The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12 Vista Lane - Staff ReportItem No. 8a Action Item PROJECT LOCATION 12 Vista Lane City of Burlingame Item No. 8a Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit Action Item and Special Permits Address: 12 Vista Lane Meeting Date: May 11, 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 4,306 SF (0.41 FAR) where 4,472 SF (0.42 FAR) is the maximum allowed. The proposed project is 166 SF below the maximum allowed FAR and is therefore within 4% 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; 99 SF (2'-5" x 48'-9" 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" and the stairs pulled in by 5'-8". As a result, the encroachment into the declining height envelope has been reduced from 207 SF (4'-3" x 50'-0" minus recess) to 99 SF (2'-5" x 48'-9" minus recess). On sheets A4.4 and A4.5 of the revised plans date stamped April 29, 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 (99 SF 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 2 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 29, 2015 PREVIOUS CURRENT ALLOWED/REQ'D (4.17.15 plans) (4.29.15 plans) 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 25'-0" (side by side) Side (right): 6'-0 I no change ! 60" __ (left): T-10 i no change 6'-0" ---.. Rear (1st fir): 68' 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: 3904 SF ----------------- 3877 SF 4,215 SF 37% 36.7% 40% FAR: 4351 SF 4306 SF 1 --- .... .... ............_. --...._...- 4472 SF 0.41 FAR i 0.41 FAR 0.42 FAR z # of bedrooms: 5 -------- no change --- Off -Street Parking: 2 covered -- ---- -- -.. 2 covered (20'-0" x 20'-0") no change (20'-0" x 20'-0") 1 uncovered 1 uncovered ........ ... .. _.. (9'-0" x 20'-0")i (9'-0" x 20'-0") Height. ....... 8'-10 8 2 30'-0" ............ .... ..................... ._ ... _ . ...._...- .. _. - DH Envelope: structure extends 115 SF structure extends 99 beyond DHE along left ! SF beyond DHE I 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 (99 SF of the building extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached comments from the Building, Engineering, Parks, Fire and Stormwater Divisions. Action Meeting (April 27, 2015): At the Planning Commission Action meeting on April 27, 2015, the Commission expressed a concern with the encroachment into the declining height envelope and asked the applicant to consider reducing the height or width of the house further in order to comply with the declining height envelope. The Commission also noted a concern with the impact on the existing protected size Oak tree and placed the item on the regular action calendar when the plans had been revised as directed (see attached April 27, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes). The applicant submitted a response letter and revised plans, date stamped April 29, 2015, to address the Commission's suggestions and comments. Changes include reducing roof and plate heights throughout the house and reducing the depth of the garage in order to pull the house back an additional V-4" from the Oak tree. Please refer to the applicant's letter for a detailed list of changes made to the project. rd Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane Revised color renderings of the proposed project were included in the revised plan set, date stamped April 29, 2015. 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 May 6, 2015). The story pole installation was certified by DMG Engineering, Inc. (see attached certification dated May 6, 2015). Design Review Study Meeting (March 9, 2015): 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. 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 1'-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'-3" 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. Required Findings for 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 5 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane 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. 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 29, 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; Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane 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; 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; tI Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane 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; 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 29, 2015 April 27, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Letter Submitted by the Applicant, dated April 22, 2015 Applicant's Response Letter, dated April 8, 2015 March 9, 2015 Planning Commission Minutes Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped May 6, 2015 Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped April 21, 2015 Story Pole Certification and Plan, date stamped March 6, 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 Design Review, Hillside Area Construction Permit and Special Permits 12 Vista Lane 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 Submitted by Tatiana Chekasina, dated April 27, 2015 Letter submitted by Arthur J. and Eileen A. Thomas, dated March 9, 2015 Letter and Attachments Submitted by 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 Staff Comments Planning Commission Resolution (Proposed) Notice of Public Hearing — Mailed May 1, 2015 Aerial Photo E DTA Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. Arc hitectute I Inlrostrucfure I Fn v it p n m e n fs 29 April, 2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 12 Vista Lane— Response to Comments, 04/27/15 Meeting Dear Commissioners and Staff DECEIVED APR Zq 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING 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: • We have reduced the roof height at the main part of the building by 2", anticipating a 10" nominal roof member, rather than a 12". • We have reduced the roof height at the North bedrooms by 8" by reducing the plate height by 6" and by 2", anticipating a 10" nominal roof member, rather than a 12". This further reduces the declining height envelope impact. • We have reconfigured the stairway so as not to intrude on the declining height envelope at that area. • We have reduced the roof height on the garage by 2", anticipating a 10" nominal roof member, rather than a 12". This further reduces the declining height envelope impact. • We have reduced the depth of the garage and pulled the structure V-4" further away from the Protected Oak Tree. Thank you for your further consideration of our project. Sincerely, Jacob Furlong, Architect 1103 Juanita Avenue dutllr.game. Cafrlo�rio 94010 Alen te^-tore intro; r.,c ire Fnr,onmecs 31A Cenier Stfeel -220 I ieoldsbufg, Ca:ifcrnio 954-1 65069612W dloan:.com 707431'305 dlaanf,co. Monday, April 27, 2015 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers C. 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 Attachments: 12 Vista Ln - Staff Report 12 Vista Ln - Attachments 12 Vista Ln - Received After 12 Vista Ln - 04.27.15 - recd after 2.odf Commissioner Terrones recused from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner Gaul recused because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Commissioner Sargent recused for non -statutory reasons. All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor across the street, and Commissioner DeMartini toured the property with the architect and met the property owner on site. Questions of staff.- > Can electrical feed lines be discussed? The lines impact the view of the house across the street, so question is if they can go underground. (Hurin: It is not something the City can control in the Planning Commission review process. Since this is an existing neighborhood not sure if PG&E will allow a single lot to underground a utility. The applicant can look into it but it cannot be a condition of approval.) > Discrepancy between declining height reduction in the staff report and the reduction cited in the architect's letter. (Hurtn: 28 sq it reflects the surface area, whereas the staff report has described floor area.) Chair DeMartini opened the public hearing. Jabob Furlong represented the applicant: > Intrested in undergrounding the wires to house if possilbe and PG&E is agreeable. Neighbor has reported that some newer houses in the neighborhood have done that. > Will accept as a condition of approval using a dwarf tree in the front. Does not want to block the view, and is digging house low into hill to minimize impact. > Change of materials. Commission questions/comments: > Appreciates reducing the plate heights. > Anything constrianing relocating floor area from declining height envelope to rear of building? (Furlong: Yes - view easement extends across the site.) City of Burlingame Page 1 Printed on 413012015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 27, 2015 Public comments: > None. Commission discussion: > Well designed, well articulated, likes materials, appreciates reduced height. > In the hills when there are slopes in every direction someone will loom over someone else. Given conditions the house is nicely settled into the site. > From downslope will see 23 feet of wall. Since there is room in the back and it is a big lot, would like to squeeze the building a bit more or reduce height to avoid encroaching declining height envelope. > Fits into the neighborhood, colors fit in. > In the lot split application there were footprints could be built that would protect the trees. Given amount of trimming that will be needed to provide 4 feet of clearance, there will be nothing left of the protected tree. There was a promise it could be protected. > Arborist report says the tree will be protected. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Commissioner Loftis. The motion failed by a vote of 2-2-3-0, with Commissioners DeMartini and Gum dissenting. Commission discussion: > Remaining issues are the tree and the declining height envelope. The project is otherwise supportable. Commissioner Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to continue the Action Item to the May 11, 2015 meeting. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 4 - DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, and Bandrapalli Recused: 3 - Sargent, Terrones, and Gaul City of Burlingame Page 2 Printed on 413012015 Received After 04.27.15 PC Meeting Item 8c 12 Vista Lane 22 April, 2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 12 Vista Lane— Neighbor out reach/ meeting Dear Commissioners and Staff A Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. Arc hitecl ure I Ini r as t r u c t u re EnvitonmeY UOp� 4� RECEIVE® APR 2 3 2015 �4ti CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV We have met with the neighbors at 16 Vista Lane and 2874 Hillside Drive. We showed them the following revisions: • The lowered parapet height • The lowered second floor plate height • The reduced garage height • The adjustment to the left wall of the garage and house an additional V-10" from the property line • The renderings The neighbors at 2874 Hillside believe that the existing oak tree impacts their view and asked that it be trimmed. Additionally they asked to also revisit the proposed trees in the front so that they would not grow to impact their view in the future. We have agreed to further review the proposed species with them pending approval. We are willing to make this a condition of approval. We are also proposing as part of the condition of approval to have underground utilities to not add to the existing wires that impact 2874 hillside views The neighbors at 16 Vista appeared to appreciate the revisions and appeared to have no further objections. They also asked to revisit the proposed planting along the North wall. We have agreed to review plants with them prior to installation. Below is the overall massing of the proposed project as seen from the window of the neighbor at 2874 Hillside Drive. Thank you for your further consideration of our project. ncerely, cob Furlong, Architect DTA Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. nrch0e,0,!,e I nip sirUCtU!e. I Fnv—,nmerl, 08 April, 2015 To: Burlingame Planning Commission RE: 12 Vista Lane— Response to Comments, 3/09/15 Study Meeting Dear Commissioners and Staff DECEIVED APR 10 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING 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 V-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 CITY O Monday, March 9, 2015 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM e. 12 Vista Lane, zoned R-1 - Application f Permit and Special Permits for attached new, two-story single family dwelling with Terrones Architecture Inc, applicant and (33 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Council Chambers r Design Review, Hillside Area Construction garage and declining height envelope for a an attached garage (Jacob Furlong, Dreiling architect; Jiangnang Zhang, property owner) 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 Huhn 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. Will 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 Bandrapalli 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 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 consideration0l. 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 41612015 DMG Engineering, Inc. 30 Oakvue Court, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Phone:925-787-0463 Fax:925-287-8503 May 6, 2015 City of Burlingame ADRB 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Reference: Story Pole Certification— 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame RECEIVE® MAY - 6 20115 CITY OF BURLINGAME COD -PLANNING DIV. This letter is to certify that on May 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, dated 5/1/2015. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS X_XND S�\ G DYLAN M. FO C� GONSALVES 9 No. B475 tA��r OQ�` OPCA i i i i i i i - - - - ------------i-j i ----- I I I _ I I r-r I I I I I I n T _ C) Zc I z O� IT1 Gz o o a D, m m 0 Raf N True N n Story Pole plan 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 APR 21 2015 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME Reference: Story Pole Certification — 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame CDD-MANNING DIV. 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 �,ND 3C/9� (y DYLAN M. O U GDNSALVEs k No.8475 Nam` 9'e" - 0 r C I 0' 0�1 ti'xvmn.a� wow..Nwm- - - - - - - - - - - r - - I I ❑ I I nr-r s b ---_—I ----_ I i — I i RECEIVE APR 21 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. Ref N N rl Story Pole plan 4) 6 J Roof Man A3.1 110E COMA! UNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION DMG Engineering, Inc. OF STAFF 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, �_AND SG9 V NSAtL E 9 J pb.8475 Dylan Gonsalves, PE, PLS 9�OF CAL�F�Q� Received After 03.09.15 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10e - 12 Vista Ln. Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED MAR - 6 --1 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV Received After 03.09.15 PC Meeting Agenda Item 10e - 12 Vista Ln. -- Page 2 of 2 Story Pole plan RECEIVED - 6 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIY COALH UNICA TION RECEl ii AFTER PREPARATION Raft lue N Roof Plan As. I COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD - BURLINGAME, CA 94010 I p: 650.558.7250 - f: 650.696.3790 a www.burlingame.org APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: j�- Design Review ❑ Variance 19- Parcel #: 3�-Z_p _ ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Special Permit ❑ Other: PROJECT ADDRESS: VZ- Vx,5-1c-, L-p+-re Y�.�V t__)(Np1a--11E1 , r-,A% i�3 APPLICANT project contact person a OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: ipcv8.l�,J�r, Address: O ��•J�'"lP• P�\!E City/State/Zip: .11 r I i� I �4 zt Phone: Fax: (v0 ?j�� • abb�- E-mail: -)F-R.VIIQ�>Ioa - cz� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Address: I 1 O 3 City/State/Zip: f:>t- Phone: C-16'B - PROPERTY OWNER project contact person ❑ OK to send electronic copies of documents ❑ Name: JLrlgln. yt 7i n�, Address: `� Vi s i� ��in P City/State/Zip: wr i a C Phone: 516 Fax: E-mail: �ry /2vi�i (Jlmom'`. --U/h (,.~c I Coe,, b - VZ10o Fax: bsfl • - 6t b 6� ECEIVED MAY -62014 E-mail: �� «? �'i ia>P?W_CAA - C-OtI CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. * Burlingame Business License #: Z)(o13lO 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: )qGW gjaSirsstrce nu 1=2CI5TIN(7y, -cmjr LoT AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: 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. 000 Applicant's signatu . Date: I am aware of the pro sed applic ion an ereby autho 'ze the above applicant to submit thk appli ation to the Planning Commission. / Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: sj 4= �1r Verification that the project architect/designer has a valid Burlingame business license will be required by the Finance Department at the time application fees are paid. S: iHANDOUTS�PCApplication.doc City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.ore r� CITY BURLINGAME Y11- CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION CEIVE® UL - 3 2014 DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE -i Y OF BURLINGAME C'lD-PLANNING DIV 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 (CS. 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 City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlingame.org rb CITY t BURL 1119"E Vi aA CITY OF BURLINGAME SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION ATTACHED GARAGE CEIVED UL - 3 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME ODD -PLANNING DIV. 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, 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 by thS$ECPERM.FRM applicant. New trees will be planted per landscaping plan RESOLUTION NO. 14-2010 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 VICTA 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, containing 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 owners 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 writterrtestimo.ny 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 Environmentai 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 Plar=r lir lg 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 Planning 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 ate 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 will -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. K, 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 property 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-way 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. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 40xt-�� Mayor I, 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, BROWNPIGG, d3F—A—T., KE-IGHRAN, NAGEL NOES: Council Members: NONE ABSENT: Council Members: NONE �j City Clerlc r I DTA Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. Architecture I Intras lructure I Environments 2014-08-05 Mr. and Mrs. Arthur and Eileen Thomas 16 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 u'—)1b--' 0 ...� Wayne Lin wl(aD_dtbarch.com RECEIVED AUG - 5 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 1103 Juanita Avenue Burlingame. Calitom"a 94010 A.rcn,tecture InFastfuccture Envl,onmerrs 314 Center Street R2201 lealdsburg, Ca:itamia 9544E 650 696 120D dlaonf.com 707431 -305 diaanf.corn 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 2:46 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 11111 1� 11111 11 11111111111111111111IIIII * 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 12 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 JUL 11 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, obligations, or liabilities asserted by the other. 2 Date: 3 / 1 b2MTXM—, LLC (Grant(k) By Alex Mortazavi, Principal of DENHAM, LLC Date: H A INTERNATIONAL, LLC (Grantor) B Richard Tsao Date: Date: ARTHUR THOMAS (Grantee) EILEEN THOMAS (Grantee) Date: DENHAM, LLC (Grantor) By Alex Mortazavi, Principal of DENHAM, LLC HOYA INTERNATIONAL, LLC (Grantor) By Ricluu•d 'rsao Date: oil ARTHUR THOMAS (Grantee) Date: CILEEN THOMAS (Grantee) ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Cal' ecnia County of _ OnOita � 17 2-011 before me, A` ►Je��i n l P � �r�nsert name and title of the officer) pgrsonally appeared t- L who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the p rso whose name i ULbscribed to the within instrument and acknowlp5r)so*n(( d to me that§�e tNAy executed the same in is-r/t?6ir authorized capacity(i�), and that byI"lt?)& signatureS,9(j on the instrument the person( , or the entity upon behalf of which the acted, executed 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 my hand and official seal. Signature A=mfwu'c�5 C ser�. (Seal) LIDja7KATHERINE M. 2URAWSKI Commbsion f 1807�10 Notary Publk - Ca lomis San IMstso county Comm. Ex Ins Oct 8, 20141 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of Cali is County of On ktl, U 1 17, 2-0 (1 before me, (insert name and title of the officer) ' personally appeared T-x'` o who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the rson whose name s Ascribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me tha h /* tTk executed the same in is /t r authorized capacity(1��s), and that by ,is �/`tjr signature(i on the instrument the person(or the entity upon behalf of which the personi�) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws 1of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and off cai seal. Signature ACC8 m�A"Cs �s�+� (Seal) EnmiMa RINE M. ZURAWSKI ttion 11907J10 Notary Public • Calffomll Son Mato County 1willitycomm. v Irat Oct E 2014 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County OnLL71a�20// beCore me, ��fC>tiUG� .. 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 fr_-;sh /they executed the same in hiviinr/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hist7er/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, exccuted the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. SALLY NAYARNO COMM. 01882075 Z jWITNE my h4ad and official seal Wary Public • California o San Mateo County Comm. , 1,2014r si c (Notary Seal) ADDITIONAL OPTIONAL INFORMATION DES IPTION OF THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT (Title ordesaiptio, o.rcheddocut tat ' /-%N 067-O'�3 -- /--O (Title or description of arached document Ntnnber of Paged Document Date (Addition,; inform,noc) CAPACITY CLAIMED BY THE S,GNER ❑ Individual (s) ❑ Corporate Officer (Title) ❑ Partner(s) ❑ Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee(s) ❑ Other 2008 Version CAPA v12. 10.07 800-873-9865 www.NotaryClssses.com INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS FORM Any acknowledgment to Caltfomfa awat contain verbiage exactly as appears abw in the marry secdm or a xp"t adbatwiedgmem form mast be property completed ad atraltd io that dorn ent the only exception is {( a document is to ba raasaYl made of Califomla In smith instances, any alternative acknawledgnwnt vpil�e as aW 6e printed on ssdt a document sot tong as the verbiage does not raryba # a a*" to do something that u illegal for a notary in California n.e. cetli�ft eat admired cgp fry of die signer). Please check the doctrmeN crnfuQyJFr proper murria wording and attach thuforra ifrequired State aqd County Warraetian a" be the State aad County where the document signens) personally appmed before the notary public for acknowledgment. • Date of noteriation meat be 6e date the the signer(&) personally appeared which must also be the same date the acknowledgment is completed. • The notary pudic mug Irian his or her name is it appears within his or her commission followed by a toasty and then your title (notary public). • Print the name(s) of dwxrm signer(s) who personally appeer at the time of notariaiiiin. . Indicate the tonal singular or plural forts by crossing off incorrect forma (i.e. pdshe/tirey- is hw) a ciselog the correct forms. Failure to correctly indicate this information may lead to rejection of document recording. • The notary seal imptasion must be clear and photographically reproducible. Impression must not Cove led of lines. If seal impression smudges, re -seal if a sufficient area permits, otherwise complete a ditrerart acknowledgment form. • Sigriatttre of the notary public nsnz nstch like signature on file with the office of the county clerk. a Additional inforrastm is not required but could help to ensure this eckmowkdgmew 's ax misused or attached to a different document. 4 tndicase title or tyke of an ached document, number of pages and date. Oe Indienoe the capacity claimed by the signer. If the claimed capacity is a wrporate officer, indicate the title (i.e. CEO, CFO, Secretary). securely artach this docured to the signed document "MrA_ s -WI \ (Burdened Property) Parcel 1 of Parcel Map Volume 79, pages 56 and 57 as reootded 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 "B URLINGAME 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 EASEMENT 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 Inclusive, 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: Dylan Gonsalves, PLS DMG Engineering, Inc. October 15, 2010 EXHIBIT "C" rn �� O� 1 ti EXHIBIT "D" of G PARCEL B 76 PM 78-J 79 S55'04'00"E 0 15 30 60 3 � ' SCALE. • 1 INCH = 30 FEET W Q VISTA LANE (25' f IW) 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 BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY PHONE: 925-787-0463 SCALE: 1" = 30' OCTOBER 2010 FAX: 925-287-8503 EXHIBIT "D" 6 _ _ TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYolpm. ••••••"""�'� S9Ct ::: .rr� 6 v: VISTA LANE n E CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MAWO OMMIN - CALWOMA SCAM r- . W MOnym faro i! j ZR 3g�i. ylY"la�w Y lb I u, \ \ \ ..,.,,♦ � ,wn� � \ ratlr j��yt (i9RCE FA4 56) N •\ Il i �I i�[S� IFr � � � � �, , �! _ �_ _ _ a—_ 1 _vm+ � quo = * '\,_ �_L ,ft•i 1 _\� I I 1 1 V I 1 I I NOTL7: J'�►i 11 v� \ I I 1 1 1 ....I •YI + I a .rm.-wa...wrww— i PAAC / a fro IA1 66) I; rR rW / vur :,uv �� ✓G _i ..ram./ / / /� ' .a raw TI— wa wu 'rru -n%Vr S 9Y1UNEff V rr rr m,��,,rrs.w • w,rwrN w ti • 71 al.n / ' M HN Mr IIO��wY�Sgrl/a�.�y �l�f w1•Itw'OONMLP K/w M4Y �y .1� N20 a\� i Arborist Reports\Tree Evaluation 12 Vista Lane f 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 Burlingame, CA 94010 Site: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA Dear Mr. Lin, RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV 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. -f 01 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 -pill 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 0. 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 #3 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 kkarbor04760vahooxom -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. KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 • TEL (650) 525-1464 • FAX (650) 525-1439 kkarbor0476@yahoo.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, Kevin R. Kielty Certified Arborist WE#O476A o�\EIY OF qqB P�SJ�N KI E(T� w No �_Ag76A G ®IN • KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES P.O. Box 6187, San Mateo, CA 94403 • TEL (650) 525-1464 • FAX (650) 525-1439 kk arbor04760n?yahoo. com n CITY OF BURLINGAME TREE EVALUATION Person Reporting: Bob Disco Details of Tree: Genus: Quercus Species: agrifolia Common Name: Coast Live Oak Tree Location: 12 Vista Lane Date: September 30, 2014 RECEIVED OCT -6 20114 CITY OF BURLINGAME ^D-PLANNING DIV. Title: Park Supervisor/City Arborist Background: 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 r 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. 4 Captain and Mrs. Arthur J. Thomas 16 Vista Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: 650-343-4479 Fax:650-343-0479 Email: stbpthomast.aol.com September 22, 2014 William Meeker Community Development Director City of Burlingame, CA 94010 (wmeekerkBurlingame.gM) 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 s Attachment (1) Cc: Lisa Goldman, City Manager, Kay Kane, City Attorney, Robert Disco, City Arborist RECEIVED SEP 2 6 2014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING D►V 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: 9/18/2014 Walter Levison O 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtreet7a sbcolobal.net 0 Walter Levison 0 CONSULTING AR80RIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #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: 9/18/2014 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 drtree(cbsbcglobal-net 3 3 3 5 5 7 R M I 10 J� Walter Levison` CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #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. 1 Gilman, Ed, and Lilly, Sharon. 2002. Best Management Practices i Tree Pruning. Companion Guide to the ANSI A300 Part I Tree, .Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance — Standard Practices, Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture. Chamnaien. 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 drtree(o)sbcglobal.net 00 Walter Levison X'C\ CONSULTING ARBORIST ,nn n....it6i..d Trec Rico Accaccnr 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 if 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 profile3, 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 using 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`" Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N1. 4 Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist(professional experience). 4of10 Version: 9/18I2014 Site Address: 12 Vista Lane Walter Levison © 2014 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the Intemational Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtreeQsbcalobal net JWalter 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 currantly 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. ii. 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 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 drtree(&sbcolobal.net 0 Walter Levison 0 CONSULTING ARBORIST`, ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #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 Arbonsts and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email drtree(cDsbcglobal.net I JWalter Levison �� 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 ❑ PNW-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, California 1990 zi 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 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 drtree(a)sbcglobal.net 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 hos hatesprays. 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. The Shady Tree Co. High quality pruning. 650-326-0406 eecomt www.theshadytreecomt)anV.com Special Tree Sources Specialty Oaks Lower Lake, CA California native oak species www.specialtvoaks.com Various oaks and hybrid elms. Only local purveyor of hard to find Italian www.oracleoaknurserv.com Orate 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_sweetlanenursery.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 http://www.lecooke.com/cros/contact- deciduous California sycamore that le-cooke.html L.E. 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 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 drtree0sbcalobal.net JWalter Levison � 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/appraiser is assumed to be correct 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 dean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed mat 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. All data has been verified insofar as possible: however, the consuitantlappraiser 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, inducing payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contrail of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report a a copy thereof does no imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed. without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultantlappraiser. 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 consultantlappraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultantiappraser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultantlappraiser, and the consultant'slappraser s fee is in ho way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, theoccurrenceof a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not recessanty 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. lndusion of sad 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 examined 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, a coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not apse in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. Arborist Disclosure Statement Arbonsts are tree specialists who use mbar education. knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees. recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees. and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept a disregard the recommendations of the arbonst, or to seek additional advice. Arbonsts cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not filly 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 time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medians, 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 actuate information is disclosed to the arbonst. 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 eimnate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees 9.0 Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fad in this report are true, complete, and coned to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. Signature of Consultant 11%. 511111 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 sbcalobal.net 0 Walter Levison ` CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborst #WC-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 k c nECEIVED h `, BY DATE 5 I I 11 _f 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 535 BRAGATO ROAD, STE. A PRESIDENT SAN CARLOS, CA 94070-6311 JEROMEY INGALLS CONS ULTANVESTIMATOR April 30, 2014 Mr. Wayne Lin Dreiling Terrones Architecture Inc. 1130 Juanita Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Lin, RE: 12 VISTA LANE, BURLINGAME TELEPHONE: (650) 593-4400 FACSIMILE: (650) 593-4443 EMAIL: info@maynetree.com DECEIVED MAY - 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 (Common) Diameter (inches) Condition Height (percent) (feet) Spread Comments (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 backfi►I, 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 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, Jero+Arorist CerWE #7076A JAI: pmd ETY z Na WE 7076A 12 Vista Ln., Burlingame 5 April 30, 2014 OD. R Letters Submitted by Public 12 Vista Lane 04.27.15 PC Meeting Item 8c 12 Vista Lane Page 1 of 4 April 27, 2015 2874 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 12 Vista Lane Dear Commissioners, PARATICOMMUNICATION RECEIVED OF STATER FF REPORT RECEIVED APR 2 7 20115 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. The recent changes to the building plans at 12 Vista Lane have been welcomed, such as reduced height of the garage by 3 feet and of the house itself by 1 foot. The challenge of fitting such a spacious residence on one the smaller lots in the neighborhood remains, however. There are several concerns particular to our side of the street and to our views that we would like to bring to the commission's attention. Proposed tree planting in front of the structure The proposed tree labeled #1 in the diagram is a magnolia variety (Magnolia acuminate) grows to 75-100 ft. tall, is a native to the Eastern United States and Southern Ontario, and is not a recommended street tree, but a park one instead. It would be ideal to protect our views and to preserve a good neighborly relationship by choosing medium-sized trees. The printout on this particular tree information is attached. Utilities connection Unlike the aerial PG&E connection of 8 Vista Lane, it would be much safer and aesthetically pleasing to ground all the wires. It is particularly worrying should a large tree be planted in front as proposed. We request the commission to inquire into this matter. Title 24 lighting in front Again, unlike front lights at 8 Vista Lane, we would appreciate a great deal to have title 24 compliant lighting so that we are not blinded by illumination across the street at night. 1 04.27.15 PC Meeting RECEIVED Item 8C C0.11AfLiA'i - TIONRECEIVED 12 Vista Lane APR 2 1 [ :) AFTER PREPARATION Page 2 of 4 OF STAFF REPORT CITY OF BURLINGAME Change of materials CDD-PLANNING DIV. We'd like to avoid having the choice of materials approved by the commission changed to lesser quality as occurred during the building at 8 Vista Lane. The type of windows, garage doors and the front door were all changed, and to all appearances, to a lower grade materials. I personally could not find any application to approve the as -built changes to the commission for that address. T n 2 4127/2015 Magnolia acuminata - W i ki pedi a. the free encyclopedia Uses and cultivation Cucumber trees are excellent shade trees for parks and gardens, though the are not recommended for use as street trees. In cultivation, they typically only grow — m 5 feet) tall, althougli ffiey reach over 30 m (100 feet) in ideal forest situations. They can become quite massive: the United States national (and most likely world) champion in Stark County, Ohio measures more than seven feet (2 m) in diameter (although only 79 ft or 24 m tall). They grow best in deep, moist, well -drained soils that are slightly acidic although they are tolerant of alkaline soils. y' They are tricky to transplant due to their coarse, fleshy root system 4 r t p l 4 and should be planted shallow and moved in early spring with a good soil ball. q In the timber trade, the wood of this tree is interchangeable with that of the related tuliptree (Lirioden tulipifera). h o Magnolia acuminata has been used in hybridizing new varieties that share its yellow flower color an w hardiness References i 0 1. Sternberg, G., & Wilson, J. (2004). Native Trees for North American Landscapes. Portland, Oregon -Timber Press 2. White, D.J. (2000). Update COSEWIC Status Report on the Cucumber Tree Magnolia acuminata in �agada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario (� LU g \ ao ZZ Z External links E_ it- LL1 cgm U Q U- a Ua ■ Magnolia acuminata images at bioimages.vanderbilt.edu w 0 (http://www.cas.vanderbilt.edu/bioimages/species/frame/maac.htm) U ■ Flora of North America: Magnolia acuminata (http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx? flora id=1&taxon id=233500766) ■ Flora ofN.Amer-RangeMap: Magnolia acuminata (http://www.efloras.org/object_page.asp, object id=6419&flora id=1) ■ NRCS-USDA Plants Profile: Magnolia acuminata (http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile? symbol=MAAC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php? title=Magnolia acuminata&oldid=640176294" coo 0V C oo R o E J U >a a N T Ln ti N Wikimedia Commor media related to Ma'5"O Ji acuminata. Categories: Magnolia I Trees of humid continental climate htgzNen.wikipedaorgAtAkbMa"ia aaminata 2J3 The fruit of Magnolia acuminata 10-60 per fruit. 4/2 015 Magnolia acuminata- Wikipedia. the free encyclopedia RECEIVED Magnolia acuminate Laggw-l From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia APR 2 7 2015 Magnolia acuminata, commonly called the cucumber tree (often spelled as a single word "cucumbertree"), cucumber magnolia or blue magnolia, is one of the largest magnolias, and one of the cold - hardiest. It is a lari_e forest tree of the Eastern United States and Southern Ontario Canada. It is a tree that tends to occur singly as scattered specimens, rather than in groves.111 The cucumber tree is native primarily within the Appalachian belt, including the Allegheny Plateau and Cumberland Plateau, up to western Pennsylvania and New York. There are also numerous disconnected outlying populations through much of the southeastern U.S., and a few small populations in Southern Ontario. In Canada, the cucumber tree is listed as an endangered species and is protected under the Canadian Species at Risk Act.121 In 1993 The North American Native Plant Society purchased Shining Tree Woods to preserve a stand of Magnolia acuminata, which is also known as "The Shining Tree". The leaves are deciduous simple and alternate, oval to oblong, 12- 25 cm long and 6-12 cm wide, with smooth margins and downy on the underside. They come in two forms, acuminate at both ends, or moderately cordate at the base (these are usually only formed high in the tree). -- ------ - Unlike most magnolias, the l flowers are not showy. They are typically small, yellow - green, and borne high in the j tree in April through June. i The leaves of Magnolia acuminata are pointed at the tip and provide it with its name -'acuminate' means tapering to a fine point. The f name Cucumber Tree refers to the unripe fruit, which is green and often shaped like a i small cucumber; the fruit matures to a dark red color and is 6-8 cm long and 4 cm broad, with the individual - - carpels splitting open to release the bright red seeds, The ripe fi-uit is a striking reddish orange color. CITY OF BURLINGAME Cucumber tree Magnolia acuminata Morton Arboretum ace. 1046-3* 1 Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae (unranked): Angiosperms (unranked): Magnoliids Order: Magnoliales Family: Magnoliaceae Genus: Magnolia Subgenus: Yulania Section: Yulania Subsection: Tulipastrum Species: Al. acuminata Binomial name Magnolia acuminata I. 04.27.15 PC Meeting Item 8c 12 Vista Lane Page 4 of 4 hbpJ/en.wikipeda.orgWi i/Magtolia ac txnineW 1/3 03.09.15 PC Meeting Item #10a 12 Vista Lane Page 1 of 1 Captain and Mrs. Arthur J. Thomas Burlingame, CA 94010 March 9, 2015 Planning Commission 501 Primrose Road Burlingame. CA 94010 Re: Proposed 12 Vista Lane Project Gentlemen: COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT RECEIVED MAR 9 2015 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD - PLANNING DIV. TelaM Fas E-mail 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 the 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 Planning Commission 501 Primrose Rd, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 12 Vista Lane Dear Commissioners, August 8, 2014 2874 Hillside Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RECEIVED AUG 1 12014 CITY OF BURLINGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 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% GUTTER OWNER AND SUBDIVIDER: ti1ry I u WHA M LLC & HOYA TNT., LLC I I UN/NCOR ORA 7�1� I SAN MA TEO COUNTY ; m CA gURL AY, SUITE 710 BURLINGAME, TEL(650)579-4994 „ FOUND 3 4' IRO : a `9s�e 16 S ^ >� ZONING: R-1 1 Sg1 I PIPE WITH PLASTI cy I FOUND°3 4' IRON e� I 1 w 2Tq N PLUG TACK \ PIP TH PLASRC eP �q. CITY(COIAVTY_ 76.6.5 a S ~ �a '�S 5304 I PLUG AND T9K, 9y. L.IM/T LINE 17 . ; _ �10 _ + ', �Og S34 6'L 0'W CHAINLNK ENCE �_ _ }o$ 190. 0'2-"' "UTiI:. T�S7`_ ., 176: �� MPORARY ;t + a _ 88. 0' 102.45 CIT O x GAS: PG & E •4 0 • ELECTRIC: PC OF pp ___ V OP OF FIRE ( - - - - ---- --- -- --__-_______ _-�p�____.:,yP__ ___.--___ ___ ____- -___ _ __ __- �0 B �F' SEWER: E. BURiUNGAME __ _ 46 , 'd TELEPHONE AT & T YDRANT ELEV.= .@ e e s 18.01 (ASSUME ( . o - I I .a a 9s 'qP I CABLE TV: COMCAST dos `;•.i 211.95 1 I `gam IST 5' WIDEN OFF E, FIRE PROTECTION: CITY OF BURUNGAME 1 a 5.• : I 9, /-".� .,�, - WAR: CITY OF BURLINGAME I K2i 211.7 I I J�/ �? PER 7 \78 B7vt GARAGE 1I V X !^ i a LAND SURVEYOR d js 0' t' :" ...'y , _• :+ I I 9 , DN P�QPOSf` ``• `o,P D E BY x I ____. C : B®RI ys�PAR, .p AND CIVIL ENGINEER 'w �� .: �• � •. " ''. •'� 1' ' ___� __J ' r� 9655CCEN R STREET ATES _d L .• 4 0 5�7 ± S`F ,�' TEL(650)593-858D SAN CARLOS , CA- 94070 0 1 4, f N t ;ram 91 1 LE U E I ,- 2T 1• ? '6 r r v z � F TPR[r W ti I R a 5 4• I 8® DD E Q L� 0!. I � Lnt 218.0 0 v '45'40' .� S 3C58_00' 1833BS � O +a I o STY _ oll ? o.__— _ __-- 460 b s V �vs v 11 x o 1 I ATE + II o)BJ e — 1A W I 1 rn 0 22 I ... • :. 21 B.0 ".' Nr D 216 VALLEY ,8:. 407. •+11&. GARAGE 11so I 221.0 .. :, f :g• '. CH II PROPOF 1 ?r �::.t _ k .:,5$,03 .::;... :.. •`� 218.35� I 1 ____ PO SIBLE H SSE I?ARCEL PROPOSE 5' S E & atW I / P DE F OF 1AR -1 o FOOTPR �4g 10,67� *- .F. P a 0 I 22 t ` •..04., . ... 1.:+ • 1^y6 o g Y TOPFWAR .. N •? •'mom NEWN" S RM K O BE D 1 9 I 1 `® D OUSHED. , I ry R MAINDER OF h •as o K TO BE FILLED a •ate �A FOU D 3 4' 1 N _ I .SO I TH SOIL. N �yt 1fA . / i PI E N7 STIC ry M1� I NEW SEWER , ST I (I PSG D T CK o y LA CHAIN NK FENCE 1 :90PIL CITY F AM h 5 3" SS S OUND 3 N 34'58'00' E _ 195�3' IPE WI.. P C �g•4{•5g• Yl . LI T LI14E .: `&' '� EXIST. 5' V40E 0.3r { LUG ANO TACIS 3 I P's �'� 1 PSSE AND PSDE 3LS 3451' I I 20 '��°�_ NE 6"'SEWER ••" GRAPHIC SCALE 98UMVCORPORA TED SAN MA TEO COUNTY { LATERAL ro c IN mrf'� 1 Ina11 < 10 ft. LEGEND- EP EDGE OF PAVEMENT - CONC. CONCRETE CO SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT JP JOINT POLE EB ELECTRIC BOX PSSE PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE G.B. GRADE BREAK PSDE PRIVATE STORM - DRAIN EASEMENT - TW TOP OF WALL TW TOP OF WALL 0 TREE 226 NEW CONTOUR ' 7 HYDRANT INV. INVERT WATER METER WWyM Pq WAR VALVE --E— ELECTRIC LINE' —G— GAS LINE .. —ASS SANITARY SEVER LINE - REVISION. NO DESCWPMN ORAMN BY GIECKM BY MPRO BY DATE VESTING. TENTATIVE & FINAL PARCEL MAP BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 'A' PER PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOOK 76; PAGES 78 & 79, RECORDS OF SAN MATEO COUNTY. CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: DENHAM LLC nMAcLEGO AND G1°, SSOCOATES CIVIL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING 965 CENTER STREET. SAN CARLOS CA 94670 (650) 593-B580 DRAWN BY: AAP SCALE f- 1C' I DRAWING NM 1742—TENT DESIGNED BY: VPG DATE 08/43/07 ,..,�.•,.c� .... ncu .eem ¢uccr 1 nc 1 4 ♦� f pit AIM If � •i• � Ati r- �y - f /ft � fjj y 'a. rtA's •� r i OBJECTIONS TO 12 VISTA LANE PROJECT Page 1 of 2 Agenda 08.11,14eCeCVed After From: sfbpthomas <sfbpthomas@aol.com> I ten') 9b . Meetin To: Kgardiner <Kgardiner@burlingame.org> 12 Vista g Cc: Rhurin <Rhurin@burlingame.org>; estrohmeier <estrohmeier@burlingame.org> P fin• Bcc: leeniet <leeniet@mindspring.com> age 1 Of 2 Subject: OBJECTIONS TO 12 VISTA LANE PROJECT Date: Fri, Aug 8, 2014 2:08 pm COMMUNICATION RECEIVED DELIVERED BY HAND AND EMAIL I OFSTAFFREPORT 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 assist 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 VED building being allowed to be constructed on such and unstable base. Aug - 8 2094 CITY OF BURLINGAME http://mail.aol.com/38702-1 I I/aol-6/en-us/mail/PrintMessage.aspx CDD-FShWM4 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 - 8 2014 CITY OF 80-AO VGAME CDD-PLANNING DIV. 1 http://mail.aol.com/38702-1 I I /aol-6/en-us/mai 1/PrintMessage.aspx 8/8/2014 CD/PLG -Stroh meier. Erica From: CD/PLG-Strohmeier, 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 [mailto:michelle(�i)mackenziewarehouse.com] Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 9:43 AM To: rhurin(aaburlingmae.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(aD-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 Project Comments Date: Revised Plans Submitted July 3, 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: N/A No further comments. All conditions of approval as stated in the review dated 5-9-2014 will apply to this project. Reviewed by: ate: 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.energV.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. ��ooms 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 P ovide lighting at all exterior landings. (>h the plans indicate the method by which the pool / spa barrier requirements er 2013 CBC §3109.4.4.2 will be met. M 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 ion action. Reviewed by: Date: 5-9-2014 Joe BO 5 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: NIA 1.) Include the Kielty 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 3 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 4-, Landscape plan and irrigation plan ok. Resubmit if any alterations required by Planning Commission occur. 511S- 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: 718/14 F— 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 (!�Pollow 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. Reviewed by: B Disco Date: 5112/14 '1 OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST 'To Be Completed by .. 1 cerAy that the subject project meets the specified requirements of the Water Conservation in Lands E71.\ (¢ ( �/ Signature 14 Date 4 Single Family ❑ Multi -Family ❑ Commercial ❑ Institutional ❑ Irrigation only ❑ Industrial ❑ Other: ;; Y Oi=URLINGAME Applicant Name (print): Contact Phone #: Project Site Address: 1Z V1S-�(�, Agency Review °. (Pass) (Fail) Project Area (sq.ft. or acre): 10 I 9� -�t- # of Units: # of Meters: . - For all other projects, .. - Total eAreas (sq.ft.): ft.a a e rr P q• ): Lk S-A- La Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): ❑ Non -Turf Irrigated Area (sq.ft.): 0, ❑ Special Landscape Area (SLA) (sq.ft.): ❑ Water Feature Surface Area (sq.ft.):� ..... ........ Turf Less than 25% of the landscape area is turf All turf areas are > 8 feet wide }3 Yes ❑ No, See Water Budget 10' ❑ *Yes zJ ❑ All turf is planted on slopes < 25% AYes ❑ Non -Turf At least 80% of non -turf area is native or low water use plants W Yes ❑ No, See Water Budget ❑ Hydrozones Plants are grouped by Hydrozones 1A Yes ❑ Mulch At least 2-inches of mulch on exposed soil surfaces 0 Yes ❑ Irrigation System Efficiency 70% ETo (100% ETo for SLAs) S Yes EJ ❑ ❑ No overspray or runoff 0 Yes Irrigation System Design System efficiency > 70% A Yes O ❑ ❑ Automatic, self-adjusting irrigation controllers ❑ No, not required for Tier 1 Yes Moisture sensor/rain sensor shutoffs ® Yes Er ❑ No sprayheads in < 8-ft wide area W Yes ❑ Irrigation Time System only operates between 8 PM and 10 AM 0 Yes Ef ❑ Metering Separate irrigation meter SNo, not required because < 5,000 sq.ft. ❑ Yes ❑ Swimming Pools / Spas Cover highly recommended AYes ❑ No, not required ❑ Water Features Recirculating ❑ Yes L_ ❑ ❑ Less than 10% of landscape area ❑ Yes X ❑ ❑ Documentation Checklist ❑ Yes ❑ ❑ Landscape and Irrigation Design Plan A Prepared by applicant ❑ Prepared by professional 2f ❑ Water Budget (optional) ❑ Prepared by applicant ❑ Prepared by professional ❑ ❑ Audit Post -installation audit complet 4Completed by applicant ❑ Completed by professional © ❑ OUTDOOR WATER USE EFFICIENCY CHECKLIST To 6e Completed by Agency Page 2 of 2 Auditor: Materials Received and Reviewed: ❑ Water Conservation in Landscaping Ordinance L9 Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist ❑ Outdoor Water Use Efficiency Checklist ❑ Water Budget ❑ Water Budget Calculation Worksheets Landscape Plan ❑ 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: Comments: New construction and rehabilitated landscapes with irrigated landscape areas between FSelectedDefinMtilons: 1,000 and 2,500 square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review, or new or expanded water service. 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 0 Fire Division (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7600 0 Building Division 0 Stormwater Division (650) 558-7260 (650) 342-3727 0 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: 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 COAMENTS The following requirements apply to the project WA) -�-,- 5� Project Name: ,9-44f Project Address: (Z VLM ► ' 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.) rtvpp lu vvY t 3 ►..k- OG 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to In drain towards the Frontage Street, (Required prior to the building permit AL issuance.) b1C rjb -TV -1[D44 Olkvr4 1Y5JVi C. 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 _ nskiitary 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 project 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. Pagel of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW CONMIENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION l I., 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 UAprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.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 COMNIENTS.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:./ Project Comments Date: May 8, 2014 To: 0 Engineering Division (650) 558-7230 0 Building Division (650) 558-7260 U Parks Division (650) 558-7334 From: 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/ArchitecturalcopperBM Ps .pdf For assistance please contact Stephen D. at 650-342-3727 Reviewed by: SD Date: 5/15/14 SAN MATE�IDE Water Pollution Prevention Program Clean Water. Healthy Community. Construction Best Management Practices Construction projects Materials & waste Management Non-nward,u Mat,ria % ❑ Bemr and =slnckPO" nr mud. din or ah„cresmwli.a.na.,I with ,aqs mn min is ("eons. rn if on. xlivdv being usM .. ithin IA dons. ❑ Use (but don I a, curse) reclaimed wale, for dos, control. aamrdous Materials ❑ tabu. all hazardous matcnals and hazrdous wants (mash as pbtieides. Pain¢. d.inrwrs. mhen.s, fiml. oil, am an irn,..) in a"mrbaee %vith cite. moon, curl, aM F,_l cg w ❑ Stour hanrlous ma.orials and wanes in %nor sigh. ...ours, stare m appropriate smond., mwminmmk and cover drcm at thcr e d or a cry work day n during wtt %,odb"fir when in is 6,rccas1. ❑ Follow nmnufncrumr's application insuuaions for hazardous awls and be corefid not Mn. more tlmn nceosary. Do or aPPly ,hem1eah, ou.dmors wI,in is fumes.. widrin 2a Imurs. ❑ Arrange Iiro turn,, di,oml c,s, hnrncdm.s Was(, Maoagemtnt ❑ Cover was¢ dispnspl conlnincr. secuml) with Iarps al rh, cad or work day and during wet weadrer. ❑ Clack wane disposal conminers frequ"dy for leaks mad to make ore they arc sot o%cKIIM. No,- hose do— a that r on the sic ❑ Ckmn or Inks and rtylnce Portcqu Portable Ioilcls. and inspo,t .hem frcmly for ❑ Dispom oral. wastes and dcbds pmpedy. Recycle materials and wastes that run he recycled (sod, u asphalt, coxrole. aggrcgmc hest nwenall woad. gyp board, piPc, crc,) ❑ Dis, o of liquid residues fmm paints, thinnms. solvcmt, glues and cloning fluids as b—cld waste. Corutrvcrion entrances and Ptr;m,lc, ❑ Est.= and n.oinmi. c:o. pcnmtmr cmrlmis and smbdioc all co oar.coon eMnrwcs and "" m mnmi"dy --I erosion and sediment disdrorgcs no. sit, and tracking olrsim, ❑ -do—" sowec InnPrc liar t, son,kine.N—rb—dmRr soeels I. clean up hacking. (BMPS) are required to implement the stortnwater best management practices (BIvLP) on this page, as they apply to your project, all year long. Equipment Management & Spill Control k' Mainscnan¢ and Parking ❑ Dmig"Ic an men, finM wids appmpnam BMPs, ,cluck, and cquipmcnl parking and stardgo, far ❑ Perform major ami--non- repsir jobs, and -kids and equipm"t svavhing olrsilt. ❑ If sling or vehicle m ' ast be dolt, o ilc, nark in a bermotl osm o ay {tom storm dmin, and as r a drip pen big enough to mllccl Bids. Recycle In dispose ofgrids as ha dar. was¢. ❑ If"chicle or equiM,nkdeaning must be done onsi.o, dun wiW rasa oNq in a bcmrM area dW will rat Jklr�fri— �o'o.�in. gnacrs._cn,.toms ❑ Do not dean vehicle n cgr.i➢nsent ortsile using comps. "No-ts, degreasers, .I"m cicanb%equip nc d ttc Spill Pr dun and Canl.vl ❑ Kttp"ill cleanup ma. _,(nags. absorbenls. cR.j ,a)Iablc.1 'neon —noon wile at all limes. ❑ Inspxl vehicle. sad equip.", rmgxndy for aM umR'r Inks pm mpdy. Usc drip pans to cash Imks I ¢pairs am made. ❑ Clem rap ""as or leak immMiatch' and dispmc of deanop almennb pmpcd.v. ❑ Do Imt I— down surfs- whom fluids have spilled Use dn• demnp ocibods (absorbent conn,,: cv. Ii boa arNor cap). (3 Sw"p op spilled dry m 1"ls ini—di tcly. Do an,my .o wash them nnay aid. ware, or bury them. ❑ Clean up spills po dirt arose tw digging op and Properly disposing or oomanonned soil. ❑ Report sigoigcsnl sPiils immedimdy, Yno urn rcquimd malonr to report all signifimd mdnsu ofhaznldom .mists in<IMing oil. To rcpon fi spill: I) Dia l 911 n pow befit emergeray maponx mm�hcr, 2) GII don Oo%cmm's C"' of Ernergan' � Soliocs Wnmwg C--. (&s%gs2-]sill (2A hors). Earthwork & Paving/Asphalt Work Contaminated Soils Erosion Control ❑ Scb,dule Bonding and eseavnfion stork (m m,wrath,, achy. ❑ stabilize all denuded ours., install and aintsin Imo,— amsian mnlmis (such as mosim control fabric n bonded fiber mfipip) mdl vcgctmion is atahliskdW ❑ Sced m plant %xgtta[wn for erosion control oa slopes or where orno—hint is not lmmcdiomly plaonM. wit,"t Control ❑ promel son m drain inlet, guoe,s, dia ln,.. and dmiongc cm.rscs wi.h aP,.Priam BMPs, mch as gnsclbagc fiber rolls, lc rs. rmr;sm ❑ Pime nl fmnMigrating offsilc bo� wmllin sg and meim ". g scion nlrok such fin fiber mils, sib (cats., or sediment basim. ❑ Keep ernvnled soil on don silo when i. will Ism mllcm inm don meet O Tmnsfu M-1cd malcnots 11 dump m¢Ls m the site, not in don sorter. ❑ cmovo -ol Soils ❑ irony orthe following condition In, obsenrd, lest far conmmimtion and anmd don Regional Wale, Qunliq, Cannot Board: • Un.nnal soil conditions. dixolomlion, or orlon. Abmdolmd mrdcrgrouM ranks. ■ Abnndo.M wclb • Bmicd barrels, dobns, at Hash, Storm drain polluters ❑ Arvid paving and seal cooling in won is f h Inn—C., ha cf i ttc m curieR ❑ C_ storm drain inlets and manholes wbm applying s"I met mck cork slum snk fog seal, cm. ❑ Collet, and r"rdeorapproprialely dispose ofearess aMui%c gravid or sand. Do NOT once➢ or wash it into goners. ❑ Do nor ase w to wash down Aesb asphalt mncmm pavement Sawmning & A Phw,1c.rcretc Removal ❑ C—Plcmly emu or baoiudc s drain Old- wh" —, "ning. .11711.11e, fabric. catch basin irate' film,., or guru'. bags to L¢p slimy act or tiro stun. dmin ❑ Sku tt, abomrb- or vacuum smvcm slur, and dispo,c of oll warm as soon am finishM in one lounon ..... d.e eM of rich wok day (whichever is 'no-1). ❑ I{mwam slum' "Ions a each hasiw clew it np mnomiow, Concrete, Grout &Mortar Application ❑ Smrc ncrcm. gmm mtl mmnar undo rn Pellet d away front Arinage areas. These ma.enab n.un ue.•er r"ch a ❑ wad.omm. arc" tgarpmtnnw,ks offsitc or w a conuino, arc,, so tlmm on discinrg, inm d¢ undedying soil .s —.ding areas, L,. eoncrem hard" and dispose or as garbage. ❑ Coll=( the wash ss'mcr fmm nasbing apo-W aggregam corcrco and remo%c it far xPProprcdc disposal offstra_ Dewatering f ;l �l ❑ Efttcowl' mamce all "now all mnoff within dw sill. and all mnolT.hat discharges rm.,` lion. D.—ninon tram, rmm offsim away from all dinwbcd as r mbmvsc easurc mmPlian". ❑ When dcoamnny, nosd and obtain app_1 !turn .he lonl monopal., r ' barc disd.mging .carer Io a str". gun r m drain.R.I.- ordi.crsmn through a basin, unk, fir sedim". top mac be mgni rcd. ❑ w a_. or known ton.amira"c ,.drag is rcNuirod poor Ie nnsc nr disdur" of gm. dwmcr. Co.." _b d.c Eng e" d,.em.inc ,+h ,bc`rening 11'"Inod and hmv to imcrprtt msula. Consannrn.M grormdovmr aura be ou.M pr hmdM offsite fm proper do Mwl. be liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day! Painting & Paint Removal Painnng cican.P ❑ Nmv clean brushes or nnsc pain, mmalm:rs unp a sbcci 'anti noon. dram cr—fis,t ❑ For "filer -based Paints pain. our bmshes .o d.c c, n.'ib.c. Rinse m .hc .1try c %oa lmv, gain,d M1m on from d.clo"I ,s'vs c don ac dreinl1�y Ncsc. pour pain. ❑ For oil -bawd paints, paint an brushes .o the c-orl —siblo and elwn wid, bi_ as11'"1 in a prop, container. Rke, and Ilouc Ihimcrs and sat, cro. DiMa c or msidnc and unlssablc.hinnc 1,al,cn.s as Imzardous wane. Paint rrmon al ❑ chcmi"I Pamr..upping rcsidnc and chins and III" Ann.we Pai or pm Is mmaining lad" nbu.yldnn_ bt d.zpazed ofas h...dous.v¢s.<. aP ntl aura rm an trippin and and m g blow mg ma,b, is cod's uporcollected tdas.i. drop clod' s m.tl dispoeM of , vs rmsh. Landscape Materials ❑ Conm.n stockpiled Iandsumlng an mn.ls br noting drem under mrpz ss9%cn dscy arc na ec.iwly being sued, ❑ Stack erodible landv,ape....... I an paneu. en.<r m canon tlr,:c ma.rrim. %vhcn It— are not scrawly being osM or appl.ed. ❑ Dis nio , aP'l r nan of any nodible landscape uralcliel 11 idlin 2 dons bcforc a rorccvs. o,il. went o, dnnng zvcl .vn.Lcr. ice✓ SAN MATEO COURTY6101 Water Pollution Crevemion Program Clp,p Wocer. Nunhy Requirements for Architectural Copper Co+„ncnnq 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. 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. Storm drain inlet is blocked to prevent 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.orp (click on "Business", then "New Development", then "local permitting agency"). FINAL February 29, 2012 SA-s kA7EO•_'iiP4T'4Vi0E 'NaterY allusion 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). I� C E I V E A. Project Information A.1 Project Name: New Residence, 12 Vista Lane A.2 Project Address: 12 Vista Lane, Burlingame, CA 94010 A.3 Project APN: 0247-093-320 CITY OF BURLINGAME B. Select Appropriate Site Design Measures BA Does the project create and/or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface2? Ck Yes ❑ No ➢ If yes, and the project will receive final discretionary approval on or after December 1, 2012, 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 measures', 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. ❑ E a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or other non -potable use. ❑ 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. K ❑ e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. El EK f. t_A'p. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. ❑ ❑ 6j 1 p. g. Minimize land disturbance and impervious surface (especially parking lots). ❑ ❑ h. Maximize permeability by clustering development and preserving open space. ❑ RL i. Use micro -detention, including distributed landscape -based detention. ❑ ❑ j. 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 features in Features that require source Source control measures Is source control measure included project? control (Refer to Local Source Control List for detailed requirements) in project plans? measures Yes No Plan Yes No Sheet No. ❑ ❑ Storm Drain ■ Mark on -site inlets with the words "No Dumping! Flows to Bay" or equivalent. ❑ ❑ NIN ❑ ❑ Floor Drains ■ Plumb interior floor drains to sanitary sewer [or prohibit]. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Parking garage ■ Plumb interior parking garage floor drains to sanitary sewers ❑ ❑ tJ IN 1 El Landscaping ■ Retain existing vegetation as practicable. El El ■ 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.s ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Food Service Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is: ❑ ❑ Equipment ■ Connected to a grease interceptor prior to sanitary sewer discharge s / (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. ■ 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 ❑ ❑�� Activities 7to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, and to drain to the sanita sewers ❑ ❑ Outdoor ■ Cover the area or design to avoid pollutant contact with stormwater runoff. ❑ ❑ Equipment/ - Locate area only on paved and contained areas. Materials ■ Roof storage areas that will contain non -hazardous liquids, drain to sanitary l l 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. 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. B ■ Connect containers or sinks used for parts cleaning to the sanitary sewer. 6 ❑ ❑ 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. N 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. I ■ Drain water from loading dock areas to the sanitary sewer.6 I ■ 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 19 ❑ 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 sewers. ❑ ❑ Architectural ■ Drain rinse water to landscaping, discharge to sanitary sewers, or collect and ❑ 130 Copper dispose properly offsite. See flyer "Requirements for Architectural Copper." 5 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i(7). Approved December 4, 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 RX 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) J� ❑ 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. R ❑ 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. ® ❑ 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). ® ❑ 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-to, E. Comments (for municipal staff use nly): � / [jY G• �.r R-4, ��dZL f F. NOTES (for municipal staff use only): Section A Notes: 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. 3 Approved December 4, 2012 Stormwater Checklist for Small Projects Section B Notes: Section C Notes: Section D Notes: Approved December 4, 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 May 11, 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 11th day of May, 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 21, 2015 Page 1 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped April 29, 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; 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 21, 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 21, 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 OFBURLINGAME COMMUNITY NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PH: (650) 558-7250 0 FAX: (650) 696-3790 vuww.burlingame.org Site: 12 VISTA LANE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on MONDAY, MAY 11, 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-l. APN 027-093-320 Mailed: May 1, 2015 (Please refer to other side) City of Burlingame PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or 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) R_1 8� 2855 •.• _ 2849 2836 Cj 04 low Ohl i I r. 14: ZB66 2860 2858 Z85 '� ..ate•, 2$�� _ HILLSIDE DR 2865 op 2861 2867— � 12 Vista Lane -�a u ".oEW4 D o oo ( o-oo[S -ao .o p * t^ CHMMNAkhm- AM C*u• 0 0 OCo OCR 000