�rwewarw�mm� d4��+n'Sw.n�.of.u�tlNeidw. w��i��w�r.Aww�,ma� .".a�rma>c��e.��. �H.��e,o �m�m.�v��mv�w ! r�.r� m.la v.m.�.a *m4hs...w �.n'�.d m�+v��•••�e mar Earth-Moving Roadwork Bc Paving Activities .S � ,o��w,�,��P�,.�. ; �� m��.��.�,.� �,�„m ,��:.��a�.��.��.�� .�m.�.,,��,o�- �,. ,� »��.�..��,�e,;o- ��ilti avW �w��t'.�a•�rm6acoum�¢alm 'i �.'".�`iw'a;��w�a°�.°Q� JY9�w.ma�w.de¢uumt�m6iayplmem L�.m��.MumN.� lAoweP.��W�6=�4��.aeuum '�dpno0laWAolemtl�wnyevm u,�a�a�� '� .r��.�we�.w�u.�..�.�uanws,u.� � ' ..n�.>umnvi� !I)rdreYdw� �di4`.bubtliM.�oV�m�m�r '�lLiv�l%'minudoL�ebmm.alemm�P�*�a l�+x�W= ma�.w�wu am�i.amv+or m. � .mrn�.�saw.r..�,�, � d�r0md�maik.vetlu4P^�vbm•le�Wm lAo�4lYwdMmlmJmiva6votlonWuNmoet �d�p vd 9�01� m O�x.Y wm� 6ilY. mve M aiT� el�u Wl�Y�.�i� w�v W malc a v uw�GxlmmNFem¢e1m..W0�a1m �v�r��wm.m�'a�mwe. , w'�ua .ne rmi+nc=a JNa.Q Fm dmrv"GM� w..�! v�a'�nM1� �.�,..m. m+n.eM.�muo.� ay.i.m,o.mw (J�nbvmruW4 u1 tlw, mVmn V)wFm.vv yamb 1(ri�mWun'�lb.iu+)wmwVbmtrry bodvlJonu JSwe.9 W rv�1AYm�w4�me�iY. Nrnx�� plw'`v4iEmm+]��Im�raw.m %dm u.,.uw..�..e��aw�a. ✓ Yt��.�i�.nd .��i. �¢�[ �r sa aaa �Y ./ �.�mt m'venurNv�^wuero�u.m�. ��h'.lta.n.pw,.a M w u �.pan tl1 dP�M1�� Rkae ol6vmbn m•�mw. mmd�nc a ..yon,'..spv,>uLL.laenNi.�.� �>uu ID.0 ofPmn�m.y5ar'xa � 3p6nc,y �.,, n � e,,.15 w �.a m..y J �W7_Rw��6 elvml�atluNmwcwel� uulmih. .ra.am,e �..u,,.�m�ma..�xz. �.sw� JPr� 7qy��..oemow.yc�omWol��m. J �wwm�a.�tm..mckh@Ypvnnm��nma �s �a.Amm.�q.mr�aw.wq 6cmY�Lam�. JDomussdlud W mkdiumu�voy,Jymmlwpuh. �� mwaem.�e.aar.ewhmNo ua Mwefiuhw�'aaetwil�Meime ! dvaaoEwlokL W��oamdmmMlnwbm 4V�a wlwl WeYmSbeul..G JUwrdckdmt alrcm, ab�+b N.o��oPnvimd JNevevW m.�m�wlilG6m nW�M-�gpepteron- muaw�vmub �pRnoriro�mawU4 IatudnoTkard�qo.ep ! G«r.lxlwm ma am �moNm� m.ml.0 Nm m.,xo m� m�wx��uu�nvm'��¢ww wa�.e�. w e�. JGa2�NiWNmYmviONiPFmrc rabm�m�kw"� JC�mMdR Y➢.oElulv' vriew�L6.xFmmlbwa ,u�.esw��ww.o).amewme�� - wmwt ,SWwa+�ri'u��➢FaP��Y d4Wmofoms JAroid mmW➢I�mionM�nfcwrkafra�umomJ. nmluM.aYludymd+dn�l�+/erihrtmY6e� JMA� �uca �Hhmkotiv[Wbd�a•in- W ]fmYOlibnemvJitlwvedw��dlot(rt�mmb.iw �� mdumctdaR.Nm�MmW+�uYCmvolBmt '�'�'x^?_d��e�w�w�Chwnuimmeill Abmdw.a�d��E�@�m�da mv�v.��m�m:mi.�aLmaoe�.riw6 ��ie+�rcvry�amNdv lel<u tlmme mwwring.5eow • �4�k�wt o`"��^Y�dme.mowam�t. JN Fa.bnnwemm�l�wvvtNelrtlNeery ma➢me16Ne. � �� - - � � �� r� , V �Yl�' _��4� � �� :�u ��.�� udrvm¢ Axen Jo'm+4mLfivmwml. Peinting & Application af �lvenfs & Adhesives � ..r. �� ' � �� .°� �� a��o�,��. am.mrsore�ewm..r.wop+Hv�ebtcn v�l . Landscaping, Gardening, SIId POOI Mainlr.nanm .�a�u�d.��.�m.�.�.d.� ' Mrb��WmunJrsM+Q�moedaL�tic�6a�az ( 'tiQv.mtoiEcrdmkJ.mlwnQ ��P��aLmv�+4vm�m �P'mb�Noml• m�at`dmnx�aeebioet m.w.�wa.m.,�¢ .�N....�wm�.�.e�..w��w,m.mm. .rs�wi.n�caewmaa.,waov�im.ra.nr..•e�a ��wmnw�� nw.w�n,pudam.w.m. ,..x 4.�mwew.m�numaowiamm,�.l�mt JPawdv�A.NnJ^Kf+�wumutem5eomn l�e�d.,lov d.m�mNW.md.m..mRavry ' �voobd'etG�amd�M4n�Md4Nnof.. bb.WuemWe.mna�mmmvW+Ea��o.e wb.q�we@..vwumlt�bw.mmaMP�bx ��^�mWmCal�.v�.,..erenmw�.wm�nr. MckAamumlaiweNmvdNopofwnbmYlmo w�tlmu�trJa d� w�M. �m� N�lu4 �R JIWLn. o[ �h�� '��q�6vh�ae¢mrl Wu1�wi11 w �ep JdAv eJWLL�am.Y�..��mYwm�Y W+rb /��e�a�sraewm�� me ��e�Eu�4mdNu. � ��Va�PtwWtaatldmr+Yb�vmmuvYm �R �� Naiec Hnu r�.�¢ w��L avb dht ..m.ma.pa�towaw. ✓PhttM'bl¢wo0caniloncmuvtrtonxY.Peb Wo,mm N�m.� mmur z�.m�mMfwe LLbrS� � JWkabm�C kmcmP'vYW�lltleplvu vltlequpop ty.�� JRxyaelma.AmV �hdmamo.�aua :-�5" JD��olmJl�a of�aAyumafe.pwl, ✓NwmheYmhim6vAumea_ . • Storm dra.in. polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,0(Hl per day! ml mPoo4Pn+m1mu6umSrmm�pm. wIG m�xvwhMia a�nvµimbax a�e vamWw�u �h�mmv�wv¢�9ne[—�-.. �� t+�r.�.,� J W ��CmYfimmMwamOmW 6�4Pee dny �m �emm�aory o-..d mi�A Nlet nupp'mt �aJBiu vd �ip .vd dua m�e Wbn m�� amnde�v lod m IaY+h� tm mm ue i W med of u smiaw� wumi �/ ��emn•mmsba&et�.�a:m.wlmW � +x.. Wxk�eTmtlume WW waevmm. wuLY� WavALOrictrrYNW Ibelaalwa�ew�la nemma.�varymf mtVyw�mO.c(mopn �5'��Ca[�Evm4t ��•bllumihry mybememv(toml��hc QolnimtugyaYYamkR9b .dw' u¢ x��w+�.iem�=r�, i.am.�r�m �6�W Wv��icunarem�aw6udv+b�u. VaoeeGalih;mw�uy. bm�tis n. �Y�.� wimmt�.m dlmaiea o[sspn �m.�M'Imd�. Jhunldlv�vulLeuedAb�D:qon�mim upJy ��amm.�uw�...�,n�m.,,,ua . �9mo!�b8nn�mmS+uW �Lnxwlm@nSmMYw C 9Pm've�mWBeXhDIrIJ�myiNNg�erytlmy mb�aswulad'opv6 1 Vmpmf m� ,�,�m�:,��,:�.��,�� : e.e^w�r. erewe w�.�aoae Tme.e.n+rua�se��.mr� Jiewh��w � u ev.0al (mm o(�o�lm whotfa J Vn y' pvul.dn .eC folb. �bel ELvetion Mm mm � ��w�d;mLLvupmlatD'upaeolm�vd .r u�i,�=w�.ea �u�rm u smm�...,� J Idlm 4w sd W J.o cWninP, a�mb e w+� md mv �av� m'a Vncu.N'..mmmpm� I➢uroiWo+Y�.ubwNxx 1Dmmm�doaMW aAY�Y�wvk�syd'mP lurctl}pmg� W ry��Q A�n mim�dhc mem�e. �x ub balmdGll6l.um�w�bymia�f.v. . Jllomtbto�m��f+i'acn WaCu�emt laoVPmvhiaSW M�tofm�me YcwNnM1m dl�u� Jc�a � v � ��I�VffiR^.bteNm'menutv�fm5ro � m..aa�we�eduwm.�m.✓em Jml�.eix.vmnWmL'mL�¢edb0.m1� . ��tu.��m*s�m �w��i-�mnr�q � wtin� ..ep�wa�anl� Jm oa mm�y...wA�vm� muudJseMm ��.ebmm��. �.�,��m„m��.��,a .�a�r.q i.mmd h m..nia wmmt W�.. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review Amendment for as-built chanqes to a previouslv approved new, two-story sinqle familv dwellinq with an attached qaraqe at 2509 Easton Drive, Zoned R-1, Emporio Group Inc. 1630 Balboa Wav Burlinqame, CA, 94010, propertv owner, APN: 027-195-060; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 24, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant efFect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the stafF report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th dav of Februarv, 2014, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive Effective March 6, 2014 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 18, 2014, sheets L-1 through L-3 and A3, and date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5 and GPC; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive Effective March 6, 2014 Page 2 10. 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; 11. 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, shali require a demolition permit; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architecturai certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division stafF will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. CITY OF BURLINGAME - � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPAft I MENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �,�,e`'1,'lu BURLINGAME, CA94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 � FAX: {650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 2509 EASTON DRIVE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the follawing public hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council fham6ers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingome, CA: Application for Design Review Amendment far as-6uilt changes to a previously approved new, two-story single family dwelling with an aftoched garage at 2509 EASTON DRIVE zoned R-l. APN 027-195-060 (item cantinued from the feb�uary 10, 7019 Plonning Cammission MeetingJ Mailed: Februnry 14, 2014 � = -,� � " � - > : .i_ - : -- (Please reier to ofher side) %9�iE' O� �lli'�%/l c Ii7� -� A copy of the application and plans ior tnis project may be reviewed prior to � ihe meeting at the Community Development Dep�riment at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. � � li you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to � raising only those issues you or someone else raised at ihe public hearing, � described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or _� prior to the public hearing. � Property ow7ers who receive this notice are responsible for informing their - �� tenants about this notice. �. K� For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Direcior ��$�.�� E (°lease refer to ofher side) City of Burlingame Design Review Amendment Address: 2509 Easton Drive item No. 7 Action Item Meeting Date: February 10, 2014 Request: Application for Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two- story single family dweliing with an attached garage. Applicant and Property Owner: Emporio Group Inc. Landscape Architect: Aitkens Associates General Plan: Low Density Residential APN: 027-195-060 Lot Area: 8,850 SF Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History: An application for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for construction of a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive was approved by the Planning Commission on February 27, 2012 (February 27, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). A building permit was issued in June, 2012 and construction is nearing completion. On January 27, 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed an FYI memo forthe as-built changes to the originally approved project, which included adding a patio and garden wall in the front yard and a new uncovered deck at the rear of the house. The Commission requested that the item be placed on a regular action meeting for further discussion, particularly regarding the size of the deck and its impact on neighboring properties and tree replacement for trees removed without a permit (January 27, 2014, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes attached). Proposed Revisions: Several changes have been made at the front and rear of the site; there are no changes proposed to the design of the house. Please refer to the summary below, the applicant's letter dated January 17, 2014, and revised plans date stamped January 17, 2014. New PatiolGarden Wall in Front Yard: The originally approved project included landscaping in the area adjacent to the front entry and living room. Soft landscaping in this area was replaced with a travertine patio and low garden wall (see revised Landscape Plan, date stamped January 17, 2014). Please refer to the owner's letter dated January 17, 2014 for additional information. New Uncovered Deck at Rear of House: The originally approved project included an 88 SF uncovered deck and stairway at the main level at the rear of the house. The property owner modified and increased the amount of uncovered decking at the rear of the house. In a letter dated January 17, 2014, the owner notes that a deck at the rear of the house was added "to make the transition from interior to exterior living more comfortable" and that "the original proposed concrete pad is not practical due to the elevation change from the edge of the house to the ground." With the increased deck area, the lot coverage would be increased by 624 SF from 24.6% (2182 SF) to 31.7% (2806 SF) where 40% (3540 SF) is the maximum allowed. The proposed lot coverage is well within the maximum allowed. The deck also complies with setback requirements. Removal of Protected Size Trees: In May 2012, a tree removal permit was issued for removal of five protected size trees (tree numbers #1, 2, 3, 5 and 11 on the attached arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011). Several other non-protected size trees have also been removed (no permit required). Design ReviewAmendmenf 2509 Easton Drive During construction, three protected-size trees were removed without a tree removal permit. These include a 20-inch diameter Hedge maple (tree #8), a 20-inch diameter Valley Oak (tree #9) and a 24-inch Italian stone pine (tree #12). Tree #12 was located on the adjacent property to the west, which was once part of a larger lot which was subdivided to create two lots (2509 and 2517 Easton Drive). Tree #9 is located within the footprint of the deck; tree #8 is located near the deck; and tree #12 was located along the right side property not near the deck. The Parks Division is currently addressing this issue and is requiring that the owner install additional larger trees to repiace those that were removed (see attached letter from Bob Disco, City Arborist, dated January 15, 2014). In addition to the five, 24-inch box size trees originally required for the project, the owner wiil be required to install three, 36-inch box size Cork Oak trees within the rear yard. The new 24-inch and 36-inch trees are shown on the revised Landscape Plan, date stamped January 17, 2014. The property owner submitted a letter accompanied by originally approved and as-built landscape plan and building elevations, date stamped January 17, 2014, to explain the changes to the previously approved Design Review project. Other than the proposed revisions listed above, there are no other changes proposed to the design of the house. The applicant is requesting the following application: ■ Design Review Amendment for as-built changes to a previously approved new, two-story single family dweliing with an attached garage. Project Description (based on original approval): The properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive were once owned and used by one family, which contained the main house and an accessory structure at 2517 Easton Drive and a detached three-car garage w/storage room and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive (the properties at 2509 and 2517 Easton Drive consist of two legally subdivided lots). The properties were sold a few years ago and an addition was completed at 2517 Easton Drive in 2010, which included converting a portion of the existing house to a one-car garage to provide parking for the house at 2517 Easton Drive. With this application, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached three-car garage and cottage at 2509 Easton Drive to build a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (the lower Aevel rneets the definition of a half-story since it is less than two-thirds of the area above it). The lot slopes downward approximately 42'-0" (23%) from the front to the rear of the lot. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 3,922 SF (0.44 FAR) where 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) is the maximum allowed (including covered porch and chimney exemptions). The proposed project is 10 SF belowthe maximum allowed FAR and is within 1% of the maximum allowed FAR. A Special Permit is required for an attached garage and declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope). The project includes an attached garage which provides two code-compliant covered parking spaces for the proposed five-bedroom house. There is one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') provided in the driveway. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following applications: ■ Design Review for a new, two and one-half story single family dwelling and attached garage (CS 25.57.010); ■ Special Permit for attached garage (CS 25.28.035 (a)); and • Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)). � Design ReviewAmendmenf 2509 Easton Drive 2509 Easton Drive Lot Area: 8,850 SF Plans date stamped: December 5, 2011 PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED SETBACKS --------------------.._...-------- -----.._..-------...__...__..._..--------..._.._ .............._..— __...__--.._._..-----------.. Froni (1st flr): 19'-0" 16'-4" (block average) (2nd flr): 25'-0" 20'-0" (attached garage): 25'-0" 25'-0" (two single-wide doors) _..---- ------------------ ---_ _..._..---------;- -------------.._._------------....---------- Side (left): 5'-0" 4'-0" (right): 4'-0" 4'-0" -------------- — -- - ------._.....---------- -- ------ Rear (1st flr): 90'-0" 15'-0" (2nd flr): 90'-0" ; 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 2260 SF 3540 SF 25.5% 40% FAR: 3922 SF 3932 SF 0.44 FAR 0.44 FAR ----------------- -------------._.....------------------ # of bedrooms: 5 --- Parking: 2 covered 2 covered (20' x 20') (20' x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered (9' x 20') (9' x 20') Height: 18'-4" 30'-0" DH Envelope: Special Permit required (159 SF extends beyond declining CS 25.28.075 height envelope) 2 ' (0.32 x 8,850 SF) + 1,100 SF = 3,932 SF (0.44 FAR) Z Special Permit for construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope along the right side property line (159 SF extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.28.035 (c)). Staff Comments: See attached memos for the previously approved project from the Building, Parks, Fire, Engineering and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 3 Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 17, 2014, sheets L-1 through L-3, and date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5 and GPC; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. 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; 11. 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; C! Design ReviewAmendment 2509 Easton Drive 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falis at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shail locate the property corners, set the buiiding footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 18. that prior to finai inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. Ruben Hurin Senior Planner c. Emporio Group Inc., applicant and property owner Attachments: January 27, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes February 27, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes Applicant's Explanation Letter, dated January 17, 2014 Letter from Bob Disco, City Arborist, dated January 15, 2014 Arborist Report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011 Staff Comments from Originally Approved Project Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed January 31, 2014 Aerial Photo � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN/NG COMMISS/ON — Unapproved Minutes January 27, 2094 XI. DIRECTOR'S'REPORT Com "sion Communi 'tions: ■ None. Actions from egular City Council mee �ng of January 21, 201 FYI• 748 Paloma Avenue - eview of proposed bu' ding material for a pr�usly approved Design view Project. ■ Accepted. �FYI: 2509 Easton Drive - review of proposed changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. ■ Scheduled for a public hearing. Deck is significant, very large, and looks into neighbor's yard. . There was not a deck on the previous plan in that location. Does not have an issue with the front, but has an issue with the deck. During construction three trees were removed — ensure they work with the arborist on replacement. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Sargent adjourned the meeting at 10:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nirmala Bandrapalli, Secretary � fE.'•� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2012 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS ChairYie indicated thatshe would recuse herselffrom parficipatingin the discussion regardingAgenda Item 2(2509 Easton Drive) since she has a business relationship with the applicant. She leff the City Counci! Chambers. 2. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 93, 2092 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) Reference staff report dated February 27, 2012, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and stafF comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice-Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Scott Stotler, 349 First Street, Los Altos; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Feels that the areas that were of major concern in the original design have been addressed. • The substantive changes that have been made at the rear have helped to make the building look less like an apartment building — the massing has been broken up. ■ Have provided an exit to grade from the bonus room and stairs to the rear yard area. ■ On rear elevation, the hipped roof element doesn't appear on the side elevation —there appears to be a drafting error. (Stotler — this is an error.) ■ Believes that the major concerns on the rear elevation have been addressed — is dramatically improved. ■ Feels the project is approvable. ■ Understands that the site is difficult— understands the predicament. It is now approvable as revised. ■ Feels there is justification for the special permit request for declining height envelope because due to the steep downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope is significantly below the grade at the front of the site. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CommissionerAuran 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 Division date stamped January 31, 2012, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5, L-1, L-2 and GPC; Kl CITY O�F BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minufes February 27, 2012 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protecfion Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; all tree protection zones shall be established and inspected bythe City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architecturai features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shail be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 10. 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; 11. thaf the project shall complywith 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interiororexterior, shall require a demolition permit; 12. 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 ru n off; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; � CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes Fe6ruary 27, 2012 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the Cify Engineer, 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in fhe approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. 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 fhe Building Division; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been buift according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ The success of the project will be in the details - be certain to follow-through with the details. ■ Thanked the architect for the collaborative effort. Vice-Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-9 (CommissionerLindstrom absent, CommissionerYie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. Chair Yie returned to the dais. 5 Emporio Group Inc Dimitrios Sogas 1290 Howard Ave #323 Burlingame Ca, 9401 January 17, 2014 Subject property: 2509 Easton, Burlingame Planning Commissioners: � :��.�� JAN �- i 201t+ �f-�y ;;� �sURLWGA�E GGCs-PLA.NPdING Df��. We are in the process of constructing this ne�,v, single fainily residence. We would like to make changes to the landscape/hardscape and we hereby request FYI approval for the following: ! 1) Change the hardscape in front and ad plan does not suit the contours of the more comfortable pedestrian access � much more gradual grade increasing more practical. The hard scape rur provide pedestrian access to the bac� 3 an articulated garden wall. The original land adequately. The revised plan allows for � the front door, and gives the front yard a the functionality and making maintenance s down the northeast side of the house to yard. 2) Add a deck in the rear to make the tr�ansition from interior to exterior living more comfortable. The original proposed 'concrete pad is not practical due to the elevation change from the edge of th� house to the ground. 3) During construction, apparently 3 inadvertently removed. We are in mitigate this and we will comply. trees that were to be kept were �t of the request from Parks Dept to We strongly believe these changes add to appearance of the house both stand alone Sincerely appeal and usability of the house and as part of the neighborhood Emporio Crroup City of Burlin.game - Parks & Recreaiion Dept. � 850 Burlingame Ave., Bu.rlingame, CA 94010 �`k"""�� 911RL.IIY�,A�EE. phone: (650) 558-7330 • fax: (650) 696-721b � _ �- ¢ � �� iq,� � � 1� V �'�+i1"iiemGfi� January 15, 2014 Mr. 5ogas 1409 Chapin Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: ILLEGAL REMOVAL OF THREE PROTECTED SIZE TREES @ 2509 EASTON DRIVE — BURLINGAME Dear Mr. Sogas, During a recent inspection af the property at 2509 Easton Drive, I noticed that three protected size trees were removed in the rear of the properiy without a permit from the Parks Division. On May 10, 2012 a permit was issued for the removal of five protected size trees. Trees numbered (on the arborist report attached) #1, 2, 3 Coast live Oaks, #5 Maple and #I1 Canary Island PaIm, were all approved for removal. Tree #3 stilI remains. During my inspection, trees numbered #8, 9, and #12 (Maple, Valley Oak, and Italian Stone Pine) have also been removed. These were grotected size trees and are subject to the penalties outtined in Chapter 11.06 of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Qrdinance sections 11.06.050 (a) (b2) and 11.46.100. These sec6ons state: 11.06.050 (a): "No pratected tree shall be removed from any parcel without a pemut except as provided in Section 11.06.Q40 °' 11.06.050 (b2): "The following conditions shall be obsetved during construction or development of property: Protected trees that have been damaged or destroyed by canstruction shall be replaced or the city shall be reimbursed, as provided in Section 11.06.090." 11.06.100 "In addition to any other genalties allowed by law, any person removing or pruning a tree in violation of this ordinance is liable ta treble damages ....Damages for this purpose shall be replacement value of the tree..." In order to prevent any penairies from occumng, and in an effort to restore the Oak canopy that was removed, I am requiring that in addition to the 5— 24" box size landscape trees rec{uired for the permit issued on May 10, 2013, 3- 36" boa size Quercus suber (Cork Oak) also will be incIuded in the rear ]andscape. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concems at 650-558-7330 or bdisco@burlingame.org. Sincer �� ob Disco City Arborist City of Burlingame Kielty Arborist Services Certified Arborist WE#0476A P.O. Box6187 San.Mateo, CA 94403 650 — 525 — 1464 August 30, 2011 Stotler Design Group Attn: Mr. Scott Stotler 349 First Street Suite A Los Altos, CA 94022 Site: 2509 Easton, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Stotler, , .� As requested on Monday, August 28, 2011, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. New construction is planned for this site and as required a survey of the trees on site and a tree protection plan will be included. Method: - All inspeciions were made from the ground; the trees were not climbed for this inspection: The trees in question were located on a map provided by you. The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at breast height). The trees were given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form, using the following scale. 1 - 29 Very Poor 30. - 49 Poor . 50 - 69 Fair 70 - 89 Good 90 - 100 Excellent The heights of the trees were measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced of£ Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. Survey: Tree# Species 1 2 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 40est 45 24.1 55 3 Coast live oak 28est 55 (Quercus agrifolia) 50/70 Vigor fair, form fair, cables installed to support tree. 50/40 1' from existing building, bend in tr�u�k, heavy to the south. 50/50 Vigor poor-fair, form fair, codominant at 5'. 2509 Easton/8/30/11 (2) Tree# Species DBH CON Ht/Sp Comments 4 Privet 8.6 40 45/25 Poor vigor, poor form, codominant at 4' (Ligustrum japonicum) 5 Hedge maple 19.1 55 45/35 Mulfi at 6', vigor fair, form poor (Acer campestre) � � Coast live oak (QueYcus agrifolia) 19.6 40 • : �1 50/25 Leans against structure, very poor form, fair vigor E:� � Plum (Prunus spp.) Hedge maple (Acer campest��e) Valley oak " (QueYcus Zobata) 35/25 Fair vigor and form 20est 55 35/25 Fair vigor and form 20est 30 10 Hedge maple 11 est 65 (Acer campestre) 11 Canary island palm 24est 70 (Phoenix caraariensis) 12* Italian stone pine 24est 65 Pinzss pinea) *denotes neighbor's tree 35/55 fair vigor, very poor form, nearly horizontal 40/20 On property line, fair vigor 25/30 Good vigor, good form, 5' of standing trunk. 35/25 Good vigor, fair form, located between structures. Summary: The property has not received recent maintenance. The site has a mix of native oaks and imported trees. The native oaks are all in poor condition with decay in ihe t�luiks or stems. Oak #1 has several decayed areas within the canopy. The installation of cables has helped preserve the tree but does not guarantee the safety of the tree. Tree #2 has a large bend in its tnuik and is located less than 1 foot from the existing structiure. Tree #6 has very poor form and is being supported by the structure. The trees around the perimeter of the property can be retained with little or no adverse effects to their long ferm health. 2509 Easton/8/30/11 (3) Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones: ♦ Should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. ♦ Fencing for the protection zones should be 4 foot tall orange plastic type supported by metal stakes pounded into the ground. The support stakes should be spaced no more than 10 feet apart on center. ♦ The location for the protection fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. ♦ Signs should be placed on fencing signifying "Tree Protection Zone - Keep Out". ♦ No materials or equipment should be stored or cleaned inside the tree protection zones. ♦ Areas outside the fencing but still beneath the dripline of protected trees, where foot traffic is expected to be heavy, should be mulched with 4 to 6 inches of chipper chips. The spreading of chips will help to relieve compaction and improve the soil structure. Root Cutting: ♦ Any roois to be cut should be moniiored and documented. ♦ Large roots or large masses of roots to be cut should be inspected by the site arborist. ♦ The site arborist may recomxnend fertilizing or irrigation if root cutting is significant. ♦ Cut all roots clean with a saw or loppers. ♦ Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Trenching: ♦ Trenching for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason should be hand dug when beneath the driplines of protected trees. Hand digging and carefully laying pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss of desired trees thus reducing trauma to the entire tree. ♦ Trenches should be backfilled as soon as possible with native material and compacted to near its original level. ♦ Trenches that must be left exposed for a period of time should also be covered with layers of burlap and kept moist. Plywood over the top of the trench will also help protect exposed roots below. Irrigation: ♦ Normal irrigation should be maintained throughoui the entire length of the proj ect. ♦ The imported trees on this site will require irrigation during the warm season months. ♦ During the suinmer months the trees on this site should receive heavy flood type irrigation 2 titnes a month. ♦ Irrigation during the winter months may also be necessary, depending on the seasonal rainfall. Flood type irrigation 1 time per month during the fall and winter months may be advised by the site arborist. ♦ Mulching the root zone of protected trees will help the soil retain moisture, thus reducing water consumption. 2509 Easton/8/30/11 (4) Demolition, Parking and Staging: 0 During the demolition process all tree protection must be in place. ♦ An inspection prior to the start of the demolition may be required. ♦ All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. If vehicles are to stray from paved surfaces, 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch layer when inside root zones. This type of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction of desired trees. ♦ Parking will not be allowed off the paved surfaces near protected trees. e The removal of foundation materials (including curbs, asphalt and retainuig walls), when inside the driplines of protected trees, should be carried out with care. Hand excavation may be required in areas of heavy rooting. ♦ Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil. 0 Tree protection fencing may iieed to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist should be notified and the relocated fence should be inspected. This information should be kept on site at all times. The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#0476A 0 � :__---_ � :i , , - . i' � ,1t i . � � �,I j' '�f �'� I . . �,� i� , ' � ; �� . . �,+ � 1 �. / atl . 'i 1 I `- �...,_.. .... i — _ , ,_„� �� I � � (^ I � � � � ' � I �' I `� �I . I , � � � ' � y , ; j ' `, � �' �� ' i I i ' � ' � ;. !' � � � , ' � i 1' � i' I 17 i +a �! / ' �9 i+ �' i� f ; I. � . � �ea �kS I i i �'I I ' �� : ' ; I f ' ' � ;, � � � f �`�. �``"�7 I � I �� ,�� i� ,. � ; ; j ( � C`�t � � �..... � '� , = _ � ,�-` _ '� ' �r�_.�_._ L ��..��_ l ',� i. `, \ . `�.., � /� , � 1 � l l 1 L� i . 1 I i� P '� I . . • ,� i . M� � � � O �df C17 Q G� �,� U� « Q� �� , � � �d � �„ .� � �a N '�' � . � � G►] �"'�," � � � � � � � �, � � � ��.� � x.. �r� �3 � � [R 0.11-11 7 Jy� M �iTi � %.Il.II SGVL IH•.I�p , �; � auxai ��r - � lao wrew or. � tl " �.. � urcen ar t Project Comments Date To: From: September 14, 2010 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 X Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7254 0 Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 � Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 Staff Review: � � � Landscape Plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape Regulations'. Complete attached Water Conservation in Landscape checklist. Protected Tree Permit required , ore construction begins. Application may be obtained from Parks Division (558-7254). Inelude Tree Protection Diagram (attached) on plans and note as determined by Arborist Report. . _y._---- � � �. ��:� ' � � [/f �iz.d � � , C.=ti'�i��, f..,�,.: t� � � �` -�'�'z, �.�.� /�-�. � � � .�,� ��;�� ; h�= U=y��;,.1--E%� ��c'�,�� j ��_��-T Z t ��,Z„�� ,�� - � �?�n� v, " `r`�,,'�`� Reviewed by: B. Disco Date: 9/20/11 ; URBAN FOREST MANAGEh _. JT PLAN T��. P��T�� }{.{�� T� �C�:LE Updaled Jvly 20, 2009 E(IST3:N� 3fiEE TO ftEN1VM. �€�{�TECitYE F�[�tf� � i . PROTE�i35fE FF]9G1�+� 5#�ti BE H�GH7 �ft,+�T#"sfE PCiL%PRYSP'{LEHE F€S�tFi�. 2. Ifit1�M9NG INS�DE TitiE D��UW€ k.RFJ. �ti;kLL BE R;+.KEp. CUi, SF�3�b. oR O7ffEK'�'$SE [71�R.BEF�. 3. G�kA.G'fOR SH:i}J.. L� E�CiStf�1€ �k� 71F�1B 4"iCbTE�i' �1L1. ��I�I�s iRE� TO 9`E1_i�J}�. :�t5 qEC}1Jfi�ED b�'l Et.��DSC3�P€ FEA�1. �. 7R� F�9T��i ��LL 9€ �NST�Ii i�EII A�iG�RiAlt3�� 55(fil� PEtO�E�T itFi�JA`�S:T 3��O:A`E E.��3�. �Y�T'�lE J��BQRCS'� 1�RI4�� T� F�E tF�EPTltSt# C7� xh'Y Wb�K. -32- OUTDO(7R WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLlST that the s ject roject meets the sp�c�ed requirements of the Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance. / � g�ZB�lI 'e Date � Single Family 0 Multi-Family � Comrnercial 0 fnstitutional 0 Irrigation oniy R;ndustrial 0 Other: ApplicantName(print): �ap�r/ ` ��'�� ContactPhone#: �o - 8y2 -oz�! ProjectSiteAddress_ z�Qq ��n �r, �Ur��n � r� C�. Project Area {sq_ft or acre): q� O z I S•-�T' # of Units: � # of Meters: � -: �: . a �� d - - . Total Landscape Area (sq_ft}: ('1. � ;f-�'�a c €.�'_� € �- ti a-- a:2_lac - "r!• � �-i� 7Z� Sq- �.��,��,�`_�� e ,a - ` Turflr(igatedArea(sq-ft•j: IZI Sq- �" s : _ e :3 3 e V NonTurflrrigatedArea{sq.ft.): '�� (pD� Sq. -�-• FA _ _ _ _ Special Landscape Area {SLA) (sq.ft_}: N .p� , f. .E Water Feature SurFace Area (sq.it_}: N.}'} . Tarf Less than 25% of the landscape area is � Yes � turF ❑ No, See Water Budget All turf areas are > 8 ieet wide � Yes Afl turf is pfanted on slopes <25% � Yes Non Turf At least 80% of non turf area is native ■ Yes . or low water use plants ❑ No, See Water Budget Hydrozanes Plarcts are grouped by Hydrozones � Yes At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed � Yes Mulch soil surfaces lrrigation System Effici>ncy 7�% Efo (lOQ% ETo for SLAs) � yes No averspray or runoff LI Yes Irrigatio� System Desi�n System efficiency> 70% � Yes Automatic, seif-adjusting irrigation ❑ tVo, not required forTier 1 controllers � Yes Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs !! Yes No sprayheads in <8-ftwide area. ■ Yes Irrigatian Time System only operates between 8 PM � Yes ' and 1� AM IMetering Separate irrigation meter � No, not required because < S,�DO sq.ft. ❑ Yes � '.Swirnming Poois / Spas tover highly recommended Q Yes �j,. a� ❑ No, not required Water Features Recircutating ❑ Yes Less than i0% of landscape area ❑ Yes Documentation Checklist � Yes Landsrape and Irrigation Design Plan ❑ Prepared 6y applicant � Prepared by professional Water Budget (optional} ❑ Prepared 6y applicant J,� ❑ Prepared by prafessional ��'J�� Audit Post-installationauditcomgleted ❑ Completedbyapplicant N.�- 0 Completed by professional Project Comments Date: 1 C•7� From: Subject: Staff Review: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 X City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 � NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 1. Protected tree permit required for all trees praposed for removal that are 48 inches in circumference or over measured 54in from ground level. Contact Parks Division (558.7334) for permit appiication. �2. Landscape plan is required to meet `Water Conservation in Landscape � �egulations" (attached). Irrigation Plan required for Building permit. Audit due for Final. �Landscape plan must include 4(four) 24" box size tree as per Landscape equirements. � 4�Add new Street Tree in parking strip, if Public Works requires sidewalk� eplacement, Policy for Expanding Width of Planter Strip needs to be implemented. Street Tree list attached. Reviewed by: B Disco Date: 7/27/11 Dafe: To: Frorn: September 14, 2010 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ Parks Supervisor (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 Staff Review: No further comments. ACI eonditions of approval as stated in the review dated 7-26-2011 will apply to �his project. r Revievved � ` Date:9-15-2011 �,ate: To: From Subject: Staff Review: July 25, 2011 ❑ City Engineer (650) 558-7230 X Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650J 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning StafF Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2010 California Building Code, 2010 California Residentiai Code (where applicable), 2010 California Mechanical Code, 2010 California Electrical Code, and 2010 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1856-2010. Note: If the Planning Commission has approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2010 then the building permit application for that project may use the provisions found in the 2007 California Building Codes inciuding all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1813. � On the plans provide a copy of the GreenPoints checklist for this project at full scale. � Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2008 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http�//www enerqv.ca.qov/titfe2412008standards/ for publications and details. � Specify the roofing material to be used. If the roofing material weighs more that 51bs/ft. then Indicate on the plans that the roof will comply with Cool Roof requirements of the 2008 California Energy Code. 2008 CEC §151 (fi� 12. The 2008 Residential and Non-Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line at http�//www enerqy ca aov/title24/2008standards/ � Place the following information on the first page of the plans: "Construction Hours" Weekdays: 7:00 a.m. — 7:00 p.m. Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. Sundays and Holidays: 10:00 a.m. — 6:00 p.m. (See City of Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.04.100 for details.) L6 On the first page of the plans specify the following: "Any hidden conditions that require work to be perFormed beyond the scope of the building permit issued for these plans may require further City approvals including review by the Planning Commission." The building owner, project designer, and/or contractor must submit a Revision to the City for any work not graphically illustrated in these plans prior to performing this work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 9) When you submit your plans to the Building Division for plan review provide a completed Supplemental Demolition Permit Application. NOTE: The Demolition Permit will not be issued until a Building Permit is issued for the project. 10)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 11)Obtain a survey of the property lines. �n the plans specify that the roof eaves will not project within two feet of the property line. �3 Indicate on the plans that exterior bearing walls less than five feet from the property line will be built of one-hour fire-rated construction. (2010 CBC, Table 602) �14�1'Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the size and location of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. Note: The areas labeled "Guest Bedroom" and "Bonus Room" are rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. �Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. �Some guardrails, as shown, appear to be 36" in height. Revise the plans to show that all exterior guards will be 42" in height per 2010 CBC §1013.2 17)Provide guardrails at all landings. NOTE: All landings more than 30" in height at _any point are considered in calculating the allowable lot coverage. Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 18)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 19)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 20)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet higher than any portion of the.building within ten feet. 2010 CBC �2113.9 NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 must be re-submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commission action. Reviewed by: ^ � �`' � Date: 7-26-2011 � G Project Comments Date: To: From: Subject: Staff Review: July 25, 2011 d City Engineer (650) 558-7230 ❑ Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 ❑ City Arborist (650) 558-7254 ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7271 ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 1. See attached. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. 3. pplicant is advised to call City Arborist regarding potential relocation of sidewalk area around trees in the planter strip. Reviewed by: V V Date: 8/17/2011 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT EleTGINEERIl�G DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMIVV�NTS The following requirements apply to the project 1 �4 � �''n ��'� Project Name: L�rG,�t-� �t�`J ��n Project Address• . � ��, �- � A properiy boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show easements, topographical features building pernut issuance.) all property lines, property corners, and utilities. (Required prior to the 2 _� The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street� (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) G-Yd.- �jr� �� rs� �� fYP�.B�+�f �'�ESi'� . 3 The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. .�,-� c�r�..�.�'" � A sanitary sewer lateral s required for the proj ect in accordance with the City's standards. , � ) 5 6, The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project: The sewer analysis shall identify the project's unpact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. g Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the proj ect. 9, Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The txaffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10, The project sha11 file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all e�stiug property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 U:\priva�e development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc PUBLIC WORK5 DEPARTll�NT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest prelirnuiary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 �'1�e project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk aud other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project sha11 identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 1'7 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 1g �_ Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 `� No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 2p � The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway disnensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subj ect to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COn�NTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall' be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U:\private development�PLANNING REVIEW COMI��NTS.doc Project Comments Dafe: �C•�i From Subject StafF Review: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-7230 � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � City Arborist (650) 558-7254 � Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7279 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 0 NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Planning Staff Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide backflow prevention device/double check valve assembly — Schematic of water lateral line after meter shall be shown on Building Plans prior to approval indicating location of the device after the split between domestic and fire protection lines. 3. Drawings submitted to Bui�ding Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: �� G��...�--- Date: z„� � f/ Project Comments Date: To: From Subject: Staff R�vi�e�r: July 25, 2011 � City Engineer (650) 558-723� � Chief Building Official (650) 558-7260 � Cify Arborist (650) 558-7254 Planning Staff 0 Recycling Specialist (650J 558-7271 0 Fire Marshal (650) 558-7600 X NPDES Coordinator (650) 342-3727 � City Attorney Request for Design Review for a new, two-story single-family residence at 2509 Easton Drive, zoned R-1, APN: 027-195-060 July 25, 2011 An� construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution from construction act�vities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement Best M'an�gement Practices (BMPs) during construction. Please include a list of construction stormwater pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs), as project notes, when submitting plans for a building permit. Please see attached brochure for guidance. The brochure may also be down I�aded directly from "flowstobay.org." It is recommended that the consfruction BMP's be placed on a separate full size plan sheet (2' x 3` or larger as appropriate) for readabilify. For additional assistance, please contact Kiley Kinnon, Stormwater Coordinator, at (65�) 3�42-2727. � . ;, ,_ . � � .. ._ . .iL;� �. , , - . - ��- .: ��. � Rea�iewec7 by: �`' � �, <t�;�� , �: �f�'� i Date: r� 7�;� � �� °i h s�,�,> ` rauunoo r�nw r�� y� w+� an � �� .� � %rt � '-y.,;'^ r. :iCllC2fl1 a�'�"� ' Conshvction & Site Supervision �� m�m� '�."'.� n ��°�,�°'e'� �: ��.��..e��a�. ��.�..�..��. e.��,�a. -��.�.��.�.a�. m/ v wm�A W r, e rlamwuxb m��rdeaka •mn�<ikt�M�YtivekamuEreurba � i��Avbsw oe w�.mb..w� Wb ��ImNs�.lm�c6c� �.. bw�m.... .m..�..�q�L�.•.mwh�.twJu ��..a� m� Jp��m�.��c ��w4mv 'v�a m.. imau w...11...,� �Fm.m� mee�.nv�- �o JYuy a.�.m4 wl N4 N�-iw•wt wu¢ vn=� Wn af .oum�emmmn..w� wevw��m�mia JP+n p pe11v� e¢�reE nCa�u. Pl�m vuh m �� m9 �'b uu ma mc dm m mle�trt ius ��n �D PM.vt� w.� n.�n m rwm a�+4c uab. or.l�w�. vw�m p�•nw ��Y. . abt� xei6cwmhmw a�Mlmm�mJ JOm q� Iuy A.W ed emu.Fi14 �dl.rJ�w � m � ��m. pu Q .�a-.e � e..� �eJde w pmd raGac Un M d� mn6od� �.h�oevc��a `1�� u..mr,�..pn �wG �n.v�mm� ��W�.�•m¢��b��wcem.amde�m, � I�msoef onm'<umL�aemmad.dun� 6�uid. Narm dam wi � d.�P� h' bii�t tl dawn m d� rmWuNd �'u. 1146 .m v�++w. bvMa s milvabad ia wod wottint ur�lu b�tl�elmdt ¢m�Yd m.� �.nu �uba•.nxpqp7. ast mwo r,�mir lw .e.�n..m � aa mys�..�.�i,�, e u^ .,�Mn.m+ew..e�.eemmlas.mn s..v�w �rney.�mu �..v.� ma u.meez. ro%W ns•�l W�, d.wa.cm.d.� w� R94 rt4'. ud MICL m�he�m�. va�1� lDITa� c[N n��v u6 tl�alhlm hbY>wal>. uay � �a...e.,.:,�m�n4a. �amR �..,..eu.�w�w�.odx. [.olm u�6d1.m �4 �.d �d �ImN •..T�- Ec" bYltmd �Ow�1 �eersy�Waw m.� �� m�e�,�� 'e� Sto�.nwater Pollutic�r� Prev�en.tion Program Pollut�on Freveniion — It's P�.rt of t�.e Plan It is your responsibility to d�o tlie job right! Runofffrom sh-eets aad otherpaved areas is amajor source ofpollution in local creeks, SanFrancisco Bay aadthe Pacific Ocean_ Construction activiries can dixectly affect the health of ourwaters unless contractors snd crows plan ¢headtn keep dirt, debris, and other construcfion waste away &om storm drains azsd creeks. Following these guidelines will ensuee your eompliuice withlocal stoimwater ordinance requirements. RememUe , ongoing monitoring and maintenance of installed controls is crucial tn pr.oper implementation. . I3eavy Equipment Operation 0 Earth-Moving ,t�ctivifies Dmd�ll.'amnasflm �n6aabuluFtym:r uLtie �e¢e�tim ary. Dd��4.�w �v�^��•ri�a.ar�m�m� s:d>Waa��mz��ymmmvlm ltlw�v.nm�eu.u'noaon .typt�mi �� w��^^�w�r.mllwee.dm�� J�ev^.t4=�•e=�4•e�4aes� �kmd.w§�s.�..c (ecu�E�Q�mm�Wn��i.anW�� ,n..em�m�trmvv��* �sot m.lo.s•m��.•.+q-Lbh.m.�t.b+d �V��u�m��Qtl�e �e mr�W.e.�.e4�ww.emim. 16dAmrthwtldppwxd.W tiv�L�m ad �nilla dMt JI m� mJM m�e ie m��i W aYnewhanvw�Ma 6yse eluWu1 u 6��6u. w.0 W Jlb�rtm�WAotlmNMamvclm W+bmmi m o� 1p:ycbuid.aWdaMule. 6�variw� nbvNei'�R9� JNmn6wto�v'dnl V�n�u�pma6L �.u�s..sm imwmKmm,e.w.Md.�o�m. I.mrtm m.a1.4 m tleo, m�rmoo) *�m..+ pv3Y 1lY.n�uluu'^lb.mh�mouYhbke�0 ibede�ldon�. JSvwg�q�p0lef Ay�ei.4 �metl'v¢IY. �+a�4 �n u tiWe vavvPw3blm Nu �mmot� �6m ��m�u. a em w. er urou �r Ae rwmr „r..�r.wiwu. � �Odm��earv�a��ewn�x+Ntmv� ,udoas�nmen ��imm�a��mva.4�ndW w.n..�iagm,ava.lwev6s.smds Ilu� 00molPm�l�'�Y9c.4a 1Nmm/ c�.poyea-,fw�nsv,.y hM duY d.m� w d10-M b&m1 �wo V��ami m�r Roadwork & Paving J otaeky �iutl ImqnY+a aa imiKJi��.wwlp�.w w dvdm9�kfuErywYt Jde�tJlv�W�omlfwlv�b W �m��sYle[wdi�� Pe�� m�x m.lv�c �4 ��L a f.q.ep JWunaalwlmeam.s4kim�bm' mJmm"amWm Wm.m�d�md .�61s.�Ywwre.e.R.�m' J m oa �w a�10o m nu�l� e. � wabm� Q ✓Pvu�mevnvoW6i mnd.;�raaqba�w�btt.G �'mm�n�rtt.m�e w�n.nm.w.mmv�a Ymdp.dysaa A�`r_,+�a lCom+be4�dadvm�4dw�w6h�.dlv➢�m IArwey �dWm.aeeAMwvmv.mw4a�m W��*�s'N. . b�fuP eWh[ure+n�rvalMv�on .Nco.t�i �� w4r�Iwb.wMovc�v 1 �`Hmwnv�mam.�miva¢nalm.m�euwni JuuNcxdmr,mo-m.xbvm,uN..rt�mGuo�md lRv�.+M1�.pwaV�a�e(wJovmdudimu�mmvli JNewva.h�uamvvlillrc'muNui�ry�p�erco- mtnludaM�re�uamSdM �udmY�o��mmieNb�m�Eunm`md�JcUl- latxdmy�lcm&qow au J � MwlWbmdd6cmomo�tl�m.M.b�vdh y 'o �r�mr��umam�+•drvme.m l9.bd��6m..�m.dw'minchfan']�nmx 1 �x LuleduvfieWbuw. JGtr�NiW fi�PamxiPomkGma�6�ubmtmmW JP��vyzye�w..Wn.w..>pcmwel��m (`�nID.�IN��wsmmlewu f Cwvx�anmw.mlutvvdes'dr/'m.awe.(�.i�h hv6awuNVMmNLY/N�i��sm�v aNubmmc.W.Jnv).aukWmdtmmewaml. xuwewm..,�.nmm.�d.mre�aw..�n �an«�a�emwmadra��,r�[�. 5am�mdnmv .yuregnMx..M JOovdmed4ulollmlWrinnu�Mosp�i�v,miaP� JAwNmenppl�mbuMwaiawdsf dmemvwl M� Abdbs+Jln11*�ddG�+�d'PortmYMm� .�� u�ea AWiN•otroHvC�+la��mme- m/vhd mY�E�+vtmiltlwveoM1mnd.btfttwnhmtrNva leLmb6W�Im6mw��Ttbewurmowall � . d��w,mpw�a�mmos -..,a�m�ew�.o�oae. a«.00�.�s�m�ro '��deoe1�,�OOY°��' vmqn^.�n�e�.mW.ua�xn+•wa•ssmvd . e�ddbm�4�.erwt win'�vma�monem�b ! Na�c 6w e dwv ma� n�I� w u.otrtl tlin.11u dry �xey me6Nt � �� - - � • �� v�i� �� ^ :�� ,�� . � . m�4udm$�Ic�ame !oW mYaMx{memdelawdvv+q�m¢"ID1Gm �od�¢Aaai uo'mne�n fmwbd. JSm.Ws oN�t.acm�:wwme.oebbp �4dm��luE�wv�¢ ��SmF�4�Mm Peinian$ & Applicaiion of �lveuts & Adhesives , � BmYIyISdrP�vdum � L�R �l � �� t fYWJ..riNu 6om P��0.m��4 dum0.[M1utimdd�CIL14av G�aui�� WmWMdu➢mio[a�hanIDry � finee.� rwmdm�..0 vflm�� JN� Imc�Wn.k.md...➢�L¢mnulm.iem� �, pmq n� ama o..w.m. Landscaping, Gardeaiag, andPoolMaintenanc� eu J�mINMpte+Wlmd�eryM�m1W1.6mr�ai W � M��m[0muotrrmRa�mvolyWi.'��. .•.. ,taet'm.,mowcebml��L'mmmim m��e�mmroe.yeodcet J.FBvdul<F�d sdauvalknyAiam(arMw�wc �ww��.mrmaw�.mao.rt,. w..t Qu�mm.e..�¢...y h�v4.kmweww.r�400wmmm�W�m JPaw.�s�4...nc�4N�wEnwemite�ei umnmde� � '�mYxoebd'ueLie��MlenW&�qpafu pamblaNuamNv�min�uwcma�e¢W�apiod �beoml.mfvr�iweNvmX dwulmYime �'�t�do�m.6ila w�m�Mbo�O'. ��K �mm N�Ivt dv,�dR tlYi5a4 u W�m� �M ]u�Cm.e.�wlm lel6bed mMm �wmiralmapoyummbc Jueo'��.mkkwmnew6uo.bw��u�sw..w F�¢.md.ee m wl.mt�PLw+=o[me.v v. �ey: 14NbmmWuaue�i.w��aak. lsNunvWw��mY 'm.a�me.PxFa�IW+'� h+r�moN dwrJdW. JRIw� utldvl6m�o-Lmdoo�d.Y��pP�ec •. .• E�'MrvM W um9ufM6p�W6 J Wnm<��N W NCAHm�YvYdo�.hm.4na�w wd�nu�hn6�wn9vicm tiv�e�no�4md�v4. M�t VO�aA+wuhGvaddrn99w�onuuvtlbu �m mr�s+m�m dniu Ibu �&��Y'P'a+� amo dht �+mn.pa.madm. ✓Plxe M'binaremcw�bnvm�vLdon'wbW b ��wo� Rcmyb.e�vrt`mmlefmvit'u.b,� J Nbni+stluC�VMY.Iw me my�ikuptlllbep4eu uld'vpvw 1. JRm'de�e.meY e[bd.+v�.�.u��+=ECR Jme�m��iv�6=m�n �r��M��+cvu4 ! Ne�vhvy wF3 m hmNw wr�a m.�uial Sfioim drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $25,000 per day! d�ry �blls �udLWeW o[v �.A J C6minl rylm i mpp� xddu mi ehry� m{ dua �mm�dWeNofnnmNwu�v�=dm buHl � ��a�n�s�•cae;m.�+mu¢x. ��s bbh m.m dd��. RLh w.ic eem. &n w�q � Inb rdLUieherksiWl6eleW wa�tv.cr ae,�e.�¢rw.ewu��oR �wletn[d�aw.o-�mld�.v� adM Sm�Voio�[WervncmR'berspmdm mW Ae u�@ciiHmml�[WdeLim. l�elmoe �..�.:��ap�ale�x Dw=mwn.sidau ww wv�eeL.a1H. vuw W. ��i o.md �d`Y.�pvw�ms+.�.d �Pm�m�M1alm�l .cbW mqbna4wA1 o[sssv- JT�w WbrueLL6uNAlu �a�b o(mma IIyW, iNetiee�bdw.u4mWw��w+m . � am.0 vm�n maw• �mma �x w�w w sm t.r.mo Cmm9Pmvv�mW 9dWUMJmmVb�o¢ru�xWLL mhm�mxulee�.p�v6 ! VmP� mve[{��m�lba Wb n h �mmaSu � e,�,m,a m.�.��..,�.��. ��. um� h4c.imWY6:1.4h�mt0ssvm.x xeika uxtloema�nv�c �we� I. u adm� rvm o[«a�lm �Cats+r ,v� uh L.dra�u�R.� N.'via.un ��pw.:de.�fol Y4bIN�eeoouRemmo- �b i�� p�omKtDuyuvaFm�N � J 3Npms of wwA yelk�dc u 6mNau nom J Colim 4w ud O�k* rli W bP. m�e n+eq ed ew ni�Fy+O^PllavmuxvW 'aeq�mt w�N�u ��uiewP��¢WawmNmawim �� Chxelqp �udry�Q � N�+wmRa�•.aenm��.os�n b�bWGllY+l �av�w6yvdmAe. . J➢a rct Wmrn� ��nA M Wv 6v'uW. faal2mnWn5pi NJeroe�m H��mat�.e ��c'..mm.mmQ +<.nd� llLri'Amal��M1l bH.lYeehvMvu) rmn�b LW Wmm+.aA�le W JN��nu�bSwWt�e.nm � Jo�i�.�.nwmmr�6.bdiw6.¢edbm.�im� ' �cu�� .,�iu.m. m.wwr.:ta..�dn a.marc�+.o- ca. JLb oatun mF1'+"nvd�iD�n� ¢�W JwwiJ wvcurv�b �nu m pmJo On.m ��b. ��,�.,�..�..��.. CITY OF SURLINGAMc _- 1 tl COMMUNI I`( DEVELOPNIENT DEPARTMEN I BURUNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROP.D BURLINGAME, CA 94010 �3�� , ;1 � , � 650 696 3790 _ . PH: (650} 558-7250 FAX: ( ) , _ v�ww.burlingame.org - _ _ Site: 2509 EASTON DRIVE - = -..-..-.._... The Ci1y of Burlingame Planning Commission annaunces the follawing public hearing on MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2014 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Holl Council Chnm6ers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review Amendment for as-6uilt �hnnges to a previously approved new, two-story single fnmily dwelling with nn nitached garage nt 2509 EASTON DRIVE zaned R-l. APN 021-195-060 Mailed: January 31, 2014 (Please refer to other side) ��; � : _ � � - _ �I,D��1C ��A�'�� fd�`�"1�� i�� a�rii�c�ar�e A copy of the apolica�ion and plar�s for this projec� may be reviewed prior to i�e mee�ing at tl�e ComrnuniiY Developrnent Depariment ai 501 Primrose P.oad, Burlingame, Caliiornia. If you challenge the subj2ct application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in ths notice or in v+�ritten correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to ihe public hearing. Proper#y owners who receive t�is noiice are responsible fior informing their tenanzs abaut this notice. For additional i�formation, please calf (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Wiffiarri Meeker Communiiy Development Director ��l��l� H�ARINC NO�lCE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Desiqn Review Amendment for as-built chanqes to a previouslv approved new, two-story sinqle famiiv dwellinq with an attached garage at 2509 Easton Drive Zoned R-1 Emporio Group Inc., 1630 Balboa Wav, Ri irlinnamP CA_ 94010. oronertv owner. APN: 027-195-060: WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on February 10, 2014, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this Commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Section 15303 (a), which states that construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone is exempt from environmental review, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review Amendment is approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review Amendment are set forth in the staff report, minutes, and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman �, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of Februarv, 2014, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive Effective February 20, 2014 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 17, 2014, sheets L-1 through L-3, and date stamped December 5, 2011, sheets T1, C.O, A1 through A5 and GPC; 2. that the property owner shall be responsible for impiementing and maintaining all tree protection measures in the Tree Protection Plan as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated August 30, 2011; ail tree protection zones shall be established and inspected by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building perm it; 3. that the property owner shall obtain a protected-tree removal permit from the Parks Division to remove any protected-sized trees; 4. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Pianning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staf�; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that the conditions of the Park Supervisor's September 20 and July 27, 2011 memos, the Chief Building Official's September 15 and July 26, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's August 17, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 25, 2011 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 25, 2011 memo shall be met; 7. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 8. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Comp�iance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption and Design Review Amendment 2509 Easton Drive Effective February 20, 2014 Page 2 10. 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 inciuded and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 15. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 17. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 18. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans.