The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 Vista Lane - Staff Report (2)1% 16 PROJECT LOCATION 12 Vista Lane Item No. 8c Action Item .0 or City of Burlingame Item No. 8c Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit Action Item and Special Permits Address: 12 Vista Lane Meeting Date: April 27, 2015 Request: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached two -car garage. Applicant and Designer: Dreiling Terrones Architecture, Inc. APN: 027-093-320 Property Owner: Jiangnang Zhang Lot Area: 10,537 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Environmental Review Status: The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 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: At its meeting of February 16, 2010, the City Council approved an application for Tentative and Final Parcel Map for a lot split, Negative Declaration and Variance for lot frontage for creation of two lots with 55-foot wide street frontage where 60 feet of street frontage is required at 12 Vista Lane, located within a single family residential (R-1) zone (see attached Resolution No. 14-2010). At its meeting on January 24, 2011, the Planning Commission approved an application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permit for attached garage for a new, two story single family dwelling with an attached garage on a vacant parcel at 8 Vista Lane (adjacent to 12 Vista Lane). The building permit for construction of the house was finaled on July 27, 2012. The proposed project was originally scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a design review study item on August 11, 2014. However, based on concerns expressed by a neighboring property owner regarding grading and retaining walls installed at the rear of the site without a building permit, the item was pulled from the agenda until the applicant could address these issues. The properties at 8 and 12 Vista Lane have been owned by the same property owner for several years. It appears that during construction of the project at 8 Vista Lane (adjacent parcel), soil from 8 Vista Lane was deposited on the vacant parcel at 12 Vista Lane, which raised the grade on the parcel by approximately 1 to 10 feet towards the rear of the property. The original grade is shown on the survey prepared by MacLeod and Associates and the current grade is shown on the survey prepared by Dylan Gonsalves. These surveys are located at the end of the plan set. At the same time, two retaining walls along the rear of 8 Vista Lane were extended across the rear of 12 Vista Lane. There were no permits issued for either the grading or for the two retaining walls. In reviewing the proposed project, the Planning Commission should not consider the raised grade or the retaining walls across the rear of the property as existing conditions. Since August 2014, the project has been revised to reflect the lower original grade. The Community Development Department determined that while this application is being processed, the applicant does not need to return the site to its original condition by removing the soil and retaining walls. However depending on the outcome of this application, the applicant will be required to either return the site to its original condition or obtain the necessary permits for any grading or retaining walls to remain. Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane Summary: The following description is based on the original grade of the site, as shown on the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map, prepared by MacLeod and Associates, dated July 6, 2007. The existing vacant lot at 12 Vista Lane measures 10,537 SF in area. The lot is located within the City of Burlingame boundaries but is surrounded by properties located in San Mateo County (unincorporated land). Based on an average of the property corners, the lot slopes downward approximately 24 feet from front to rear (13% slope). At the front of the property, the lot has a cross - slope of approximately seven feet. Due to the downward slope on the subject property, the house will appear to be single -story as viewed from Vista Lane. However, at the rear of the lot the house will be two stories in height. The applicant is proposing to build a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached two -car garage. The proposed house and attached garage will have a total floor area of 4,242 SF (0.40 FAR) where 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The project was reduced by 131 SF (39 SF on the lower level and 92 SF on the upper level along the left side of the house) since the design review study meeting on March 9, 2015. The proposed project is 230 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 5% of the maximum allowed FAR. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit for declining height envelope for the proposed attached garage and house along the left side property line; 115 SF (2'-5" x 50'-0" minus recess) along the left side of the structure extends beyond the declining height envelope. Planning staff would note that since the design review study meeting on March 9, 2015, the house along the left side property line was set back an additional V-10". As a result, the encroachment into the declining height envelope has been reduced from 207 SF (4'-Y x 50'-0" minus recess) to 115 SF (2'-5" x 50'-0" minus recess). On sheet A4.4 of the revised plans date stamped April 17, 2015, the applicant provides diagrams to show how the encroachment into the declining height envelope was reduced. The proposed attached two -car garage will contain two, single -wide doors and will be set back 25-0" from the front property line. The attached garage provides two covered parking spaces for the proposed five -bedroom house; one uncovered parking space (9' x 20') is provided in the driveway. The office room on the lower floor qualifies as a bedroom since it is enclosed, measures 70 SF and contains a window. Three parking spaces, one of which must be covered, are required for a five - bedroom house. All other Zoning Code requirements have been met. The applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design Review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.57.010 (a) (1)); ■ Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage (C.S. 25.61.020); ■ Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side property line (115 SF, 2'-5" x 50'-0" of the building extends beyond the declining height envelope) (CS 25.26.075 (a); and ■ Special Permit for attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)) An arborist report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated April 30, 2014, was submitted with the initial application. The report evaluates the condition of the existing trees on the property and provides tree protection guidelines. There are three trees on the site, all of which are Coast Live Oaks. Two of the trees, which are not protected size, are proposed to be removed. The tree to remain (identified as Tree #1 in the report), is a four -stem Coast Live Oak located in the middle of the property. The report notes that "the 4 stems of this tree lean away from the center at their main attachment" and that "there is a moderate amount of interior deadwood in the canopy and excess end weight on the lateral limbs." The report recommends routine maintenance, which should include root crown excavation, deadwood removal, and end weight reduction. With this application, the applicant K A Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane is proposing to remove two of the stems located closer to the proposed house. The report notes that "the removal of the 2 southeast -leaning stems and the pruning of the stem to the southwest should increase circulation to the remaining canopy and potentially increase its vigor." The report concludes that the remaining portion of the tree should survive with minimal stress. Subsequently, the adjacent property owner at 16 Vista Lane, Mr. Arthur J. Thomas, expressed a concern regarding impacts from the proposed construction to Tree #1, and hired Walter Levison, a certified arborist, to prepare an arborist report (see attached arborist report, dated September 18, 2014). Mr. Levison concludes that "the subject tree is a native coast live oak in good overall condition which will be severely impacted by proposed site work at 12 Vista Lane, if the site plan is built out as proposed on the sheet reviewed by WLCA." In addition, he notes that "construction as currently proposed will likely cause premature decline of the tree, and a decline in health and structure over time". The City's Park Supervisor/City Arborist reviewed both arborist reports. In his Tree Evaluation, dated September 30, 2014 (see attached), the City Arborist discusses the findings in both reports and notes that both reports are reasonable. In the Tree Evaluation, the City Arborist notes that he "would also consider a third arborist report to evaluate this tree with respect to the Mayne and Levison reports, and with regards to future landscape and foundation installation." Based on that direction, the applicant submitted a third arborist report, prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated January 29, 2015 (see attached). The Kielty report concludes that "the tree will survive the trimming and the construction but will be slightly misshapen. The new building will shade the trunk helping to prevent sun scald on the exposed trunks. The tree should be inspected by an arborist regularly and maintained as needed. Powdery mildew and decay at the base are always a concern when heavier than normal trimming is carried out on a coast live oak." The City Arborist reviewed and accepted Kielty's arborist report and had no further comments. This space intentionally left blank. 3 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane 12 Vista Lane Lot Area: 10,537 SF Plans Date Stamped: April 17, 2015 PREVIOUS CURRENT (2.13.15 plans) (4.17.15 plans) ALLOWED/REQ'D SETBACKS Front (1st fir): 22'-6" to solar shade no change 15'-0" (2nd fir): 39'-6" to balcony no change 20'-0" (garage): 25'-0"' ; no change 9 25'-0" side b side ( Y ) Side (right): 6-0" i no change 6'-0" (left): 6-0" 7'-10" 6'-0" Rear (1st fir): 71'-0" to wing wall no change 15'-0" (2nd fir): 15'-6" to balcony pool wall no change 20'-0" 77'-6" to balcony Lot Coverage: 3887 SF 3795 SF 4,215 SF 36.8% 36% 40% FAR: 4373 SF 1 4242 SF 4472 SF 0.41 FAR 0.40 FAR 0.42 FAR 2 # of bedrooms: 5 no change ............ _...... .. -... - --- Off-Street Parking: 2 covered i 2 covered (20'-0" x 20'-0") ; no chan e ! g (20'-0" x 20'-0") 1 uncovered i j 1 uncovered (9'-0" x 20'-0") (9'-0" x 20'-0") Height: — 9'-4" 8'-10" --..... - .... --.................... _... ... _....... 30'-0" - DH Envelope: ---..._._._........ _................ ---......... structure extends 207 SF structure extends beyond DHE along left 115 SF beyond DHE CS 25.26.075 side 3 along left side 3 Special Permit for an attached garage (C.S. 25.26.035 (a)). 2 (0.32 x 10,537 SF) + 1,100 SF = 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) 3 Special Permit for declining height envelope along the left side property line (115 SF, 2'-5" x 50'-0" of the building extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Engineering, Parks, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission Design Review Study meeting on March 9, 2015, the Commission had several comments and concerns with the project and placed the item on the regular action calendar when the plans had been revised as directed (see attached March 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes). Please refer to the attached meeting minutes for a complete list of concerns expressed by the Planning Commission. The applicant submitted a response letter, dated April 8, 2015 and revised plans, dated April 17, 2015, to address the Commission's suggestions and comments. Please refer to the applicant's letter for a detailed list of changes made to the project. 0 A Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane Several revisions to the project were made to address the concerns of the neighbor to the left including 1) increasing the setback along the left side property line an additional V-10" (from 6'-0" to 7'- 10"), 2) lowering the plate height in the garage from 12'-0" to 9'-0" and on the upper floor of the house from 10'-0" to 9'-6", and 3) reducing the height of the parapet of the house by 0'-6" and the parapet of the garage by 2'-6". As a result, the encroachment into the declining height envelope has been reduced from 207 SF (4'-Y x 50'-0" minus recess) to 115 SF (2'-5" x 50'-0" minus recess). On sheet A4.4 of the revised plans date stamped April 17, 2015, the architect provides diagrams to show how the encroachment into the declining height envelope was reduced. In addition, the overall height of the building, as measured from the average top of curb level, was reduced from 9'-4" to 8'-10", the lot coverage was reduced from 3,887 SF (36.8%) to 3,795 SF (36%) and the floor area ratio was reduced from 4,373 SF (0.41 FAR) to 4,242 SF (0.40 FAR). Color renderings of the proposed project were included in the revised plan set, date stamped April 17, 2015; they are stapled to the back of the plan set. The story poles were adjusted to reflect the current changes to the project. A story pole plan was prepared by the project architect (see attached story pole plan, date stamped April 21, 2015). The story pole installation was certified by DMG Engineering, Inc. (see attached certification dated April 21, 2015). 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. Suggested Findings for Design Review: That the architectural style, mass and bulk of the structure, featuring horizontal wood siding on the main floor and board form architectural concrete siding on the lower floor, metal awnings above select windows and above the garage doors, aluminum clad wood windows, varied plate heights, aluminum balcony railings and a flat roof, is compatible with the existing character of the neighborhood; that the proposed attached garage is consistent with the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; that the windows and architectural elements of the proposed structure are placed so that the structure respects the interface with the structures on adjacent properties; and that the proposed landscape plan, which includes retaining an existing Coast Live Oak located in the middle of the property and incorporating plants, hedges and trees at locations so that they help to provide privacy, is compatible with the existing neighborhood, the project may be found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review criteria. Required Findings _fir Hillside Area Construction Permit: Review of a Hillside Area Construction Permit by the Planning Commission shall be based upon obstruction by construction of the existing distant views of nearby properties. Emphasis shall be given to the obstruction of distant views from habitable areas within a dwelling unit (Code Sec. 25.61.060). Suggested Findings for Hillside Area Construction Permit: That the proposed single family dwelling structure is designed in such a way that it steps downward with the existing slope on the lot, that the proposed structure measures 8'-10" in height as measured from average top of curb level to the highest point on the roof and that the structure contains a flat roof, for these reasons the project does not obstruct distant views from habitable areas with nearby dwelling units and therefore the project may be found to be compatible with hillside area construction permit criteria. 5 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a Special Permit, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): 1. The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; 2. the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; 3. the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and 4. removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Suggested Special Permit Findings (Declining Height Envelope): That because of the downward slope of the lot, the point of departure for the declining height envelope is calculated to be 13'-4" below the finished floor of the main floor of the house therefore causing the proposed structure along the left side property line to extends 2'-5" into the declining height envelope, that the encroachment is consistent with the design and that the portion of the wall which extends into the declining height envelope is broken up by varied plate heights, three windows, a recessed wall and an opening into a balcony, therefore the project may be found to be compatible with the special permit criteria. Special Permit Findings (Attached Garage): That the proposed two -car garage is consistent with the garage pattern in the neighborhood, that the attached garage complies with the off-street parking requirement for the project and is located 25-0" back from the front property line, that the garage contains black anodized frame doors with etched glass and is integrated into the architecture of the house by using horizontal wood siding and a metal awning which is consistent with the rest of the house, and that no existing trees located within the footprint of the garage will be removed, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing on the application, and consider public testimony and the analysis contained within the staff report. Action should include specific findings supporting the Planning Commission's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the Planning Commission. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1, that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 17, 2015, sheets A0.0 through A5.2, L1.1, L1.2, AR1.0, AR2.0 and G1.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that a certified arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation and digging for removal or installation of any utilities; A Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane 5. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures and trimming instructions as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated January 29, 2015. All tree protection measures shall be taken prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site; 6. that a licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently if necessary and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Division that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 7. that a licensed arborist shall provide a post -construction maintenance program to the property owners with instructions on how to maintain the Coast Live Oak tree and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the tree for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City; 8. that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist 9. that the conditions of the Building Division's July 7, 2014 and May 9, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 26, 2015, February 3, 2015, July 8, 2014 and May 12, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division's June 19, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's May 12, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's May 15, 2014 memo shall be met; 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 7 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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; 19. 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 20. 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. Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc., applicant Jiangnang Zhang, property owner Attachments: Applicant's Response Letter, dated April 8, 2015 March 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped April 21, 2015 Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped March 6, 2015 Letter submitted by Arthur J. and Eileen A. Thomas, dated March 9, 2015 Application to the Planning Commission Special Permit Forms Resolution No. 14-2010 approving the Lot Split at 12 Vista Lane Letter from architect to neighbors at 16 Vista Lane, dated August 5, 2014 Copy of easement document and attachments for vegetation and structure height limitations for owners of 16 Vista Lane on 12 Vista Lane property Arborist Report prepared Kielty Arborist Services, dated January 29, 2015 Tree Evaluation prepared by Bob Disco, Park Supervisor/City Arborist, dated September 30, 2014 Arborist Report prepared by Walter Levision, dated September 18, 2014, included with letter submitted by Arthur J. Thomas, dated September 22, 2014 Arborist Report prepared by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., dated April 30, 2014 Letter and Attachments from Tatiana Chekasina, dated August 8, 2014 Email from Arthur J. and Eileen A. Thomas, dated August 8, 2014 Email from Michelle and Eduardo Menendez, dated August 8, 2014 C Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane Attachments: Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed April 17, 2015 Aerial Photo Dreilina_ Terrones - Inc. A, chi!ec!:. re ' In I ra31r_�'._: -,.. ien 08 April, 2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 12 Vista Lane— Response to Comments, 3/09115 Study Meeting Dear Commissioners and Staff RECEIVED APR 10 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME ^nD_plp.,NNING DIV. Thank you for your consideration of our project and your comments at the Study Meeting on 3/09/15. We have re- visited the project design with the Applicant (Henry Zhang) and we have made several changes in response to the Commission's comments. These include: Elevation: • The parapet of the house has been reduced by 6 inches in height. The overall height from average top of curb of 9'-4" is now 8'-10" The second floor plate height has also been reduced an additional 6 inches", reducing the second floor ceiling height from 10'-0" to 9'-6". • The parapet of the Garage has been reduced by 2'-6 inches in height. The overall height from average top of curb of 9'-4" is now 6-10" The plate height has also been reduced an additional 3'-0", reducing the ceiling height from 12'-0" to 9'-0". • The left side (North) wall of the house and garage has been moved in an additional 1'-10" from the required setback of 6'-0", thus reducing declining height envelope area from 28 square feet to 12.3 square feet at the house and 7.5 square feet at the garage. • Additional planting area proposed along the adjusted North wall to further soften the overall mass of the revised wall. • The second floor plan is revised to reflect the relocation of the North wall. The square feet for the second floor is reduced from 2,376 down to 2,268. • The first floor plan is revised to reflect the relocation of the North wall. The square feet for the first floor is reduced from 1,899 down to 1,873. Oak Tree: • The Oak Tree has been revisited and reviewed. The trunks that are proposed to be removed are growing at 45 degree or less. Due to the horizontal nature of the trunks, there is no way we can conceive to protect this part of the tree. The two trunks that are not being removed, is currently growing at near vertical angle and will not be affected by the house. • A city certified arborist will be on site to verify and to answer any questions regarding the Oak tree before, during and after the construction of the residence. Clean up of site: • The over site and areas immediate to the Oak tree has been properly cleaned up. • All debris has been removed from the site Thank you for your further consideration of our project. Sincerely, 6bb Furl ct �C7 BURLINGAME CITY HALL City of Burlingame 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Meeting Minutes Planning Commission Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 PM Council Chambers e. 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner) (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Commissioner Terrones indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion regarding Agenda Item 10e as he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. Commissioner Gum noted that he had conversations with the property owners to the left and right of the project site. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff - There were no questions of staff. Chair Bandrapalli opened the public hearing. Jacob Furlong represented the applicant. Commission comments/questions: > Was any thought given to pushing back the garage in an effort to reduce the impact upon the declining height envelope? (Furlong - the garage is pushed back as far as possible and already includes a 12% slope for the driveway. Will need to mitigate water issues.) > Has any thought been given to reducing parapet heights and plate heights in order to reduce mass along the left side? (Furlong - these elements were pushed down from what they were in the prior design, but can look at further reductions.) > Is there potential to step back the second story on the site to further reduce neighbor impacts? (Furlong - unable to make further changes in this area as it would eliminate a bedroom. The story poles have been installed and convey the impact of the height.) > Have there been any complaints received after installation of the story poles? Has the applicant reached out to the neighbor on Hillside? (Furlong - haven't consulted with that neighbor at this time.) > Expressed concern about the impact of the construction debris upon the tree that is to be saved. Is there the potential to retain a third stem of the tree? (Furlong - noted that there will be an arborist on site during construction to assist in preserving it.) > Shares concerns expressed regarding the plate heights. > Not certain that the proposed design fits on the street. May fit into the neighborhood, but needs to City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 41612015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 9, 2015 adjust plate heights. > Look aggressively at reducing the plate height. > Should save as much of the tree as possible. Public comments: Neighbor at 2874 Hillside Drive: met with the applicant in advance of erection of the story poles. Is concerned about the height of the garage. IMII vehicle lifts be installed? Arthur Thomas, 16 Vista Lane: referenced the letter that he submitted in advance of the hearing. Is concerned about shadows upon his neighboring property as well as plate heights and the potential loss of the heritage treet. Eilieen Shefsky, 24 Vista Lane: Opposed to the Modern architecture; doesn't fit in with the other homes on the street. Concerned about the mass and bulk of the home. Feels property values in the area will be negatively impacted. Concerned that the tree will eventually die. Concerned about the location of the pool on the property; particularly about the safety from a structural perspective given that it will be built on landfill. There are already drainage problems on the street. The noise from the pool equipment is also a concern. Feels that a full CEQA review should be required. Michelle Menendez, 23 Vista Lane: Doesn't feel that the architecture fits into the neighborhood. The height and massing are a concern. Chair Bandrapalll closed the public hearing Commission discussion: > Installing a gable roof on the home would make it appear larger. > Cannot prevent improvement of the property. > Lower the plate heights. > Development of the property will likely enhance property values. > The design of the home properly steps down the hillside. > Expressed concern about blockage of open space on the neighboring property to the left. > Concerned about the stability of the property. > Keep as much of the tree as possible. > The declining height envelope request is completely driven by the slope of the lot. > Is a nice piece of modem architecture. > The project is not approvable today. > Need a clear demonstration of view impacts upon neighboring properties. > Could consider moving the garage further south and lower plate heights to address neighbor's concerns. > A color rendering would be helpful. City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 41612015 r. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 9, 2015 Chair Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gum, to place the project on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for Commission cons ideration0l. The motion was approved unanimously by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Bandrapalli, DeMartini, Loftis, Sargent, and Gum Absent: 1 - Yie Recused: 1 - Terrones City of Burlingame Page 3 Printed on 4/6/2015 DMG Engineering, Inc. 30 Oakvue Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Phone:925-787-0463 Fax:925-287-8503 April 21, 2015 RECEIVED City of Burlingame ADRB 501 Primrose Road PR 2), 1 2015 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY 0R, JRLff!OAM.E Reference: Story Pole Certification — 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame This letter is to certify that on April 18, 2015 DMG Engineering, Inc. staked out and installed the story poles for the proposed new house and verified that the story poles conformed to the revised story pole drawing prepared by Dreilling Terrones Architecture, Inc, dated 4/7/2015. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, A4 Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS �.AND 3C/9� (V DYLAN M. O U GONSALVES 70 No.8475 OF CpL\F� 'T, —1 . . IN . . . . I _0 Li Li Li Li 4-4 RECEIVED APR 21 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. R.f N Story Pole plan R-1 A3.1 Ile, COa111 UAI CATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION DMG Engineering, Inc. OF ST.4 FF REPORT 30 Oakvue Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Phone:925-787-0463 Fax:925-287-8503 March 5, 2015 City of Burlingame ADRB 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Reference: Story Pole Certification — 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame This letter is to certify that on March 5, 2015 DMG Engineering, Inc. staked out and installed the story poles for the proposed new house and verified that the story poles conformed to the revised story pole drawing prepared by Dreilling Terrones Architecture, Inc. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS 'r ED S&\ L YLAN M. �ONSALVES 0JNo.8475 k�� OF CAL\FQ2 � Received After 03.09.15 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10e - 12 Vista Ln. Page 1 of 2 H. EGEIVED CITY or= oURuNGAN•1E -Jr n-PLANNING (HIV Received After 03.09.15 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10e - 12 Vista Ln. Page 2 of 2 Pole RECEIVED AR - 6 19015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. COA lA I UNI CATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION Rahn e N I /B'. 1'd "93t5 d¥3k Root Plan A3.1 Application Forms 12 Vista Lane H1�4�a' aunur+� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT • 501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CA 94010 p: 650.558.7250 • f: 650.696.3790 • www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: )4 Design Review ❑ Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit 0- Parcel #: CIZ-'--k- 011 ❑ Other: PROJECTADDRESS: 12- Vk5-111cl, APPLICANT project contact person IS - OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: V7 �tVz(n Address: City/State/Zip:�t�ii.P=tr— Phone: (0!50 - Fax: %o . 3L_� - aL-2b4�- E-mail: )F I✓yi"Q�> - C1017A ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: 'P-A A401_�Z-� 7 Address: 110 -:!> City/State/Zip: -Y:;A- Phone: L_6�0 " b - vZ+0 o PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: J,a✓tg7Z► an4 Address: t/.S t� �ci,n P City/State/Zip: C� Phone: Fax: E-mail: D -�jevlry11� �ffqq 2 V (�✓Q`�``. �pYh Fax: bSo • - ab_ ECEIVED 6 2014 E-mail: (9— rl�- �� C URLINGAME .'JNING DIV. * Burlingame Business License #: D (0 9�a 8 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: gew gESir,>p5we ON E✓?Ci5TINa \J&ANr LdT AFFADAVITISIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given h rein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and b f. Applicant's signatu Date: IAW I am aware of the pro sed applic ion an ereby autho 'ze the above applicant to submit th s appli ation to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: 0 Date submitted: sI(,I`(4 * Verification that the project architectidesigner has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. S:I HANDOUTS�PC Application. doc City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org a� CITY O BU_RLINGAME to J CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHED GARAGE -.,r-IVE The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood There is no structure currently on the lot, but the proposed attached garage, is consistent with other properties in the area. This includes the adjacent house at 8 Vista Lane, which is the only other house on the block that is in Burlingame and not the County. The proposed attached garage is scaled proportionally to the house and does not dominate the front facade. While this is not a variance application, and therefore does not require any extraordinary conditions for consideration, the alternative for a detached garage in the rear is hindered by the existing oak tree along one side of the property. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood. The existing neighborhood is an eclectic mix of finishes and roof structures. The proposed style is a restrained modern vocabulary that will blend with the surrounding eclectic mix. This particular lot is uniquely constrained by the protected size oak and the view easement of the adjoining neighbor. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed mass, scale, detailing, and overall aesthetics are consistent with the intent of the design guidelines. The greater Hillside neighborhood supports the contemporary or modern characteristics as proposed, and the proposed attached garage is consistent with the neighborhood and supported in the design guidelines under the conditions of a Special Permit. 3 2014 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the cty's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Two protected size Oak trees will be removed as part of this application. These two Oak trees are in the middle of the proposed building. A Protected Tree Removal Permit will be applied for by thS$ECPER-M.FRM applicant. New trees will be planted per landscaping plan City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org l� CITY Byj"gfAME o •' CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION c WE 3 2-3i4 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE UPLiNGAME The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. Proposed structure is one story at the street front, similar or less than other structures in the neighborhood. The neighborhood is a mixture of two story 1950's ranch houses and contemporary Mediterranean style houses. The proposed modern style structure is subdued and will blend with the neighborhood. The down sloping lot however, impacts the calculation of the decl. ht. envelope, and would otherwise restrict the potential ht. to approx. 6' along the sides. 2. Explain how the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood The existing neighborhood is an eclectic mix of finishes and roof structures. The proposed style is a restrained modern vocabulary that will blend with the surrounding eclectic mix. This particular lot is uniquely constrained by the protected size oak and the view easement of the adjoining neighbor. 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city (C.S. 25.57)? The proposed mass, scale, detailing, and overall aesthetics are consistent with the intent of the design guidelines. The greater Hillside neighborhood supports the contemporary or modern characteristics as proposed. 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. Two protected size Oak trees will be removed as part of this application. These two Oak trees are in the middle of the proposed building. A Protected Tree Removal Permit will be applied for sPECPERM.FRM by the applicant. New trees will be planted per landscaping plan RESOLUTION NO. i 4-201 0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, APPROVING 1) A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, 2) A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 25.28.050(A)(3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRING SIXTY FOOT LOT FRONTAGE IN THE R-1 DISTRICT, AND 3) ATENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR SUBDIVISION OF A PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS, ON PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE LOCATED AT 12 VISTA LANE (PARCEL A, BLOCK 4, BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2 SUBDIVISION —APN: 027 093 300) RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, on.August 10, 2009, Denham LLC, owner of the property located at 12 Vista Lane, City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, California; submitted applications for approval of a Variance from section 25.28.050(a)(3) of the zoning ordinance, requiring a minimum lot frontage of sixty (60) feet and a Tentative and Final Parcel Map for said property, in order to divide the property, : ontaining a land area of 21, 212 square feet, into two lots; one lot containing 10,537 square feet and the other lot containing 10,675 square feet, each lot having a frontage of 55-feet on Vista Lane; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame reviewed the requests as a "study item" at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 28, 2009; and at that time requested clarifications to the application prior to scheduling the matter for a public hearing and action; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Variance, and Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the staff report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public hearing and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter, and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2009, based upon.the analysis included in the staff report, and all oral -and written - testimony submitted during the public hearing -on the matter, the Planning Commission moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the requests on a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting); and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution memorializing its recommendation to approve the requests on a vote of 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting); and WHEREAS, after the Planning Commission's initial review and approval of the project, staff discovered that this minor subdivision would not qualify for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act because this subdivision required a Variance for lot frontage. Consequently, the Community Development Department - Planning Division prepared an initial study for this project, and, based upon that initial study, it was determined that the proposed project would cause no significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the Planning Division prepared and the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Negative Declaration for the project; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance, and Tentative the Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the initial study, staff report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public hearing, and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2010, based upon the analysis included in the staff report, and all oral and written testimony submitted during the public hearing on the matter, the Plann'.ng Commission moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the requests on a vote of 3-2-1 (Commissioners Cauchi and Terrones dissenting and Commissioner Vistica recusing); and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2010, the City Council of the City of Burlingame conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the property owner's requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance and Tentative the Final Parcel Map approval; and at that time considered the analysis included in the staff report prepared for the matter, all oral and written testimony provided during the course of the public hearing, and all documents and other evidence submitted regarding the matter; and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby makes the following findings regarding the request for a Negative Declaration, Variance from minimum lot frontage requirements, and for Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval: California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Finding: A. Pursuant to Negative Declaration (ND-553-P), on the basis of the Initial Study and comments received in writing or at the public hearing, and the following supporting information there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment: that the creation of two lots will not subdivide an established community and displace any existing housing units or residents; that the project will not generate significant adverse effects on the water or air quality, increase noise levels substantially; that the project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the flora or fauna of the area or on traffic, land use, or public services. and infrastructure; and the project will not significantly degrade the aesthetic quality of the area. Variance Findings: B. There are exceptional circumstances or extraordinary circumstances, or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The subject property is an isolated "finger' of property under the jurisdiction of the City of Burlingame that projects into a neighborhood consisting of properties lying within an unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo. The surrounding properties are subject to development standards applicable only to properties lying within the unincorporated County area that are not applicable to the subject property. The Parcel Map results in lots that are similar in size, shape and orientation to other existing developed properties lying with the surrounding County jurisdiction. The City's zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot frontage 2 RESOLUTION NO. of 60-feet for lots exceeding 10,000 square feet; the lots created by the Parcel Map exceed this threshold, and are consistent with existing development patterns in the vicinity. Additionally, the topography of the property, with a down slope from Vista Lane rearward, dictates a lot orientation as shown on the Parcel Map in order to ensure buildable home sites. C. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship. The total area- of the property included in the Parcel Map is 21,212 square feet, and far exceeds the 10,000 square foot minimum lot area required for the area. The Parcel Map results in the creation of two lots of similar size, shape and configuration to surrounding properties within an unincorporated area of the County of San Mateo, and subject to County regulation. Approval of the Parcel Map will provide the property owner with similar development rights and privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity. D. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Approval of the Parcel Map will result in lots of similar size, shape and configuration to other lots within the vicinity that are in the surrounding area, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo. The additional lot will not create significant additional traffic on Vista Lane and the property owner has indicated his intention to provide a wider paved area along the property to provide an improved path of travel in front of his properties. Additionally, the City of Burlingame's Design Review process will provide the opportunity to further evaluate vehicular ingress and egress on the resultant lots to further minimize any potential impacts upon traffic circulation in the neighborhood. Finally, the creation of two lots will result in two structures of less mass and bulk and less impact on neighboring properties. E. The use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties within the general vicinity. Approval of the Parcel Map results in two (2) lots that are similar in size, shape and configuration to other developed lots within the vicinity, most of which are under the jurisdiction of the County of San Mateo and subject to less rigorous development standards. Development of the two (2) lots will result in a lesser structural mass upon the subject property since each lot will be developed independently with two free-standing structures subject to development standards applicable to each of the two (2) lots. Additionally, development of the lots will require Design Review approval by the City of Burlingame, prior to site development; this process wilF ensure that any potential impacts upon adjacent development can be minimized to the extent feasible. Parcel Map Findings: F. The Parcel Map was reviewed and recommended for approval by the City Engineer, based upon a memorandum prepared by the Public Works Department, dated September 10, 2009. 3 RESOLUTION NO. G. The Parcel Map results in a lot configuration of each lot that is consistent with the existing pattern of lots within the surrounding neighborhood in which the property is situated. H. Approval of the Parcel Map will not create impediments to public safety access within the neighborhood in which the properly is situated; the Parcel Map will result in the creation of one additional home site within an established residential neighborhood. Approval of development upon the lots created through approval of the Parcel Map must be reviewed separately through the City of Burlingame's Design Review process; an evaluation of development impacts, including site preparation, grading, drainage, utilities, and architectural compatibility will occur as part of that discretionary process. J. The property is not subject to creek lot requirements set forth in Burlingame Municipal Code Section 26.08.075. K. The lots created by the Parcel Map are consistent with the policies of the Burlingame General Plan and implementing zoning regulations, which set forth policies and standards for the single-family development that will be permitted 'to occur upon the two lots. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT the requests for a Negative Declaration, Variance from Section 25.28.050(a)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance requiring sixty (60) foot lot frontage in the R-1 District, and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for subdivision of a parcel into two lots, on property situated within a Single -Family Residential (R-1) zone located at 12 Vista Lane (Parcel A, Block 4, Burlingame Hills No. 2 Subdivision — APN: 027 093 300) are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. that the Vesting Tentative and Final Parcel Map shall be recorded at the San Mateo County Recorder's Office, and a copy of the recorded document shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works; 2. that the conditions of the city Engineer's September 10, 2009 memo and the- City Arborist's September 3, 2009 memo shall be met; 3. that no developmental approvals are part of this mapping action; 4. that the maintenance responsibilities for the proposed private storm drain and sanitary sewer easements as well as associated pipelines shall be noted in the final map; 5. that all- property corners shall be set in the field and be shown- on the map; 6. that a final parcel map for the subdivision must be filed by the applicant within two years as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance; and 7. that the final map shall show the widths of the right-of-wav for Vista Lane and Adeline Drive, including the centerline of right-of-way, -bearing and distance of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. M RESOLUTION NO. ow- 40Y�t-� Mayor 1, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16t' day of February, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Council Members: BAYLOCK, BROWURIGG, DES, jC:E.jC-jjRA-N • 1MGEL NOES: Council Members: NONE ABSENT: Council Members: NOS 1 ow City Clerks ' t 5 Dreiling Terrcr.es - - L"c. 2014-08-05 Mr. and Mrs. Arthur and Eileen Thomas 1E Vista Lane Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. and Mrs. Arthur and Eileen Thomas, As you may be aware, we have submitted on behalf of the Owner of 12 Vista Lane, for planning approval of a new house. Rest assured, from the outset of the design work, the Owner advised as to the existing view Easement (Vegetation and Structure Height Limitation). We have a copy of the recorded documents here at the office, and have designed the proposed project in accordance with the easement restrictions. The project is schedule for a Design Review Study Meeting before the Planning Commission on Monday 8/11/14. We would like to offer to come by some time this week prior to the Planning Commission meeting; to review the proposed plans with you if you so desire. Alternatively if it is more convenient for you to come by our office (In Burlingame at 1103 Juanita Ave.) to review the plans, we can arrange that as well. If you do not foresee an available time to meet, we can discuss the project via telephone some time this week. If we cannot meet prior to the Planning Commission Study Meeting, we can also meet with you after the meeting and prior to the subsequent Action meeting by the Commission. Also, at a future date, we would like to get your input on planting and fencing along the property line between 12 Vista Lane and your property. In the following days, there will be story poles erected at 12 Vista. This will give you and the other neighbors an understanding of the overall shape of the residence being proposed. Please feel free to contact me at our office if you would like to meet, or if you have any questions. Our number here is 650.696.1200 Thank you Wayne Lin wl(a�_dtbarch.com E"E1 ED ;ITr Or BURLINGAME ;Cj7-PLANNING Di\� 3' 4 C .-.._ -el a2201.eoldsbura, ca5rcrnia ?5448 ._.. 707 431 305 dtaan! :. m Recording Requested by: Arthur and Eileen Thomas c/o Marc D. Bender Michael B. Allen Law Group, Inc. 520 S. El Camino Real, Suite 840 San Mateo, CA 94402 EASEMENT 2011-031629 CONF 2:45 pm 03/17/11 ES Fee: 48.00 Count of pages 12 Recorded In Official Records County of San Mateo Mark Church Assessor -County Clerk -Recorder IN 111111 III 11111 III 1111111111111111111 * R 0 0 0 1 1 5 5 1 6 5* (Vegetation and Structure Height Limitation) This Vegetation and Structure Height Limitation Easement is made between DENHAM, LLC and HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC (the Grantors) and ARTHUR and EILEEN THOMAS (the Grantees) as follows: RECITALS DENHAM, LLC and HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC are the owners in fee of the real property located at 112 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California ("12 VISTA LANE") which is legally described in Exhibit "A" hereto. Said property is burdened with the easement more fully described herein. ARTHUR and EILEEN THOMAS are the owners in fee of the real property located at 16 Vista Lane, Burlingame, California ("16 VISTA LANE") which is legally described in Exhibit "B" hereto. Said property is benefited by the easement more fully described herein. EASEMENT 1. DENHAM, LLC and HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC hereby grant and convey to ARTHUR and EILEEN THOMAS a perpetual non-exclusive easement to limit the vegetation and structure height at 12 VISTA LANE which is legally described in Exhibit "C" hereto (hereinafter referred to as "the EASEMENT AREA'). 2. A survey referencing the EASEMENT AREA is attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 3. DENHAM, LLC, HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, their assignees, officers, agents, partners, owners, beneficiaries, and all future owners and successors in interest of 12 VISTA LANE shall not install, construct, locate, relocate, grow, place or plant any structure, building, tree, planting or vegetation in the EASEMENT AREA that extends over 9 feet above height level 200 per the Topographic Survey performed by DMG Engineering, Inc. on November 12, 2010 as shown in Exhibit "E" hereto. RECEIVED 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD•-PLANNING DIV, 4. The owners and/or residents of 16 VISTA LANE shall provide written notice to the owner(s) of 12 VISTA LANE in the event any structure or planting on 12 VISTA LANE exceeds nine (9) feet from grade (level 200 as shown in Exhibit "E"). Within 30 days after mailing of said notice, the owner(s) of 12 VISTA LANE shall remove and/or modify the overgrown structures or plantings such that they will no longer exceed nine (9) feet from grade as measured from 16 VISTA LANE (level 200 as shown in Exhibit "E"). In the event the owner(s) of 16 VISTA LANE pursue arbitration or legal action to enforce this provision, the prevailing party will recover attorney's fees and costs. There will be no requirement to participate in mediation prior to pursuing arbitration or legal action with respect to this provision. 5. The term of this Easement will run with the land in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1460 through 1471, and are binding on the owners of 12 VISTA LANE and 16 VISTA LANE, all future owners of said properties, and their assignees, beneficiaries, trustees, successors, devisees, heirs and legatees. 6. In the event any disputes arise regarding any rights and obligations referenced in this Easement, with the exception of Section 5, the parties will first participate in mediation before a mutually -selected mediator. Mediation fees will be split equally between Grantors and Grantee, or their successors in interest. If a party refuses to participate in mediation, he or she will be precluded from recovering attorney's fees in the event further legal action is pursued. 7. Any dispute arising from this Agreement will be decided by neutral binding arbitration in accordance with CCP Section 1280 et. seq. A single arbitrator will be used, who will be selected mutually by the parties. Fees charged by the arbitrator will be split equally between Grantor and Grantee, or their successors in interest. The parties will have all discovery rights referenced in CCP Section 1283.05. 8. In the event any party hereto institutes binding arbitration to enforce any right or any obligation of any other party under this Agreement, after the mediation requirement has been satisfied or waived if applicable, the prevailing party in any such action shall be awarded its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 9. This is an agreement settling disputes between the parties hereto. Neither the transfer of any consideration or the doing of any acts referred to in this Easement shall be taken or construed to be an admission on the part of the parties hereto of any claims, demands, causes of action, obligatic- ,, or liabilities asserted by the other. 2 Date: b2mrrXm-' LLC (Grantor) By Alex Mortazavi, Principal of DENHAM, LLC Date: H91M INTERNATIONAL, LLC (Grantor) B Richard Tsao Date: Date: ARTHUR THOMAS (Grantee) EILEEN THOMAS (Grantee) Date: Date: DENHAM, LLC (Grantor) By Alex Mortazavi, Principal of DENHAM, LLC HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC (Grantor) By Richard Tsao Date: ARTHUR THOMAS (Grantee) Dater 7 2-011 EILEEN THOMAS (Grantee) 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of CaUainia County of c4w) OnNla-ch 11, 2011 before me, n (insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared '� who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the sWbscribed to the within instrument and acknowler1r9ssof(o d to me that is �i'/f*r authorized capacity(ii)(), and that by/th�ir sig person( �6, or the entity upon behalf of which the p acted, t whose namex&)K1 1,sy executed the same in on the instrument the I the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS m hand and official seal. KATK tNE M. IURAWSX1 Y Cmw*sW 0 1907310 Notary Pubk • CaNtomia $an Mallo County � � MComm. CEx Ina Oct e, 2014 _VA11— t 1 ��l-A..,�, Signature (Seal) ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Cali is � ) County of cxm - / Onk 1 1, 2-0[1 before me, 'Qi'lY�� "t �► 1�%1_ (insert name and title of the officer) ' personally appeared TscLo who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the scribed to the within instrument and acknowled ed to me that is /t r authorized capacity(�s), and that by is ��I`thKr sig person(or the entity upon behalf of which the person ) acted, whose nameN'zgao 1y executed the same in on the instrument the the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS m hand and official seal. KA VAR"" M. ZURAWSKI y CoauNaafon f 1901310 NENotary Public - California San Mateo County U Comm. Ea kaa Oct S 2011 Signature (Seal) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County o On a2L personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ir-fstwAhey executed the same in iriwl=/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hisPner/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. SAIV MAIARRO G COMM. 01882075 a Notary Public - California WITNE m h d and o1Ylcial seal. San Mateo Courrty ° Comm. 1. 2014+ Si of (Notary �) ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION DESS PTION OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT L/S Critic or dcscdpdon of attached document) der 7-0q3 - 12-0 (Title or deacription of anached docamem Numberof Paged Document Dalta � (Additional information) CAPACITY CLAIMED BY THE SIGNER ❑ Individual (s) ❑ Corporate Officer (rifle) ❑ Partner(s) 0 Attomey-in-Fact ❑ Trnstee(s) ❑ Other I 2008 Version CAPA v 12.10.07 800-873-9865 www.NotaryClesses.com INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM Any aekr ledgmew complete! to CatUbtrYa mrcar contain verbiage exactly as appears above in the nary scum or a aeparnta acknowledgment form must be properly completed amd r bcW in dot docrem The only exo mon is (( a document is to be rro ded made of Cdjkvnla In such datances, any alternative acknowledgment vw*kgt m any be printed am such a document so long as the verbiage does not rrprire dr eaa;P7 to do sum akmig that u Illegal for a notary in California (i.e. cer0hft er mdmriaed capacity of t4r signer). Please check the document carefuQyjor proper aonriol wordbg and attach this form 1f req iced • State and County inrnrrasuan wvw be the State cad County where tha document signer(s) personally appmad berfaa the notary public for acknowledgment. • Date of noWaittion must be be dare inn the signers) personally appeared which must also be the same date the ackiwMedgmerd is completed. • The notary pudic rr" rant his or her tame as it appears within his or her commission followed by a cowns and them your title (notary pubs ic). • Print the morels) of dxvrnw signa(s) who personally appear at the time of notarbation. • Indicate the carat singular err plum forms by crossing oho incorrect forms (i.e. irelsbehhey- is Ian ) or circling the correct forms. Failure to correctly indicate this information may lead o relection of downent recording. • The notary seal impression must be clear and phoographicaily reproducible. Impression must not raver tad of lines. If seal impression smudges, re -seal if a sufficient area pamih, odsraise complete a differtta acknowledgment form. • Signature of the notary public rtrnt match the signature on file with the office of the county clerk. * Additional crfanationn b not required but could help to ensure this acknowledgiom is not mbuscd or attadmd to a diffe rtat document- * Indicate tide at 97e daanachrd document, nranber of pages and date. 4 Indicate the capacity aa'vned by the signer. If the claimed capacity is a corporate officer, indicate the We (Le. CPA, CFO, Secretary). • Securely aaach this docatuab the signeddowsrtent LEGAL IMM 12 VISTA LANE, BURLINGAME, O. (Burdened Property) Parcel I of Parcel Map Volume 79, pages 56 and 57 as recorded in the official records of the Recorder's Office of the County of San Mateo, State of California APN: 027-093-320 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 16 VISTA LANE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA (Benefitted Property) The Southwesterly portion of Lot 12 in Block 4 as shown on that certain . map entitled `BURLINGAME HILLS NO.2, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA", filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Mateo County on August 23, 1926 in Book 14 of Maps at pages 18 and 19 APN: 027-093-120 EXHIBIT "B" EXHIBIT "C" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF EASEMIENI Real property situated in the City of Burlingame, San Mateo County, California, being a portion of Parcel 1 as shown on that certain Map entitled "Parcel Map, Lands of Denham, LLC and Hoya International, LLC" filed August 30, 2010 in Volume 79 of Parcel Maps at Pages 56 and 57 incluslye, San Mateo County Official Records, described as follows: Beginning at the most northerly comer of said Parcel 1; thence from said point of beginning south 55'04'00" east 51.00 feet along the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence departing the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1 south 61 °23'51" west 114.44 feet to a point along the northwesterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along the northwesterly line of said Parcel 1 north 34"56'00" east 102.45 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 2612 square feet, more or less. Reference Is hereby made to a plat showing the subject property and easement, Included herein as Exhibit "B". Prepared By: Dyian Gonsalves, PLS DMG Engineering, inc. October 15, 2010 EXHIBIT "C" T O� y EXHIBIT "D" of o PARCEL B �G``� 76 PM 78-79 S55'04'00"E vlsrA LAND f25' RIM 0 15 30 60 SCALE: 1 INCH = 30 FEET Gly ro VIEW CORRIDOR EASEMENT DMG ENGINEERING, INC. PARCEL 1, 79 PM 56-57 30 OAKVUE COURT LANDS OF DENHAM, LLC AND HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC PLEASANT HILL, CA 94523 BURUNGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY PHONE: 925-787-0463 SCALE: 1" = 30' OCTOBER 2010 FAX: 925-287-8503 EXHIBIT «D„ orn m, LOT AJWA: 1R Ytlw " f 1!lir ZR1/Yw N-Nzq TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY °""" 0=I VISTA LANE CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MA7EO COUNTY - CALIFORNIA .. AM- 1' . 10' w010-WO 2010 I a I' \ 7 �\ \ `� ,.0 �'� .,,�.. `• •`\ -r.a.' I LEGAL DESCRIPTION ' n, ♦PARCEL I \ 1 I I h,. I \• ! \ \ (79 PM 55) — r. , I a, 1 �— i I �— I I i yI I l �I 1 I I PARC£1. 2 t 1 na PAI 55J I I 1 1 r l! 1 y In. I e� t ...o I mo+uua. zw ✓n"o mirn rvm.ol r a ar. � A NOTES: l MIYw�wa .a.r rwa s i wi.wwrir� . wifi-imam SURVEYOR'S STAMU NT .s f,we ,wrr..n.ei.r w wwioi ai f• fa' �' ti K� N "'f6 I�tf 1i111 r� ��[ IwtiK IM �CIwM KM91u1t � � CPlausf II wawe. wQl. III ni raves Arborist Reports\Tree Evaluation 12 Vista Lane Kielty Arborist Services P.O. Box 6187 San Mateo, CA 94403 650-515-9783 January 29, 2015 Dreiling Terrones Architecture, INC Attn: Mr. Wayne Lin, LEED AP 1103 Juanita Avenue ' E a e 1 Burlingame, CA 94010 ? 9 'riff Site: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA OITY OF BURLING'.A' E Dear Mr. Lin, P1-ikNNINC As requested on Wednesday, January 21, 2015, I visited the above site to inspect and comment on the trees. A new home is planned for this site and your concern for the health and safety of the trees on site has prompted this visit. Method: All inspections were made from the ground; the tree was 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 height of the tree was measured using a Nikon Forestry 550 Hypsometer. The spread was paced off. Comments and recommendations for future maintenance are provided. 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA January 29, 2015 Photo of the group of three oaks that will be affected by the proposed construction. The two small oaks will be removed and the larger oak will be heavily trimmed. Survey: Tree# Species DBH CON HT/SP Comments 1 Coast live oak 9.7-8.3 45 25/20 Good vigor, poor form, leans south, (Quercus agrifolia) poor crotch at 2 feet. 2 Coast live oak 9.1-6.5 45 (Quercus agrifolia) 3 Coast live oak 17.7-17.0 (Quercus agrifolia) 15.7-12.7 underlined leaders will be removed. 25/20 Good vigor, poor form, suppressed by #3. 35/40 Good vigor, poor form, Multi leader at base. Multi leaders may be re -sprouts from a removed tree. Observations: The site has 3 multi leader live oaks together in a clump. The smaller tree # 1 and #2 are suppressed by the larger tree #3. The two oaks have poor form and will always be poorly shaped. Tree #3 appears to be sprouts from a removed oak approximately 25-40 years ago. The four trunks with a flat area between them is possible evidence of this. The site has had no grade changes and the root crown is well exposed. Debris has been stored at the base of this tree for some time. Two large leaders that will be removed to facilitate construction. The two smaller oaks in the background will also be removed. Summary: The proposed construction will require the removal of trees #1 and #2. The trees have poor form that cannot be corrected by trimming and the removal is warranted. The larger oak 43 has two large leaders that extend will into the foot print of the proposed house. The two leaders of 15.7 inches and 12.7 inches will have to be removed to facilitate the construction. The remaining two leaders will be lightened and thinned. The foundation for the home will be several feet from the trunk of the tree and root loss is KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 • TEL (650) 525-1464 • FAX (650) 525-1439 kkarborO476@yahoo.com -2- 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA January 29, 2015 expected to be minor to moderate. All excavation within the root zone of oak #3 will be done by hand and will be supervised by the site arborist. The proposed construction will require heavier than normal trimming for the live oak (50-60 percent of total canopy) and a permit will be required for this work. The tree will survive the trimming and the construction but will be slightly misshapen. The new building will shade the trunk helping to prevent sun scald on the exposed trunks. The tree should be inspected by an arborist regularly and maintained as needed. Powdery mildew and decay at the base are always a concern when heavier than normal trimming is carried out on a coast live oak. The retention of the oak will provide some screening for the neighbor to the northwest and should be visually appealing. The following tree protection plan will help to minimize impacts to the remaining tree. The base of oak #3. The tree appears to be sprouts form a tree cut to ground level years ago. The two trunks on the left will be removed to facilitate construction. Tree Protection Plan: Tree protection zones should be established and maintained throughout the entire length of the project. Fencing for protection zones should be 6 foot tall metal chain link type supported by steel pipes pounded into the ground. The location for protective fencing should be as close to the dripline as possible still allowing room for construction to safely continue. No equipment or materials should be stored or cleaned inside protection zones. 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 irrigation or fertilizing at that time. 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 for irrigation, electrical, drainage or any other reason, should be hand dug when beneath the dripline of desired trees. Hand digging and careful placement of pipes below or beside protected roots will dramatically reduce root loss, thus reducing trauma to desired trees. Trenches should be back filled as soon as possible using native materials and compacted to near original levels. Trenches to be left open with exposed roots shall be covered with burlap and kept moist. Plywood laid over the trench will help to protect roots below. HIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 • TEL (650) 525-1464 • FAX (650) 525-1439 kkarbor047601yahoo. com -3- 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA January 29, 2015 Normal irrigation should be maintained throughout the entire length of the project. The native oaks on site should need no additional irrigation unless root zone is traumatized. If the root zones are damaged irrigation should consist of surface flooding, with enough water to wet the entire root zone. If the root zone is traumatized this type of irrigation should be carried out two times per month during the warm dry season. The oak tree #2 should be fertilized with a total of 250 gallons of 22-14-14 two weeks prior to the start of construction. 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, r / Kevin R Kielty Certified Arborist WE40476A So*\E1Y OF qqB KI Err i 41 LU No W�pepA m 1 -k, � �FATIFIED IQELTY ARBOR19F SERVICES P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 • TEL (650) 525-1464 • FAX (650) 525-1439 kkarbor047 6nvahoo. com A w ,.t n1 CITY O Tree Location: 12 Vista Lane Date: September 30, 2014 ?0{p CITY OF BURLINGAME TREE EVALUATION bUFLINGAME _,,-•.NNING DIV, Person Reporting: Bob Disco Details of Tree: Genus: Quercus Species: agrifolia Common Name: Coast Live Oak Background: Title: Park Supervisor/City Arborist Mayne Report: April 30, 2014 Remove Trees #2,3 since they are in the footprint of new house. Tree #1 Remove 2 stems and significantly prune one other to accommodate new home Use pier and grand construction for foundation around oak #1 Levison Report: September 18, 2014 Visually inspected from 12 Vista Lane 50-60% of canopy will be removed for new home. Beyond allowable pruning standards An additional 4-5 ft corridor will be required for scaffolding work on exterior of home. Pervious paving will damage roots down to 18" Solar impacts on tree #1 will occur and eventually tree will decline. Discussion: The initial arborist report written by Mayne Tree Co. on April 30, 2014 for the construction of the project identified three Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oaks, on the site that will be impacted by the construction. Mayne required pier and grade foundation for root preservation. The Mayne report indicated that tree #2 and 3 are within the footprint of the house and should be removed. (Ch 11.06.060 (c) indicates removal of protected trees within the footprint of approved construction). Tree #1 required the removal of 2 large stems and the significant pruning of one other stem to accommodate the building. Mayne report believed the tree should survive with minimum stress. The Levison Report on Sept. 18, 2014 was a visual inspection from a distance. Levison's impression was that 50-60% of the canopy of tree #1 will be removed and additional limbs will be removed to accommodate scaffolding for construction. Levison is concerned about the installation of the permeable pavers beneath the tree and the damage that will occur to the roots during installation. He is also concerned that the new building will significantly reduce any "solar access to the canopy" resulting in a decline of the tree over time. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME TREE EVALUATION Both reports are reasonable. Removal of tree #2, 3 is appropriate since they are in the footprint of the new house. Levison is accurate about loss of limbs, potential root loss and reduced solar exposure. Unless the structure was to be completely redesigned away from the tree, an effort to preserve tree #1 should be made as an alternative to removal. Following Maynes report regarding pruning and pier and grade foundation along with Leviton's concerns with root loss seems like a reasonable approach. A complete re-evaluation of the landscape plan surrounding this tree may be necessary to come up with alternatives to pruning, paving (DG), scaffolding, foundation, future remedial work and an appropriate tree protection zone. I would also consider a third arborist report to evaluate this tree with respect to the Mayne and Levison reports, and with regards to future landscape and foundation installation. It may be necessary to remove oak trees #2, 3 to better assess the structure of tree #1, but all parties should be in agreement before this happens. 2 Captain and Mrs. Arthur J. Thomas 16 Vista Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: 650-343-4479 Fax:650-343-0479 Email slbpthomasriraoLao September 22, 2014 William Meeker Community Development Director City of Burlingame, CA 94010 (wmeeker(_& Burl inaame. orl;) Re: Proposed construction at 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Meeker: My wife and I are opposed to the now withdrawn proposed construction at 12 Vista Lane. We wrote our objections to the Planning Commission before the temporary withdrawal of the project by Planning Commission member Mr. Richard Terrones. Attached is a copy of the report by Mr. Walter Levison, a registered and certified Consulting Arborist, regarding the large live oak tree on 12 Vista Lane. This report substantiates our concern that the proposed amputation of 60% of the limbs of the oak, plus additional trimming of another four feet of branches, will result in death of the tree, with resultant rotting of the roots and soil subsidence. By copy of this, we insist that the City arborist, Mr. Robert Disco, carefully review the proposal. Sincerely, Arthur J. Tho Attachment (1) Cc: Lisa Goldman, City Manager, Kay Kane, City Attorney, Robert Disco, City Arborist RECEIVED 5EP 2 6 2014 CIT't OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV 0 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Assessment of One (1) Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) at 12 Vista Lane Burlingame, California Prepared at the Request of: Art and Eileen Thomas, Property Owners 16 Vista Lane (adjoining property) Site Visit: Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) 9/12/2014 Report: WLCA 9/18/2014 RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 1 of 10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Version: 9/1812014 Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtreeO-sbcolobal.net , 0 Walter Levison 0 CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborst #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 1.0 Background and Assignment 2.0 Tree Data / Discussion 3.0 Site Plan / Discussion 4.0 Conclusion 5.0 Recommendations 6.0 Consultant's Qualifications 7.0 Bay Area Vendors 8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 9.0 Certification 10.0 Photographs 2of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Version: 911812014 Wafter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree0sbcglobal.net 3 3 3 5 7 8 9 9 10 0 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arbonst #WC-3172 1.0 Background and Assignment Walter Levison (WLCA) was requested by the neighboring property owners Art and Eileen Thomas of 16 Vista Lane to visually assess and comment in writing on the existing health and structure of one coast live oak specimen to be retained at 12 Vista Lane, and comment on the tree's prognosis, assuming that a site plan project is built out as proposed on the 12 Vista Lane property in very close proximity to the subject tree trunk. WLCA visually assessed the tree from afar looking in from 16 Vista Lane, and reviewed a site plan sheet (sheet A1.1) for the proposed 12 Vista Lane project, dated 7/3/2014 by the architecture firm DTA. The following report includes digital images of the tree, and initial limited suggestions for maintenance and protection based on arboriculture best management practices as well as on the author's 16 years of professional experience working with residential construction near trees. 2.0- Tree Data / Discussion The subject oak is a coast live oak with multiple codominant mainstems appearing to measuring approximately 30", 30", 25", and 25" in diameter each (see images). The mainstems appear to have included bark due to narrow attachment angles, though this could not be confirmed due to my assessment location far from the tree. These could limit the tree's stability, and may need to be dealt with in a separate analysis. The base of trunk appears to be covered by at least 12" to 24" depth of old fill soil which may or may not have caused anaerobic soil conditions at the root crown/buttress roots/lower trunk areas of the tree. The base of trunk needs to be kept at original grade level, as native oaks are very sensitive to fill which often causes fungal pathogen advancement into the bark and trunk and root tissues, resulting in decline and/or premature death of the tree. This tree has a height of approximately 30 feet and a canopy spread of approximately 25 feet north, 30 feet south, 20 feet east, and 20 feet west. These distances were not verified, due to WLCA reviewing the tree from afar. On scales from zero to 100% each, the subject rates out with a health of 90%, and a structure of 60%, for an overall condition rating of 78% or "good", estimated without having observed the root crown and fill soil situation close up. This tree exhibits very good live twig density and live twig extension, but overall condition is downgraded in the assumption that there may be root crown issues related to the presence of fill soil. 3.0 Site Plan / Discussion The proposed site plan reviewed by WLCA appears to require removal of approximately 50% to 60% of the existing above ground live biomass (twigs, foliage, limbs) of the subject tree in order to clear both the residence footprint and a corridor of 4 to 5 horizontal feet around that footprint to account for scaffolding required to finish the exterior portions of the footprint that face the tree in an L-shaped pattern. This percentage of biomass loss is far in excess of that allowable under ANSI -A300 pruning companion guide' which recommends that no more than 25% of live crown be removed in a single year. Gilman, Ed, and Lilly, Sharon. 2002. Best Management Practices / Tree Pruning. Companion Guide to the .ANSI A300 Part I Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — Standard Practices, Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture. Champail-n, IL. 3of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Version: 9/18/2014 Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtreeesbcglobal_net 0 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST Ica 01Ialified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WC-317� I did note that approximately ten branches measuring 1" to 5" each have already been removed from the tree canopy, prior to any site work being approved by the City (see images). In addition to this above -ground biomass loss which in itself is considered "severe" or "extreme", there will be root loss associated with site work related to foundation footings, pool surround, and "pervious paving". The combination of above and below -ground impacts will are beyond severe, and may be considered "extreme", and are grounds for removal of the tree, as the tree will decline and probably die prematurely due to the combination of various construction -related impacts that are expected to occur. WLCA cannot comment on the design of the pervious paving as shown on the proposed site plan sheet, as WLCA has not reviewed side cut details of this work which would show actual depths of cut for baserock base sections (if any) associated with the pervious paving. Typical pervious paving requires standard over -excavation associated with base rock base section development which can be as much as 12 to 24" below the surfacing blocks or surface treatments, in addition to the cuts required for the surface material thickness itself. This means that 6 a base section is proposed for the "pervious pavement", the total excavation cut below existing grade elevations could be as much as 18 to 24" below grade. If "grade" is considered to be the existing fill soil pad grade elevation, then this may not be an extreme cut. However, if the existing fill soil is to be removed and "grade" means the elevation of the original soil that may be 12 to 24" below the existing soil fill pad grade, then the impact of laying a new "pervious pavement" could be severe or extreme in terms of root loss and/or root damage to the subject tree's root system. Remember that trees often extend lateral roots at least 3x to 5x the canopy dripline distance in terms of radius from trunk 2. Coast Live Oak Roots Typical root growth of a coast live oak in bay area clay based soils includes lateral rooting mainly throughout the uppermost 18" of the soil profiile3, plus deeper oblique roots and vertical tapping type roots spaced periodically throughout the lateral root system. This means that an excavation cut of 18" below original grade for placement of a surface paver and base section system could sever the entire root system of the tree. Again, this depends on whether "grade" means the elevation of the existing fill soil pad, or whether it refers to the original soil surface elevation that may be 12 to 24" below the fill soil pad. Roots in Fill Soil Root systems growing laterally through original soil that are then covered with fill soil, often start to grow fine roots vertically upward into the fill pad 4. This means that in some cases, fill soil can contain roots that are important to a tree. However, overall, the highest benefit to the subject tree would be achieved if the fill soil pad were to be removed using a supersonic Airspade air excavation system operated by an experienced ISA Certified Arborist or ASCA registered consulting arborist such as Roy Leggitt of Tree Management Experts, San Francisco, CA The most important area of fill soil to remove would be the area between the subject tree trunk edges and approximately 5 feet radius out from trunk edges. This area once excavated could be kept free of fill soil through use of a tree well. Tree wells can be made by usinc, dry stack field stones, pressure treated wood boards, or other means. Care must be taken not to use linear foundation footings that require excavation below original soil grade elevations when creating a tree well, as any continuous footing would necessary have a significant negative effect on the root system of the tree that we are trying to retain and preserve. '- Various scientific studies 3 Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture. 4'1' Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NI. " Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (professional experience). 4af10 Version: 9/1812014 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree(c sbcalobal.net 0 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Sunlight The proposed residence massing will be located around the south side of the tree, which will effectively block solar access to the canopy, resulting in loss of photosynthesis, and likely decline due to lack of starch production capability by the tree. 4.0 Conclusion The subject tree is a native coast live oak in good overall condition which will be severely impacted by proposed site work at 12 Vista Lane, if the site plan is built out as proposed on the sheet reviewed by WLCA. Impacts to the above ground canopy and below ground root system may both be "severe" or "extreme", depending on whether the existing fill soil pad is to remain and is considered "grade", and at what elevation the pervious pavement sections are to be built. Impacts will also depend on whether the pervious pavement areas are to be built with or without a base section which would require very significant over -excavation. Construction as currently proposed will likely cause premature decline of the tree, and possibly premature death after a number of years of decline. Solar access to the canopy will be limited by new multi -story construction on the south side of the canopy, resulting in significant decline in photosynthesis and thereby starch production by the tree, which equates to a loss in ability to maintain normal function, and a decline in health and structure over time (see images below in this report). 5.0 Recommendations 1. PLAN ADJUSTMENTS: i. Footprint: Adjust the proposed site plan to allow for preservation of at least 75% of the canopy of the subject tree. Account for a 5-foot wide construction corridor for scaffolding, when calculating the residence footprint buildout. Pervious Pavement: Verify that pervious pavement as proposed on the plan set is to be installed with a maximum excavation cut of 6" below fill soil pad elevation, with no over -excavation for base rock base section installation. If the fill soil pad is to be removed, then place the pervious pavement over original soil grade elevations with zero excavation below those elevations. Take extreme precautions when removing the fill soil pad, to avoid soil compaction (arborist monitor required, limit machinery weights and types to the smallest possible Bobcat with rubber tracks or equivalent, etc.). iii. Airspade: Consider retaining a qualified Airspade air excavation system operator such as Tree Management Experts of San Francisco, to perform excavation via air wand to the area between the subject tree trunk edges and at least 5 feet or more radius out from trunk edges. iv. Tree Well: If the areas nearest the trunk are excavated via Airspade, then that area should be protected as original grade root system by installing a minimal impact type tree well of dry stack field stones with no base section excavation. 5of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Version: 9/18/2014 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtreena sbcglobal.net 0 Walter Levison 0 CONSULTING ARBORIST `. ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborst #WC-3172 2. TRUNK BUFFER WRAP: Wrap the lowermost 8 feet of tree trunk(s) of all trees being retained, with an entire roll of orange plastic snow fencing (any grade). Overlay the plastic padding with 2X4 wood boards placed vertically, side by side, to create a secondary barrier to physical trunk damage. Secure the buffer wrap with duct tape. (See image at right). 3. PRUNING: Retain a vendor listed in section 6.0 of this report All pruning shall be performed in a manner consistent with ANSI A300 standards for woody plant maintenance, under direct site guidance by an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 25% of the subject tree shall be pruned in a single year. The second year, no more than 10% of the remaining canopy shall be pruned. All pruning cuts shall be "three step cuts" per ANSI -A300 4. PROJECT ARBORIST: Assign a project arborist or "PA" to this project. Retain him/her on a periodic basis to perform inspections, signoff letters, soil moisture monitoring, and guidance for pruning, root pruning, protection, monitoring of all excavation work within 25 feet of the tree trunk edges, and assessment of the root crown after Airspade air excavation. 5. PROPS: Install steel support props if necessary, if the project arborist concludes that the tree exhibits bark inclusions of such severity that supports are warranted. These props can be designed, built, and installed by Advanced Tree Care of Redwood City. See sample image at right. 6of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Version: 9/18/2014 Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arbodsts and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtreerrasbcolebal.net 0 Walter Levison ; 0 CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 6.0 Consultant's Qualifications ❑ Review Team, Landscape Construction Specifications & Side Cut Details for Landscape Architects CALFIRE Grant, 2013 ❑ Contract Project Arborist, Hetch Hetchy Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 10/10-present ❑ ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ❑ ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Course, Palo Alto, CA. 2013 ❑ PMN-ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor Course graduate, 2009 Vancouver, B.C., Canada ❑ ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist (RCA) #401 ❑ Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board) 2001-2006 ❑ ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000 ❑ ISA Certified Arborist (CA) #WC-3172 ❑ B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, Caflfornia 1990 ❑ Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993 ❑ Associate Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate and Associates 4/99-8/99 ❑ Contract City Arborist to the City of Belmont Department of Planning and Community Development 5/99-present ❑ Continued education through attendance of arboriculture lectures and forums sponsored by The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and various governmental and non -governmental entities. (My full curriculum vitae is available upon request) 7of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Version: 9/18/2014 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the Intemational Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree0sbcalobal.net n JWalter Levison �� CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 7.0 Bay Area Vendors Service Company What they offer Contact Transplanting Tree Movers Inc. Large specimen trees, transplant 650-968-6117 services. Valley Crest Tree Co. tree Large specimen trees, transplant 818-223-8500 moving division services. Pruning, root crown excavation, Pruning Advanced Tree Care fertilization, tree installation, support systems for high risk trees, SOD 650-839-9539 phosphate sprays. Maguire Tree Care Pruning performed directly by an ISA 650-245-2620 Certified Arborist Pruning performed directly by an ISA Trees 360 Certified Arborist 408-866-1010 (upon request). Pruning of very high quality if Commercial Tree Care request ISA Certified Arborist Joe 408-985-TREE Nama to directly monitor pruning work. 650-326 -0406 The Shady Tree Co. High quality pruning. www.theshadvtreecomecom oany.com Special Tree Sources Specialty Oaks Lower Lake, CA California native oak species www.soecialtvoaks.com Various oaks and hybrid elms. Only local purveyor of hard to find Italian vA,4w.oracleoaknurserv.com Oracle Oak Nursery oak (Q. frainetto'Forest Green') Can import rare oaks such as the fantastic 'Forest Green' Hungarian Sweet Lane Wholesale Nursery oak, from Oregon growers. www.sweetianenursery.com Santa Rosa, CA Also may be able to request the excellent Cathedral live oak Quercus vi iniana'Cathedral' Current local source of the rare 'Roberts' sycamore: a cultivar of htto:/fwww.lecooke.comlcros/contact- deciduous California sycamore that le-cooke.html LE. Cooke Nursery is reported to be resistant to both powdery mildew and sycamore Visalia, CA anthracnose, while exhibiting fast upright growth appropriate for urban landscape conditions. (The above sources have been known to provide high -quality arboriculture services in the past. They are not guaranteed or endorsed by the author.) 8of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Version: 911812014 Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member. American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree*sbcglobal.net 0 Walter Levison 0 CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appmiser is assumed to be connect Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. Al data has been verified insofar as possible: however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultantlappraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom It Is aooresseo, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser- Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant'slappraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a speed value, a stipulated result th"ccurrence of a subsequent event nor upon any finding to be reported - Sketches, drawings, andphotographsin this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were exaoened and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection: and the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arbonst Disclosure Statement Arbonsts are tree specialists who use their education, know ledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist or to seek additional advice. Arbonsts cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organism that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of fire. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arbonst's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arbonsts cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arbonst should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees 9.0 Certification 1 hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant 9of10 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Version: 9/18/2014 Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree(a)sbcolobal.net 0��) Walter Levison; CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist 41NC-3172 10.0 Photographs Subject tree canopy as viewed from the neighboring property, prior to construction. Approximately ten branches ranging in diameter from 1" to 5" each have already been removed, using random internodal cuts and leaving stubs in the tree. 10 of 10 The subject tree as viewed from Vista Lane, showing the massing of the proposed residence that will be on the south side of the tree, blocking sunlight access to the canopy, resulting in loss of photosynthetic capability. Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Version: 9/1812014 Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree(a)sbcolobal.net �''�: DECEIVE D BY DA5 1 �J1`� T. E Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO. 276793 CERTIFIED FORESTER CERTIFIED ARBORISTS • PEST CONTROL • ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L. HUNTINGTON PRESIDENT JEROMEY INGALLS CONSULTANT/ESTIMATOR Mr. Wayne Lin Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. 1130 Juanita Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Lin, RE: 12 VISTA LANE, BURLINGAME 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A SAN CARLOS. CA 94070-6311 TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 April 30, 2014 EMAIL: info@maynetree.com EC"FIVER if A` - 6 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. At your request, I visited the above site on April 23, 2014. The purpose of my visit was to identify, inspect, and comment on the trees located on the site. Included in this report is a plan review and tree protection plan for a proposed construction project. Limitations of this report This report is based on a visual -only inspection that took place at ground level. I accept no responsibility for any unknown or any unseen defects associated with the trees on this site. Method Each tree on this report is given an identification number, which is scribed on to a metal foil tag and placed at eye level on the trunk of the tree. This number is also placed on the provided site map to show the approximate location of the trees on the property. The diameter for each tree was found by measuring the trunk of the tree at fifty-four inches off of the natural grade as described in the Burlingame Heritage Tree Ordinance. The height and canopy spread has been estimated for each tree to show their approximate dimensions. Each tree was given a condition rating; this rating is based on form and vitality and can be further defined by the following table: 0 — 29 Very Poor 30 — 49 Poor 50 — 69 Fair 70 — 89 Good 90 — 100 Excellent Lastly, a comments section has been provided to give more individual detail about the trees. 12 Vista Ln., Burlingame 2 April 30, 2014 Tree Survey Tree Species Diameter Condition Height Spread Comments # (Common) (inches) (percent) (feet) (feet) 1 Coast Live 17.7, 16.8, 55 20 45 Four -stem at base with a cavity in Oak 15.6, 13.4 the middle of main attachment; root crown covered; thick healthy canopy with interior deadwood; included bark between the two southeast leaning stems. 2 Coast Live 8.9, 6.3 50 20 24 Two -stem at 1 foot; root crown Oak covered; canopy leans significantly to the southwest; abundance of interior deadwood; poor form and good vigor. 3 Coast Live 9.8, 6.5, 50 20 21 Three -stems at the base; Oak 3.0, 8.3 codominant at 2 feet; root crown covered; canopy leans significantly to the southwest; abundance of interior deadwood. Observations All three trees on this property are located in a small valley in the middle of the property. There is a substantial amount of construction materials under the canopy of the trees at present. Tree #1 is a four -stem Coast Live Oak located in the middle of the property. The 4 stems of this tree lean away from the center at their main attachment. This type of growth has created a small cavity between the stems that accumulates leaf litter and other organic material. Periodic removal of this gathering material will decrease the potential for fungal attacks to occur. There is a moderate amount of interior deadwood in the canopy and excess end weight on the lateral limbs. Tree #2 is a two -stem Coast Live Oak whose growth has been suppressed by the large tree #1. This situation has caused the tree to grow to the southwest in a search for sunlight. There is an abundance of interior deadwood present and the root crown of this tree is covered. Tree #3 is a multiple stem Coast Live Oak located very near tree #2. The canopy of tree #1 also suppresses this tree, which has caused most of this tree's canopy to grow towards the southwest. Leaf litter and other organic material cover the root crown of this tree and there is an abundance of interior deadwood. Routine maintenance of all three trees is recommended. This maintenance should include root crown excavation, deadwood removal, and end weight reduction. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at my office. 12 Vista Ln., Burlingame 3 April 30, 2014 Proposed Construction Plan Review and Tree Protection Plan On April 23, 2014, 1 reviewed the proposed construction plans for the above site. During my review, I found that the proposed project will include the construction of a two-story dwelling that will surround tree #1 and trees #2 and #3 will be within the footprint of the home and will need to be removed prior to beginning the construction project. In addition to the removal of the two trees, two stems of tree #1 will need to be removed and one stem will need to be significantly pruned to accommodate the proposed building. The removal of the 2 southeast -leaning stems and the pruning of the stem to the southwest should increase circulation to the remaining canopy and potentially increase its vigor. In summary, I believe this remaining portion of the tree should survive with minimal stress. I recommend the foundation nearest to tree #1 consist of a pier -and -grade beam -type foundation. This type of foundation will have the least impact on tree #1's root zone. Due to the unusual grade around the perimeter of tree #1, great care should be taken not to backfill, cut, or significantly change large portions of this tree's root zone. All tree work performed, as a result of this report, should be done by a qualified licensed tree care professional. Tree Protection Specifications 1. A protective barrier of 6-foot chain link fencing shall be installed around the dripline of protected tree(s). The fencing can be moved within the dripline if authorized by the Project Arborist or the City Arborist, but not closer than 2 feet from the trunk of any tree. Fence posts shall be 1.5 inches in diameter and are to be driven 2 feet into the ground. The distance between posts shall not be more than 10 feet. This enclosed area is the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). 2. Movable barriers of chain link fencing secured to cement blocks can be substituted for "fixed" fencing if the Project Arborist and City Arborist agree that the fencing will have to be moved to accommodate certain phases of construction. The builder may not move the fence without authorization from the Project Arborist or City Arborist. 3. Avoid the following conditions. DO NOT: a. Allow runoff or spillage of damaging materials into the area below any tree canopy. b. Store materials, stockpile soil, or park or drive vehicles within the TPZ. c. Cut, break, skin, or bruise roots, branches, or trunks without first obtaining authorization from the City Arborist. d. Allow fires under and adjacent to trees. e. Discharge exhaust into foliage. f. Secure cable, chain, or rope to trees or shrubs. g. Trench, dig, or otherwise excavate within the dripline or TPZ of the tree(s) without first obtaining authorization from the City Arborist. h. Apply soil sterilants under pavement near existing trees. 12 Vista Ln., Burlingame 4 April 30, 2014 4. Only excavation by hand or compressed air shall be allowed within the driplines of trees. Machine trenching shall not be allowed. 5. Avoid injury to tree roots. When a ditching machine, which is being used outside of the dripline of trees, encounters roots smaller than 2 inches, the wall of the trench adjacent to the trees shall be hand trimmed, making clear, clean cuts through the roots. All damaged, torn, and cut roots shall be given a clean cut to remove ragged edges, which promote decay. Trenches shall be filled within 24 hours, but, where this is not possible, the side of the trench adjacent to the trees shall be kept shaded with four layers of dampened, untreated burlap, wetted as frequently as necessary to keep the burlap wet. Roots 2 inches or larger, when encountered, shall be reported immediately to the Project Arborist, who will decide whether the Contractor may cut the root as mentioned above or shall excavate by hand or with compressed air under the root. The root is to be protected with dampened burlap. 6. Route pipes outside of the area that is 10 times the diameter of a protected tree to avoid conflict with roots. 7. Where it is not possible to reroute pipes or trenches, the contractor shall bore beneath the dripline of the tree. The boring shall take place not less than 3 feet below the surface of the soil in order to avoid encountering "feeder" roots. 8. Any damage due to construction activities shall be reported to the Project Arborist or City Arborist within six hours so that remedial action can be taken. Sincerely, Jeromey A Ingalls Certified Ar orist WE #7076A JAI: pmd 12 Vista Ln., Burlingame 5 April 30, 2014 7M &SWM 3MMM Twm StWNIVI-70 NX j � z � . j�ƒ� \ 6 \ | q , � \\,��y. ƒ \ \ \ ; �\ \��\ ��}§� � . /�R � � f �� )� �� . /� ^ \ ] cq N "`�f� roc.' is Awr, � wv s Letters Submitted by Public 12 Vista Lane 03.09.15 PC Meeting Item #10a 12 Vista Lane Page 1 of 1 Captain and Mrs. Arthur J. Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame. CA 94010 Thomas Burlingame, CA 94010 March 9, 2015 Re: Proposed 12 Vista Lane Project Gentlemen: COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT Tel' Fax: E-mai RECEIVED MAR 9 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD — PLANNING DIV. My wife Eileen and I have been the owners of the home at - Vista Lane since May, 1973, and have resided there continuously since then. We most strongly object to the proposed project, as presented for the following reasons: Not enforcing District Regulations, 25.27.075, Declining height envelope. This regulation requires compliance, with only three exceptions, as spelled out in the regulation. None apply in this case. The overwhelming mass that is presented by not following the regulation takes away from our air and light, and will create an almost permanent "shadow" area against our home, patios and driveway. The effect on our property value will be very adverse. Following the declining height envelope will NOT greatly alter the design of the proposed building, and can be easily corrected. The heritage oak tree is again under assault. The proposal is to remove two of the major vertical limbs, and again prune back the foliage and large branches which are in way of the construction. The arborist report that we previously submitted clearly indicated that such actions will cause the tree to decline and die. The intrusion of the foundation pilings every five feet will interfere with the roots of -,die oak, and as they die will cause the soil to subside. Using a licensed arborist to perform the pruning and decimation of the tree is akin to having a physician administer poison to a human patient after performing multiple amputations. We reserve the right to further object to matters which we have not commented on here, but have presented to the Planning commission in prior correspondence on the matter of 12 Vista Lane. Sincerely, Arthur J. Thomas Eileen A. Thomas August 8, 2014 2874 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED Planning Commission A U G 11 2014 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY BUR IN t7 VE Re: 12 Vista Lane Dear Commissioners, This is to express my objections to the proposed project at 12 Vista Lane. It is, in its present form, the urban San Francisco loft -like residence of Hillsborough size being squeezed onto the smallest lot in this Burlingame neighborhood. The plans are in need of rethinking. My objections are as follows, Size of the house The square footage for the proposed structure is at least 150 % larger than the average square footage of all the houses adjacent to Vista Lane. It would be the largest residence on one of the smallest lots. It's too big for Vista Lane. The jarring visual effect of the proposed building's size is exacerbated by its close proximity to the road. Height of the house The project is too high. It wipes out my views in particular and some of the adjacent properties'. It diminishes the value of my property. It destroys privacy for surrounding properties. The balconies and parapets, easily converted into the observation decks, will stare right into my entire backyard. The same is most likely true for the rest of the neighbors including 8 Vista Lane. The style of the project The modernity of the style with its hard edges adds to visual bulk of the project. It stands out rather than fits in with the surroundings. There are 3 traditional style and 6 Mediterranean style homes on Vista Lane. It is out of the style of adjacent homes and looks very ugly and distasteful. Height and size of the garage The garage is close to the street and unusually large. It seems to be able to hold 4 to 6 cars should special car lifts be installed. This number of cars will add so much to the congestion on rather narrow lane. Such a dense design reveals expectation of many more cars for this lane. Parapets The parapets proposed on the garage and the house itself add to the height and visual heft of the structure blocking views from my windows even further. These are, as I understand, purely ornamental, designed to break up the monolithic style. In addition, I am concerned about possible use of the roof as observation decks. This is more potential for my privacy destruction. Fire hydrant The proposed fire hydrant relocation farther down Vista Lane positons it in one of the narrowest points on the road. It should stay on the current property. The property was bought with the hydrant on, it is reasonable for the hydrant to stay on the same property. Past History No objections were presented for the building of a 3,000+ square foot residence at 8 Vista Lane largely because the size and the positioning of the house was precisely what was presented to the community and the commission at the time of the hearings to split the larger lot into 8 and 12 Vista Lane. Though not explicit, an expectation in neighborhood has been for the proposed project to be of similar footprint to 8 Vista Lane. It feels very much like bait and switch at the moment. Attached are the renderings of what had been circulated. Sp. Ft Sq. FT Vista In, Hillside per per Dr or Adeline Zillow Trulia 2874 2760 2260 11 1850 1850 15 3613 3613 19 3240 3240 23 2250 2250 2855 2080 2080 24 4080 4080 20 3190 2790 16 2500 2500 8 3445 3445 2866 1720 1720 average 2793.45 2711.64 12 vista In 4357 4357 156% 161% ABM ML s� .` f - s _w a .. ;. .-, - -... .,�.. '•... L>ia�lr mac_-.`.�. ,r.,..,..^ �-� • �.� 4 �� J.. • �� : _ 'Pik" _ t � Y I. I OWNER AND -SUBDIViDER- �A cy DENHAM LLC & HOYA INT., LLC I D I UN/NCORPORA TED I SAN /V/A iEO COUNTY I / / 885511 BURLWAY, SUITE 710 BURLINGAME, AS a A.P.H. 0277=03=920 o TEL(650)579-4994 's I OaNn1Ga� I L AHDD�'. F DDC�MC;IAM IL�c� I !?LA s� InC FOUND 3 4' IRO a q1�9 r� s > Ll ZONING R-1 yt 9 1� S f " PIPE WITH PLASTI \ I FOUND°3 4' IRON e1 PLUG TACK I IN PLASDC ,_� 9° cITrICouNTr �''90 I 76•65a ~ y 'LS 5304 PLUG AND TQ`CK, a L/�T Lf( �� ,Q ❑, ' �09 yD�, S34� 6lgevv CHAINLINK ENCE •�- - - eos.-S 190. -, 176.�2_x� "'UT '- :r- ORARY s BB. 0' 10245' x�l GAS: PG & E y `�? p ifl SSEEWCER�. G: CI & E URLINGA P OF FlRE - - -- -- --- -- ----------------- -- .T----- -- --- ----- ---- - --- *6 FO E B ME -- -- p� In of YDRANT ELEV. I s .� ------ eti $ '� ♦ TELEPHONE-. AT & T _ CABLE TV, COMCAST s 18.01 ASSUM f ST 5' WIDE "> `T e ( - �:� 211.95 I I 2 a .� OF E, FlRE PROTECTION: CITY OF BURUNGAME 1 s _ 5':: B I 9° /-� - .. I •' 'LS 530 ' WATER: CITY OF BURUNGAME ` 4 I s y •41 _ ,: 211.7 I I Ja/ . ��? PER 7 \ 78 9 g1d • - I I 00 o k , GARAGE l i ;f c1� t >°' � 'm �' LAND SURVEYOR d ' t't • toy. - TR I °✓ PROPOSE DRAIN I f pP/ P TO TOYED REE BY ''?:s I k AND CIVIL ENGINEER; r I 051T3 " :s `f¢ _ 211 I I a'� r+ RBORf' F'AL 1 `� i _ ,SOY MacLEOD AND ASSOCIATES .I 216.3 N •.' R- >272.J' ;,`' ',1 •�q y-Le 965 CENTER STRUT "m G p F 10 � � S. � � `1 SAN CAR593-8 CA. 94070 , \ 1186 z� S LE I -SE I r- c F r Z 27 2� i OTPRI T"• �> f M1 R = P. C 1@l 216.0 \ 09 U "� Ew 4' SEWER ' a OO DE G' L � / Vvrr I J '454-0" __ _s _�_ ��53456'00' 193.83 __ __�_ /j O LATERAL �_ m 3 13 _ __ �_��_ ��_ 1 I ( ATE ey i t oJ,93>ty \ W � 1 o I \VvJ 22 . ,216.0 •:. 5.5,.r SLAB b S �°e �''o VALLEY toy.'. CaARAGE I t71�nJ1 DRAINH I j PROPOSE I Irn 216.351 I I ' 1 PARCEL P® SIRL.E H' LWE ' PARCEL I P DE FOR iH� `:• N�'_ ..7� y' - ------ � EFl OF ARC -1 22 FOOTPRI� ti�°g' 10,575 *— .F. a �� c JI NEW 6' ST RM R M11 TOP F WATER F I 8 K TOB m I t _ � D O]SHED. f N ry� R AINDER OF �� '4t '°� FO D 3 4' 1 N , K TO BE FLLEO . L ( 1? TH SOIL � 1 / �y g( I I12, PI E WI P TIC ( ' ,�{• I NEW SEWER , SS I 1PUG D T CK ryn' LA I I- S 04' n� /r �/ A c'y CHAIN NK FENCE I �� x I 1401 CITY 1 F "IiM e`', SS SS 55 N 34'56'OD' E '.+ /' 193$3 f . PEN WITH P IRON 3 I O. "W59' E P �` / �' ` p g�� '� EXIST. AND PSDE' .. LUG AND TAC �'e ;-S 3451' I •Oq NEW 6' SEWER +• -":'� . i �!. .'I GRAPHIC SCALE A.P.M. O27=�90003 �LMCORPORATED SAN MATEO COUNTY 1 LATERAL . " LANDS OF FULLEGViIG^QN A WARREN LEGEND: EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT CONC. CONCRETE CO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT - Jp JOINT POLE EB ELECTRIC BOX PSSE PRIVATE SANITARY • SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE SEWER EASEMENT G.B. GRADE BREAK PSDE PRIVATE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT . TW TOP OF WALL TIN TOP OF WALL TREE . NEW CONTOUR xF-EOj ^mo HYDRANT INV. INVERT WATER METER . WWVM pa WATER VALVE — E— ELECTRIC UNE --G— GAS LINE REVISION NO . DESCRIPTION ORAVJN BY CNEQ® BY APPROVED BY GATE VESTING TENTATIVE & FINAL PARCEL MAP BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 'A" PER PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 76; PAGES 76 & 79, RECORDS OF SAN•MATEO COUNTY. CITY OF BURUNGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CAUFORNIA PREPARED FOR: D€N4AM LLC HAcLEOD Alm.0 AssocoNme CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING 965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA 94070 (650) 593-8580 DRAWN BY: AAP SCALE; 1'= 10' DRAWWG NO. 1742-TENT DESIcr,Fn er. VPc DAME . 13/ ,.,c,,,,�, e,,, •Dr3A ,"ems cucc-r 7 nc 1 OBJECTIONS TO 12 VISTA LANE PROJECT Page 1 of 2 Agenda �8.11. 4ePCved After From: sfbpthomas <sfbpthomas@aol.com> e M To: Kgardiner <Kgardiner@burlingame.org> t m 9b 2 Vista Meeting Cc: Rhurin <Rhurin@burlingame.org>; estrohmeier <estrohmeier@burlingame.org> Page 1 f g Bcc: leeniet <Ieeniet@mindspring.com> age Of 2 Subject: OBJECTIONS TO 12 VISTA LANE PROJECT Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 2:08 pm COM1Mn'ICATJON RECEJVED DELIVERED BY HAND AND EMAIL I OFST4FFREPORT My wife Eileen and I have resided at 16 Vista lane for over 41 years. We have observed and been involved in the changes that have occurred on the property adjacent to our home over the years. We strongly object to the proposed project at 12 Vista lane in its' entirety. When the variance was granted to split the Vista Lane lot into two lots in spite of insufficient frontage, we and the Planning Commission were assured that it would afford the developer the opportunity to constructs two houses of moderate size i.e. 3200-3500 square feet each, instead of a single large house. Now we are presented with an extremely big structure which is in excess of 4300 square feet, in a design which is completely at odds with the character of Vista Lane. Vista lane homes are mostly constructed in the Spanish/Mediterranean, or 1920's style. This proposed monolithic monstrosity is an overbearing affront to our neighborhood. Its' cubist walls will tower over our property, blocking sun, light, and air; and excessively invading our privacy. We object in particular to: 1 GARAGE HEIGHT. The proposed garage height of over 12 feet, when the original proposals presented during the lot split showed a single story garage of normal height, which would not too badly block our sunlight and the ability to use our patio and flower garden. This currently proposed height, we have been advised, is to accommodate a four car garage, with the cars stored vertically. This is unprecedented and will block our sun, light and use of our patio. 2. HERITAGE OAK TREE. There area two oak trees on the lot. One was shown as protected, and is very old and large, and is a heritage tree. The second oak is much younger, and small. The proposal is to radically amputate three fifths of the main branches from the mature oak to accommodate a much larger building. The four or five feet of fill dirt already ringing the tree will also contribute to it's death. this is no way to protect a valuable and beautiful asset. 3. DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE. The declining height envelope must be enforced .by the City. Enforcement will as:.;st in mitigation of the excessive mass of the proposed building. Enforcement will help maintain our privacy. We strongly object to any deviation from the regulations. 4. IMPROPER DUMPING AND FILLING. The elevations shown on the most recent survey, when compared with pre lot -split surveys, clearly show the lot has been raised with dirt from another or other projects. We were advised when we called your office in the past to query about the duping of so much dirt on the lot, that the regulations allowed that dirt to remain only for a short period, and then must be removed. That has not happened, and instead, the dirt was spread about the lot to level it. The lot is now ringed with a retaining wall to hold the dirt. This radically alters the project structure elevation's. We dt6NM\ /ED building being allowed to be constructed on such and unstable base. „� V http://mail.aol.com/38702-1 11 /aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage. aspx CITY 0� BURLINGAME CDA�4 DIV OBJECTIONS TO 12 VISTA LANE PROJECT Page 2 of 2 5. FIRE HYDRANT. The plans submitted show the existing fire hydrant which is located in front of 12 Vista Lane, moved to in front of our rear entry to 16 Vista lane, which has steps down about eight feet to our patio. Also our water service and meter, along with 20 Vista Lane's, is in way of the proposed location. additionally, our gas line enters in the proximate location. This move would necessitate cutting across Vista Lane„ which is constructed of 4-6 inches of concrete, which would further destabilize the road. Vista Lane is not paved over a modern compacted base, but was constructed approximately 100 years ago over an adobe base. Both the fire Marshall and the City Water Department recommend that the hydrant remain in place, or be moved across the lane, adjacent to the existing utility pole. We urge you to seriously consider the above objections and suggestions. We reserve the right to voice additional objections and suggestions relating to any proposals. for construction at 12 Vista Lane that may be presented in the future. Sincerely, Arthur J. and Eileen A. Thomas Received After 08.11.14 PC Meeting Agenda Item 9b - 12 Vista Ln. Page 2 of 2 RECEIVED AUG - 9 NIA CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica From: CD/PLG -Stroh meier, Erica Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 11:57 AM To: 'Michelle MacKenzie -Menendez'; 'rhurin@burlingmae.org' Subject: RE: OBJECTION TO PROJECT IN IT'S ENTIRETY - 12 VISTA LANE Michelle, I wanted to inform you that the discussion on 12 Vista Lane has been pulled from the August 11, 2014 and will be scheduled on another Planning Commission Agenda in the future. You will receive another blue postcard informing you of when this project will be discussed. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact Ruben Hurin at (650) 558-7256. Erica Strohmeier : Associate Planner : City of Burlingame : 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 : (650) 558-7252 From: Michelle MacKenzie -Menendez Finailto:michelle(a)mackenziewarehouse.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:43 AM To: rhurin(a)burlingmae.org Cc: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, Erica Subject: OBJECTION TO PROJECT IN ITS ENTIRETY - 12 VISTA LANE Burlingame Planning Comission Ruben Hurin Erica Strohmeier My husband and I live at 23 Vista Lane. We are writing this letter because we object to the entire project at 12 Vista Lane as presented/proposed. This proposal is much different than the one presented to the community when the variance for the lot split was granted. The house is out of character for the neighborhood in both size and style. If built as proposed, our community will be negatively impacted, our privacy will be compromised, views impacted and parking congestion aggravated. I have learned that a request to move the existing fire hydrant to neighboring property has been requested — I believe it should stay on the current property. If there is a need to relocate the hydrant it should be relocated within the boundaries of the current property. We urge you to consider our objections and the detrimental affects this project will have on our long standing, well established community. Michelle & Eduardo Menendez 23 Vista Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 415-786-8781 michelle(o)mackenziewarehouse.com The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments are intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential, proprietary and/or privileged material. Any review, redistribution, copying is prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it and all copies of it from your system. Thank You Date To: From: Project Comments Revised Plans Submitted July 3, 2014 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: NIA No further comments. All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 5-9-2014 will apply to this project. Reviewed by: 7-7-2014 Project Comments Date: May 8, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 X Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: May 12, 2014 1) On the plans specify that this project will comply with the 2013 California Building Code, 2013 California Residential Code (where applicable), 2013 California Mechanical Code, 2013 California Electrical Code, and 2013 California Plumbing Code, including all amendments as adopted in Ordinance 1889. Note: If the Planning Commission has not approved the project prior to 5:00 p.m. on December 31, 2013 then this project must comply with the 2013 California Building Codes. 2) Specify on the plans that this project will comply with the 2013 California Energy Efficiency Standards. Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ for publications and details. 3) The GreenPoints Checklist will no longer be required beginning July 1, 2014. Compliance with the Mandatory Measures of the 2013 California Green Building Code (CAL Green) is required. Provide two completed copies of the attached Mandatory Measures with the submittal of your plans for Building Code compliance plan check. In addition, replicate this completed document on the plans. Note: On the Checklist you must provide a reference which indicates where each Measure can be found on the plans. 4): Indicate on the plans that the built-up roof will comply with Cool Roof requirements of the 2013 California Energy Code. 2013 CEC §110.8. The 2013 Residential and Non -Residential Compliance Manuals are available on line at http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2013standards/ 5) 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.) 6) 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 on the Job Copy of the plans prior to performing the work. 7) Anyone who is doing business in the City must have a current City of Burlingame business license. 8) Provide a fully dimensioned site plan which shows the true property boundaries, the location of all structures on the property, existing driveways, and on -site parking. 9) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 10)This project will be considered a New Building because, according to the City of Burlingame Municipal code, "when additions, alterations or repairs within any twelve-month period exceed fifty percent of the current replacement value of an existing building or structure, as determined by the building official, such building or structure shall be made in its entirety to conform with the requirements for new buildings or structures." This building must comply with the 2013 California Building Code for new structures. BMC 18.07.020 Note: Any revisions to the plans approved by the Building Division must be submitted to, and approved by, the Building Division prior to the implementation of any work not specifically shown on the plans. Significant delays can occur if changes made in the field, without City approval, necessitate further review by City departments or the Planning Commission. Inspections cannot be scheduled and will not be performed for work that is not shown on the Approved plans. 11)Show the distances from all exterior walls to property lines or to assumed property lines 12)Show the dimensions to adjacent structures. 13)Obtain a survey of the property lines. r19ooms that could be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. Specify the location and the net clear opening height and width of all required egress windows on the elevation drawings. 2013 California Residential Code (CRC) §R310. Note: The area labeled "Office" is a room that can be used for sleeping purposes and, as such, must comply with this requirement. 15)Indicate on the plans that a Grading Permit, if required, will be obtained from the Department of Public Works. 16)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. 17)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are four or more risers. 2013 CBC §1009. 18�ovide lighting at all exterior landings. (1.a(M the plans indicate the method by which the pool / spa barrier requirements er 2013 CBC §3109.4.4.2 will be met. )qn the plans show the location of the pool equipment. If the pool equipment is located less than 10 feet from the property line indicate how the ambient L10 noise level will not exceed 5dBA. Further information can be found on Page N-30 of the General Plan and in Technical Appendix A. NOTE: A written response to the items noted here and plans that specifically address items 4, 14, 19, and 20 must be re -submitted before this project can move forward for Planning Commi lion action. Reviewed by: Date: 5-9-2014 Joe BO://,/Ir 58-7270 Date: To: From: Project Comments Revised Plans Submitted July 3, 2014 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 X Parks Division (650) 558-7334 Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: N/A Include the Kelty Arborist report on plans. Tree trimming and Tree Protection Plan shall be supervised by an on -site arborist and done in accordance with arborist report. Note on plans Irrigation of oak tree must be completed before construction begins as mentioned in arborist report. Tree protection must be in place before any demolition begins. Contact City Arborist when irrigation is occurring and when tree protection is in place_ Note on plans Landscape plan and irrigation plan ok. Resubmit if any alterations required by Planning Commission occur. Project Comments Date: Revised Plans Submitted July 3, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 0 Building Division 0 Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 X Parks Division 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7334 (650) 558-7204 From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: N/A 1. Include detail for pier and beam foundation as recommended in arborist report around oak tree #1 for Building Permit. 2. Protected tree removal permit required for removal of oak trees #1 & 2. Contact Parks Div at 558-7330 for application after Planning Commission approval prior to Building Permit Reviewed by: B Disco Date: 7/8/14 Project Comments Date: May 8, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 X Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: May 12, 2014 1� ollow arborist report for tree protection and care of oak tree#1. Include report on plans for reference. Include detail for pier and beam foundation as recommended in arborist report around oak tree #1. 3. Water Conservation and Irrigation plan submitted and approved. Protected tree removal permit required for removal of oak trees #1 & 2. Contact Parks Div at 558-7330 for application. Date: 5/12114 Reviewed by: B Disco OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST To Be Completed by Applicant Page I of 2 I cer ' y that the subject project meets the specified requirements of the Water Conservation in Landsc ,pZrft \\ /� �T4 i/ Signature NDate 6 "All 14 Single Family ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Commercial ❑ Institutional ❑ Irrigation only ❑ Industrial ❑ Other: �l i f OF BURLINGAME Applicant Name (print): Contact Phone #: T Project Site Address: kZ Agency Review i (Pass) (Fail) Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): l0 I S # of Units: # of Meters: Total Landscape Area (sq.ft.): Lk EV ❑ 2Lt, Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): ❑ , Non -Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): 0, ❑ Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): U ❑ Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.): .............. .................. Turf Less than 25% of the landscape area is turf R1 Yes ❑ No, See Water Budget _ ❑ All turf areas are > 8 feet wide 'Yes ❑ All turf is planted on slopes < 25% Yes ❑ Non -Turf At least 80% of non -turf area is native or low water use plants Yes ❑ No, See Water Budget a' ❑ Hydrozones Plants are grouped by Hydrozones Pit Yes 5 ❑ Mulch At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed soil surfaces Yes ❑ Irrigation System Efficiency 70% ETo (100% ETo for SLAs) a Yes 0 ❑ No overspray or runoff Yes ❑ Irrigation System Design System efficiency > 70% Yes ❑ Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation controllers ❑ No, not required for Tier 1 {;tl Yes r ❑ Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs ® Yes No sprayheads in < 8-ft wide area ig Yes ❑ Irrigation Time System only operates between 8 PM and 10 AM ig Yes ❑ Metering Separate irrigation meter %,No, not required because < 5,000 sq.ft. ❑ Yes '. ❑ Swimming Pools / Spas Cover highly recommended A. Yes ❑ No, not required ❑ Water Features Recirculating ❑ Yes lt't-- ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Less than 10% of landscape area ❑ Ll Documentation Checklist ❑ Yes )i Prepared by applicant ❑ Prepared by professional ❑ ❑ Landscape and Irrigation Design Plan —01" O Water Budget (optional) ❑ Prepared by applicant ❑ Prepared by professional ❑ ❑ Audit Post -installation audit completed A -Completed by applicant ❑ Completed by professional ❑ ❑ P OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST Auditor: Materials Received and Reviewed: El Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance o Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist ❑ Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist ❑ Water Budget ❑ Water Budget Calculation Worksheets CeLandscape Plan Cl Plant List ❑ Post -Installation Audit ❑ Other: Date Reviewed: ❑ Follow up required (explain): ❑ Drip irrigation ❑ Self-adjusting Irrigation Controller Date Resubmitted: ❑ Plant palate Date Approved: ❑ Three (3) inches of mulch Dedicated Irrigation Meter Required: ❑ Soil amendment (e.g., compost) Meter sizing: ❑ Grading ❑ Pool and/or spa cover ❑ Dedicated irrigation meter ❑ Other: la _— Comments: E Selected Definitions: Tier 1 New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas between 1,000 and 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review, or new or expanded water service. Tier 2 New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas greater than 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review. ETo Reference evapotranspiration means the quantity of water evaporated from a large field of four- to seven-inch tall, cool -season grass that is well watered. Reference evapotranspiration is used as the basis of estimating water budgets so that regional differences in climate can be accommodated. SLA Special Landscaped Area. Includes edible plants, areas irrigated with recycled water, surface water features using recycled water and areas dedicated to active play such as parks, sports fields, golf courses, and where turf provides a playing surface. Professional Professional is a "certified professional" or "authorized professional" that is a certified irrigation designer, a certified landscape irrigation auditor, a licensed landscape architect, a licensed landscape contractor, a licensed professional engineer, or any other person authorized by the state to design a landscape, an irrigation system, or authorized to complete a water budget, irrigation survey or irrigation audit. Water Feature A design element where open water performs an aesthetic or recreational function. Water features include ponds, lakes, waterfalls, fountains, artificial streams, spas, and swimming pools (where water is artificially supplied). Project Comments Date: May 8, 2014 To: X Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: May 12, 2014 1. See attached review comments #1, 2, 5 and 20. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 6/19/2014 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS wwtwv _ Project Name: - a Project Address: (7- Vb - VA"'* The following requirements apply to the project 1 A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) Y j 3 r-L� 2 �i _ The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to "WK drain towards the Frontage Street, (Required prior to the building permit c� issuance.) 6Y- : jb •-T-V0 ©lk6rA 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. 5 _ . soamtary sewer lateral** is required 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. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. 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 proj ect to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall 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 UAprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW CONMIENTS.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 condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct 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 construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts 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 existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 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. 20_ 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 dimensions. 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 CONUVIENTS.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 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc Project Comments Date: May 8, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: Planning Staff ©Fire Division (650) 558-7600 0 Stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: May 12, 2014 No further comment at this time. Reviewed by: Date: Date To: From Project Comments May 8, 2014 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 0 Parks Division (650) 558-7334 Planning Staff 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7600 X stormwater Division (650) 342-3727 0 City Attorney (650) 558-7204 Subject: Request for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1, APN: 027-093-320 Staff Review: May 12, 2014 1) The Stormwater Requirements Checklist has been filled out and returned. It indicates that the project does trigger the new stormwater requirements. The project proponent proposes to utilize site design measures B.2.b,c,d,&e for compliance. 2) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City's NPDES (stormwater) permit to prevent stormwater pollution from construction activities. Project proponent shall ensure all contractors implement appropriate and effective BMPs during all phases of construction, including demolition. When submitting plans for a building permit include a list of construction BMPs as project notes on a separate full size plan sheet, preferably 2' x 3' or larger. Project proponent may use the attached Construction BMPs plan sheet to comply with this requirement. Electronic file is available for download at: http://flowstobay.org/files/privatend/MRPsourcebk/Section5/ConstBMPPlanJun2012. pdf 3) Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirements apply on any projects using architectural copper. To learn what these requirements are, see attached flyer "Requirements for Architectural Copper." Electronic file is available for download at: http://flowstobay.org/files/privatend/MRPsourcebk/Section8/ArchitecturalcopperBMPs .pdf For assistance please contact Stephen D. at 650-342-3727 Reviewed by: SD 50 Date: 5/15/14 SRN MATE�IpE Water Pollution Prevention Program Clean Water. Healthy Community. Construction Best Management Practices Vs Construction projects are required to implement the stortnwater best management practices (BMP) on this page, as they apply to your project, all year long. Materials & Waste Management r'Fy r 1 Non-nsvnrdons Mail I'll ❑ Benn and cover sloekpiles of land, din or other a roll' -ion mamriol vies lams when rain is rorccall or if o.t actively being. —I ithin Id days. ❑ Use (but don't memse) reclaimed renter far dosl control. aamrdous Mahrin6 ❑ =1 all bomrdmn materials and baymdmis o•a- (inch al Pesticides, Paints. Ihinnera. ,,Iwo , furl, oil, and U,ornzc) in necordsnee wild city. county, slate and red—[ regUhnions. ❑ Score haardatss materials nrd'lalms in slams light conmiwrs, none I. appropr-... secondary cunt inment and U-1er them at the end of ark day or, dloing eel u¢wher or when to is races-. ❑ FOIbw mmmr.UnUv i npplicalm. i loroei ons In, Immrdous marerials and be cweRl I oat to use most tlmn naeasanry. DU not appiv chemicals owd--avian rain is r--1 vidon 24 hours. (3 Arrange ra epPropriom disphsnl or all bomrdoos wastes, waste Management ❑ Cover.rant, disposal containers le"reiy with sates m the end of work day and during ..,'landau. ❑ Chno' wa-e disposal ennmitel fregnenny for Inks and Io make sure They ue not orredillcd. Neacr hose donor a drmlpsmr on We ❑ Clean or replace portable toilets. and Uapecl them frequently rot Inks and spills. ❑ Dispose ofalt wastes and debris Properly. R—Ule ro—inls and r aims Hut can be —.led (mats as asphalt On-, nggrogaa bale mnterinLs, wood. gyp board Pipe, ere.) ❑ Dispose of liquid daidnes ram paints. Wirusen. solvent, glues, and dea.wg fluid, al le—olo sin waeic. Consl—rho, Entrances and Perimeter ❑ E-blish and matnmin efr wive Pen— U, conooB and-abilia all eanees exits s to anRciently cunwl erosion and s dne o'w , audmrget Iran vim and tracking elf awe. ❑ Sweep or racuwn one slrttl uacking unmedintelr and secure ttdimrnt soumU m prermnt frrd tracking. Never hose d— streets to clean up tracking. Equipment Management & Spill Control Main-- Parking ❑ Desigwm vn area, fitted wit), appropriate aMps, for emldele and equipment parking and storage. ❑ Pedrm ajar mnintrnmco, rcpxiriabs,and,Uhicle and equipment noshing off site ❑ If r ahng re-N-le maintenance must be done 'site, arork in a bermed ama array from storm drains and over a thin pan big enough to collet, Raids. Recycle or d: p Use orgui b, al bamrdous coos¢. ❑ If velniele or equiprnenpdwining must be done aUlba. Ilea odd, n er Unit in a beloved ama that will not -11ow 'loom con into goters. streets,-omn -noun, Ur surface wvten. ❑ Do not clean vehicle or egUipnwnt orUi,, Ili, soap{ sol—Ul. deg —el. lien e11e1619 equipment ell. Spill Prer don mid Control ❑ Kee rpill cleanup materials (rags, absorbcnks. etc ) avail bie at Weeo-rUedoo silo at all dines, ❑ Inspect volsicica and equipment frcqunody for and repair leaks pmmpdp. Use drip Pans to arch Inks unlit ¢poi. arc made, ❑ Clean up spills or leaks immcdiatele and dispose of dcannp U,—ri,ls groped, ❑ DU not hose down aod.e. hem nuida have 'Pilled. Use dn• cleanup nmll o h, (able, U, maetinls. cal line, orld/Ur lags), . ❑ SwceP UP spilled d y mmedol, inuncdiately. Do not uy to cowls them -UrVY'lids rooter. or bury dram, ❑ Clean UP spills an dirt orens by digging op and properly disposing ofeonrmninamd soil. ❑ Report sigrdficmn'pills immedintely. Yen are mclUned by law to report all significant rele,ses brhvmrdmn trialk tnel ding oil. To report a -Pill: 1) Dial 911 our kebi wnorg--CY msposrtt number, 2) Call We (loacmo.•s OIRcc of Ernes UUq Services Wonsing Center. (law) 352-7550 (24 bPun)- Earthwork& Paving/Asphalt Work Contaminated Soils 9�t e),.ti, h r � _.'?'.u+t>Iz Y,S.C=bw Wa try a•. Erosion Coa lm) ❑ Schedule grading and escarmion end, for d,, —the, only, ❑ 51abil'na all denuded corns, insmll and nofintairt Icmm Poq erasion controls (-eh control fnbrie or bonded fiber to ois) until vegetation is eslabliered, ❑ Seed or Plant eegwmion for erosion ontrol on slopes or uimrc even —ion is nIX immediately Planned, Sediment Control ❑ Prwal norm drnin inlets. goners, ditches, and drainage coursr, pith aMUUpH BMPa, arch al gravel bm;x. llbcr ally, ❑ P -ro sediment fiwn migrating offsite by insmllbsg vnd me inrnining ttdimcnt controls. such as fiber rolls, It fences. or ttdimea, tnoba. ❑ Kcep escnvamd soil on dal vile where it "ill.. oellec, into th sneer. ❑ To, sl ascavmcd m-edxls m dump on on We site, not in We arced. ❑ Contaminelcd Soils ❑ Ifarry orlhefollUr\ingeUrditi,nsarc Ubzarved, last fa wmm�sianrion ad U.— the Regional \Polar Quality Control Board: ■ Uonslml .it condiliom. dismloratian, or odor. ■ Abandorrd andUrIord lank,. w Abandoned wells • Buried barrels, debris, or nosh. ❑ Avoid paving and seal roaring in wet •edits orwhen on, is f st before f h parerne will hale lime m cum. ❑ Cover -Ulan drain inlets and nranhola tvhen epplYing seal —L tack coat slum seek fog seal, cm ❑ Collect and recedeor appropdT b, dispose -renews abnsisc gaud or scold. Do NOT sweep or wash it imo Under, ❑ Do scot rase noses Io'lash dman Fresh asplsah concmm pavcmrat Sa renfting & AsphalUCnner,,e Aemmol ❑ Camplercly emrer or InUieade scams drnin WOU -hen nary Inning Uzc Ghcr fabric, alai bostn inlet rilmrs. or grarrl begs m keep rhury oPl of Ibe -mmt din .Yale.. ❑ Sh-1. ab—b- or svwon --en, ,lorry and dispose of all —U, as soon as Yon am finished in one ,oration or es We and of each work day (svhichcve, Is =Woad). Cl If-1 slam emus a catch buia clean it rap norredinely. Concrete, Grout & Mortar Application ❑ Store rancrcm, grant and mortar under Pellcrs and I—, from ag draine areas, on These materials nasr ones renal, a -omn drain. ❑ Wad, m cmmrete enrdpmenu'wsJs offal or in a conmi M coca, to them u on d(sel—W into the underlying wit calm sanvonding areas. lal __,I harden and dispose Urns garbage. ❑ Colleel the wash water from rrasbing -Posed aggrcgmc e-1-1 and renmve it rarappmpriam disposal Uaoe. Dewatering ❑ Elfenivdg mamge all rssn ti all oo.ff n ilhin the site. and all —U,fT Net dis-M- ram the zit. Di— rumen . tw ram olrshc assay fmm all diaurbcd a mlrenyitt enxwe eompcan<e. ❑'A%I-dell ring, nmif• and obtain approval From the local mlmicipolity be— diselorging sntw to a str¢n gutter con chin. Fin Ur di.crs dwugh a bosun ankryor sedimenl Inap nrav be mgnimd ` ❑ M cocas or"",I cantaminoo— lensing 's rcguired prior to cone or disdarge of garmd-ee CU b . 411, Wt Engine dawn a n•hede -ing o iz rcgWcd ad has-i,teT- raulrs. Contaminated grasmd—U, must be —led or haled off -sire fur Proper d(spos,l. Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day! Painting & Paint Removal ,r ❑ Ncrnw cl ... bwdUcx sa Wire n ,mall nnla a n—� ore. zlpml Cl For drain. oia-basod Pants. Plan out bmshes o the a cart Possible. Rinse m the anitop serr onco ve you 11-gained Penoi.wo from the local re '-- so'drn-Illy y Nc.w pUor tlor. paint ❑ For oil -based Poi -. pain n brushes Ilse coon, Possible and clean rvi. dlione, r sohxm in a Proper mnraincr. Fiber and c Ihir— and vol-1, Or, —or msime and omwable IhiUU.!,Ulcans as mr Pafrrmouvol aim. ❑ Cllcmiral Paint shipping msidne and ehi s I'd dos I s t from sm Pain Pain wnminiug lead airibun9dn omit be disposed anon haaardaus walla. a d,, nripp,rp and sand blosingnzj be 15 retpl rap Ur colittted in plastic drop closlrx and disposed oral sash. Landscape Materials ❑Con stockpiled landscaping mnmrivls by ing -111r. under corps 0- dsc_v are nor -wisely being read. ❑ Sack c bb, InndxraPe nralv'�,I on pallets. Cos rzlorefl—maoials when U", arc not acnveh• being used or .,plied. ❑ Discontinue-PPli-U-o of any erodible landscape material r6d,in 2 days hero¢ a F—I ram eleo, or daring nw..emhar, IAN MAT E0C0HA71NICC Waterpollution prevention Program Requirements for Architectural Copper Clue W.I.r. Hn RhN C—k lhy. h Protect water quality during installation, cleaning, treating, and washing! Copper from Buildings May Harm Aquatic Life Copper can harm aquatic life in San Francisco Bay. Water that comes into contact with architectural copper may contribute to impacts, especially during installation, cleaning, treating, or washing. Patination solutions that are used to obtain the desired shade of green or brown typically contain acids. After treatment, when the copper is rinsed to remove these acids, the rinse water is a source of pollutants. Municipalities prohibit discharges to the storm drain of water used in the installation, cleaning, treating and washing of architectural copper. Use Best Management Practices (BMPs) The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) discharges to storm drains. Building with copper flashing, gutter and drainpipe. must be implemented to prevent prohibited During Installation • If possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factory. • If patination is done on -site, implement one or more of the following BMPs o Discharge the rinse water to landscaping. Ensure that the rinse water does not flow to the street or storm drain. Block off storm drain inlet if needed. o Collect rinse water in a tank and pump to the sanitary sewer. Contact your local sanitary sewer agency before discharging to the sanitary sewer. o Collect the rinse water in a tank and haul off -site for proper disposal. • Consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prevents further. corrosion and runoff. This will also maintain the desired color for a longer time, requiring less maintenance. prohibited discharge. The water must be pumped and disposed of properly. During Maintenance Implement the following BMPs during routine maintenance activities, such as power washing the roof, re-patination or re -application of impervious coating: Block storm drain inlets as needed to prevent runoff from entering storm drains. • Discharge the wash water to landscaping or to the sanitary sewer (with permission from the local sanitary sewer agency). If this is not an option, haul the wash water off -site for proper disposal. Protect the Bay/Ocean and yourself! If you are responsible for a discharge to the storm drain of non- stormwater generated by installing, cleaning, treating or washing copper architectural features, you are in violation of the municipal stormwater ordinance and may be subject to a fine, Contact Information The San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program lists municipal stormwater contacts at www.flowstobay.org (click on "Business", then "New Development', then "local permitting agency"). FINAL February 29, 2012 SA'< RATEC :0UN7Wi0E Waterr4lu*.ion Prevention Frogram Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Order No. R2-2009-0074 ; Order No. R2-2011-0083 NPDES No. CAS612008 City of Burlingame - Office of Environmental Compliance 1103 Airport Blvd Office: (650) 342-3727 Fax: (650) 342-3712 Complete this form for individual single family home projects of any size, other projects that create and/or replace less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, and projects in the following categories that create and/or replace less than 5, 000 square feet of impervious surface: restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities', and parking lots (stand-alone or part of another use). � 1177 I A. Project Information A.1 Project Name: A,2 Project Address: A.3 Project APN: B. Select Appropriate Site Design Measures CZ 41E New Residence, 12 Vista Lane 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA 94010 0247-093-320 CITY OF BURLINGAME . B.1 Does the project create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surfacez? W, Yes ❑ No ➢ If yes, and the project will receive final discretionary approval on or after December 1, 201 Z the project must include one of Site Design Measures a through f.3 Fact sheets regarding site design measures a through f may be downloaded at http://www.flowstobay.org/bs new development.php#flyers. ➢ If no, or the project will receive final discretionary approval before December 1, 2012, the project is encouraged to implement site design measures4, which may be required at municipality discretion. Consult with municipal staff about requirements for your project. B.2 Is the site design measure included in the project plans? Yes No Plan Sheet No. El a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or other non -potable use. I& ❑ b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. ❑ c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. ❑ d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. ❑ e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. El f. hA'p. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. ❑ ❑ W I p, g. Minimize land disturbance and impervious surface (especially parking lots). ❑ ❑ N h. Maximize permeability by clustering development and preserving open space. ❑ ia i. Use micro -detention, including distributed landscape -based detention. El EljJ J. I Protect sensitive areas, including wetland and riparian areas, and minimize changes to the natural topography. ❑ k. Self -treating area (see Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance) ❑ I. Self -retaining area (see Section 4.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance) ❑ m. Plant or preserve interceptor trees (Section 4.1, C.3 Technical Guidance) I See Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes here. 2 Complete the C.3/C.6 Development Review Checklist if the project is not an individual single family home, and it creates and/or replaces 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface; or if it is a restaurant, retail gasoline outlet, auto service facility, or parking lot project that creates and/or replaces 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. 3 See MRP Provision C.3.i. 4 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i.(6). 1 Approved December 4, 2012 Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects C. Select appropriate source controls (Encouraged for all projects; may be required at municipal discretion. Consult municipal staff.5) Are these a Features that require source Source control measures Is source control measure included features project? control (Refer to Local Source Control List for detailed requirements) in project plans? measures Plan Yes No Yes No I Sheet No. ❑ ❑ Storm Drain • Mark on -site inlets with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or equivalent. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Floor Drains • Plumb interior floor drains to sanitary sewer [or prohibit]. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Parking garage • Plumb interior parking garage floor drains to sanitary sewer.6 ❑ ❑ h.l ❑ Landscaping ■ Retain existing vegetation as practicable. ❑ ❑ • Select diverse species appropriate to the site. Include plants that are pest - and/or disease -resistant, drought -tolerant, and/or attract beneficial insects. • Minimize use of pesticides and quick -release fertilizers. ■ Use efficient irrigation system; design to minimize runoff. ❑ Pool/Spa/Fountain • Provide connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Food Service Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is: El ❑ Equipment • Connected to a grease interceptor prior to sanitary sewer discharge. ) (non- • Large enough for the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. f®L residential) • Indoors or in an outdoor roofed area designed to prevent stormwater run-on ` and run-off, and signed to require equipment washing in this area. ❑ ❑ Refuse Areas • Provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, etc., ❑ ❑ designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff. lik • Connect any drains in or beneath dumpsters, compactors and tallow bin areas serving food service facilities to the sanitary sewer. ❑ ❑ Outdoor Process • Perform process activities either indoors or in roofed outdoor area, designed ❑ ❑ �(1� Activities 7 to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, and to drain to the sanitarysewers ❑ ❑ Outdoor Cover the area or design to avoid pollutant contact with stormwater runoff. ❑ ❑ Equipment/ Locate area only on paved and contained areas. 0 Materials Roof storage areas that will contain non -hazardous liquids, drain to sanitary Storage sewers, and contain by berms or similar. ❑ ❑ Vehicle/ Roofed, pave and berm wash area to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, ❑ ❑ Equipment plumb to the sanitary sewers, and sign as a designated wash area. rJ Cleaning Commercial car wash facilities shall discharge to the sanitary sewers ❑ ❑ Vehicle/ Designate repair/maintenance area indoors, or an outdoors area designed to ❑ ❑ Equipment prevent stormwater run-on and runoff and provide secondary containment. Do Repair and not install drains in the secondary containment areas. Maintenance ■ No floor drains unless pretreated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. s • Connect containers or sinks used for parts cleaning to the sanitary sewer. s ❑ ❑ Fuel • Fueling areas shall have impermeable surface that is a) minimally graded to ❑ ❑ Dispensing prevent ponding and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break. Areas • Canopy shall extend at least 10 ft in each direction from each pump and drain away from fueling area. ❑ ❑ Loading Docks • Cover and/or grade to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area. • Position downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. ❑ ❑ aj ■ Drain water from loading dock areas to the sanitary sewers ll ■ Install door skirts between the trailers and the building. ❑ ❑ Fire Sprinklers • Design for discharge of fire sprinkler test water to landscape or sanitary sewers ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Miscellaneous ■ Drain condensate of air conditioning units to landscaping. Large air E. ❑ Drain or Wash conditioning units may connect to the sanitary sewers Water • Roof drains shall drain to unpaved area where practicable. ■ Drain boiler drain lines, roof top equipment, all washwater to sanitary sewer s. El ❑ Architectural ■ Drain rinse water to landscaping, discharge to sanitary sewers, or collect and ❑ ❑ �I Copper dispose properly offsite. See flyer "Requirements for Architectural Copper." 5 See MRP Provision C.Ia.i(7). Approved December4, 2012 Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects D. Implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Required for all projects.) DA Is the site a "High Priority Site"? (Municipal staff will make this determination; if the answer is yes, Yes ❑ No the project will be referred to construction site inspection staff for monthly stormwater inspections during the wet season, October 1 through April 30.) • "High Priority Sites" are sites that require a grading permit, are adjacent to a creek, or are otherwise high priority for stormwater protection during construction per MRP Provision C.6.e.ii(2). D.2 All projects require appropriate stormwater BMPs during construction, indicate which BMPs are included in the project, below. Yes No Best Management Practice (BMP) ❑ Attach the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program's construction BMP plan sheet to project plans and require contractor to implement the applicable BMPs on the plan sheet. ® ❑ Temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established. ® ❑ Delineate with field markers clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees and drainage courses. ® ❑ Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: • Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls, include inspection frequency; • Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; ■ Specifications for vegetative cover & mulch, include methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; ■ Provisions for temporary and/or permanent irrigation. ❑ Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather. ® ❑ Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all necessary permits. ® ❑ Protect all storm drain inlets in vicinity of site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters. E4 ❑ Trap sediment on -site, using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stock piles, etc. ® ❑ Divert on -site runoff around exposed areas; divert off -site runoff around the site (e.g., swales and dikes). I9 ❑ Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters dikes mulching or other measures as appropriate. ❑ Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. ® ❑ No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on -site, except in a designated area where washwater is contained and treated. 53 ❑ Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater. ❑ Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees/subcontractors re: construction BMPs. ❑ Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. Name of applicant completing the form: Richard Terrones Signature: Date: 5- E. Comments (for municipal staff F. NOTES (for municipal staff use only): Section A 6 Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary district approval. 7 Businesses that may have outdoor process activities/equipment include machine shops, auto repair, industries with pretreatment facilities. Approved December4, 2012 Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects Section B Section C Section D Approved December4, 2012 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that WHEREAS, a Categorical Exemption has been prepared and application has been made for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for declining height envelope and attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling and attached garage at 12 Vista Lane, Zoned R-1, Jianquanq Zhang, 8 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA, 94010, property owner, APN: 027-093- 320; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on April 27, 2015, 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) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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, this exemption may be applied to the construction or conversion of up to three (3) single-family residences as part of a project, is hereby approved. 2. Said Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits are approved subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 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 27th day of April, 2015, by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits. 12 Vista Lane Effective May 7, 2015 Page 1 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 17, 2015, sheets A0.0 through A5.2, L1.1, L1.2, AR1.0, AR2.0 and G 1.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4, that a certified arborist shall be on site during any grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation and digging for removal or installation of any utilities; 5. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures and trimming instructions as defined in the arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services, dated January 29, 2015. All tree protection measures shall be taken prior to beginning any tree removal activities, grading or construction on the site; 6. that a licensed arborist, hired by the applicant, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently if necessary and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Division that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements are being met; 7. that a licensed arborist shall provide a post -construction maintenance program to the property owners with instructions on how to maintain the Coast Live Oak tree and identify warning signs of poor tree health; the property owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of the tree for 3 years after construction is finalled by the City; 8. that all clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones trees, and drainage courses are clearly delineated with field markers or fencing installed under the supervision of a licensed arborist and inspected by the City Arborist; and that adjacent properties and undisturbed areas shall be protected from construction impacts with vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching as designed by and installed with the supervision of a licensed arborist to standards approved by the City Arborist 9. that the conditions of the Building Division's July 7, 2014 and May 9, 2014 memos, the Parks Division's February 26, 2015, February 3, 2015, July 8, 2014 and May 12, 2014 memos, the Engineering Division's June 19, 2014 memo, the Fire Division's May 12, 2014 memo and the Stormwater Division's May 15, 2014 memo shall be met; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits. 12 Vista Lane Effective May 7, 2015 Page 2 10. 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; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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; 15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2013 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: 16. 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; 17. 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of Approval for Categorical Exemption, Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits. 12 Vista Lane Effective May 7, 2015 Page 3 18. 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; 19. 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 20. 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 DEPARTMENT eNLAk5ERLI501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-725250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 12 VISTA LANE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA: Application for Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits for attached garage and declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling with an attached garage at 12 VISTA LANE zoned R-1. APN 027-093-320 Mailed: April 17 2015 (Please refer to other sine) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE Lit of Burlingame application and plansJor this project may be reviewed prior to A copy of the app Department at 501 Primrose the meeting at the Community Development Road, Burlingame, California. to courtlse , you may be limited to ;f you challenge the subject applications) public hearing, raising only those issues you or someone edeliveed at red to the city at or described in the notice or in written correspondence prior to the public hearing. Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. William Meeker Community Development Director PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Please refer to other side) o 2 ti ,r 2848 ' 855 838 O � c 8S f l •♦ 72 .I 4I 77 I LI �/ 40— .� 2g66 2860 1858 8 E HILLSIDE DR 2865 fe,= 2867 2861 N 12 Vista / 1 ftm@g; E4 D o �.p� a �o , Al