HomeMy WebLinkAbout1537 Drake Avenue Lots 9 & 10 - Staff Report (3)City of Burlingame Item # 6
Planning Commission Review'of Ae Conditional Use Permit for Re- Action Calendar
emergence of Three Parcels, Design Review for Three New Houses and
Special Permits for Two Attached Garages
Address: 1537 Drake Avenue Meeting Date: 12/8/2003
Request: Commission review of previously granted conditional use permit for re-emergence of three
parcels, design review for three new houses on those parcels and special permits for two of the three houses
to have attached garages at 1537 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1 (C.S. 25.28.030,6; 25.57.010; 25.28.035,a)
APN: 026-033-030
Property Owner/Applicant: Otto Miller
Lot Area: 18,018 SF (6,006 SF in each emerged lot)
General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1
Adjacent Development: Single Family Residential (low density residential)
CEQA Status: Negative Declaration ND-525-P and Addendum.
Previous Use: one single family residence on three previously subdivided lots.
Proposed Use: three single family residences, one on each re-emerged 6,006 SF lot
Summary:
On May 27, 2003, the Planning Commission approved a mitigated negative declaration with a mitigation
monitoring plan included in the conditions of approval The zoning action was on the lot at 1537 Drake
where the existing house had been built over three lots which had not been legally merged at the time of
original construction. The application was for a conditional use permit for three re-emerging lots, design
review for three new houses (one on each lot) and special permits for an attached garage on two of the
three houses with additional conditions relating to these requests at 1537 Drake Avenue, zoned R-1. (See
Staff Report, May 27, 2003, attached) Of major concern on this site were two significant stands of
Redwood trees. The Negative Declaration prepared for the project is included with the May 27, 2003, staff
report. The issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project was based on the premise that the
tree protection measures required in the environmental document and implemented through the conditions
of approval would be adhered to throughout the project from demolition to five years of maintenance
following occupancy of the sites, thus reducing the impacts of development on the threes to a level
acceptable to the community.
The property owner/applicant met all the conditions required in the mitigation monitoring plan and on the
project for issuance of the demolition permit. The demolition permit was issued on November 12, 2003 ;
and demolition commenced immediately. On Friday, November 21, 2003, the applicant/property owner
submitted revised foundation plans to the Building Division. These revised plans were circulated to the
Planning Department for plan check that day. Before the plans showing the revised foundation could be
reviewed and approved by either the Planning Department or the City's structural engineer, on Tuesday,
November 25, 2003, Planning staff received word that grading was occurring on the site at the location of
the significant stands of Redwood trees. The foundation plans being followed by the contractor doing the
Planning Commission Review of the Conditional Use Permitfor Re-emergence of Three Parcels, Design Reviewfor Three
New Houses and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages December 8, 2003
grading were those submitted, but not reviewed or approved by either the Building or Planning
Departments. In addition, no grading should have occurred in the area being excavated since the planning
conditions of approval required that the pier and beam foundation be hand dug under the continuous on -site
supervision of a licensed arborist. There was no arborist on site during the excavation or when the stop
work order was issued.
The Building Division placed a stop work order on the site November 25, 2003, shutting down all work
until the roots exposed by the grading had been inspected and proper short term and long term treatment
determined. The applicant's and city arborist met on November 25, 2003, on the site in the presence of the
contactor to discuss the issues. The applicant's arborist was to prepare a written report on impacts on the
Redwood stands as well as short term and long term treatment. This written report was to be reviewed by
the City Arborist and approved before any work commenced on the site. On Wednesday, November 26,
2003, the applicant/property owner caused the excavated area to be filled and compacted before any written
report had been submitted to the city and without supervision of a licensed arborist. The written report by
the applicant's arborist was submitted to the City Arborist by FAX on Wednesday, November 26, after the
fill had been completed. ( See attached time line) Although demolition began on November 12, 2003, the
City had not received any written arborist report as required in condition 29 prior to the work. After the
grading on November 24, the City arborist received a report from Richard Huntington, the applicant's
certified arborist, reviewing the effect of the grading done on November 24, 2003, and based on his
observation of that cut, recommendation for modification to the requirements for future grading on the
site. He also notes the current excavation should be refilled and compacted to a density equal to the
existing soil in the area. (Richard Huntington, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc., November 26, 2003).
This report has not been approved by the City Arborist. He sent the City Planner an e-mail stating that he
did not agree with the findings of the applicants arborist and suggesting a method to follow for replacing
the soil in excavated area. (Steve Porter, 1537 Drake, e-mail, December 2, 2003). The soil was replaced in
the excavated area on November 26, 2003, without City Arborist review of their report. The soil is now
compacted to an unknown density. The City Arborist believes it to be "severely over -compacted" and in
need of remediation if the trees are not to be affected. He notes the types of methods which can be used
commenting that the recommendation should be done prior to actual work on the site. This excavation, soil
replacement, and reduction of compaction work as well as added root knowledge may also cause a change
to the design of the foundation systems of the new houses on Lots 9 and 10.
The applicant has installed the NPDES/STOPPP erosion barriers and had taken other erosion prevention
measures required by law. Staff has contacted the appropriate Public Work's staff to continually follow
up on this requirement.
It was decided to place the matter on the Planning Commission agenda for review and possible amendment
of the mitigation monitoring plan and project conditions of approval because the site has been altered. Until
Planning Commission review has occurred on December 8, 2003, the stop work order remains on the
entire property, and no construction of any kind shall occur on any part of the site.
Because the Commission's conditional use permit action applied to all the future lots that made up the site,
the stop work order applies at this time to all three emerged lots. Attached are revised mitigation
2
Planning Commission Review of the Conditional Use Permit for Re-emergence of Three Parcels, Design Review for Three
New Houses and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages December 8, 2003
monitoring plans and conditions of approval separated by lot. In most cases these are the same conditions
as required in the Planning Commission's May 2003 action with minor changes in wording for editing into
three sets. There are a few changes based on problems and corrective measures for those problems
experienced since the Commission's action. These new conditions or changes to conditions are in italics for
your review. The revised conditions are divided by lot (lot 9, lot 10 and lot 11). Since the sensitivity of
developing each lot is different the conditions vary. After the Commission's action the applicant may be able
and ready to build on each lot at a different time. Copy of the site plan from the May 2003 action is
attached for your reference.
Staff Comments:
This project requires day-to-day supervision of this project. In this case staff would propose initially that
an independent licensed arborist and professional planner selected by the city be hired and paid for by the
applicant/developer to inspect regularly and on a day-to-day or all -day basis as the phases of development
and the city and the inspectors determine to be necessary. If the Building Division finds anomalies during
construction, a building inspector should be added to the independent inspectors. Each of these inspectors
would be on the site during work on Lots 9 and 10 as required and would submit regular written reports to
the City Arborist, City Planner and Building Department. Each inspector would have the ability to
recommend to the city that the work be stopped if violations are found to the approved mitigation
monitoring plan or project conditions of approval for each lot are found. The inspections also shall apply to
compliance with site preparation. The applicant shall deposit, in advance funds to cover the estimated cost
of each inspector. When fifty percent of the funds deposited for each inspector have been expended the time
estimates will be revisited and, if necessary, the applicant will be required to deposit additional funds. If
subsequent increases in deposits are required the applicant will be notified. If the funds are not deposited on
the time line required the work on lots affected shall be stopped until the city receives the funds.
It should be noted that as presently written the mitigation monitoring plan conditions and planning
conditions of approval incorporate all three lots, because initially a key commission action was the
conditional use permit for emerging lots. One of the actions being requested in this Commission review is
that three sets of conditions including the mitigation monitoring plan, one for each lot, be approved by
Commission. This action would separate the development on each lot, except for where the two lots are
intertwined by the stands of Redwoods or other major trees which cross the new property lines. For
example, this would allow the property owner/applicant to develop the lot 1 I which is unaffected by the
stands of trees independently of lots 9 and 10 which are more complex to design and more difficult to
develop. However, it should be noted that the independent inspector will be required to monitor the site
preparation and construction compliance with the mitigation monitoring plan and conditions of approval,
even if lots 9 and 10 are developed independently.
Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit 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
3
Planning Commission Review of the Conditional Use Permit for Re-emergence of Three Parcels, Design Review for Three
New Houses and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages December 8, 2003
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.
Findings for a Special Permit:
The planning commission may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the applicant and
the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds:
(a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or
additional are consistent with the existing structure and with the existing street and neighborhood;
(b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish material and elevations of the proposed new
structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood;
(c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city;
and
(d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is
necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal
that is proposed is appropriate.
Design Review Criteria
The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20,
1998 are as follows:
1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure
4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and
5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the revised mitigation monitoring
plan and conditions of approval and hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution
M
Planning Commission Review of the Conditional Use Permit for Re-emergence of Three Parcels, Design Review for Three
New Houses and Special Permits for Two Attached Garages December 8, 2003
and should include findings for the changes to the mitigation monitoring plan and conditions of approval.
The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the attached
conditions and changes to conditions for each lot, 9, 10, and 11, should be considered.
Attachments:
Conditions of Approval for Lot 9, Lot 10, and Lot 11.
Reduced Site Plan for 1537 Drake Avenue, as approved May 27, 2003
City Arborist, e-mail, Re: 1537 Drake Avenue, December 2, 2003
Time Line of Events for Violations to Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Conditions of Approval
Richard Huntington, Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. Written Report on Excavation Damage and Root
Repair, FAXed at 4:00 p.m. to City Arborist November 26, 2003.
Planning Commission Minutes, May 27, 2003, including mitigation monitoring plan conditions and
conditions of approval.
Planning Commission Staff Report, 1537 Drake Avenue, Action, May 27, 2003
Public Notice of Review Hearing, mailed November 26, 2003
k
LOT 9
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 building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the
building or the tree protection plan or tree trimming shall require 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, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review; the plans were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because they were
determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development occurring at or near
the same time on adjacent lots 10 and H.
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;
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 a eenditional ise permit shall b,- r-equir-ed before any demolition or- eenAruefien is
allowed on site; and that the residence prepesed en Lots 9, !0, and 11 shall eemplete the design
tiK7rr, 1 G{VL1Vi1 A" u. ., vim. - . -,
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
Lot 9-1
holidays during the development of Lot 9,
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 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 Lot 9 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;
Lot 9-2
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 pr-ejec4 shall obtain Planning Commission design review appreval befere any
demelitien or- eenstfuction takes plaee on the site;
25. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water 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. 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.
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 not be adjusted or moved at any time during
demolition or construction;
C. That the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction and flat work is
complete on Lots 9, 10, and 11, 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;
Lot 9-3
30.
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, wed selected by the City and funded by the developer, shall
inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as determined by the city and
inspectors to be necessary given phases of the construction 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. inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately;
D. 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
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;
31.
A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the shall be hand dug to a
depth of no more than 48- ten (10) inches;
B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the
pier holes, the pier shall be relocated;
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 and Building Inspector prior to the time the roots are cut;
Lot 9-4
32.
A. 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 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;
33. that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City
Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued, these plans shall to address the landscaping,
paving and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences,
retaining walls and soil deposits on the site all flat work, and driveway material and installation;
34.
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;
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 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 developer shall receive
from a certified arborist;
B. The developer shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the
Planning Depaftment
City Arborist 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 developer 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
Lot 9-5
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; 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.
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 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, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
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 prior to the November 25, 2003, excavation and shall submit this determination
to the City Arborist and City Engineer for approval. The approved corrective step shall then be
completed, including any soil enhancement, before any further digging or work or issuance of
any construction permits occurs on the site.
40. Before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions shall be posted on
a story board at the front of the in a manner satisfactory to the Building Department so that they
are readily visible and available to all persons working, inspecting or visiting the site; and
41. If work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions or, failure to obtain
Lot 9-6
prior approval of a certified arborist, the City Arborist, or the Building Department, work on the
site shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission
agenda to determine what corrective steps shall be taken regarding the violation.
Lot 9-7
LOT 10
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 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 roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review; the plans were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because they were
determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development occurring 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;
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;
PqL
WIN
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 Lot 10,
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 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 Lot 10, 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;
2
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;
..................
25. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water 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.
A. 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;
B. the results of the root location investigation shall be submitted in a written report by the
Certified arborist for approval by the City Arborist;
C. 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 unless the certified arborist and the
City Arborist agree in writing that the revised plans will have no negative impact on the
Redwood trees or their canopy;
D. That no installation work on the driveway or landscaping on the site shall occur until
3
construction of the dwellings and accessory structures is completed on Lots 9, 10, and 11;
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 not be adjusted or moved at any time during
demolition or construction;
C. That the root protection fencing shall not be removed until construction and flat work is
complete on Lots 9, 10, and 11, 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;
W
A. that the 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;
30.
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, appr-eved selected by the City and funded by the developer, shall
inspect the construction site once a week or more frequently as determined to be necessary given
the phases of construction by the City and their inspectors and certify in writing to the City
Arborist and Planning Department that all tree protection measures are in place and requirements
4
of the conditions of approval are being met;
C. inappropriately stockpiled or stored material and equipment shall be moved immediately;
D. 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
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;
31.
A. that under the observation of a certified arborist, all pier holes for the project shall be hand
dug to a depth of no more than 4-810 (ten) inches;
B. that if any roots greater than 3 inches in diameter are encountered during the digging for the
pier holes, the pier shall be relocated;
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 and Building Inspector prior to the time the roots are cut;
32.
A. 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 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;
33. that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City
Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued; to these plans shall address the landscaping
paving and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences,
retaining walls and soil deposits on the site, all flat work and driveway materials and
installation;
34.
A. that the fence post holes shall be hand -dug under the supervision of a certified arborist for the
5
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;
35. Protected 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 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 developer shall receive
from a certified arborist;
B. The developer shall submit a report from a certified arborist to the Planning DepaAme
City Arborist 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 developer 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 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; 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.
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 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;
rol
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.
39. Before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions shall be posted on
a story board at the front of the site in a manner satisfactory to sati*efien the Building
Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working, inspecting, or
visiting the site; and
40. If work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions failure to obtain prior
approval of a certified arborist, the City Arborist, or the Building Department, work on the site
shall be immediately halted, and the project shall be placed on a Planning Commission agenda
to determine what corrective steps sheu shall be taken regarding the violation.
11
LOT 11
1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped date stamped April 25, 2003, sheets A.4 and L1 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.5; 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 roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning
Commission review; the plans were approved for this lot on May 27, 2003, because they were
determined to be consistent in scale and mass with the overall development occurring at or near
the same time on adjacent lots 9 and 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;
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;
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 Lot 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 at the time the building permit is issued, and
limits to hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; and that
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 connection 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 easement along Lot 11, 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;
2
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 pr-ejeet shall ebtain PlanrAng Genunissien design review approval befere an)
25. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm
Water 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. 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;
IRWIN
MI. W.
INV
pm
ISM
A6 AM
C. inappropriate!), steekpiled er- ster-ed material and equipment shall be moved immediately;
E. the City AAer-ist may also stop work fef any vielation of the eenditions related t
teet on oonservation and .,, „tefi nee of trees on the site
ROD
33. that the applicant shall submit a complete landscape plan for approval by the City
Arborist prior to a Building permit being issued to address the landscaping flat work, driveway
and fence installation on the site, including plantings, irrigation, electricity, fences, retaining
walls and soil deposits flat work and driveway installation details on the site;
KIN N
•
ik._
. _ .. , ,
00"I'Maj, am
...........
LZ
37. that before issuance of any demolition or construction permit, the applicant 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, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
39. Before any grading or construction occurs on the site, these conditions shall be posted on
a story board at the front of the site in a manner satisfactory to te the saAqAefien the Building
Department so that they are readily visible and available to all persons working, inspecting, or
visiting the site; and
40. If work is done in violation of any requirement in these conditions to obtain prior
approval of a certified arborist, the Planning Department, the City Arborist, or the Building
Department, 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.
on
Page 1 of 1
PLG-Monroe, Meg
From: PARKS -Porter, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 9:53 AM
To: PLG-Monroe, Meg
Cc: PLG-Brooks, Maureen; ATTY-Anderson, Larry
Subject: 1537 Drake Ave.
Meg,
As you know, on 11/25/03 1 recommended a "stop work order on this project, due to work in progress which had
not been approved; i.e. mechanical digging and trenching very near the Redwood Trees which are to be
protected. My recommendation was that all work stop until further notice. Some damage to tree roots did occur
during this unauthorized digging which has since been corrected by the project Arborist, Rich Huntington.
Significant root loss did not occur, however, I am concerned about the back -filling which has since taken place,
also done without my approval. The back -filling methods used by the project contractor appear to have severely
over -compacted the site, a condition which is not good for the trees with regard to future root growth. There are
methods available to correct soil compaction problems, i.e. drilling 2-3 inch diameter, two foot deep holes all over
the area and filling the holes with a "perlite" (small beads of Styrofoam) type of material. The project Arborist can
work with a project engineer to determine if these methods should be used for this particular application, with a
subsequent recommendation to me, PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL WORK!
sp
12/3/2003
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
December 8, 2003
Chair Boju' noted: agree with comments of Keeleand Vistica, would add co ern about the height of the
ppose wilding, feel ;®rw%lard
cil would benefit m a scale model of the oject so that they can ee it in
te imensions, if g would be a v uable tool.
/:e
missioners A ed: when the comments from tonight are gap ed what will the City �buncil do; it was
useful for th ommission to lookAt the EIR and projectA6gether. Staff respond, Council asked
commissio input on Suppleme)ae2 because wanted to � ve commission comm nts on the entire EIR
docume in light of Com;Xethey
n rejection of the EIR,;,Bngmally staff broughtiith the EIR and prof e to
Co fission together beca did not feel that regular citizen could di xZguish between the and
th roi ect.
Chair Boju6s th d the public for their a ndance and participat' n. He noted that the
1z6mments of the
public and co ssion would be forward to the City Council; d closed the item. This item concluded
at 9:15 p.m.
6. 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. Boju6s 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
l I
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 may be 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 of the 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 %Z 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 Bojues 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.
7-Review
R REPXiewendctlhl,,e
of regular meeting/Ccilemeeting
mber 1, 2003.
MonroeFr actions of the of December 1,
- FYI — Kemo on Broadway Comme al Area Property Owner And chant Survey, November 2003.
CP onroe noted that that the pr erty owner and merchant sure s were sent out and returnedto the
P ing Department. Concl ons were sent to the Planning mmission, City Council :�6
oted on
the website. This issue ha een scheduled for discussion Hi January, 2004.
XI. /ADJOURNMENT
Chair Bojues adjourd the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
submitted,
Auran, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\12.08.03XnaDvrovedminutes.doc
15