Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1537 Drake Avenue Lots 9 & 10 - Staff Report (2)Item #7b Action Item City of Burlingame Amendment to Conditional Use Permit Address: 1537 Drake Avenue — Lots 9 and 10 Meeting Date: 3/29/04 Request: Application to amend the conditional use permit for emerging lots to separate and amend conditions of approval for each lot and for additional tree protection requirements at 1537 Drake Avenue, Lots 9 and 10, zoned R-1. Property owner and Property Owner: Otto Miller APN: 026-033-030 Designer: James Chu, Chu Design & Engr., Inc. Lot Area: 6006 SF (each lot) General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Negative Declaration ND-525-P and Addendum History: Please refer to staff report for 1537 Drake Avenue, Lot 11 (Item #7a) for a description of the history at this site. The last Planning Commission action on this site (December 8, 2003) was to continue a request to review the project, including separating the conditions of approval for each lot. December 8, 2003 Meeting: At the December 8, 2003 meeting, the Commission continued the item until the root damage had been properly investigated and the foundation type for the houses on the lots which could affect the redwood grove have been developed and the conditions of approval revised accordingly (December 8, 2003 P.C. Minutes). The Commission also requested several other items to be completed by the property owner including: investigation of the root damage in the excavated area and mapping of the determination of the approximate location of tree roots, foundation type and location of protective fencing. Since the meeting, an independent arborist has been chosen by the City and paid for by the property owner. The independent arborist has been working with the City Arborist to assist him in overseeing the root investigation, study of the property owner's arborist's reports, in evaluating the impact of proposed foundation alternatives on the existing roots and grove, to do regular compliance in inspections during construction on all three lots, and if necessary, to do enforcement inspections and oversee compliance after violations. The cost of this assistance is being borne by the property owner (see condition #36). Present Request: Since the root studies have been completed and the corrective design work for the foundations on Lots 9 and 10 is under way, the property owner is requesting the Commission reschedule the item continued on December 8, 2003. The property owner is now requesting that: 1) The conditions for development on the three lots be separated, to the extent possible, so each house can be built independently; 2) That 20' of Lot 10 adjacent to Lot 11 be used as a staging area to facilitate construction on Lot 11; and 3) That development on Lots 9 and 10 be left to a later date when foundations have been appropriately designed around the existing major roots. The property owner is requesting an amendment to the original conditional use permit for emerging lots in order to separate and amend conditions of approval for Lots 9 and 10. All three houses were originally approved within one set of conditions, which assumed as proposed by the developer that all Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 three houses would be built simultaneously. Now the property owner would like to begin construction of the house on Lot 11 while the foundation design based on the root investigation continues for the houses on Lots 9 and 10. In order to go ahead on Lot 11, the conditional use permit, which contains single set of intertwined conditions for all three lots, must be amended so that the conditions of approval are separated, one set of conditions for each lot. Planning staff would note that applications for Lots 9 and 10 will return for Planning Commission review once design of foundations and driveways are determined based on the root information, and any effect of the changes to the foundations or the height and other aspects of the design are determined for construction on Lots 9 and 10. The property owner is proposing to install a twenty -foot wide construction staging area on Lot 10 to be used for construction on Lot 11. The staging area would be established along the north property line of Lot 10 which would be designated by a permanent six-foot tall, chain -link fence at the location shown on the Site Plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 9, 2004. In a memo dated March 23, 2004, the City Arborist notes that all three arborists (project arborist, independent arborist, and City Arborist) agree that based on the root investigations completed to date, there will be no impact on the redwood grove tree roots on Lots 9 and 10 from construction on Lot 11, nor from the proposed use of the 20-foot wide construction staging area on Lot 10. Because a portion of Lot 10 will be used for staging for construction on Lot 11, several new conditions (in italics) have been added to address maintenance of the Redwood trees within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10. These added conditions address items such as reinforcing the existing protective fencing, mulching and irrigation within the protective fencing. The tree maintenance and protection conditions will have to be implemented prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on any of the lots, including Lot 11. • Amendment to the conditional use permit for emerging lots to separate and amend conditions of approval for Lots 9 and 10. All three lots, each with one house, were originally approved within a single set of conditions, which required that all three houses would be built at the same time. The property owner would like to begin construction of the house on Lot 11 while the foundation design and any other design adjustment for roots continues on Lots 9 and 10. In order to separate the conditions by lot, an application to amend the conditional use permit is required. With this application, the property owner is proposing to install a twenty -foot wide staging area on Lot 10 to be used for construction on Lot 11. The staging area would be established along the north property line of Lot 10 which would be designated by a permanent six-foot tall, chain -link fence at the location shown on the Site Plan submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 9, 2004. In a memo dated March 23, 2004, the City Arborist notes that all three arborists (project arborist, independent arborist, and City Arborist) agree that based on the root investigation completed to date, there will be no impact on the Redwood tree roots on Lots 9 and 10 from construction on Lot 11, nor from the proposed 20-foot wide staging area on Lot 10. At no time during the construction on Lot 11, including installation of landscaping, shall this fencing be moved, removed or relocated without the approval of the project arborist and City Arborist. 2 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 However, upon the completion of construction on Lot 11 and before construction begins on Lot 10, this fence needs to be removed so that this area can be used for construction access on Lot 10. The conditions of approval have been revised based on what has occurred at the site to date including demolition, root investigation and experience. New conditions and revisions to original conditions (in italics) have been added to address maintenance of the Redwood trees within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10 during all construction on the three lots. Redwood grove tree protection measures defined in the conditions shall be installed before a building permit is issued for any of the houses and shall remain in place until the occupancy permit is issued for the last of the three houses. Conditions also clarify funding for the City's licensed arborist inspector. These added conditions address items such as reinforcing the existing protective fencing, mulching and irrigation within the protective fencing, and adding the staging area fencing on Lots 9 and 10. The added conditions also include a requirement to replacing the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11. This full line is needed to provide water to the irrigation system for the redwood grove's maintenance during construction. Conditions require that a surface water line be extended on Lot 9 for the irrigation of the redwood grove during construction. • SumrnM of Root Investigation: Since January, the property owner and arborists have met on several occasions to discuss the root investigation, possible foundation types for the houses on Lots 9 and 10, needed protection during construction and root impacts of construction on Lot 11. The arborists investigated the back -filled excavated area on Lots 9 and 10 in regards to compaction and future root growth potential. The investigation noted that existing compression strength ratings for the fill indicate normal root growth potential. After the area on Lot 9 was excavated and prior to back -filling, the project arborist severed exposed root faces cleanly back to the edge of excavation to encourage new root growth and noted that in his opinion the loss of roots at that time was not significant in regards to loss of health or support. The City Arborist agreed that this was the best way to treat the exposed roots. The inspecting arborist noted that further excavation into the back - filled area may cause more damage than the original root severing itself and that it is probably best to leave the area as is rather than attempt to re -excavate it using the air spade tool. Therefore, the back -filled area was not re -excavated. Air spading occurred at the end of January under the supervision of all the arborists. The air spading was done in several locations around the redwood trees, but discontinued because of the arborists' concern that the air excavation process itself, particularly given the time of year, may unnecessarily damage or destroy the fine absorbing roots. The air tool also seemed to be stripping off bark from some woody roots in the air excavated trenches. As a result, a map of the root system was not produced. However, from the results of the air spading all the arborists agreed that there would be no significant impact on the roots from construction on Lot 11 or the proposed 20' wide staging area. The general consensus of the arborists was that coast redwood rooting activity did not extend into the 20' wide proposed staging area or onto Lot 11. 3 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 In regards to the protective fencing, the arborists agree that it may remain in its existing location on Lots 9 and 10 with some additional requirements including mulching and irrigation to support the trees during the entire construction of all three lots within the protective fencing. Conditions to meet these requirements have been added as conditions of approval which must be met prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 11 and include extending the new water service line for all three lots as a first phase of construction on Lot 11. The protective fencing area may be revised based on further root investigation for construction on Lots 9 and 10. Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note to the extent possible the conditions on Lots 9 and 10 have been divided. However, since the major roots supporting the redwood grove cross the property line between Lots 9 and 10, the two lots become intertwined in terms of tree protection measures. When the property owner finalizes his plans for construction on these two lots, they may become interdependent in other ways. These additional issues, if they arise, can be dealt with when the Commission reviews the revisions to the proposed development on these two lots. For this reason a condition has been added to both Lot 9 and 10 requiring Commission review of any changes from the approved design including foundation design based on tree root location, before submittal of plans for development on Lots 9 and 10 prior to submittal for a building permit. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit Amendment the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, 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; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. 4 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for the amendment to the conditional use permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Conditions of approval which have been revised or added are in italics. Those conditions which are no longer applicable are indicated with a strikethrough. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered for Lots 9 and 10: Conditions ofApproval for Lot 9 Italics indicate new wording from the original approval. Strike outs indicate that these conditions have been met and are no longer necessary. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheet L-1; and that any changes to the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height, building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or to tree trimming shall require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 10 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 9 5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineers April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15 , August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshals September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 9. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 9; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 10. that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 9; 11. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 12. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; R Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 9 13. that the new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 14. that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 15. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 16. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 17. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections to the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 18. that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 19. that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 20. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 7 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 9 21. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 23. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 24. that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 25. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 26. that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until esenstruetion of the dwellings and meesser-y stmetur-es is eempleted on Lots 9, 10, Hild I! the timing, design, method of construction and materials have been approved by the City Arborist, and a licensed arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the driveway and to make adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction; the construction activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction compliance with the approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin; 27 A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; 0 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 9 C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, and 11, and the pr-epelt„ a early to install the driveway o Lot 10 and the landseaping on Lots 9 and 10 an except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; and until the City n,-he -ist and 1?,,;1. ing Department ; t the site itand appreve .,1 f the ,, eteet;.�,-, f ti eeoe owriting,- Now 29 A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, approved selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist material and equipment shall be moved immediate4y; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist may shall also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; E Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 9 30 A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on -site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 31. A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 32. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 33 A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; 10 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 9 B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 34. Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction , 2003 B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 35. that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 11 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 9 36. that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; 37. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 38. that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site (completed); Proposed Additional Conditions of Approval for Lot 9: 39. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 40. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 12 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 9 41. that the property owner shall receive an encroachment permit from the City and shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line south lot 9; and a connection provided to Lot 9 at a location approved by the City Arborist; 42. that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground, water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 43. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 9, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for the development on Lot 9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued; except for modification of the protective fencing as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9; 44. that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 45. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 13 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 9 46 that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 47. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 48. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall affix at least four(4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a "Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove" and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 49. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; 50. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 9 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15`h of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on -going inspection function; and 14 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 151h of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9 and 10. Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 Italics indicate new wording from the original approval. Strike outs indicate that these conditions have been met and are no longer necessary. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 and A.6, date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets AA and L1 for Lot 10; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 10 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11; 15 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineers' May 31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; - - - 8. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 9. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 10; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 16 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 10. that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 10; 11. all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 12. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 13. that the new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 14. that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 15. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 16. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 17. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 18. that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 19. that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 20. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 21. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 22. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 23. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 24. that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 25. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; R Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 10 26. that the driveway and the detached garage it serves for the proposed house on Lot 10 shall be shifted to the north side of the lot within 5 feet of the north side property line and the driveway shall be designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and installed according to approved plans with the supervision of a licensed arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist; A. that before a Building PeEmit is issued, an exploratory digging investigation using an air- spade eF other- pFoper- means aleng the path of the dr-iveway for Lot 10 shall be eendueted by installed as pr-eposed; (not necessary with relocation of driveway) B. (not necessary with relocation of driveway) C. shetild the City Adber-ist detennine that the investigation shows that the driveway sheuld not be installed berause it results in measuFable damage to the Redwood trees, the pr-epefty ewne shall revise the plans for- Lot 10, have a eertified arber-ist evaluate the effeets of th the n a a t o and their -re shallo o „ ` �, a the Planning raapprove the GO-Arberist agree in writing that the revised plans *48 have ne negative impaet en the (not necessary with relocation of driveway) D. theA no installafien work on the driveway or- landseaping on the site shall eeeuf tII#iI senstmetien of the dwellings and aeeesrser-y sti%etufes-is eempleted on Lots 9, 10, a -a , , ; (not necessary with relocation of driveway) 27. A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; 19 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, and 11 and the p pe ft, o early to install the ari.,o.:,.,y e Let 10 and the l „as,..,. ing on rots n and 10 an except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; and urti' the City "rb^^st and Bulk;ng De aFtme t ; t the site .,n a of the , et „ eteet;onf .+ writing,- 0eapprove ng A. that driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; C. that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 29 A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, approved selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. inappropfiately that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist ; 20 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 30 A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on -site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 31. A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 21 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 10 32. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 33. A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 34. Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the property owner shall receive from a certified arborist; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; 22 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 35. that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 36. A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 37. Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction fetmded upen the reeemmendatiensorthe- Apr 28, 2003 f B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; 23 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 10 C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 38. that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 39. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building permit is issued; 40. that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site; (completed); 24 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions of Approval for Lot 10 Proposed Additional Conditions of Approval for Lot 10: 41. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 42. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 43. that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot 9 and a connection provided to Lot 10 shall be provided at a location approved by the City Arborist,; 44. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lots 9, 10 and 11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9 and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the protective fencing; 45. that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 46 that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 25 Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 Conditions ofApproval for Lot 10 47. that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the project arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 48. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 49. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall affix at least four(4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a "Tree Protection Fence ", "Do Not Alter or Remove " and in the event of movement or problem calla posted emergency number; 50. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; 51. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15`h of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on -going inspection function; and W Amendment to Conditional Use Permit 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9 and 10 b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15'h of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9 and 10. Margaret Monroe/Ruben Hurin City Planner/Planner c. Otto Miller, property owner and property owner 27 Page 1 of 1 PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: PARKS -Porter, Steve Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 1:21 PM To: PLG-Hurin, Ruben Subject: 1537 Drake Ave. Ruben, The three Arborists involved with this project, Rich Huntington (Mayne), Walter Levison, and I all agree that construction of lot #11 and the use of a 20 foot wide strip of lot #10 for a staging area will not negatively impact the Redwood trees on lots #9 and #10...... sp 3/23/2004 Staff Comments Includes comments for May 27, 2003 approval MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT April 8, 2002 To: Planning Department From: Vic or Voong, Enginee Subject: Drake Avenue The Engineering Division has received several letters regarding the sewer mains on Drake Avenue. We are aware of the problem that occurred in this area last year. To solve this problem, the City reconstructed four laterals that had problems and removed tree roots from the sewer main. The existing sewer does not have any capacity problems, however it had tree roots which caused obstruction of flows in the sewer main. Due to the shallow depth of the sewer main in the street, properties with plumbing fixtures below the street level have to install a backflow valve in their private property to prevent any possible back up of sewage. The City has removed the tree roots from the sewer main, however these tree roots will eventually grow back causing problems. Therefore this sewer main is on the City list of frequent maintenance areas to keep free from tree roots. UANACTORTrojectsTrivate11537Drake.wpd CITY ob PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO U.N. TO: Engineering- Syed Murtuza and Donald Chang FROM: Erika Lewit, Planning RE: .1537 Drake DATE: 5.31.02 Please review the following information and submit your written comments to me by 5:00p.m. on Monday, June 3, 2002. Thank You, Erika �In.Yl Wtl� MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING DI FROM: CITY ENGINE] DATE: JUNE 4, 2002 SUBJECT: 1537 Drake Avenue Residential development project Staff has reviewed the information submitted by Luzuriaga Taylor Inc. pertaining to potential environmental impacts and mitigations for the project. Following comments shall be addressed by the project developer prior to the planning commission approval: a: Provide Location Map of the proposed sewer backflow preventor installation with addresses. (prior to planning commission meeting) b: Installation of sewer backflow preventor device is the responsibility of a private property owner. A plumbing permit is required from the City's Building Division prior to the installation of backflow preventor device(s). c: Submit sewer flow monitoring results with graphs of peak and average flows with dates and times of monitoring as a supporting document to the sewer flow calculations. (prior to planning commission meeting) d: Provide a clear conceptual drawing of water line installation showing the limits of pipe replacement, length, valves, and size. (prior to planning commission mee*i .) e: A detail design drawing and specifications shall be submitted for City Engineer's approval prior to the issuance of Building Permit. An encroachment permit is required for the construction of water line. f: Revise the `Construction Operation Plan' to provide a note saying that `No construction equipment parking and or construction workers parking be allowed on the street'. (prior to planning commission meeting) g: Provide a note on the `Construction Operation Plan for perimeter construction fence to be erected to prevent construction debris escaping into adjacent properties. (prior to planning commission meeting) h: Project construction shall comply with the City's construction hours and noise ordinance. File: S:1A Public Works DiremrylAuthor. By NamcXSyed Muru-72 Lewrs11537 Drake Ave memo.wpd MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DONALD CHANG, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER DATE: AUGUST 15, 2002 SUBJECT: Sewer Backup Problem at 1500 Block of Drake Avenue This is to respond to the concerns raised by the public during a June 24' Planning Commission meeting regarding the existing sewer system at 1500 block of Drake Avenue. The applicant has conducted a sewer study recently and the sewer flow monitoring results showed that the existing pipe size is not a problem. The sewer backup problem was the result of the tree -root intrusion, sags in the pipe, and the age of the pipe. The City has taken the following immediate measures to remedy the problem: Placed this line on the Monthly Frequent Maintenance Program. The Sewer Department will clean this line monthly beginning September to clean the grease and debris. Treat this line with chemical foam for tree -root control. In August, 2002, a City contractor will inject chemical foam into the sewer main to kill the tree roots within the pipelines. This treatment will prevent root intrusion for the next 2 years. The City will conduct a study of the line to analyze the problems and come up with a long term solution. Once a feasible solution is developed a cost estimate v :l'. be prepared and this project will be included into the next year capital improvement program subject to City Council's approval. C: George Bagdon, Syed Murtuza, Phil Scott, Phil Monaghan, Vince Falzon, Victor Voong S:\A Public Works Directory\Planning Correspood11500 block Drake ROUTING FORM DATE: August 5, 2002 TO: City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT:. Request for design review and special permit for attached garage for anew two-story single family dwelling at 1537 Drake Avenue (A), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 Reviewed By: Vy - Date of Comments: �1 ROUTING FORM DATE: August 5, 2002 TO:City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new1two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1537 Drake Avenue (B), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 Reviewed By: V- V Date of Comments: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS site -Project Name &t d . pkNu.-�n, -Project Address:_ w;&iw b� The follo g requirements apply to the project 1 A property. boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 2 X The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 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 _ A sanitary sewer lateral -ton is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 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 U:Wvate development\PLANNING REVIEW CONRAENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12. Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The. project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters, parking meters 6,Ad 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 Fgneers 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 Y/ The . plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re -submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U:Vrivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW COMNCHT- S.doc ' PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of.the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12 above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water .from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 U:\private developmentTLANNING REVIEW CONOMM doc MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT August 30, 2002 To: Planning Department From: Victor Voong, n g Division Subject: 1537 Drake Aven e Staff has reviewed the submittals received on August 21, 2002 and the following are supplemental comments in addition to the previously made comments dated June 4, 2002; 1. Plans for the waterline installation shall indicate the type of pipe to be used and method of construction. 2. Sewer flow results did not show any capacity problems. Comment c dated June 4, 2002 is acceptable to the City. 3. Comments f, g and h dated June 4, 2002 are acceptable to the City. 4. Plans currently show that straw rolls to be installed on the two sides of the property. Straw rolls shall also be installed along the east side of the property which is common with Lot 9 to prevent erosion onto adjacent properties. 5. All other previously made comments still apply to this project. U AV ICTORTrojectsTrivate\1537Drake\Lots9and l O.wpd MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT October 15, 2002 To: T1537ake e From:ng, Engineering Division Subject: Avenue Staff has reviewed the submittals dated on September 23, 2002 and the following are supplemental comments in addition to all previously made comments; 1. Project plans shall show details for how the new water line is to be connected to the existng water lines, i.e., 45-degree bends. 2. Utility notes shall be revised to indicate that new valves shall be made of brass with bronze handles. 3. Utility notes shall also include pressure testing of new water pipes at 225 psi for two hours and five minute flush, and information regarding disinfection or chlorination of new pipes. 4. Although project plans currently show a 90-degree fitting at the intersection of the new pipes in the easement area, the text indicates a tee fitting. Plans shall indicate the proper fitting to be installed. Plans shall also show water service connections for adjacent properties on Bernal Avenue and Drake Avenue. 5. Project plans shall include two one -inch blowoffs behind the proposed valves at intersection of new pipes in the easement area. 6. All other previously made comments still apply to this project. U.\VICTOR\Projects\Private\1537Drake\Lots9and 10.wpd ROUTING FORM DATE: August 5, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for attached garage for anew two-story single family dwelling at 1537 Drake Avenue (A), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 0.r1�i, Q8) STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: Z .� R-— �.- ROUTING FORM DATE: August 5, 2002 TO: City Engineer Ychief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for attached garage for anew two-story single family dwelling at 1537 Drake Avenue (A), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 ra "s 01A e- o` C'`t pr,/y Cat h �-o )1 e N,-, , 7� wa /ls loss PCs M v v GIto`` , k ®tie - 48 U" OC'Ye- - Reviewed By: Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: August 5, 2002 TO: City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for anew two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1537 Drake Avenue (B), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 G2✓��' G Cti1 �/�!f l ASS 'T'�2 �1 C6" S�'L,C'k Lj-�_ cft"e sIS Reviewed By:, Date of Comments: ROUTING FORM DATE: August 5, 2002 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review for a new two-story single family dwelling and detacned garage at 1537 Drake Avenue (B), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 a.►). CA) STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 5, 2002 e6t"A `A� 0"do cAAOa lee CLA ri Reviewed By: Date of Comments:�— ROUTING FORM DATE: Monday March 31, 2003 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for mitigated negative declaration, design review, conditional use permit for re- emerging lots, and special permit for two attached garages for three new two-story houses at 1537 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1, APN:026-033-030 STAFF REVIEW: Monday, March 31, 2003 c Nl�n2�S Fan' iti.F'o1� vS a� CSC, sd-„-C-c �5, C�y,���� Reviewed By: ° ��' -- Date of Comments: y �s ROUTING FORM DATE: August 26, 2002 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal ^__Recycling Specialist 2City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for design review and special permit for attached garage for a new, two-story single family dwelling at 1537 Drake Avenue (A), zoned R-1, APN: 026-033-030 a:rtd f STAFF REVIEW: Monday, August 26, 2002 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: 11AN 0 MIJl/_ CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ARBORIST DATE: 5/21/03 TO: Planning Dept./Erika FROM: Steven Porter RE: 1537 Drake Ave. Erika, since receiving the latest Arborist Report from Mayne Tree Co. (4/28/03), I have inspected the site, evaluated the Arborist Report and have reviewed changes in the building plans. I have determined the following: I am satisfied that the conditions we prepared for Mr.Miller, (Planning Dept. Memo 4/23/03), have been met with in the latest Arborist Report from Mayne Tree Co.. The findings in this report are accurate and I am personally confident that if all of the tree protections listed in the report are followed by Mr. Miller, and his contractors, that this project can go forward as planned without significant short or long term harm to the trees in question. With regard to the Arborist Report, submitted by Mrs. Garcia, (Barrie Coate, 4/9/03). This report appears to cite standard, general tree protection guidelines. I believe this report was done without any actual prior site specific field analysis. Although accurate, the report does not address remedial efforts available when the general guidelines are sometimes violated. The Mayne Tree Co. report, on the other hand, is based on actual "hands on" field inspection of the specific site and situation. In this report, it appears that there will be no violation of general tree protection guidelines and that the construction methods to be used will cause minimal tree root damage and will be well under the critical 50% root mass loss formula. However, the Mayne Tree Co. Report has cited an additional important issue: "After construction, installation of landscaping, irrigation, electricity, retaining walls, etc. can have more impact to trees than the construction itself. I recommend having the landscape plans discussed with the architect and the arborist. This may be a further help to keeping these trees healthy." I agree with this recommendation ...... sp Letters submitted for December 8, 2003 P.C. Meeting TO: Meg Monroe FROM: Mark D. Hudak DATE: December 8, 2003 SUBJECT: 1537 Drake MEMORANDUM RECEIVED DEC - 8 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ri IX -..I Meg: Otto and I have reviewed the proposed amended conditions for Lots 9, 10, and 11 on Drake. We feel that the City is overreacting to a human error, as there was no intent on Otto's part to avoid or evade the conditions of approval (and thereby jeopardize the $118,000 in cash he has up in security for the trees). Nonetheless, he is prepared to live with the use of an outside arborist, provided that the arborist is used in a reasonable manner. The proposed condition of approval for the pier depths on Lots 9 and 10 is not workable. The intention should be to have the pier holes dug by hand to a certain depth, to help uncover roots that may be present. After the hand digging has progressed to a depth where roots are not likely to be present, the pier holes should be drilled mechanically to their finish depth. Condition 3 1 A makes it appear that the piers themselves would only go to a depth of 10", which would not be a usable pier for foundation purposes. Here is the language we would suggest for Condition 31 A and B for Lots 9 and 10 (Condition 31 C remains the same): 31A. Under the direction of a certified arborist, all pier holes shall be hand dug to a minimum depth of at least 18", or greater as directed by the arborist. 31B. If any roots greater than 3" are uncovered, the pier hole shall be relocated unless the certified arborist determines, in writing, that the root may be cut without material damage to the tree. I do want to emphasize that Otto will be doing an investigation under the direction of the arborist prior to bringing in the final foundation design and finish height for the homes on Lots 9 and 10. Hopefully, this will settle any questions regarding the location of pier holes in advance, but the proposed conditions above may still prove useful. Because of the additional investigation required for the foundation design on Lots 9 and 10, the house on Lot 11 may be completed earlier than the other two homes. Condition 27 for Lot 11 is now a problem. We would suggest the following: 27. No installation work on the driveway or landscaping plan shall occur until a sufficient staging area away from the redwood trees is prepared on Lots 10 and/or 9. 13600.00001 \BGLIB 1 \ 1201805.1 We hope that these reasonable modifications can be incorporated into the final conditions of approval. Please call me if there are any questions. cc: Larry Anderson, Esq. Otto Miller 13600.00001\13GLIBl\1201805.1 2 CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION �- MARK D. HUDAK mhudak@cmithlaw.com BY HAND Margaret Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1537 Drake Dear Meg: �JATTORNEYS AT LAW ` 216 PARK ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94011-0513 December 3, 2003 TELEPHONE (650) 342-9600 FACSIMILE (650) 342-7685 www.cmithlaw.com RECEIVED DEC " 3 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. This letter will summarize the situation that has arisen at the 1537 Drake project and Mr. Miller's response to it. Mr. Miller had engaged a contractor, Art Shade, Inc., to do both the demolition and foundation work on the site. After the existing structures were demolished, the contractor was supposed to be filling in the pool on Lot 11. There was a delay in the delivery of the fill materials and the contractor decided to proceed with cleaning up the building pad for Lot 9. He had not received instructions from Mr. Miller to proceed with this work. At the time the contractor began working, the required tree protection measures were in place and the contractor was not aware of the additional restrictions concerning on -site supervision by the arborist. In short, the unauthorized grading resulted from a miscommunication between Mr. Miller and the contractor. There was no intention on Mr. Miller's part to evade or ignore the conditions of approval. Indeed, he has put up $118,000 in cash to secure his obligation to protect and maintain the redwood trees and he certainly would not have purposely acted to jeopardize his deposit. During the grading work, several roots were uncovered. It is our understanding that the roots were left intact by the contractor. They were inspected by the arborist, Richard Huntington, who cut them. In his judgment, the loss of these roots will not have an impact on the tree. He then recommended that the area be backfilled and compacted to natural soil compaction. I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Huntington's letter report to Steve Porter for your reference. Because of the presence of roots in this area, the foundation for the home on Lot 9 may have to be redesigned. Rather than speculate about the exact nature of the foundation that may 'Margret Monroe December 3, 2003 Page 2 be required, James Chu and Mr. Miller have proposed to do investigative excavation on Lots 9 and 10, then bring in foundation designs based on the exact conditions discovered. This will include the finish floor heights to accommodate site conditions. Richard Huntington and Steve Porter will be on site during any digging. Although this may result in some delay in beginning construction on these lots, it seems preferable to revisiting the designs repeatedly. Mr. Miller remains committed to completing this project in compliance with the conditions of approval. He will ensure that the grading and foundation contractors receive a copy of the conditions in advance of any work. I hope this clarifies the situation for you and the Planning Commission. Please call me if there are any questions. Sincere y, Mark D. Hudak 13600.00001 \BGLIB 1 \ 1201380.1 RECEIVED DEC - 3 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 12i02%03 TUE 11:15 FAX 6505034443 MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO 10002 Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ESTABLISHED 1931 STATE CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE NO_-76793 (3RADUATE F0RB9TT:R C. ERTIFIED ARBORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPE3E-A-CORS RICIGIRD L. HUNTINGTON 535 BRAG ATO ROAD. STE. A RESIDENT SAN CA CS. CA 94070-62: 8 'rkL EFFONE- (650) 51,'3- 40t: KF.VIN R. KIELTY Fp.CSIt4tT.E: (6.0) 573-1443 OPERATIONS MAA:AGER November 26, 2003 LM 1IL rinfu:ulmayn'Ircc.com. Mr. Steve Porte- Parks & Recreation Dept. City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1537 Drake Avenue Dear Mr. Porter: RECEIVED D E C - 3 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. We met at the above site on November 25, 2003. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss equipment excavation, and significance of root cutting to the redwoods. Excavation over tern feet south of the 3 westerly redwoods was 18 inches deep and excavation to the southwest was 36 inches deep and 18 feet away. Or: Ncivemb :r 26, 2003, I cut cleanly all ev- os;ed roots bad- to the edge of the excavation. The fallowing tables gives the numbers of roots and their approximate diameters: Number of r��ots Size range 1 4to5 6 2to3 6 1 40 or less In my opinion, the root cuttitlg at this time has not been significant to its health or, support. If the excavation were to proceed to, the vest and north, significant root Moss could occur. 12/02iO3 TLE 11:15 FAX 6505934443 K&YNE TREE EXPERTS CO 10003 Burlingame./Porter 11-26-03, Pg. 2 All of my reports and remedial recommendations were based on minimal excavations of 6 to 10 inches for a pier and grade beam foundation, not 18 to 36 inches df crawl space. I recommend back -filling the excavated areas and packing it down to a nataral soil compaction. I, again, recommend hand digging for piers. Due to observed root depth from the excavation cut, I recommend excavation within 20 feet of a tree to be 10 inches or less. Have the Arborist on site when the excavation is being done. Please keep me in the loop for the site excavation. Sincerely, Richard L. Huntington r Certified Arborist WC $01.19 RLH:dcr .� CC: Otto Miller D h i RECEIVED DEC-08-2003 15:33 Wall Street Journal P.01/01 I+e , 4 (, To: Burlingame Planning Commission From: Ann Thomas Date: 12/8/03 Re: 1537 Drake Ave. �.1 Given the permit violations documented in the Planning Commissions own staff report for tonight's meeting, eyewitness testimony which you will hear directly from neighbors, and given the fact that what we now are dealing with changed circumstances (as outlined in the 10/13/03 Planning Commission meeting) is now a four -house development that includes plans for 1553 Drake Ave., under advice of legal counsel we ask that: 1) the Conditional use permit for the 1537 Drake project be denied and revoked and the entire project be sent back to square one for re- consideration to assess the cumulative impact this full -four -house project will have on this dead-end street and the protected redwood grove, as required under the city's own design review ordinance, the city's tree protection ordinance, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, which requires assessment of cumulative impact. 2) A moratorium be imposed on this multi -lot development until the Planning Commission and, if need be, the City Council, adequately assess a) the impact this contiguous four -home development will have on the dead- end residential street and b) the impact such ongoing development will have on the Easton Addition, where — according to a count of Planning Commission minutes posted on line -- the vast majority of tear -down activity and new residential building has occurred over the past three years. These data indicate that about 75 homes have been torn down and replaced in the Easton Addition alone in three years, at least a third of them by the current design/development team. Thank you. RECEIVED DEC - 8 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. TOTAL P.01 fte Pot 4f (:�, December 6, 2003 To: Burlingame Planning Commission Members RE: Digging incident at 1537 Drake � ice"; ► 7� i � �T �`'i'�" T r �1: � i RECEIVED DEC - 8 2003 CITy URLINGAME PLAGNNBING DEPT. While the details of the events surrounding the digging up of the redwood tree roots at 1537 Drake has been described in depth in a letter by Janet Garcia, I would like to add my thoughts regarding this matter. I too witnessed a large hole of approximately 4 feet deep being dug by a backhoe on the south side of the property. I am greatly concerned over Mr. Miller's complete lack of concern not only for the redwood trees but the regulations he agreed to when being finally granted permits for this work. Mr. Miller has shown his repeated disregard not only for the laws of this city but for the environment and the people of this community as well. It is high time for someone in city government to stand up to him. I urge you not to let him continue to pillage the city we cherish so much. Regards, Margaret Whilfer December 5, 2003 RECEIVED Dear Planning Commission: DEC - 8 2003 CITY OF BURLI GAME EP The incidents that occurrdW*&8m9er 25 and 26 at 1537 Drake were a violation of the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit. Mr. Miller has altered the impact of the project and shown a flagrant disregard for the tree protection measures. Many of the neighbors of 1537 Drake are deeply troubled by the violations of the laws set by the city and the measures imposed by the Planning Commission. We would like outlined for us the legal ramifications of these violations and the liability of Mr. Miller and Mr. Richard Huntington as attached thereto. First, I would like to clear up the blatant misrepresentations set forth in Mr. Hudak's letter. In addition, I would also like to point out inconsistencies in the report issued by Mayne Tree Company and the events. In the morning of November 25 my husband noticed digging by large equipment on the property at 1537 Drake. He walked closer to see a large pit had been dug and torn roots were exposed. He mentioned this to me and I immediately called Ruben, the project planner. I was told that he would contact Steve Porter. I walked over to the site and stood in disbelief as I witnessed a number of tree roots, quite large in diameter, snapping as they were ripped and torn from the ground. I called to the sub contractor doing the work and he approached me. When I asked him what he was doing he told me that he was digging holes the size of the foundation footprint for crawl space. He also told me that when he was done with Lot 9 he was proceeding to lots 10 and 11 and would probably be done the upcoming Monday due to the holiday. When I asked if there was a permit he said yes but did not have one present. I witnessed a hole at least 4- 5 feet deep and torn, exposed roots of the Redwoods. The fence had been pushed against the trees on the south to accommodate the backhoe. The city planner Ruben also noted the condition of the hole and roots. In addition, Mr. David Taylor and Margaret Wilfer witnessed the excavation and exposed torn roots. Mr. Taylor was able to get a few pictures. Within an hour Ruben came and told the sub contractor to halt work. He went back to City Hall to get a stop work order. Subsequent to that Mr. Porter, Mr. Huntington and the Contractor showed up. Notable in his absence was Mr. Miller. I spoke to Mr. Porter shortly before 1 o clock and he told me that the contractor had an unapproved set of plans and that no work was to be done until the problem was dealt with. Later that day I again spoke with Mr. Porter who assured me that there would be absolutely no work at all done on the lot except for flood abatement. This meant around the perimeter of the lot. Again I watched in disbelief as Wednesday morning the crane started to fill and compact the hole. What was almost worse is that a "steamroller type" piece of heavy equipment was rolling back and forth over the same torn roots we were worried about the day before! I immediately called Steve Porter and left a message. When he returned my call about an hour later I asked him about the stop work order. He explained to me the list of conditions that needed to be met before anything could commence on the property. These included, detailed description of damage, recommended remedial action, mitigation needed to remedy the problem, and soil compaction numbers for backfilling the hole. Without this he said, there was NOTHING that could be done. He also stated that he had met with Mr. Huntington just a couple hours prior at the site that morning and this was clear and agreed upon. I then told Mr. Porter that the hole was almost completely filled and being compacted he responded "I am calling the police!" and hung up. A couple of hours later I received a message from Mr. Porter that said that he spoke to the building inspector and they thought " What I was probably witnessing was the backfilling of the swimming pool on lot I L ' I assume Mr. Porter and the building inspector felt it was difficult to believe that this would actually take place after all the discussions. Apparently the police were called after the building department visited the site. A few notes on the misstatements in Mr. Hudaks letter: 1. It was very clear that the contractor was not "cleaning up the building pad for lot 9" The subcontractor doing the work told me personally that he was "digging the sub - floor for lot 9, and was proceeding to lots 10 and I U' 2. There was no "miscommunication between the contractor and Mr. Miller". The contractor had, in his presence an authorized, unapproved set of plans. The subcontractor was very specific about work to be done. 3. This was not "grading work", this was a massive 3-5 foot deep hole the size of the foundation footprint. 4. "it is our understanding that the roots were left intact" is a LIE. We have many witnesses to the torn roots as well as pictures to the contrary.. In addition, if the roots were "intact" why would Mr. Huntington need to cut them? Also a few notes on Mr. Huntington's letter: 1. I spoke to Mr. Porter on November 26. He had not received a letter from Mayne as of my last conversation in the afternoon. The letter is dated Nov. 26 but the fax transmission is for Monday Dec. 2 at 11:15 a.m. and stamped received by Planning Wednesday, Dec 3. Mr. Porter said it was clear that no work to be done at all until the requested information was sent to him. This speaks to the honesty and professionalism of Mr. Huntington as well as the lack of credibility to this process. 2. Mr. Huntington's comment " I recommend backfilling the excavated area and packing it down..." was written after it was already done! I ask: 1. Why did Mr. Huntington cut the roots? 2. What was the basis for his statement " root cutting at this time has not been significant to its health or support" 3. Why did he rush to violate the law and his understanding with Mr. Porter and the city and backfill the area in a way that was unacceptable? He actions are in the least a blatant violation of the city laws. In response to Mr. Porters memo dated 12/2: 1. Why are we even discussing using Mayne Tree after this fiasco? 2. Mr. Porter stated that "some root damage did occur which has been corrected by the project arborist" Specifically, what root damage and what corrections measures took place? Again, where are the details? 3. Mr. Porter states in this letter that the backfill is harmful to the roots, yet he also wrote that Mr. Huntington corrected damage to the roots . This is inconsistent. As for Mr. Miller: 1. Why did the contractor have a set of unapproved plans? 2. When did Mr. Miller change the plans and include 3 foot sub floor after all the discussion about root disruption and pier and beam footings? Why would he even attempt to submit plans calling for this type of foundation? 3. Why wasn't the contractor told of the need for arborist supervision. Could any bigger issue been made of the importance of this? 4. Where was Mr. Miller through all this? 5. A very important issue is Mr. Millers tree bond that was approved by Mr. Anderson. It seems sorely inadequate and perhaps is part of the problem. In the information provided Mayne Trees Arborist Report (10/29/03) =pg. 23 sec 7.3) , it states that "appraisals cannot be out of line with property values and are generally considered to be 20-25% of the property values". The bond Mr. Miller was asked to post was approx. 6% of purchase price! I would like to see comparable bond amounts from other cities. 6. These actions severely question Mr. Millers credibility and his comment of his commitment to "completing the project in compliance with the conditions of approval" When was this committed to have started? Now after major damage has been done and we have had two years of fighting for tree care and root reports, Mr. Miller says he will do "investigative excavation" Sounds like the cat guarding the hen house after the hens have gone. How much is enough? I ask for: 1. The Planning Commission recommend that the City Council convene to revoke all permits issued to date. Mr. Miller has violated existing laws and is operating on an unfair basis. Mr. Miller has violated the tree ordinance and was acting outside the conditions of approval 2. Independent arborist reports are ordered to determine the exact damage done to the trees and root system and the effects of this damage. 3. Remedial work be determined and implemented at Mr. Millers expense to insure that the trees do not die or worse yet fall on houses. 4. Disclose fine attributed to the violations of the permits ,orders and ordinances that were in place and outline the legal recourse against the responsible parties. 5. Address the misrepresentations by Mr. Hudak and Mr. Huntington. 6. Determine what construction if any can be done in the affected area or in the surrounding areas after diligent study has been done to determine the effects on the long term health of the redwoods. After nearly two years of bringing forth the serious issues and impacts of this development I ask for a moratorium on the development until the issues are fully reviewed and a thoughtful determination can be made. Sincerely, Planning Commission: I thought that you may find Mr. Hudaks quotes on the incident from the November 28,2003 issue of the Burlingame Daily News especially disturbing and very misleading. I am enclosing them for your review. Janet Garcia REnMM-.W.Bob ,Bryant, 'R'i time customer Officer Steve V LY i a controversial . rest1, $ eftf. .-t, saying the agreem­ 'Y was violated." cabinet Scirle 55 % % OFF cictory List Price See ad inside. 46 16V 1 IVU�W Work was stopped at the 1537 )rake Ave, property on Wednes- don for development City Planner Meg Monroe said. "After the dig- ject will have to come back before the Planning Commission Dec. ning permit or revoking it entirely, ay., because the ,contractor was -and ,tu g tree roots ging was done, some roots were damaged," 8, according to Monroe. The Monroe said. The project, being built by developer Otto Miller, has qvision :of an Because the terms of the agree- commission will have the options of changing the conditions been controversial from the begin- ning. Miller's as a condia ment were violated, the entire pro- of approval, suspending the plan- plan was to demol- -Page See HOUSES, 65 trip until Bush had taken off from Baghdad, about midmorning yesterday on the West Coast. The president was expected to refuel in Washington about midnight, and then fly on to Texas, where he was to land sometime before dawn today. The trip, which administration officials began planning about six weeks ago, came at a time when the president is under sharp criticism about the escalating attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq and for his absence from the funerals of U.S. soldiers killed in the conflict. To that end, it showcased the pres- ident's personal connection to the struggle. But it also highlighted the continuing dangers of Iraq. Bush's trip was conducted under extraor- dinary security, even for a president who routinely travels under some of the tightest securityin the world. Air traffic controllers IN IRAQ — President Bush meets waft U.S. Army soldiers in Baghdad yesterday. The trip had been in the works for stx weeks. AP photo. in Baghdad did not know that the large plane heading for the runway was Air Force One, and the 747 then landed without its lights, in darkness but for a sliver of moon above the airport. Bush, who spent only 2 1/2 hours on the ground in Baghdad, all in the secure area around the airport, also met for about 20 minutes with members of the Iraqi Govern- ing Council, including Ahmad Chalabi, the prominent exile. leader who is close to senior officials at the Pentagon. HOUSES FROM PAGE ish a home that sat on three lots and replace:` Hudak said he hadn't yet been to the site, but it with: multiple homes. downplayed the incident. "It's nothing major, Neighbors have taken issue with the size They were doing, some excavating and we of the homes and fear it will impact the l�uird� o a tree," Hudak said "I NO from quality of life in the neighborhood. 100PI& making Wlbrmow.ofit than it i ':. Hudak said the developer had 0 Trees issue with the Planning Corn- arborist loop at �W and he deter- mined that it wouldn"t impact the health At, hen the project was approved was of the tree. l'sure a grove of redwood trees at the Hudak plans to present a letter .to the site was adequately protected, and somQ city detailing those findings Monday and commission members made a point to stres doesn't think the issue will need to comg, its importance at the time. Monroe said M#fler could be liable for. before the Planning Commission again "We're not-:goin&�backt&.tl l?la mg financial damages if the trees die. C66616 n every time we fink, E#asma On Wednesday, Miller's. lawyer Marks .ro©tg Hudak said. l MedicalGroul ., 1313 Laurel St. Suite #106, San Carp 650-551-9700 • Best Asian NJ • Swedish Rely IMPACT COMINICATIONS wl to range number? In0 Wh On PLG-Lewit, Erika From: McCrum, Chris BGI SF [Chris.McCrum@barclaysglobal.com] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 4:36 PM To: planning@burlingame.org Subject: 1537 Drake Ave To: The Burlingame Planning Commission and Meg Monroe I am wiring in concern over the developments at the project (now construction) site at 1537 Drake Ave. I have been frankly amazed at what I have witnessed over the past month on this site. I have only to read the planning departments own report on this situation to see how Mr Miller is blatantly disregarding both the form and substance of the discussions and agreements to date, most notably in regards to his recklessness in digging deep holes near the redwood groves. Two large construction vehicles remain on the site and you have only to look at the equipment on these vehicles to understand the impact that these machines have already had on the site. This is making a mockery of the process that we the neighbors have wasted countless hours in pursuing. I would ask the Commission to maintain the stop work order unless and until a radically improved situation emerges. I would also ask the Commission to seek a much greater financial sum from the applicant as it is obvious that the sum of money that he has set aside is far less than that needed to protect these trees. I apologize for the brevity of the letter, although my numerous prior verbal and written comments on this proposal should also be noted. In haste. Kind regards Chris McCrum 1540 Drake Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 6. Chair Boju' noted: agree with comments of Keel nd Vistica, would add co ern about the height of the propose uilding, feel Cecil would benefit /eether model of theICI hat they can ee it in C imensions, if g rd would be a v ua ommissioners ed: when the co nts frome gat ed whty uncil do; it was useful for th ommission to loo at the EIR ct gether. d, Council asked commissio input on Suppleme 2 because wve commissits on the entire EIR d )cume in light of Commis ' n rej ection of theinally staff bre EIR and prof e to Cofission together beca e they did not feel thar citizen coulbetween the and th roiect. Chair Bojues tha" the public for their a,06ndance and participat'ofi. He noted that thea6mments of the public and co 17 ssion would be forwarPld to the City Council; d closed the item. T s item concluded at 9:15 p.m. REVIEW AND CONSIDER MODIFICATION TO OR SUSPENSION OF THE PROJECT AT 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1— (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. She stepped down from the dias and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report December 8, 2003, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty-one conditions for Lot 9, forty conditions for Lot 10, and forty conditions for Lot 11 were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson noted that he could not represent the Planning Commission as legal counsel because he helped to develop the conditions of approval for the project, he can arrange for legal counsel if the Commission feels that is needed. Commissioner asked for clarification of what this project review is about and what are the alternatives. CA explained that when the developer violated the conditions of approval, the City responded by restructuring the conditions to make them less confusing by separating them out so that each lot will have its own set of conditions, this made the conditions more specific by lot, that the conditions for each lot be posted on a board at the site, require the developer to pay for a supervising certified arborist chosen by the City to oversee the developers' arborist. The intent is to make sure everyone understands what the rules are. CA noted that clarification is still needed on how the foundation pier holes will dug. Commission asked if the conditional use permit can be revoked altogether. CA noted that under California state law, the Planning Commission cannot revoke a permit which has already been granted unless it finds that the permit should not have been granted in the first place; CA also reminded the Commission that the permits run with the property regardless of who the applicant is; there was a misunderstanding of the finished floor elevation relative to the adjacent grade, pier locations and finished floor elevation does not work under the conditions imposed with the approved project. Commissioner asked if the City has had problems with this developer following conditions of approval on other projects in the past? CP noted that the only project he had a problem with in terms of compliance with City requirements in effect at the time of approval was one which he inherited from another applicant. Commission asked if the developer is overstretched in complying with all of the conditions of approval, does he have the time to devote make sure all contractors working on the project follow the conditions of approval? CP noted that staff was not qualified to answer for the developer. Cers. Bojues and Osterling noted for the record that the developer contacted them prior to the meeting to discuss the project. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 Continued Commission questions: Commissioner asked if the excavated area was backfilled because he could not clearly see the area on a site visit; yes, applicant backfilled area the day after it was excavated, area is located to the left and rear of the Redwood trees. Commissioner noted that he recalled requiring a plan showing the protective fencing and air spading around the Redwood trees, if the applicant complied with these requirements we would not have this problem today, have not seen a plan for the protective fencing, was air spading done? CP noted that a plan for the protective fencing was submitted by the applicant's arborist, but that air spading was not done. CA noted that the developer never reached the point of root investigation, the contractor jumped ahead and started excavating without the required root investigation. Commission noted that the pictures show exposed roots extending beyond the protective fencing and asked how far was the fence from the excavation? Plr Hurin noted that the excavation appeared to be approximately two feet from the fencing at its closest point. Commission asked how deep was the excavation and if staff had any pictures of the excavation? Plr indicated that the some excavated areas where clearly more than 20 inches deep, Planning staff does not have pictures of the excavation but noted that the applicant's arborist or the City Arborist may. Commission noted that the pictures submitted by a neighbor clearly show two strata of soil, the lower strata being darker. Commission asked if the protective fencing plan was reviewed by the City Arborist? Yes, the City Arborist reviewed and accepted the projective fencing plan and visited the site to make sure it was installed correctly. Commissioner asked what the reason was for revising condition #2 on Lot 9; wanted to make sure that when the three houses are separately sold the house designs on the three lots are consistent in scale and mass. Why was condition #29 on Lots 9 and 11 deleted? Condition #29 addressed the installation of the driveway on Lot 10 only. CA noted that condition #30b for Lots 9 and 10 regarding frequency of site inspection by a licensed arborist was revised so that it provides the flexibility for the City to require how often the site should be inspected. Commission asked why condition #31a requires a certified arborist on -site during hand digging; this condition requires that the developers' certified arborist be on site at all times to supervise the process and ensure the findings are incorporated; this condition was also revised to limit the hand digging for piers from a depth of 18 to 10 inches based on the developers' recommendation in the arborist report, if digging for the piers requires a greater depth it will be reviewed by the Commission, foundation type may change after further root investigation. Commission asked if there is a monetary fine associated with the stop work order; no, just prohibits the developer from doing any work on all three lots. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Bojues opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney representing Otto Miller, developer, and James Chu, project designer, were available to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the developer is responsible for what happened since he is the "captain of the ship", did not intend or direct the excavation to occur, fully understood all conditions of approval for the houses, installed the protective fencing prior to demolition permit issuance, protective fencing was reviewed and approved by the City Arborist; demolition permit was issued after demolition requirements were met; next phase was to prepare the site, contractor was to fill in the empty swimming pool on Lot 11, was far enough away to not affect the Redwood trees; while waiting for fill material contractor decided to begin the clean-up on Lot 9, was unaware that the developers' arborist needed to be there during excavation, developer intended to start root investigation after Thanksgiving. Mr. Hudak also noted that of all the houses this developer has built in Burlingame and Hillsborough there have been no willful violations committed, unfortunately did not tell the contractor not to work on Lot 9, developer posted a $118,000 deposit with the City for the Redwood trees, the last thing he wants to do is damage the trees; certified arborist was not on the site at the time because excavation was not to occur yet, certified arborist assessed the roots and recommended that the excavated area be backfilled, contractor appeared to have over -compacted the backfill. The developer next met with City staff to discuss how to proceed with the foundation type for the houses on Lots 9 and 10, do not want to redesign the houses 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 now, need to conduct the air spading first to investigate the root system, will design foundation for houses based on what is found in the field; feel that the additional layer of supervision by an independent arborist and planner is an overreaction to the situation, but the developer is willing to cooperate if within reason; appreciate the conditions of approval being separated for each lot, construction of Lots 9 and 10 will be out of sequence with Lot 11, developer would like to complete construction on Lot 11 soon, offered revised language for conditions #31 a and b and #27 in a memo provided to staff and Commission, do not want to spend time discussing the depth of the pier holes tonight since more information will be available after root investigation is completed by the certified arborist, then will know what type of foundation can be used. Commission asked why the air excavation was not completed? Mr. Hudak noted that it was not due to a misunderstanding of the condition of approval, it was due to poor communication with the contractor, contractor should have only been filling in the pool on Lot 11. Commissioner noted that while at the site noticed a tree stump at the front of Lot 10, was this tree ok to remove? Plr Hurin noted that the site plan indicates two trees to be removed at the front of Lot 10. Commission noted that by looking at the photographs 10 to 18 inches may not be deep enough to evaluate the roots for hand digging, may need to go deeper; Mr. Hudak noted that it depends on the location on the lot, hand digging will be done where practical, roots should be at surface. Commissioner noted that Redwood tree roots are shallow, it appears that the roots have gone through sand and hit clay, need to explore the root depth, engineer needs to look at root depth then determine what type of foundation can be used. Mr. Hudak noted that that the root exploration will be done with the City Arborist on site, then can determine if a pier and grade beam foundation is the appropriate type. Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus Avenue, Christ McCrum, 1540 Drake Avenue, Mark and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, John O'neal,1516 Drake Avenue, expressed the following concerns with the project: apologized for submitted letter of concern today, hoped that the Commission would read it tonight, there is a lot information and misinformation needed to be brought forth, floored by the developer's actions, asked if City Arborist was present; no, staff tried to contact him today but was not available; after two years of trying to get the developer to protect the trees and avoid this from happening, Mayne Tree originally recommended that the development stay 20 feet from the Redwood trees, over time made allowances to protection, now have extensive root damage, important root system at risk; Commission needs to revoke or suspend current permits, would like to see a detailed arborist report done by an independent arborist and not by Mayne Tree, all new proposals and studies need new mitigation measures based on new plans, would like to see details of legal action against the developer, the contractor and Mayne Tree; floored to see backhoe ripping roots during excavation, watched as roots 5+ inches in diameter were snapped, told backhoe operator to stop, was told by contractor that the excavation was for the subfloor crawl space and that once finished with Lot 9 would go on to Lots 10 and 11, there was no miscommunication, this was not a clean up, excavation was for building pad on Lot 9; developer was gone all day during excavation, developer may have not told the contractor to excavate but the contractor had plans which called for a subfloor excavation on all three lots; was told by City Arborist that the developer's arborist new not to touch the site, City Arborist explained the requirements which needed to be met before any work commenced, called the City Arborist on Wednesday and told him that the excavated area was being backfilled, City Arborist indicated that the contractor maybe filling in the pool and not the excavated area, called the City Arborist again to tell him that the contractor was filling the excavated area, building inspector confirmed, City Arborist noted that he was going to call the police; do not think Mayne Tree should be involved with this project, feel that the City Arborist is not taking this issue seriously; need to stop everything and do air spading, need to have independent arborist complete report, concerned 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 with tree falling. Commissioner asked if the contractor was directed to dig? Neighbor noted that she didn't know for sure, but saw contractor on site with three sets of unapproved plans. Continued comment: asked Commission if they remember the situation with this developer on Poppy Drive several years ago, endangered an oak tree and cut it down, example of how developer was involved with not following conditions of approval on another site; need to now find out how roots were damaged, need to excavate by hand so C. Osterling can evaluate. C. Osterling noted that he would be interested in seeing the roots once the root exploration is complete, cannot comment on the roots because there is a conflict of interest, independent arborist will have to provide report on roots; approval of this project was issued prior to the proposed development at 1553 Drake Avenue, Commission needs to discuss properties as four lots, development on all four lots will greatly impact the neighborhood, development at 1553 Drake Avenue has not been resolved; when and how should there be consequences to the developers' actions; concerned with Mr. Huntington's arborist report, report indicates that roots to the north and west ofthe Redwood trees could have significant root loss, excavation occurred in these areas, need to pause, conduct root exploration and understand level of damage before allowing any construction on these sites; submitted six photos taken on November 26, package is incomplete, this is a four house multi -unit subdivision, need to review all four houses, concerned why contractor had three sets of unapproved plans on site, conditional use permit should be revoked because the circumstances have changed, need to considered the cumulative impact in accordance with the zoning code and CEQA, the developer's behavior is outrageous; feels that the developer is not overstretched because the project foreman lives at 1553 Drake Avenue, protective fencing was shoved out of the way during excavation and moved closer to the trees, protective fencing is moveable and the protective fencing plan is not adequate, Mr. Hudak talked about exploring the roots in the excavated area, the roots there were all removed with the excavation, swimming pool is 80 feet from the excavated area, pit varied in depth from 54 inches deep at its deepest point to 18 inches 50 feet away towards the rear of the lot, roots extend under utility easement and to 1529 Drake Avenue, many roots were severed; held up a 2'x4' piece of redwood and showed a damaged root from the site larger than 3% inches in diameter, showed a 7 inch tall bottle for comparison, referred to photos submitted of damage to roots on site, also brought a larger root damaged by the excavation; feel that the developer, contractor and foreman willfully forfeited the right to develop on this property by their actions, developer cannot abide by the rules and should not be permitted to building in Burlingame. Commission noted that the root shown at the meeting was cut and asked who cut it? Neighbor indicated that this is only a portion of the severed root taken from the site, cut it at home so it could be brought to the meeting, also noted that the developer brought in additional gravel to the site two days after the stop work order was issued; came to public hearings for 16 months to preserve the neighborhood, have lived here for over 25 years, expressed considerable doubt that something bad would happen, this is a cost of doing business for the developer, he'll just pay his way out, developer builds the houses, makes a profit and leaves town, property owners have to live with the consequences, this is a pretty town to live in, but it makes no difference to the developer, something has to be done to stop this, has seen protective fencing moved several times, would like to see harsh penalties imposed; this is a disappointing situation, there are too many misunderstandings with the arborist, with the City, with the City Arborist, there are misunderstandings with what the distance should be from the trees to the protective fencing, depth of the excavated area, distance from the protective fencing to the excavated area, misunderstandings with the requirement to air spade, how deep the excavated area is and so on; this is not about the neighbors versus the developer, this is about the Planning Commission executing their responsibilities, Commission must bring resolution to this problem and interpret the rules, in addition to all of the misunderstandings there are too many data gaps on the Redwood trees, specifically need a certified Redwood tree arborist to serve as an 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 expert here; traffic issues have not been full resolved, looking to the Commission to provide leadership, they are the controlling body. Mr. Hudak noted that he has listened to the neighbors' and Commissions' concerns tonight, it would be most effective to have an independent certified arborist chose by the City on site as frequently as the City feels necessary, would like to work at solving this problem for the City and the neighborhood. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: need to clearly find the extent of the damage, there appears to be considerable damage but don't know how bad, independent certified arborist will assess and provide a report of damage, need more time to evaluate the conditions, can't decide on how to proceed with the project now until the investigation is complete. Commissioner asked if a certified Redwood tree expert is necessary? Commissioner noted that he doesn't think that a Redwood tree expert can tell us more than Mr. Levison could (independent arborist recommended by the City), have worked with Mr. Levison in the past and feel that he is qualified; agree need to investigate damage to date, need to find out extend of excavation, need to have an analysis of conditions which would allow for a certain type of foundation; these actions undermine the confidence in the developer to abide by the conditions, need to assess the quality of conduct, need to get a clear picture of what is going on, feel that it was willfully done by the evidence presented; Commission needs to see legal advice regarding whether or not to suspend or revoke the permits granted, there is enough information now in the record; from day one the Redwood trees were an issue, developer was aware of this importance, and what resulted was possible damage to the Redwood trees. C. Keele moved to continue this item until the conditions and root damage have been properly investigated and until, the foundation type for the houses has been developed. Comment on the motion: CA noted that he would find a law firm that could give the Commission legal advise about suspending or revoking the permits. Commission directed that the backfilled area needs to be uncovered under the supervision of an independent arborist. The Commission asked who is going to pay the independent arborist and any staff time associated with the project? CP noted that the developer would by responsible, this would also include an independent planner and building inspector if needed. C. Osterling noted that when the root excavation is opened up he would like to be at the site, suggested that developer should work under a plan during investigation and that this plan should be signed by the developer. Commission asked what happens if it is determined after the root investigation that the project is not buildable? CA noted that the plans as proposed are not buildable, if anything good came out of this situation is that the developer, based on the site conditions, will be able to design a foundation which will be buildable; would like to make it clear that the independent arborist is not obliged to approve this project, it is perfectly acceptable for the independent arborist to say that this project can't be built, he does not have to find a way to say yes; CA noted that the City does not have to give the developer design alternatives. Commissioner asked if there is a way to allow the development of Lot 11? CA noted that there may be a problem for the developer with phasing the construction on Lots 9 and 10, there may be a problem with material staging and access for Lot 9 and 10 if Lot 11 is developed and not available, the developer has asked if he could fill in the swimming pool for safety reasons; see no problem with allowing the developer to fill in the pool at this time so long as it is supervised. Commission asked if there were any penalties than can be imposed for backfilling after a stop work order was issued? CA noted that the next step would be to have a preliminary injunction issued by the superior court but that it is hard to do. Commission provided the following additional direction: 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2003 • The developer is to pay for the independent arborist and planner chosen by the City; • Survey of roots and damage to be conducted; • Pool fill on Lot 11 to be completed only with proper supervision by a certified arborist; • The developer is to pay for any other personnel required to acquire the necessary data and complete the investigation; • After root excavation is completed, mapped and assessed, Mr. Huntington can make a recommendation to the independent arborist and City Arborist based on the site conditions; recommendations will then be reviewed by the independent arborist and City Arborist; • The independent arborist is to determine how much, location and the manner in which the current backfill is to be removed for investigation; independent arborist is to also provide method of root treatment; • Provide map on site plan showing location of roots; • Re-examine and determine location of protective fencing for roots, establish markers for perimeter of fencing, and regularly inspect protective fencing for compliance with plan; air spading could help in determining location of fence. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote on the motion to continue the item until the information requested, including revised foundation plans, have been completed and reviewed by the City and arborist specialists.. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran abstained). This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. X. PL R REPORTS - Review of City uncil regular meeting/Qncilemeeting mber 1, 2003. CP Monroe iewed the actions of the of December 1, - FYI— Wcemo on Broadway Co CP onroe noted that that the P ng Department. ConcII� the website. This issue ha�l"ie /.ice/� U 9111:7►101 DI � teXal Area Property Owner And chant Survey, November 2003. erty owner and merchant sure s were sent out and rFtumeto the is were sent to the Planning . ssion, City Council ted on scheduled for discussion ' January, 2004. Chair Boju6s adjourged the meeting at 11:25 p.m. submitted, Auran, Secretary S:\MINUTES\12.08.03 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 that will d ight at the rear inage channel low the top of the in the drainage hannel at a point in the ch el approved by e City Engineer 6) the site shall b sprayed with wate to control dust during g and construc ' n. Constructio uipment emissio shall be in compli ce with the standards of e Bay Area Air lity Manageme District;17) all ve ' les to be stored on- to for long term hotel/motel parking shall n be moved durin the peak traffic ho , and shall only b oved during off-peak traffic hours from 9. Oa.m. to 4:00 p. . and 6:30 p.m. to 7. 0 am. on the wee ys, with no time restrictions on moving v 'cles on Saturda and Sunday; 18) a rail barrier shall be • talled along the top of the age ditch. 's barrier shall' clude 13 one-way ps to allow the in ement of frogs back into t e drainage ditc should they be apped in the p area; 19) all co tion shall be required o be done in ordance with the niform Building C e requirements as ended by the City ofBurl' game, and limits o hours of cons ction imposed by City of Burlingam unicipal Code; 20) the operty owner shall provide acces asement rights to th Cityof Burlingame or maintenance with the ainage easement. The City of Bur ' game shall be held less for any pro rty damage which might ur as a result of flooding within drainage easement 'acent spur track 'ght-of--way. The prope owner shall repair, to City star , the 21 inch drain ' e and extend it to a drainage channel; 21) a property owners shall p are an ess plan for the ma' tenance and repair r all the power towers o e site which shall be app ved by e City Engineer an roper representa ' n of PG&E before a mg permit shall be issu ; 22) the improvements over a drainage chann shall not compromise a surface drainage flow t the drainage ditch at the rear 1616 Rollins Ro and shall not compro ' e the holding capacity o e basin during flooding. No encing shall obs ct existing surface drai ge into and through th asement from the adjacent par Is. All the vehic s shall be relocated d ' g flood situations; 23) f cing shall be required around t site except where ' might obstruct drainag uring flooding in the dr ' age easement, . and 24 any pr storic or historic cheological relics are d' covered during grading d construction, all wo will be ted until the fin ng can be fully investi ated and proper protect' n measures, as dete med by q lified experts, c be implemented. The otion was seconded by . Osterling. Chao j c cju6s led for a voice vote on a motion to approve. We motion passed on a�0-1 (C. Keele absent). A procedures rocedures were ad ' ed. This item conclude at 7:45 p.m. 6. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RE-EMERGENCE OF THREE PARCELS, AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR TWO ATTACHED GARAGES TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (OTTO MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR.. INC., DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER ERIKA LEWIT C. Keighran noted that she would abstain from voting for the project because she lives within 500 feet of the site and she left the chambers. Reference staff report 05.27.03, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. The Commission had the following comments: concerned about the health of the trees during excavation on the site for utility lines such as water, sewer and gas; can condition #17 be revised to also require a Certified arborist to observe and monitor excavation for those activities on site; and have differing expert opinions about the tree protection before us, is difficult to make a decision until we know better the location of the roots, would like to see the applicant perform an air spade root survey along the proposed driveway area for Lot 10. Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, attorney representing the applicant, was present and made the following comments: it is the opinion of two qualified experts, Rick Huntington of Mayne Tree Company and the City Arborist, who have visited the site and performed exploratory digging 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 since the study meeting, that the mitigation measures proposed will protect the Redwood trees; the applicant has been before the Commission time and time again, he has made all the requested changes to the design and agrees to the mitigation measures to protect the trees, it is a hardship for the Commission to require new information at each successive meeting based on new information submitted by the neighbors at the eleventh hour, when they have had the last year and a half to comment; disagree with the practicality of condition #29, as worded it would require an arborist to be on site during any excavation or digging, even if the activity is 100 feet from the root protection zone; and questions the legality of condition #35, who will be chosen to determine the penalty fee, the condition is discriminatory because no penalty fee has ever been assessed to any other applicant for trees on any other project, as written the condition makes the developer responsible for paying this arbitrary fee for up to five years, without even a consideration if the death of the tree is a result of the construction on the site or some other cause, agree that a penalty fee is in order, but that fee should be known and only be applied if the mitigation measures put in place by the consulting arborist and by the City are violated by the developer. Joe McBride, landscape ecologist, 1611 Allston Way, Berkeley, spoke on behalf of Dave Taylor, 1566 Drake Avenue, noting: appears that 40% of some of the root systems for the Redwood trees will be covered by the foundation or driveway paving for the houses on Lots 9 and 10, which would prevent water and nutrients from being taken in by the trees; the sewer lines for the new homes must come in from the street and the excavation for these lines could encounter major tree roots and cause a great deal of damage to the health of the trees; the removal of the existing utility lines and foundation may also harm the trees and there don't appear to be enough safeguards in place to monitor this work; and would like to see that the root protection area established is based on the original dripline of the tree (based on the 12-foot limb extensions), which has been altered because the developer already trimmed the lowest and longest branches of the Redwoods. Commission asked: understand that the smaller surface roots are feeder roots and that roots larger than 3 inches in diameter are generally anchoring roots for the tree, in your opinion is there a threshold for the number of these surface roots that could be cut without damaging the tree? Maybe 30% of the surface roots could be cut. Are the driplines shown on the plans are accurate? The driplines shown on the plans are accurate and appear to reflect the conditions prior to the trees being trimmed. Would your opinion about the foundation covering the roots being a danger to the trees be altered based on the information that there is a high water table in Burlingame? Not privy to any specific soils information about the site on Drake, but a high water table would affect the water absorption behaviors of the trees. Rick Huntington, Certified arborist for Mayne Tree Company, representing the developer for the project, noted: dug along the path for the driveway on Lot 10, only exposed two roots that would have to be cut, didn't encounter any surface roots; concern over who may be chosen to do the appraisal of the trees required by condition #35, expert opinions and valuation can differ by a wide margin; and more exploration on the site to locate large roots is appropriate, but must be done carefully because the exploration could cause more damage than the actual demolition and construction. Commission asked Mr. Huntington: Saw your trenching on the site, is exploration comprehensive or could there be additional roots beyond the trenching; do you feel the pervious paver driveway proposed will allow adequate absorption pf water and nutrients by the Redwoods? Only additional digging on the site will indicate where roots might be; and the driveway is designed with a minimal compaction and it is his opinion that roots beneath the driveway will still be able to thrive. Would it be better for the house on Lot 10 to be moved further away from the trees? Impossible to answer because it is not known at this time exactly where the roots are located. Cel City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 Janet Garcia, 1561 Drake Avenue, and Ann Thomas, 1520 Drake Avenue, spoke: apologize for not submitting a response to the Mayne Report by her consulting aborist Barrie Coate, but she did not have enough time to review and pass on the most recent information submitted by the developer; have had the same concerns about the trees since the original project was submitted a year and half ago, have voiced these concerns to the Commission all along and disagrees with Mr. Hudak's comment that the neighbors repeatedly submit last minute comments and information; the staff report, conditions of approval and the information submitted by the developer still do not specify the extent of the pier and grade beam foundation; concerned mainly because the differences between the opinions by Mayne, the City Arborist, Barrie Coates and now Joe McBride are such large differences, for instance the recommended protection zones do not differ by one foot, but by about 7 or 10 feet; feel the Commission should follow the suggestion to do a root survey so that the project can be fully evaluated before the Commission makes a decision. Mr. Hudak responded to the various public comments: the mitigations required by the conditions of approval for the project already insure that demolition and construction will proceed slowly and cautiously with constant monitoring by Rick Huntington and the City Arborist; request that the Commission let the project proceed with the conditions in place, if the further investigations required by the conditions of approval reveal that the project cannot be built as proposed, then the developer will return to the Commission with alternatives. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: driveway on Lot 10 seems to be the major concern, but do not see evidence based on the available information that the health of the trees would be better served by moving the driveway to the other side of the lot, agree that the siting of the houses is the best design solution, but not sure that it is the best solution for the trees, and concerned about the grading plan for the site and it's affect on the trees. Commission asked the City Arborist: What is the risk assessment to the trees of the project as currently proposed? The mitigation measures in proposed. are adequate to insure the protection of the Redwood trees; he would have grave concerns about the use of an air spade to further investigate the region around the tree because the investigation could cause damage to the trees. Driveway on Lot 10 seems to be the biggest threat to the health of the trees, will the feeder roots underneath the pavers for the driveway be able to survive, can nutrients from fertilizer get through the driveway? Believe the proposed driveway will still allow the trees to absorb the necessary water and nutrients, currently the City allows the replacement of concrete sidewalks adjacent to planter strips with trees with paver sidewalks and the trees in the planter strip . are typically much better off. The trees could be fertilized in that manner. Might the roots raise the driveway and cause damage in the future? Based on experience with trees in the City planter strips, yes this could happen. Further Commission discussion: would like to condition project so that if there are any future problems with the house foundations or driveways, the houses will be fixed and the Redwood trees cannot be removed and the Redwood roots cannot be cut to solve the problem; would like to have a condition prohibiting the cutting of the Redwood tree roots or the laying of concrete for the driveway on Lot 10 if in the future the roots raise the driveway pavers; need to insure that any future owners of Lots 9 and 10 are fully aware of the conditions placed on each property, they must be called out particularly in the deeds for the houses; would like to see this project proceed, is it possible to allow demolition and construction to proceed while further investigation is done in the area of the driveway on Lot 10 that may affect the trees; would like to see the detailed landscape plan required by condition #33 to be submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a Building permit; the plan should show proposed plantings within the tree dripline, proposed irrigation, lighting, mulching, etc.; could condition the project so that if further investigation by an air spade results in a problem that cannot be mitigated by flipping the driveway and the house on Lot 10, then the project must 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 come back to the Commission with alternatives for development; concerned that if the driveway on Lot 10 cannot be built as proposed and the developer flips the house on that lot, would like to see plans if house and driveway are reversed on Lot 10 because the house at the new location may encroach into the canopy of the trees. Commission continued: if condition #35 is appropriate and what measures might be taken by the City in the event that the trees are not preserved. The CA responded that he believes that it is legal for condition #35 to place a value on the trees based on their presence in the community, many cities currently use landscape bonds, the City of Burlingame currently enforces penalty bonds for damage to public trees or protected trees on private land, that he would recommend that the developer submit a security for the tree penalty prior to the start of demolition on the site, and that the conditions proposed add a stop work function, to which the Commission might add, that in the event that a stop work order is issued on the site, the project shall come back to the Commission for review. Additional Commission comment: the special permits requested for Lots 9 and 11 are justified because they reduce the size of the dwellings on those lots, the chart included in the staff report which compares the original proposal with the current proposal shows that the floor area of the dwellings on Lot 9 and 11 have been reduced by 15% and 17.5% respectively, and the total for the 3 lots by 8%, which is in line with the recommendations of the City Council, believe this reduction is the real progress in the project. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the conditions listed in the staff report plus and additional conditions to require further investigation for the driveway on Lot 10 to be done with an air spade, to make sure that any future problems with the house or driveway are resolved without damaging or removing the trees, and to amend condition #33 to require a full landscape plan approved by the City Abborist prior to the issuance of a Building permit. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Discussion on the motion: would like to add that condition #29 be amended so that the a certified arborist is only required to monitor the site during construction when the designated tree protection area could be violated, would like to require that the digging for the new utility hook-ups be monitored by an arborist, condition #35 should be modified to change the penalty fee to a security bond that the developer posts and gives up in the event that the tree health is compromised within the period of demolition, construction, or the post -construction 5-year period stipulated after it is determined that the ill effects are due to the construction or lack of maintenance on the site. The maker of the motion and the second agreed to all the proposed amendments to the conditions. Chair Boju6s called for a voice vote to approve the project with the following amended conditions: I)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheet L-1 for Lot 9; and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets .A.1 and A.6, date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and Ll for Lot 10; and date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1, A.3 and L.1 and date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.4 and A.S; and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or tree trimming shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roofheight or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the propertyowner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury, 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the CityArborisfs September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7) that a conditional use permit shall be required before any demolition or construction is allowed on site; and that the three residences proposed on Lots 9, 10, and 11 shall complete the design review process and be approved by the Planning Commission before any demolition or construction is allowed on site; 8) that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. All requirements of the permit shall be complied with; 9) that there shall no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lots 9, 10, or 11; 10) that no construction equipment or material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during demolition or construction on the site; 11) all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code. There shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 12) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 13) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the developer's expense if necessary; 14) that the new sewer laterals from the three lots developed with the current application to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 15) that abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 16) that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 17) that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the applicant shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and. the City Arborist; 18) that the applicant shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe, from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue and through the back easements along Lots 9,10 and 11, to a point ending at the southeastern property corner of Lot 9, with a 2-inch copper pipe, as directed and approved by the City Engineer, 19) the applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way before receiving a Building permit; 20) that the applicant shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue,1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the applicant's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 21) that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; 22) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 23) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 24) that the project shall obtain Planning Commission design review approval before any demolition or construction takes place on the site; 25) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water IN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 26) that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 27) that before a Building Permit is issued an exploratory digging investigation using an air spade or other proper means along the path of the driveway for Lot 10 shall be conducted by a Certified arborist and monitored by the City Arborist to determine if the driveway can be installed as proposed; the results of the investigation shall be submitted in a written report by the Certified arborist for approval by the City Arborist; should the City Arborist determine that the investigation shows that the driveway should not be installed because it results in measurable damage to the Redwood trees, the developer shall revise the plans for Lot 10 , have a certified arborist evaluate the effects of the revision on the Redwood trees and their canopy, and the Planning Commission shall review and approve the proposed changes as an amendment to the original permits; and that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until construction of the dwellings and accessory structures is completed on Lots 9, 10, and 11; 28) that the protective fencing for the tree cluster at the front of Lot 10 and the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; that the established root protection fencing shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction; that the established root protection fencing may be disturbed for the exploratory digging investigation for the driveway on Lot 10, but that during this investigation and during construction on the site the area disturbed by the investigation shall be protected in a manner recommended in writing by a Certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; and that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on the three houses and the applicant is ready to install the driveway on Lot 10 and the landscaping on Lots 9 and 10 and until the City Arborist and Building Department inspect the site and approve removal of the root protection fencing in writing; 29) that driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; that if any roots greater than3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; and that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; 30) that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, grading for the driveway on Lot 10, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging -for removal or installation of any utilities; and that a licensed arborist, approved by the City and funded by the developer, shall inspect the construction site once a week and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately; and that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the developer and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and the City Arborist may also stop work .for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 31) that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundations on Lot 9 and 10 shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches; and that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the pier shall be relocated; if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2003 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 32) that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the applicant shall submit a detailed foundation report for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation on Lots 9 and 10 prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 33) that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the CityArborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; 34) that the fence post holes shall be hand - dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; and that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 35) Tree Maintenance: A. The developer shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on Lots 9 and 10, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the developer shall receive from a certified arborist; B. The developer shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the developer shall submit an appraisal for each of the six (6) Redwood trees on the site from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the developer shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; 36) that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as and arborist; 37) that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the applicant shall record a deed restriction on each of the three (3) lots involved in the application identifying the six (6) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of each of the three lots and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 38) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining and C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:48 p.m. C. Keighran returned to the dais. Chair Bojues called for a five-minute recess. The Commission reconvened at 10:02 p.m. 11 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS AND A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE ON LOT 9 RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made for amendment to the previously Lapproved conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with an attached garage at 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 9, zoned R-1, Otto Miller, property owner, APN: 026-033-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 29, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-525 P and Addendums 1 and 2, is hereby approved. 2. Said mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit are as set forth in the 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 29th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 through A.5 and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheet L-1; and that any changes to the structure including but not limited to foundation design, height, building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building or the tree protection plan or to tree trimming shall require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to this permit; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 10 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 2 5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineers April 8, May 31, June 4, August 15, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshals September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspectors August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's September 3, 2002, and April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; 7. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; 8. that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 9; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9. that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 9; 10. that all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 3 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 3 12. that the new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13. that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; 14. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections to the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17. that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18. that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 4 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 4 19. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 20. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; 23. that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25. that no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until the timing, design, method of construction and materials have been approved by the City Arborist, and a licensed arborist shall be on the site continually to supervise the installation of the driveway and to make adjustments based on any root impacts identified during the process of construction; the construction activity shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist during construction compliance with the approved materials and method of installation; it shall be the responsibility of the property owner to notify the City Arborist when construction of the driveway on Lot 9 is to begin; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 5 26. A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 27. A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; 3 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 6 D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and E. the City Arborist shall also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on -site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; 29. A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 7 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 7 30. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 31. A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 32. Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; M. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 8 C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 33. that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 34. that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and -possible criminal prosecution; 35. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 9 36. that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week ofNovember 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site (completed); 37. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather -proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 38. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 39. that the property owner shall receive an encroachment permit from the City and shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line south lot 9; and a connection provided to Lot 9 at a location approved by the City Arborist; 40. that at the south property line of lot 9 the property owner shall extend a temporary, above ground, water line as approved by the City Arborist from the new 2-inch copper water pipe in the public easement to provide at least 250 feet of dry weather soaker hose irrigation to the redwood groves, there shall be no excavation for the temporary water line on lot 9; 10 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 10 41. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lot 9, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for the development on Lot 9 has been finaled and an occupancy permit issued; except for modification of the protective fencing as approved by the City Arborist in order to install the driveway on Lot 9; 42. that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 43. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 44. that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the proj ect arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the project arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 11 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 11 45. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 46. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 9, the property owner shall affix at least four(4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a "Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove" and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 47. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the project arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 9; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; and 48. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 9 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on -going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 15th of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and 12 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 9 effective April 8, 2004 Page 12 c. that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account maybe used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9 and 10. 13 RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RE-EMERGING LOTS AND A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A DETACHED GARAGE ON LOT 10 RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a mitigated negative declaration has been proposed and application has been made for amendment to the previously pproved conditional use permit for re-emerging lots and construction of a new two-story single-family dwelling with a detached garage at 1537 Drake Avenue — Lot 10, zoned R-1, Otto Miller, property owner, APN: 026-033-030; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 29, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-525 P and Addendums I and 2, is hereby approved. 2. Said mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit are as set forth in the 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 29th day of March, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2003, sheets A.1 and A.6, date stamped April 2, 2003, sheets A.2, A.3 and A.5, and date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and L1 for Lot 10; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11 shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 2. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; and all changes shall be consistent with the plans which were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because those plans were determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development approved at or near the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 11; 3. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; 4. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans and the City Arborist shall verify that all required tree protection measures were adhered to during construction including maintenance of the redwood grove, an appropriate tree maintenance program is in place, all required landscaping and irrigation was installed appropriately, and any redwood grove tree protection measures have been met; 5. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6. that the conditions of the City Engineers' May 31, June 4, August 30, and October 15, 2002, memos, the Fire Marshal's September 3, 2002 memo, the Chief Building Inspector's August 5, 2002 memo, the Recycling Specialist's August 27, 2002 memo, and the City Arborist's April 3 and May 21, 2003 memos shall be met; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 2 7. that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to have a City grading permit, be overseen by a licensed arborist, inspected by the City Arborist, and be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and with all the requirements of the permit issued by BAAQMD; that there shall be no heavy equipment operation or hauling permitted on weekends or holidays during the development of Lot 10; use of hand tools shall comply with the requirements of the City's noise ordinance; 9. that no construction equipment, construction material storage or construction worker parking shall be allowed on the street in the public right-of-way during construction on the site; as much employee parking as possible shall be accommodated on the site during each of the phases of development; construction activity and parking shall not occur within the redwood tree grove protective fencing on Lot 10; 10. all construction shall be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements in effect at the time of construction as amended by the City of Burlingame, and limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; there shall be no construction on Sundays or holidays; 11. that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping areas; 12. that the new 2 inch water line to serve lots 9, 10 and 11 shall be installed before an inspection for the foundation will be scheduled by the City; and all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities of the collection and distribution systems shall be increased at the property owner's expense if determined to be necessary by the Public Works Department and the location of all trenches for utility lines shall be approved by the City Arborist during the building permit review and no trenching for any utility shall occur on site without continual supervision of a licensed arborist and inspection by the City Arborist; 13. that the new sewer to the public sewer main shall be installed to City standards as required by the development; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 3 14. that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed unless their removal is determined by the City Arborist to have a detrimental effect on any existing protected trees on or adjacent to the site; 15. that prior to being issued a demolition permit on the site, the property owner shall submit an erosion control plan for approval by the City Engineer; 16. that prior to installation of any sewer laterals, water or gas connections on the site, the property owner shall submit a plan for approval by the City Engineer and the City Arborist; 17. that prior to installing the new water line to serve Lots 9, 10 and 11 and supplying the maintenance irrigation system to the redwood grove in the easement at the rear of Lots 9, 10 and 11 and prior to receiving a building permit, the property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works department to replace the 2-inch water pipe in the City right-of-way; 18. that the property owner shall arrange for a licensed professional to install backflow valves on the sewer laterals to 1553 Drake Avenue, 1557 Drake Avenue, 1561 Drake Avenue, and 1566 Drake Avenue at the property owner's expense and with the permission of the affected property owners; the Planning Department will advise the eligible property owners of this condition of approval, noting that it is their choice to take advantage of this opportunity; 19. that the contractor shall submit the "Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 per cent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the property owner shall be responsible for the implementation of this plan; (completed) 20. that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards; 21. that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance; 22. that the project property owner shall obtain Planning Commission approval for any revisions to the proposed house and/or accessory structure or necessary changes to the tree protection program or to address new issues which may arise during construction; L, EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 4 23. that the property owner shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 24. that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City; 25. that the driveway and the detached garage it serves for the proposed house on Lot 10 shall be shifted to the north side of the lot within 5 feet of the north side property line and the driveway shall be designed to be pervious material as approved by the City Arborist, and installed according to approved plans with the supervision of a licensed arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist; 26. A. that the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees on Lot 9 and 10 shall be installed on site and inspected by a Certified arborist; and a written report prepared by a certified arborist documenting the dimensions of the root protection fencing for the Redwood trees shall be submitted to the City Arborist within 24 hours of the inspection, and that the written report shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to the issuance of any demolition or construction permit; B. that the established root protection fencing shall be inspected regularly by the City Arborist and shall not be adjusted or moved at any time during demolition or construction unless approved by the City Arborist; C. that the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction is complete on Lots 9 and 10, except if the portion of the protective fence on Lot 9 in the area of the driveway may be removed to install the driveway with the approval of the City Arborist; the removal of a section of the fence should not disturb the maintenance irrigation system installed within the tree protective fencing; 5 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 5 27. A. that driveway on Lot 10 shall be constructed of pavers set in sand, with a maximum cut below grade of 10 inches and a base compaction determined by a certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during grading for the driveway on Lot 10 and must be cut to install the driveway, the situation shall be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to cutting any roots; C. that if at any time the certified arborist on site or the City Arborist feels the number of roots to be cut to install the driveway on Lot 10 is significant, a stop work order shall be issued for the site until the City Arborist determines whether it is necessary to relocate the driveway; F: A. that a licensed arborist shall be on site during any demolition and grading or digging activities that take place within the designated tree protection zones, including the digging of the pier holes for the pier and grade beam foundation, during the digging of the fence post holes for the first 60 feet of fence between Lots 9 and 10, and during digging for removal or installation of any utilities; B. that a licensed arborist, selected by the City and funded by the property owner, shall inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as required by the conditions of approval and certify in writing to the City Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements of the conditions of approval are being met; C. that no materials or equipment shall be stockpiled or stored in any area not previously approved by the City Arborist; D. that a Certified arborist shall be given written authority by the property owner and be obligated to stop all work on the site should any activity violate any and all conditions of approval relating to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site, and 2 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 6 E. the City Arborist may also stop work for any violation of the conditions related to the protection, conservation and maintenance of trees on the site; 29. A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the foundation shall be hand dug to a depth of no more than 18 inches and the surface area around the hole shall be protected as required by the City Arborist; excavation activity for the foundation shall be limited to the months of May to October; B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the pier holes, the property owner's on -site arborist shall call the City Arborist and determine how the pier shall be relocated and the Building Department shall be informed of the change and approve that the requirements of the building code are still met; C. if at any time during the installation of the pier and grade beam foundations roots greater than 3 inches in diameter must be cut, the situation must be documented by the certified arborist and approved by the City Arborist prior to the time the roots are cut; A. that, based on root locations that will be determined by hand digging on the site, the property owner shall submit a detailed foundation report and design for approval by the Building Department and City Arborist to establish the bounds of the pier and grade beam foundation and have it approved prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on the site; B. if at any time during the construction the pier locations must be altered to accommodate a Redwood tree root, the structural changes must be approved by the Building Department prior to the time any such root is cut or damaged; 7 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 7 31. that the property owner shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining walls and soil deposits on the site; installation of all landscape features shall be overseen by the property owner's arborist and regularly inspected by the City Arborist, including fence post holes; and work shall be stopped and plans revised if any roots of 3 inches in diameter or greater are found in post holes or any new landscape materials added endanger the redwood trees; 32. A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 33. Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection. This maintenance program shall be founded upon the recommendations of the April 28, 2003 Mayne Tree Company report as well as such additional recommendations as the property owner shall receive from a certified arborist; B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discussed the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; N. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 8 C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 34. that for purposes of these conditions a certified arborist means a person certified by the International Society of Arboriculture as an arborist; 35. A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the fence installed along the first 60-feet of the property line between Lots 9 and 10; B. that if at any time during the hand digging a root greater than 3 inches in diameter is encountered, the post hole shall be relocated as directed by the property owner's Certified arborist and as approved by the City Arborist; 36. Tree Maintenance: A. The property owner shall be responsible for maintenance during demolition and construction work on the project and for a 5-year maintenance program for the Redwood trees and their root structure on the site, including deep root fertilizing, beginning upon final inspection; this maintenance program shall be as recommended by the City Arborist based on site studies and experience during construction; 6 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 9 B. The property owner shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning Department that discusses the health of the trees and any recommended maintenance on the trees or other recommended actions on the property no later than one year after the completion of construction on the project and every two years thereafter for a period of 5 years; C. Prior to a demolition permit being issued for the project, the property owner shall submit an appraisal for each of the four (4) Redwood trees on Lots 9 and 10 from a certified arborist; upon submittal of the appraisal, a penalty amount shall be set by the City Arborist and the City Attorney based on the appraisal. Before issuance of any demolition or building permit for the project, the property owner shall then submit security to the City in a form approved by the City Attorney equal to the penalty amount should one or more of the Redwood trees die during demolition or construction or the 5-year period after completion of construction that is attributed to construction on the site by the City Arborist, to cover any necessary removal costs, and to cover any unperformed maintenance or other corrective activities regarding the trees; nothing contained in this condition is intended to limit in any way any other civil or criminal penalties that the City or any other person may have regarding damage or loss of the trees. 37. that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the property owner shall record a deed restriction on the lot identifying the four (4) key Redwood trees and providing notice to the heirs, successors, and assigns that these trees were key elements of the development of the lot and: A. The trees may cause damage or inconvenience to or interfere with the driveways, foundations, roofs, yards, and other improvements on the property; however, those damages and inconveniences will not be considered grounds for removal of the trees under the Burlingame Municipal Code; B. Any and all improvement work, including landscaping and utility service, on the property must be performed in recognition of the irreplaceable value of the trees, must be done in consultation with a certified arborist, and if any damage to the trees occurs, will result in penalties and possible criminal prosecution; and 38. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition or the edition approved by the City and as amended by the City of Burlingame at the time a building permit is issued; 10 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 10 39. that a soils compaction analysis shall be performed by a soils engineer on the area that was excavated and refilled during the week of November 24, 2003, to determine what the existing compaction is. The soils engineer and a certified arborist shall then determine what corrective steps if any must be taken to restore the area to the compaction existing in the surrounding soil and shall submit this determination to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The corrective steps will then be completed before issuance of any construction permits for the site; (completed); 40. that before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions and a set of approved plans shall be posted on a weather -proofed story board at the front of the site to the satisfaction of the Building Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working or visiting the site; 41. that if work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions prior to obtaining the required approval of the City Arborist, and/or the Building Division, work on the site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda to determine what corrective steps should be taken regarding the violation; 42. that the property owner shall replace the existing 2-inch water pipe with a 2-inch copper pipe from its connection to the 2-inch line on Bernal Avenue in the city easement at the rear of lots 9, 10 and 11 as directed and approved by the City Engineer; this line shall be installed to connect to the existing line past lot 9 and a connection provided to Lot 10 shall be provided at a location approved by the City Arborist; 43. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall be maintained during construction on Lots 9, 10 and 11, and this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing shall not be temporarily altered, moved or removed during construction; no materials, equipment or tools of any kind are to be placed or dumped, even temporarily, within this Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing, the protective fencing and protection measures within the fencing shall remain in place until the building permit for each development on lots 9 and 10 has received an occupancy permit and the City Arborist has approved removal of the protective fencing; 11 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April S, 2004 Page 11 44. that prior to issuance of the building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall reinforce the existing Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing by installing 36-inch long layout stakes 24-inches into the ground with the supervision of the project arborist and as inspected by the City Arborist; there shall be one stake approximately every 6 linear feet as determined by the location of any substantial tree roots, with steel wire affixed to the fence base though a hole in the layout takes to prevent movement or alteration of the protective fencing once installed; 45. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall install a locked gate in the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing for inspection access to the protected area in order to determine on going adequacy of mulch, soil moisture and the status of other field conditions as necessary throughout the construction period; this area shall be accessed only by the project arborist, City Arborist, or workers under the supervision of these professionals; 46. that prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall cause to have a three-inch thick layer of well aged, course wood chip mulch (not bark) and a two-inch thick layer of organic compost spread over the entire soil surface within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be accomplished by a method approved by the proj ect arborist and City Arborist; installation of the wood chip and compost shall be supervised by the proj ect arborist and the City Arborist; the project arborist shall inform the City Arborist of the timing of installation of the course wood chip mulch and organic compost so that observation and inspection can occur; 47. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10 and starting in the late Spring/Early Summer 2004, the property owner shall install a supplemental irrigation system of approximately 250 feet of soaker hoses attached to an active hose bib from the temporary water line on Lot 9, snaked throughout the entire area on Lots 9 and 10 within the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing; irrigation must be performed at least once every two weeks throughout the entire construction period for all three lots unless determined not to be necessary by the project arborist and City Arborist; this area shall be soaked overnight, at least once every two weeks, until the upper 24-inches of soil is thoroughly saturated; the City Arborist shall periodically test the soil moisture to ensure proper irrigation; 12 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 12 48. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction on Lot 10, the property owner shall affix at least four(4), 8-inch by 11-inch laminated waterproof signs on the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing warning that it is a "Tree Protection Fence", "Do Not Alter or Remove" and in the event of movement or problem call a posted emergency number; 49. that the Redwood Tree Grove Protective Fencing on Lots 9 and 10, shall be regularly inspected by the proj ect arborist and City Arborist during construction on Lot 10; violation of the fenced areas and/or removal or relocation of the fences shall cause all construction work to be stopped until possible damage has been determined by the City Arborist and the property owner has implemented all corrective measures and they have been approved by the City Arborist; 50. that before issuance of a building permit, the property owner shall deposit $7,500 with the Planning Department to fund, on an hourly basis, a licensed arborist inspector selected by the City Arborist to assist the City Arborist in inspecting all construction and grading on Lot 10 to insure that the mitigation measures included in the negative declaration and the conditions of approval attached to the project by the Planning Commission action are met; and a. that the property owner shall replenish by additional deposit by the 15th of each month to maintain a $7,500 balance in this inspection account to insure that adequate funding is available to cover this on -going inspection function; and b. that failure to maintain the amount of money in this account by the 151h of each month shall result in a stop work order on the project which shall remain in place until the appropriate funds have been deposited with the City; and that should the monthly billing during any single period exceed $7,500 a stop work order shall be issued until additional funds to replenish the account have been deposited with the city so inspection can continue; and d. that should the city be caused to issue three stop work orders for failure to maintain the funding in this arborist inspection account, the property owner shall be required to deposit two times the amount determined by the City Arborist to cover the remainder of the inspection work before the third stop work order shall be removed; and 13 EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for mitigated negative declaration and amendments to the conditional use permit. 1537 DRAKE AVENUE — LOT 10 effective April 8, 2004 Page 13 e. that the unexpended portion of the inspection deposit shall be returned to the property owner upon inspection of the installation of the landscaping and fences, irrigation system and approval of the five year maintenance plan/ program for the portion of the Redwood tree grove on the lot; and f. that this same account may be used for the City Arborist's selected licensed arborist inspector on lots 9 and 10. 14 CITY c. CITY OF BURLINGAME �11A BURLIN�I►ME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 Site: 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOTS 9 & 10 Application to amend the conditional use permit for emerging lots to separate conditions of approval and for additional tree protection PUBLIC HEARING requirements: 1537 DRAKE AVENUE, LOTS 9 & NOTICE 10, zoned R-1. (APN: 026-033-030). The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, March 29, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: March 19, 2004 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the a to the meeting Burlingame, Cal If you cho raising on described at or prior Property c tenants at 558-7250. Margaret A City Planner (Please refer to other side) y be reviewed prior I Primrose Road, limited to is hearing, to the city ming their call (650)